Big Red UK Blog

ECONOMICS OF THE MADHOUSE!

2011-11-21T07:58:00.001Z

Why the hell is the government saying the taxpayer shouldn’t pay for poor people to have a decent lifestyle, yet through the Housing Minister, Grant Shapps is saying the taxpayer will bail out homebuyers who find they cannot pay their mortgage?

In other words, they are saying to the private housing industry, who were instrumental in bringing about this supposed economic recession through mortgaging people who couldn’t afford it, give 95% mortgages to people who can’t afford them and we’ll intervene if they cannot pay. The economics of the madhouse!!

The answer to the housing crisis and to stimulate the building and ancillary industries is to move away from the emphasis on home ownership and build good quality council housing, not piecemeal on bits of land here and there as the private housing industry does but wholesale, as in new housing estates. The money spent will come back to the government in rents and council taxes.

There is plenty of land on which to do it; unfortunately the minority rich own most of it.

TORIES SAY 'NO' . LIVINGSTONE SAYS 'YES'

2011-11-19T12:52:00.001Z

I have just read the article:

RENT CAPS - TORIES SAY ‘NO’ … LIVINGSTONE SAYS ‘YES’

http://news.rla.org.uk/index.php/archives/1116?utm_source=RLA+News:&utm_medium=twitter

I have never read such rubbish. Starting with the comment ““Private rents are market led and, therefore, significantly driven by housing supply…” I would argue that if that is the case then it is government’s job to ensure a plentiful supply of housing to keep rents low. In fact, my first argument against this statement would be that shelter is such a basic human need that market forces should not be involved in its provision or cost. Effectively, I am arguing for council housing and a massive local authority building plan to ensure affordable housing, controlled by government, both local and central so that low income families and single people can have good, secure accommodation without the fear of slum landlords and frankly unscrupulous landlords charging what they like for unsuitable accommodation.

The statement ““Excessive regulation would drive up rents and reduce choice for tenants. Rent controls, historically, resulted in the size of the private rented sector shrinking from 55% of households in 1939 to just 8% in the late 1980s.” is balderdash. The reason that the private rented sector shrank so drastically is because of the lack of affordable council houses available in 1939 and the massive post war government provision of council houses; it had nothing to do with the needed regulation of unscrupulous landlords.

Traditionally, Shelter has been concerned with providing affordable rented accommodation for the poor. Their emphasis is on this and less on how we do it. It is time for Campbell Robb, Shelter’s chief executive to take the bull by the horns and say private rented accommodation doesn’t work for the people who need it; wealthy private landlords are against regulation to keep rents low, supported by their rich politician friend’s ; the only alternative is local authority provision of affordable rented housing.

Do the right thing, Mr. Robb. Say we need more local authority housing provision and less unregulated private landlords.

Executive Pay- More Smoke and Mirrors from the LibDems

2011-09-19T09:42:00.003+01:00

Vince Cable wants ‘unearned’ fat-cat director fees to be controlled by allowing a veto by shareholders.

This sounds like another great idea from the LibDems; until one analyses the proposition and realises it may not only be ineffective but also iniquitous.

How will this work if the director is a majority shareholder or holds enough shares to only need one or two other shareholders on board to pass a huge pay rise? How will it work if the director(s) decide to pay themselves through share dividends; surely the other shareholders will not vote down such a payment? And I fail to see how he will convince the Tories to introduce more red tape by ’…requiring companies to set out the criteria used to determine pay and perks.’

And how does this help ordinary workers whose wages have been effectively reduced over the last 30 years? Should the criteria be ‘earned’; or should these massive payments be subject to restriction across the board, as the pay of the workforce so often is?

The idea that anybody should receive a massive pay increase when the economy, as we are so often told, is in difficulty? Why shouldn’t these pay increases by taken in tax, before being paid to directors, whose P.A. is often the driving force behind their efficiency, rather than use a system where shareholders, whose agenda is similar to that of directors, decide and that is open to abuse? If they can afford huge pay increases, they can afford to pay their share- we are in it together… aren’t we?

Mr Cable also says he doesn’t want state control of pay; this is misdirection; more smoke and mirrors; either Vince Cable is very naive or thinks we are! You cannot say ‘we want legislation to curb [anybodies] pay’ while also saying ‘we don’t want state control of pay’.

If you really want a fair system of director pay restriction, let the whole workforce, not just employee representatives (who will be open to ‘persuasion’, bullying and self-interest) on remuneration committees vote on proposals; perhaps then directors will be more inclined to fairer pay negotiations; this would be a real change, a fairer change. It would also put some power removed by biased and unfair anti-union legislation back into the hands of the workforce.

How Long Will Free Schools be Free?

2011-09-06T11:38:00.004+01:00

Is Nick Clegg naïve or just plain deliberately misleading under the ‘it’s not us; it’s the Tories’ umbrella? While he is saying the new free schools must be inclusive and not divisive, I can only think of the student fees fiasco and the broken promises made there.

Has he answered the question of why the first round of free schools is more or less in more affluent areas? No. Has he explained how he intends to force his issue if the Tories manipulate free schools to favour the wealthier parent? No. Should the Tories win the next election outright, how does he intend stopping them from allowing free schools to be profit motivated?

The way the free schools legislation has been written facilitates this or a future government’s ability to make free schools elitist, based not on academic ability or need but on ability to pay. The way is paved to allow a future government to not just allow, but to insist they are profit motivated; education at a premium; and that could leave local authorities, who currently fund the free schools out of pocket. It is, as this administration is only too aware, almost impossible to reverse such actions.

Is that the plan? Fund free schools with tax payer’s money, then hand them over to their rich supporters to profit from them with little or no cost? And to put another nail in the coffin of local authorities, further weakening their financial position because they have funded the free schools?

Mr Clegg can wax lyrical all he wants about how he sees free schools working. But his party, which is itself divided on the issue, is a junior member of the coalition, and I have to say once again that the student fees issue show us how much sway the LibDems really have in the coalition. Or if you want to be cynical, it shows us how the LibDems can espouse a cause, only to renege on it later, blaming the impositions of the coalition.

When the next round of free schools begins, in the less affluent areas, what happens if or when the poorer local authorities cannot afford to fund them? Does the coalition bring in private industry, with a profit motive? Or just leave them to decay, physically and intellectually.

Michael Gove has already said that the free school system did not need profit motive “at the moment”. Anybody who doesn’t believe that is political-speak for “its coming” is kidding themselves.

When asked on the Andrew Marr show about the future Michael Gove said "Well we're in a coalition now, and we're working to ensure that we get more free schools." That avoided the question completely. It also suggests that while in the coalition, they will for now play the coalition game; but that plans are in place for a post coalition administration to change the rules.

At the moment, free schools are paid a premium for taking pupils from disadvantaged areas and backgrounds. When the inevitable private and profit motivated money comes in, that will change. The funders, shareholders, call them what you will are sure to demand the right to fund where and how they see fit and to run the ‘free’ schools to their (the shareholders) best advantage. And they will win, because if they don’t, the private money will dry up; no government could allow that to happen, and as I have already postulated, it will be very difficult for a future government to allow this to happen and reverse the free schools experiment. It is and will be a fait accompli.

But there is a more fundamental issue here. It is the issue of publicly funded industries being sold off, at frankly peppercorn prices to private industry. It is something the Tories have always done. Yet suggesting a privately owned utility, such as water should be returned to the public domain is met with cries of outrage; that it is unfair to investors and shareholders. Well stealing tax-funded public services to hand over to wealthy businessmen is, in my view at least equally abhorrent; and the more so for playing the shady game with education.

But my greatest fear, the thing that becomes more apparent by the week to me is the ultimate aim of government policy that subverts the will of the people; the intention to ensure that the working class, and to some extent the lower middle class receive poorer education and poorer health care, thus making them impotent in the face of authoritarian government; the idea of ensuring the jobs that retain the power to change the system stays with the rich elite from public schools, the mere mention of whose name opens doors.

It isn’t just in education and health care. It is in every aspect of government policy if considered as a whole, rather than considering each area of policy in isolation. It can be seen in the inaction of the police in the recent riots enabling government to promote draconian legislation that will affect us all, not just rioters. It can be seen in genetically modified food, the consumption of which could have effects of which we are not and cannot be aware. It is in the enforced fluoridisation of water, with industrial waste, not the supposedly beneficial, clean fluoride government pronouncements would have us believe are used. It is in the dumbing down of planning legislation from 1,000 to 52 pages, with the possibility of ancient woodland and green belt land being exploited by wealthy developers; and who enjoys this land? Yes, you and me, the ordinary folk. What will be the long term affects on health when trips to the countryside are no longer possible? And what is the point of the right to roam if there is nowhere to go?

Of course, the rich will still have their large homes and adjoining land to enjoy.

As Joni Mitchell sang- “They paved paradise, to put up a parking lot”

Maybe we’ll be lucky. Perhaps they’ll take “all the trees and put ‘em in a tree museum”. Wonder how much they’ll charge us to get in?

Sirte: Loyalist Last Stronghold; Can the Rebels Win the Moral Victory?

2011-09-03T19:34:00.002+01:00

Oh, my! Who wrote this? Who gave the quotes? Surely not a serious journalist; surely the source wasn’t a member of the interim government; or a freedom fighter who knows what the hell he’s fighting for?

It is so full of holes and contradictions words fail me. “Shamsiddin Ben-Ali, a spokesman in the rebel city of Benghazi, said 800 people had been killed in the past three days.”Many of the people of Sirte are on our side now and want to be part of the revolution," he said. "The people with guns though are still resisting.”" How does he know this; because the ones without guns aren’t shooting at them? No resistance (because of nothing to resist with) means they are on the rebel’s side?

And the suggestion “Rebel leaders know that Sirte's long association with Gaddafi – he was born just outside and went to primary school in the Mediterranean town – make it difficult to win over.” Are you kidding? The rebels have consistently refused to talk, and they think it will be difficult to win over the people of Sirte. What is the plan for winning them over, then? To kill everybody who doesn’t come over to the rebel cause?

“At a meeting close to the front line on Thursday, rebel commanders besieging the city agreed to extend a Saturday deadline for negotiations by a week. “ Are these the same negotiations the rebels have consistently refused to enter into? Or are they negotiations at gunpoint, real or threatened gunpoint?

“In the meantime, said Mr [Shamsiddin ] Ben-Ali, the RAF will continue to soften up Sirte's defences…

…And the longer the siege continues, the more he [Shamsiddin Ben-Ali] believes the city will look to surrender.“ this doesn’t seem to me to be the actions or comments of a man who really wants to negotiate; they are the actions and comments of a man who wishes to crush resistance, forcing not negotiation but provocation.

“"The population know the way to end these conditions [without electricity, cooking gas or petrol.] is to join the revolution," said Hasan Droy, Sirte representative on the National Transitional Council.

"The problem is that many people in the city don't have TV or radio and don't understand what has happened to the rest of the country."”

So, stop the conflict by agreeing to the causes of the conflict- the reason you are resisting rebellion? But they, by the rebels own admission don’t know what’s on offer, anyway. So how do they agree?

Are we expected to swallow all this? The rebels may well have a just cause; in that case they should take the moral high ground and negotiate!

Syrian Oil Sanctions Agreed: Just in Time for Lybian Oil.

2011-09-03T17:08:00.002+01:00

Oh the idiosyncrasy of British foreign policy; if only it were merely idiosyncrasy and not government policy (whose government- ours, the EU or USA I’ll leave to you to decide. I go with ‘a little from column A, a little from column b…’

Libya has a no-fly zone to aid the ‘rebels’ against a allegedly violent, unjust and unwanted dictatorship; this no-fly zones quickly becomes a Biggles paradise with ‘targeted’ bombing; then we discover both American and British forces have been in the country aiding the ‘rebels’. Now are we sure it was just aiding? How long were they there? Couldn’t be they were there before the uprising spreading discontent and questionable propaganda, could it?

Then there is the pronouncement of William Hague, Foreign Secretary (anybody noticed the irony of his surname?) that ““Very significant” sanctions on the sale of Syrian oil to the EU have been agreed”

And just in time for the Libyan oil bonanza!

Troop Numbers to be Cut; Ghurhas Treated Differently (Again)

2011-09-01T14:26:00.005+01:00

Someday I hope somebody can explain this government to me. We have troops in Afghanistan and Libya, yet they want to cut numbers? There were mooted threats to use troops in the recent riots, yet they want to cut numbers?

Though the MoD says that the troops in these geographical areas will not be affected, who will replace them if the conflicts and peacekeeping duties continue for an extended period of time? Saying they will not be affected is misleading.

And what about troops to aid in violent civil unrest; one thought during the riots was that troops would need to be used because of the reduction in police numbers due to cuts (something we were told would not happen). But now the MoD is to reduce the number of our armed forces as well. Where is the logic? Where is the sense?

One could take a cynical view and consider that with an increasingly disillusioned police force and armed force (though in my view the distinction between the two is becoming blurred somewhat) they might be willing to support a violent rebellion, much as happened in Russia in 1917. Is that the government’s real fear?

And the government’s view that the cuts are necessary because of a £38 million ‘black hole’ left by the previous government also has me questioning the logic of these cuts. When did our armed forces become a profit making concern? Any money spent on defence goes into a so-called ‘black hole’. Once again, the choices are cuts or taxes. We all know which side of the fence the Tories fall on.

But the most heinous aspect to these cuts is the disproportionate cuts the Ghurkhas will bear. Defence officials claim this greater burden is necessary because of the changes to the Ghurkhas terms of service fought for and won in 2008. This gave them similar terms as the rest of the army. Except, it appears, when it comes to cuts.

They go on to say it is more expensive to employ them. Sorry, misrepresentation; it is more expensive to employ them that it was when their terms of service were unjust; it is now no more expensive than to employ any other soldier in the British army.

This just oozes ‘revenge’; it screams payback; it is as unjust and unfair as treating our bravest, most loyal troops as second class ‘Johnny Foreigners’.

Crime and Criminality

2011-08-31T17:10:00.002+01:00

Of course, the full facts aren’t known yet. But this assault case has echoes of racism.

I’m sure a comment like 'I'm going to fucking kill you black bitch' would have rendered such an attack racially motivated. So why is it 'I'm going to fucking kill you white bitch’ isn’t?

It’s time the law was applied equally; not just in this case; not just in racist attacks; but when a benefits defrauder is treated differently to an MP that fiddles their expenses; when a rioter is given a more severe sentence than might be expected normally for the same offence; when a crime against profits is treated more severely than a crime against the person.

And especially when crime is always seen as the evil within a person rather than the evil within an unjust society.

"Curiouser and curiouser" cried Alice as Cameron Protects the Fat Cats

2011-08-31T16:05:00.005+01:00

So David Cameron doesn’t want jobs put at risk through banking reform; here we go again. The taxpayer donation to the banks following the credit crunch is worth £10 billion annually to them; they continue to pay bonuses many of us will never earn in a lifetime; and Cameron forgets his election promise ‘we’re in it together’; yeah, until it affects his big banking buddies.

I am pleased, thought I hate to admit it, that Vince Cable seems to be on the side of the people when he insists the banks should split their retail arm so in time of financial trouble ordinary consumers accounts can be protected from City bankers and their excesses.

One thing that puzzles me; when Cameron and his crew announced his welfare and public spending cuts, the job losses were acceptable and would be absorbed by the private sector; but with possible job cuts to tame the bankers, the possible job losses are unacceptable. “Curiouser and curiouser!” cried Alice.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/8732964/David-Cameron-warns-banking-reform-must-not-put-jobs-at-risk-as-Coalition-row-grows.html

The Truth About Libya?

2011-08-30T17:29:00.002+01:00

I came to a YouTube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJURNC0e6Ek that intrigued me. I decided to do some research of my own to verify or otherwise the claims of the 'tube'.

Below are the results of that research. I spent all day looking at the referenced links, and many more. My opinion is that the claims are essentially true. I do not expect you to change your opinion (if it is different to the proposals) based on these claims. I merely ask you consider them; and to do your own research; and to consider why these claims do not make it into the mainstream media, if only to be contested.

In 1949 The United Nations was given jurisdiction and decided that Libya should become independent, which it did on Dec. 24, 1951, as the United Kingdom of Libya. The 1950s in Libya were characterized by great poverty; minimal economic development was possible only because of payments and loans received from various Western nations.

In 1958, petroleum was discovered and by the early 1960s Libya's revenues grew from the exploitation of that resource[1].

However, aware of the potential of their country's natural wealth, many Libyans had also become conscious that its benefits reached very few of the population[2].

Before the NATO invasion Libyans enjoyed the highest standard of living in Africa and ahead of Russia, Brazil and Arabia[3].

In Libya homes are considered a human right; newly married couples receive $50,000 to buy their own home and electricity is free to all people[4]^,[5].

Gaddafi vowed to home every Libyan before his own parents; he kept his promise and his father died before he was housed[6].

Before Gaddafi less than 20% of Libyans were literate; now education is free[7], high quality and the literacy rate is 83%[8].

It is reasonably understood that whereas the United States of America is reputed as a developed nation, the poorest man in Libya is incomparable to the poorest in America; the latter will perceive the former as rich[9].

Healthcare is free and high quality; if Libyans cannot get the education or healthcare they are entitled to in Libya the Libyan government funds them to go abroad to access it[10].

All loans are interest free by law[11]; if a Libyan buys a car the government pays 50% of the cost and the price of petrol is $0.10 a litre[12]

Any Libyan wishing to become a farmer is given free use of land, equipment, livestock and seed[13].

On July 1^st 1.7 million (95% of the population of Tripoli, about 1/3^rd of the population of Libya) people assembled in Green Square to show defiance against NATO bombing of Libya[14].

The central bank of Libya is state owned, and unlike all western banks is not owned by Rothschild and issues debt free money. Reports that the 'rebels' have already established a new Central Bank of Libya suggests there are outside [banking] influences involved[15] [16]

At the trial of the Lockerbie bombers, the US paid witnesses $4 million to testify against the accused Libyans. They have since recanted their evidence[17]^[18] .

Prior to the 'rebellion' Gaddafi was working to change payment for Libyan oil from the US dollar to the African dinar[19]; Sarkozy said Libya was a 'threat to the financial security of Mankind'[20].

Rothschild's banks create money out of thin air and sell it to the people with interest, meaning they can never repay their 'debt'[21] [22].

Unlike Cameron, Obama, Sarkozy etc., Gaddafi refused to sell his people out and Libya was DEBT FREE! [23] [24] [25]

It begins to become clear why Gaddafi gets the loyalty of his people and who is behind the bombing of a free and sovereign state and its people.

Libyans shared in the wealth of their country, free from the shackles of usury and private banking interests.

Gaddafi believed that parliamentary democracy was inherently corrupt. He believed true democracy come from the people. He believed the people should rule themselves; he explains this in his Green Book. [26]

Please read Qaddafi's Green Book. Download link:

http://911-truth.net/other-books/Muammar-Qaddafi-Green-Book-Eng.pdf

The draft UN report on human rights in Libya before the NATO bombings & invasion.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/16session/A-HRC-16-15.pdf

[1] http://www.mongabay.com/reference/country_studies/libya/ECONOMY.html

[2] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Kingdom_of_Libya

[3] http://panafricannews.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.html

[4] http://sherriequestioningall.blogspot.com/2011/08/truth-about-libya-watch-this-video-and.html

[5] http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread679428/pg1

[6] https://roblorinov.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/what-khadafi-did-for-libya-and-maybe-the-real-reason-for-his-ouster/

[7] http://www.britishcouncil.org/learning-skills-for-employability-libyan-education-system.htm

[8] http://www.tradingeconomics.com/libya/literacy-rate-youth-total-percent-of-people-ages-15-24-wb-data.html

[9] http://redpepper.co.ug/welcome/?p=3887

[10] http://www.twf.org/News/Y2011/0401-Paradise.html

[11] http://economicsnewspaper.com/economics/the-libyan-crisis-spontaneous-revolution-or-coup-in-progress-28187.html

[12] http://www.futurefastforward.com/feature-articles/5259-by-helen-shelestiuk

[13] http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24763

[14] http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2011/07/one-third-of-libya-turns-out-to-support-qaddafi-in-worlds-largest-march-ever/

[15] http://www.lewrockwell.com/rep2/libya-rebels-central-bank.html

[16] http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20Editorials/2011/April/18%20b/Libya%20All%20About%20Oil,%20or%20All%20About%20Banking%20By%20Ellen%20Brown.htm

[17] http://my.telegraph.co.uk/clothcap/clothcap/16313364/libyagate-false-flag-possibility-al-qaeda-is-the-uk-a-new-sponsor/

[18] http://www.opednews.com/articles/Putting-Out-Fire-with-Gaso-by-Susan-Lindauer-110412-819.html

[19] http://www.dailypaul.com/165949/the-real-reason-the-us-invaded-libya

[20] http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20Editorials/2011/April/18%20b/Libya%20All%20About%20Oil,%20or%20All%20About%20Banking%20By%20Ellen%20Brown.htm

[21] http://www.sovereigntrust.info/id17.html

[22] http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/it-is-now-mathematically-impossible-to-pay-off-the-u-s-national-debt

[23] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/BritishColumbian/obama-rebuilding-libya_n_936852_104892233.html

[24] http://crashareyouready.betterthanyours.com/w/?p=1534

[25] http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=27067

[26] http://911-truth.net/other-books/Muammar-Qaddafi-Green-Book-Eng.pdf

Fifty Plus? Then it's the Benefits Bus.

2011-08-29T11:45:00.003+01:00

A Telegraph report (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8728179/100000-older-workers-forced-to-retire-early.html) suggests that if you are 50+ and lose your job, you are likely never to work again and be forced into early retirement, with a consequently lower pension- and perhaps dependence on state benefits?

That's bad enough, but what about the manual workers who cannot get their pension until they reach whatever arbitrary age the government decides on?

I though this government was all about reducing public spending, in particular the benefits bill to improve the countries finance? Surely this will place a greater burden on the public purse. Or maybe their plan to slash benefits, irrespective of the human and economic cost means this will have little overall impact?

And I have to ask the Telegraph, why have you said "…the Institute of Public Policy Research, which has links to the Labour Party"? What relevance does having links to the New Labour Party (correct title, if you please) have? Either the report is a reasonable assessment from a reputable body, or it isn't and if it isn't, explain why they are wrong; don't try smear tactics by associating them and the report with New Labour.

I am of the opinion there is too much emphasis on getting the young into work. There should be no emphasis on helping any group back to work. The government must ensure the jobs are there, that they are secure and that anybody receiving benefits takes any reasonable job offer. This will only be done with the rebuilding of British manufacturing, at tax payers' expense (initially) if necessary. But if there must be an emphasis, it should be with the older worker with a proven track record who, as the report suggests may find themselves unemployable.

PAY, PAY AND PAY AGAIN

2011-08-28T00:57:00.002+01:00

There is a BBC report (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14692596) that the unemployed may be made to pay full council tax.

It seems there is a need to save 10% off the current bill. But hang on; wasn't that money taken off benefits by Thatcher's government in the 1980's and paid direct to the council? So effectively it is going to be taken twice.

And how are the single unemployed expected, out of around £56 a week supposed to find £20 council tax? That leaves £36 to eat, pay gas and electricity bills.

All the while the debate continues as to whether to keep (and it looks like it will go) the 50p tax rate and whether there should be a mansion tax.

Looks like once again the poor pay while the rich gain.

AGENCY WORKERS TO BE GIVEN SAME PAY AND PERKS AS FULL-TIME WOKERS (WELL, ALMOST)

2011-08-25T23:20:00.002+01:00

The Telegraph reports that EU legislation will give agency workers the same rights as other employers with regard to holiday time, pay, maternity leave and other perks. These rights to equality will be available to agency workers after twelve weeks. While I am glad this is at last to happen, what a pity we have to rely on European legislation to be treated equally. What a pity an agency worker will have to wait 12 weeks to get it; because I can see employers laying off agency workers after 11 weeks, and reemploying them a week later.

Employers are unhappy that the government has agreed to this, with claims of job losses, risks to the recovery etc. the same claim that employers have always made when an improvement in workers' wages or conditions is enshrined in the law. The same was said about holidays; the same was said about paid holidays; sick pay; health and safety; equal pay for women. Who, even if they believe it to be true, would dare to say today that women should not be paid the same as men? Why then should an agency worker be paid less than the man or woman working next to him; purely because the employer would rather let an agency take the risks rather than employ somebody directly?

My most earnest hope is that this will bring about a change in employer attitude, and they will start to employ directly, rather than through agencies. And that equal pay will be from day one, not 3 months after you start work.

BLAIR’S [LATE] WARNING OVER 'DISAFFECTED YOUTH'

2011-08-21T11:38:00.002+01:00

Tony Blair has finally had his say on the U.K. August riots. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14605459)

I find it difficult to find (acceptable) words to describe my position. Doesn't he realise it is his, his Tory predecessors and his New Labour and Tory successors that are the root of the problem? That their disastrous policies, pandering to the bankers, the rich elite and to big business (big in profits, not employees) that has caused the disaffection he describes?

Is his reference to "…canons of proper behaviour" a veiled reference to his new found catholic faith? And to talk of "…a proper solution," after his disastrous years of tenure is beyond belief.

Tony, you should have done something when you had the chance, not begin pontificating now about "…deal[ing] with the problem in the only way that will work."

WONDER WHO'LL PAY IF PICKLES GETS HIS WAY?

2011-08-20T22:41:00.001+01:00

It seems Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary doesn't want a mansion tax. Neither does he want the 50p tax kept, according to an article written by the Telegraph-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/8712661/Eric-Pickles-says-no-to-higher-property-taxes-for-middle-classes.html

Some choice clips from the article:

• "Liberal Democrat Coalition partners have "got to understand" that introducing any form of so-called mansion tax would be a "big mistake". "

• "He adds that the 50p higher rate of income tax should be scrapped so [rich] families can "keep more in their pockets". "

• "It's a red line for the Coalition. "

• "A growing number of Conservatives believe there should be tax cuts, starting with the removal of the 50p tax rate…"

• "I believe you get more tax revenue by lowering taxation …"

Funny isn't it? Lowering the VAT rate doesn't seem to figure in the "I believe you get more tax revenue by lowering taxation …" idea.

Funny, how the poor are told cuts in benefits and services are necessary, but the relatively rich can't be penalised by paying more to help.

Except it isn't really funny; not if you are poor; not if you are intelligent enough to spot the flaw in the arguments.

It will be interesting to see what the LibDems have to say about Mr Pickles statements. Will this be their 'red line' in the coalition? Will they have the guts to say 'no more. We are out. Call an election.' Somehow I think that is quite unlikely.

THE 2011 UK RIOTS- AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW

2011-08-20T04:49:00.002+01:00

I have waited until the hue and cry has died down before I say my piece. I also wanted to give the mainstream media a chance to take the bull by the horns and take an impartial role, not toe the government line or expound the failing of the youth rather than that of the government.

The rich see the poor as a drain on their wealth. The fact is that riots tend to happen in times of high unemployment, social and economic exclusion and an unjust and biased social, economic and legal system. A police state would be far more expensive to run than a welfare state is. This is something the wealthy do not realise. This is something the government does not want the wealthy to realise.

Just as the government would have you believe that rioting is a modern disease, a cultural or racial event; a show of disrespect for the law and the establishment; pure greed and criminality. But let's take a look at the history of UK riots-

· St Scholastica Day riot 1355, started because of an altercation between two Oxford students and a tavern keeper. It resulted in almost 100 deaths. Quite ironic that the place the riot started, the Swindlestock Tavern is now the site of the Santander Bank.

· Evil May Day, 1517. This riot started because Londoners resented foreigners, especially the wealthy foreign merchants and bankers of Lombard Street. I mention this because of the parallels with the riots recent in London, Manchester etc. Edward Hall, a lawyer and chronicler of the time said that for two weeks after a xenophobic speech by a Dr. Bell rumours went around that "on May Day next the city would rebel and slay all aliens".Fortunately, they didn't have Blackberry's. The mayor and aldermen called for a 9 o'clock curfew. Looting of houses took place and by 5^th May (5 days later- ring any bells?) there were 5,000 troops in the city.

· The Spitalfield Riots of 1769 were the result of an attempt to arrest a meeting of weavers who had organised into an (illegal) trades union and met with resistance. Shots were fired and two weavers died the rest then dispersing. Not much of a riot, you might think but that is the spin the government of the day gave it.

· In the early 19^th century the Luddites were renowned for their violence and riotous actions in an attempt to stem the flow of technology that removed the skill (and quality) of their product. The name Luddite is now used as a derogatory term that describes somebody who refuses to accept industrial change or innovation. Personally, I am proud to be called a Luddite.

· The Swing Riots (so called from a fictitious often used on threatening letters to local farmers) were the agricultural equivalent of the industrial Luddites. The anger of the rioters was directed at three targets that were seen as the prime source of their misery: the tithe system, the poor law guardians, and the rich tenant farmers who had been progressively lowering wages while introducing agricultural machinery.

· The Tonypandy Riots of 1910/11 were the result of mine owners attempting to reduce wages, accusing men of working slowly (though they were paid by the ton, not the hour), attempts to lockout the miners resulting in strike action and the bringing in of strike breakers.

· The Llanelli railway strike In August 1911 began when the railway strike in Llanelli was brutally suppressed by the police; 2 men - John 'Jac' John and Leonard Worsell - were shot dead by troops of the Worcester Regiment. Rioting followed and magistrates' homes were attacked and railway trucks were set on fire, resulting in an explosion which killed a further four people.

· On Peace Day, July 19, 1919,Luton Town Hall was burnt down during a riot by ex-servicemen unhappy with unemployment and other grievances.

· Bristol Old Market riot, 1932 where 3,000 unemployed engaged in running battles with the police as they tried to march to the city centre, led by the National Unemployed Workers Movement. Police baton-charged protesters outside Trinity police station and along Old Market.

· The St Pauls riot occurred in St Pauls, Bristol, England on 2 April 1980 when police raided the Black and White Café on Grosvenor Road in the heart of the area. After several hours of disturbance in which fire engines and police cars were damaged, 130 people were arrested. The riot occurred against a background of increasing racial tension, poor housing and alienation of black youth.

· The Brixton riot of 1981was a confrontation between the Metropolitan Police and protesters; Brixton in South London was an area with serious social and economic problems.

· The Toxteth riots of July 1981 were a civil disturbance in Toxteth, inner-city Liverpool, which arose in part from long-standing tensions between the local police and the black community. Though termed 'race riots' there is evidence white youths came to the area to support the local residents against the police. Again, an area of high unemployment due to job losses at the docks, caused by containerisation.

· The UK Poll Tax Riots in the 1980's and 1990's were a series of mass disturbances, or riots, in British towns and cities during protests against the Community Charge, commonly known as the Poll Tax.

· Cardiff Ely Bread Riots, 1991 were an outbreak of supposedly racially motivated disturbances that occurred in the council suburb of Ely in the Welsh capital of Cardiff that started when after argument between a white and Asian shopkeeper who had begun to sell bread, putting the other out of business; however, many locals believe that this was just a spark for a more significant problem of social exclusion resulting from unemployment & crime.

· Stokes Croft Tesco riot; on 21st April, 2011, there was a riot in the Stokes Croft area of Bristol following a raid by police on a squat named 'Telepathic Heights'. A protest ensued, and they withdrew; at 9pm that evening, riot police blockaded the area and entered the squat. A crowd quickly gathered, with about 300 people defending the squat, and a further 1000 caught up in the mayhem. More than 160 officers were involved in the operation. The reason for the operation given by the police was that they held intelligence that petrol bombs were on the premises designated for the Tesco development opposite.

There are other riots, many in the 1980's and 1990's that are designated 'racially motivated'. A closer look often reveals they take place in areas of high unemployment, social, political and economic exclusion, these places often being areas where large racial minorities live. But just looking at those I have chosen to highlight my contention the latest round of rioting is politically, socially and economically motivated (even if thieves and vagabonds did usurp them) one can see how the reasons for and reaction to riots has changed over centuries. From a disagreement about the quality of ale to the feeling of futility and injustice forced on us by an unelected and misleading government; from local law enforcement to calling in the troops as was considered recently.

For those that believe we are in a depression; that there is no money; that the rich are suffering alongside the poor I'll believe it when I see ruined businessmen jumping out of office windows, demands for payment clutched in their fat little hands.

For those who believe that everybody on welfare is idle, I'll believe that when these same businessmen start to pay decent wages and folk still refuse to work.

Yesterday, on http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/8712661/Eric-Pickles-says-no-to-higher-property-taxes-for-middle-classes.html Eric Pickles, the Communities secretary said "But you know I'm a Conservative, I like the idea of lowering taxation." Yes, and lowering wages (but not bonuses!). He also said "I believe you get more tax revenue by lowering taxation because people work harder. I like people to keep more in their pockets for their family." Funny; when, as a shop steward I used the same argument for higher wages, employers, Conservative supporters thought the idea ridiculous.

But there are other arguments for higher wages and full employment. It removes the argument that a riot is political, or social, or economic. It leaves the rioters out in the cold. More to the point, it removes the need to riot.

TEENAGERS TO CHALLENGE UNIVERSITY FEES RISE

2011-06-25T11:45:00.002+01:00

There is little I can say about THIS report. A fantastic opportunity for two students to show this sham government they are WRONG WRONG WRONG!

I can only hope the judges, who after all are supposed to be unbiased and apply the law as it is, not as governments would like it to be will do just that.

(Please be aware that BBC links are subject to change and may not point to the report intended)

NICE BIT OF CREATIVE BBC REPORTING

2011-06-25T11:18:00.002+01:00

The BBC shows its true [blue] colours reporting on u2's Glastonbury debut marred by tax protest. Everything it says is true. However, the article says little about the detail of the band's supposed [legal] tax evasion. But the article goes on to other performers and the weather! If you are reporting on an issue, stick to the issue. Don't try to muddy the waters with inconsequential and irrelevant information.

But anybody who knows anything about reporting will know this is a well known and well used technique to appear impartial while in fact directing the reader's/viewer's attention away from the facts (though there are few facts relating to the headline!)

I would like to know more about the issues the protesters were campaigning about. Why weren't Art Uncut interviewed and their views reported? Because the BBC supports the wealthy and their ability to [legally] avoid their [moral] tax responsibilities.

For those interested in more information about the protester's grievance, here's a link to Art Uncut's blog post on the subject http://www.artuncut.org.uk/blog/#blog-12.

It appears the story on the original link I posted has now changed from the 'tax protest' story. Fortunately, News Sniffer has the story here-

http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/404919/diff/3/4

TOP STUDENTS EXPANSION PLAN 'COULD HIT SOCIAL MOBILITY'

2011-06-25T10:39:00.002+01:00

BBC News reports that the rules on student admissions are to be relaxed to allow universities to accept more high achieving students. This is likely to result in fewer places for poorer students.

So there we have it- social mobility- if you can afford it. For those that question this statement on the grounds that it is based on ability, not income then I make the case that the wealthier you are, the better the education your children are likely to receive. Not just because you can live in wealthier areas that tend to have better schools but because it is easier for you to travel further to better schools. And of course, wealthier parents can afford private tuition and public school fees.

If this government is dedicated to social mobility and a fair education system then it is high time they took that education away from privatisation and back into the hands of the state. Let a politician's child have the same options as a labourer's child. This should not be a fear for the politician- or any other parent. If their child is truly gifted, they will excel in any system.

UK's RICHEST NOT PART PART OF THE 'BIG SOCIETY'

2011-05-08T03:39:00.002+01:00

Uk's wealthiest have increased their wealth by 18% in the past year. (Sunday Times Rich List).

Apparently, the 'economic crisis' wiped £155 billion from the collective wealth of the 1,000 richest people in 2009. They are now worth £395.8 billion.

So much for the 'Big Society'.

NURSES, POLICEMEN AND FIREMEN TO HAVE PENSIONS CUT

2011-03-10T08:07:00.002Z

I see the BBC is using its usual 'unbiased' reporting to manipulate public opinion once again. This morning's BBC Breakfast show headlines that civil servants and public sector workers to have their final salary pensions replaced with average earnings pensions; they should retire later and contribute more.

Immediately, 99.9% of non-civil servants will say it is right, based mainly on the premise of 'I don't get it; why should they?' Coup number one; they have successfully introduced the 'divide and conquer' scenario. Why aren't we supporting them and saying leave them alone; we want the same?

I suspect the same 99.9% of non public servants will envisage public sector workers and civil servants as the well-paid, pin-striped, bowler hatted old boys club, the popular conception of the civil servant.

In fact we are talking about nurses, hospital porters, doctor's receptionists, policemen and firemen. Coup number two; journalists are well aware that what you headline tends to form the opinion of the reader/viewer. In this instance, they will be well aware that headlining 'nurses, policemen and firemen' would possibly, even probably elicit a different response; one of support for our front-line services. (By the way we were promised these would not be affected by the cuts. Remember?)

This of course leads us into the May elections. What can we do that will boost our public perception? Hit the civil servants, but not too much detail or there might be a backlash if they realise it's the civil servants the most vulnerable rely on that we will hit the hardest… again.

Of course, this is still at the report stage. I suspect, however that the biased reporting is to ready us for the almost inevitable implementation of most of Lord Hutton's recommendations.

NICK CLEGG ATTACKS OXBRIDGE

2011-02-10T00:06:00.002Z

What a laugh! The coalition increases tuition fees to £9,000 and Nick Clegg, Mr. Trustworthy himself then lambasts Oxford and Cambridge for having the audacity to charge £9,000 tuition fees!

Does he think this attack on the institutions he and his fellow conspirators gave the rise to will win him brownie points with students; or with any of us, for that matter?

If, as he claims, the universities can't decide tuition fees, then who will? And saying they need to open their doors to poorer students is ridiculous. This is only reasonable if the poorer students have the academic ability to study at that level. And if they do then there should be an open door policy irrespective of fees.

But the whole education strategy is designed to see that poorer students- or prospective students- stay that way, with a poorer education to match which will see far fewer at any university. Nice big pool of uneducated unemployed to hold down wages and keep us in fear of our jobs.

I call for us to stop calling ourselves 'working class' and start to use the more accurate 'mostly unemployed class'.

'RED' ED MORE A PALE PINK

2011-02-04T22:56:00.002Z

I have been watching Ed Miliband with interest. I hoped the anti-Labour movement that tried to tar him 'Red Ed' were right. That maybe he would lead the Labour Party back to its socialist roots, and I could vote for them once again. But his comment, reported at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12362722 that "the UK had its own version of the "American dream"" has led me to re-asses my tentative acceptance of his leadership of Labour. He is a Blairite, a Capitalist and will not persuade me with such talk that Labour is fit to govern- any more than the coalition is.

CAMERON SAYS BANKS 'SHOULD PAY SMALLER BONUSES'

2011-01-09T23:34:00.003Z

David Cameron says banks should pay smaller bonuses. But he won't do anything to make them.

The article goes on to bleating bankers and how tough the rules are in the U.K.

They all should take a stint at the sharp end and see just how hard it is for ordinary folk before they complain about multi-million pound bonuses not being enough.

BANK BONUSES TO RUN TO BILLIONS IN 2011

2011-01-07T01:35:00.003Z

So much for the 'Big Society'. So much for fairness. So much for sharing the burden.

"The best the coalition can hope for is a declaration from the banks that they will pay out less than they would have without government intervention."

It seems this coalition can legislate to make those less able pay the for the deficit. But is unable to legislate to make the bankers, who owe the country billions, do the same.

'Were in this together'. Trouble is, some of us are in it up to the neck, with bankers standing on our heads.

HIGHER PRICES = MORE JOBS?

2011-01-05T09:22:00.002Z

How in heaven's name does raising VAT from 17.5 to 20% boost jobs? And if income tax was raised in the right places, e.g. Super-bonuses over a set limit, say £50,000 and raising the top rate of tax to 75& for those earning £200,000 and over we wouldn't need the VAT rise that hits us all.

VAT was introduces to replace the several rates of purchase tax and was designed to be a 'luxury tax' on goods deemed not essential, such as fur coats and Rolls Royce cars so that those that could afford such goods would contribute more through their purchases. Hard to believe when we see it on everyday clothes we all have to buy.

This rise will hit spending and therefore jobs. High wages and low prices are not diametrical opposites. This is a good, efficient expanding economy. The problem is successive governments have concentrated on holding down wages while prices have been left to the whims of their wealthy friends.

And why isn't VAT charged on newspapers and magazines? I haven't bought either of these items for years and get on quite nicely. Could it be the government don't want to upset their friend's in Fleet Street and attract bad press?

It's time VAT was applied strictly to luxury goods, such as the ones I mention above. Then they can charge 90% as far as I am concerned.

HAPPY(?) NEW YEAR!

2011-01-01T13:36:00.002Z

It's a Happy New Year from me- and a Happy New Year for them!

NICK CLEGG'S NEW YEAR MESSAGE

2010-12-29T13:17:00.002Z

In Nick Clegg's New Year message to members, he pledged to start 2011 with action on social mobility, civil liberties and the environment.

So will we see-

· Social Mobility:

o Working Class ground down further toward serfdom.

o Middle Class allowed to prosper from the labour of the serfs

o Upper Class prosper from the increased wealth of the Middle Class

o Politicians- some from column a, some from column b… and ensure a knighthood for nothing!

· Civil Liberties- we will continue to erode them and ensure virtual enslavement of the disenfranchised.

· The Environment-

o Ensure politicians continue to have near-palatial homes and second residences.

o Make sure the commons is still the place to work

GIVE TO CHARITY AT THE CASH MACHINE?

2010-12-29T12:38:00.002Z

A proposal to make it easier to donate to charity has been suggested. Francis Maude claims it is "not an attempt to "compel" people but to encourage the "big society" agenda championed by Prime Minister David Cameron."

It is blatantly an attempt to 'force' by peer pressure people to donate to charity so that the coalition can further dismantle the welfare state.

I do not donate to charity; at least very rarely. Because I do not believe in a modern, rich society that we should even need charity. And do not believe the hype that the country cannot afford the welfare state in its current form. It could easily afford to expand it if the massive wealth owned and controlled by a tiny minority were put to this use.

Consider this; currently, you have a right to health care, to payments if you cannot work etc. etc. if it is left to charities to perform and fund these tasks, it will no longer be a right. You will be at the mercy of a rich ruling class and their generosity.

Just what the Tories have always wanted. One only needs to look at the early C20^th to see this doesn't work. You need only look at the reasons the Labour Party (the real one- not this sham Tory lot) was formed to see it would not work. Left to the whims of the Liberal Party (LibDems today) or the crushing policies of the Tories, the working class would be thrown back to the days when your employer was effectively your landlord, your local grocer and you law-giver.

That is the stark reality. That is what the coalition's plans are heading towards. If you look closely at them all, you begin to see these are not independent changes for the benefit of us all. They are cleverly co-ordinated policies designed to appear to be isolated, when in fact they are all calculated to bring about the destruction of the welfare state, the rise of elitism and control of the working class.

These things can no longer be brought about or maintained through state violence, such as the Peterloo Massacre (though recent police activity seems to suggest this is another area being explored by unseen policy-makers). So they fool us with horror stories of the huge deficit (put simply, this year's debt) but are loathe to discuss the National Debt (put simply, accumulated deficits) which is still increasing.

Because the National Debt can only be tackled by investment in well-paid jobs to increase spending, thus production and personal wealth of the poorest who currently contribute little (because of government policy) to the economy.

And by default, Government (read 'our') surplus (opposite if deficit- an official term) can be used to reduce the National Debt and help the needy who cannot work whether through health or other circumstance.

BRITAIN IN 2010

2010-12-29T00:04:00.002Z

Absolutely unbelivable-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12073801

Words fail me.

THIRD HAND SMOKE IS DANGEROUS!

2010-12-28T23:56:00.001Z

This is getting ridiculous. Now we are in danger of third hand smoking related disease!

Now, anybody who tries to argue smoking does not have an adverse effect on one's health is sadly misguided. Equally, second hand smoke can adversely affect one's health- though I suspect it is not as dangerous as the experts would have us believe.

Now we are being told going outside for a smoke is dangerous! I'm not going to go into detail. You have the link to the story. Here it is again –

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8503870.stm

All I want to say to the anti-smoking brigade is you've got your way. We are severely restricted as to when and where we can exercise our right to smoke. Now short of making tobacco illegal LEAVE US ALONE!

FORENSIC SCIENCE SERVICE TO CLOSE

2010-12-28T23:04:00.002Z

Maybe I'm a bit thick. But if the Forensic Science Service is running at a £2m a month loss, then surely, whoever pays for the service is underpaying them. Assuming this is the police, then if the FSS charged more and broke even, then the police bill would be £2m more. So where is the overall saving?

It sounds a lot to me like another coalition con to privatise another public service.

BACK THE BAN!

2010-12-27T11:49:00.003Z

Hi,

I've signed up to 'Back the Ban' - the campaign to support the ban on foxhunting.

If you believe that there is no place for animal cruelty in a modern, civilised society - Click here to sign up.

You may not have heard but the Tories fought the election promising a free vote in Parliament to repeal the ban. So now the Tories are back in government we need to be on our guard.

The greater the number of people who pledge their support, the more we can make people understand that we don't want to see a return to the spectacle of dogs ripping apart foxes in this country.

http://www.backtheban.com

Thanks

BRITISH BROADCASTING CON-TRICK

2010-12-21T01:46:00.002Z

The government has told the BBC they have to make a 16% cut over four years. And do we get a 16% cut in licence fees? Get away!

Funny, though. The BBC should have such a small cut over so long. I’m sure their world-famous impartial reporting will be in no way affected by this generous act. Unfortunately the police, hospitals and welfare state in general do not enjoy such impartiality. Nor do they have the same infrastructure to be a potential threat to the government.

Never mind. With the destruction of the welfare state this government is intent on, if you can make it to 75 you get a free licence! That is if you still live in your own home and need a licence!

VINCE CABLE SAYS HE COULD BRING DOWN THE COALITION

2010-12-21T01:25:00.001Z

How interesting that Vince Cable seems to be fed up with the coalition.

According to BBC News reporting comments from the Telegraph he said he could "bring the government down" if they "push me too far".

He describes the coalition as like "fighting a war".

Vince, do us all a favour and use your “nuclear option” now!

JUSTICE MUST MANIFESTLY BE SEEN TO BE DONE

2010-06-30T09:16:00.005+01:00

Ken Clarke is proposing not locking up so many people because 'prison doesn't work'.

It is significant that the kind of low level offenders that Mr. Clarke intends to deal with without recourse to custodial sentencing are the relatively low level offender that are more likely to offend against residents of or visitors to poorer areas.

It is significant that in 2000 Mr. Clarke voted in accordance with a commons proposal "That this House condemns the Government's policy of giving prisoners special early release on the Home Detention Curfew scheme;"

I remember a time when assaulting a police officer would have meant a custodial sentence if found guilty, irrespective of mitigating circumstances or severity of the assault.

I remember when assaulting anybody would most likely attract a custodial sentence.

I remember there were far fewer assaults then.

I accept this is anecdotal and there could be many other reasons why custodial sentencing gives the average man in the street the impression of fewer offences and makes him (or her) feel safer. But the point is it has an effect on the confidence of the public and this alone is good reason to lock up offenders. It also means that while he (or she) is behind bars, the only other people that he will assault are other criminals.

Lord Hewart CJ said:"...a long line of cases shows that it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."

That is to say, no matter how fairly, legally and equitably proper a decision is made IT MUST BE SEEN TO BE SO! This involves a principle of perception. If a decision is perceived to be unfair, unjust or improper, then that decision cannot be acceptable.

And so this should extend to sentencing. If the public perceives that convicted criminals are free to continue to commit crimes and that locking them up stops them committing crime, then we should lock them up.

I AM A CIDER DRINKER

2010-06-30T07:40:00.002+01:00

Hurrah for reversing the 10% tax hike on cider. The decision has been reversed because cider makers said it could harm business.

I have drunk cider almost exclusively for well over thirty years. So I think it is great! I am also pleased to have something good to write about!

CRIMINALS CHARTER

2010-06-29T08:18:00.001+01:00

Senior UK police officers today said the current range of cuts would mean fewer police officers.

On the Andrew Marr Show, May 2nd, just 4 days before the election David Cameron said he would not accept cuts to the NHS, international development or frontline services.

It would appear that ‘front line services’ has been re-defined. You don’t get much closer to the front line than a policeman or woman in the fight against crime and the work towards a better community for us all.

Or David Cameron either got it wrong or told a downright lie to win the election- in either case, should he be running the country?

But the Tories always do the same. Promise one thing while planning another. Meanwhile, the Tory pundits tell us ‘it was the Labour governments fault. They left a bigger mess than we thought’.

Don’t get me wrong. I class the New Labour administration as equally, if not more deceitful than the Tories. Both lied their way into power and continued to lie while advancing their own agenda rather than their election commitments.

This is where politics needs to be cleaned up. But with parliamentary privilege and rules that you can’t call a member a liar, it never will be.

These rules were introduced when a Member of Parliament was supposed to be trustworthy so wouldn’t tell lies but might [accidentally] get the facts wrong. So be polite, no calling him into disrepute for an [honest] mistake.

Nowadays we know what a thieving, lying bunch they are. So let’s do away with the niceties and start calling a spade a spade.

WORK UNTIL YOU DROP

2010-06-26T14:21:00.002+01:00

According to a news report on BBC's Breakfast program, the pension age rise to 66 will mean that although you will lose one year's pension your pension at 66 will be 10% higher.

So, a pension of x at 65 will be a pension of x + 10% at age 66. This means living to 76 years the new retirement age will have no overall effect on the pension bill. Yes, that means no savings. 10 years of claiming pension from age 66 costs just the same as retiring at 65.

According to The Office for National Statistics, men will live to 76.4 years.

'Google' life expectancy UK and you will see other institutions give similar results.

Of course, this will mean fewer jobs for younger people. And if you are too ill to work until 66, it is likely the current incapacity/sickness benefits will be slashed so if you are lucky enough to be able to claim them, they won't be much.

The conclusions are several if men are to live until 76+, claiming their pension + 10% at age 66 with no overall reduction in costs-

That we are being deliberately mislead, once again politicians fooling us into believing they are 'doing something'.

That the problem will not be the current administrations problem.

That as the pensionable age is forced up we will be worked to death before we claim a pension.

That more draconian measures are planned.

It seems that old age, poverty, incapacity, inability and sickness is to be penalised so the banks can stay rich.

The 16 or so billion pound deficit is a drop in the ocean for the banks that caused the problems. Why are they not being made to pay?

Tens, if not hundreds of millions of pounds (http://www.moneyhospital.co.uk/blog/post/the-50-billion-british-bank-bail-out) of taxpayers money was used to bail out the banks, much more than the deficit. Make the banks repay the money and there will be no need for these draconian measures AND LOTS TO SPARE!

The problem is these measures are not about the deficit. They are about the traditional Tory values of making the poor pay for the luxuries and wealth of the rich.

Watching question time last night, Peter Hitchens, a noted traditionalist conservative said as much-

"it's all very well to say tax the rich, fine by me, tax the rich but there aren't enough rich people to make a substantial difference. If you have the kind of economy we have… you have to tax the poor, there isn't any other way you're going to afford it."

This is typical Tory policy. This is typical of Tory half-truths. Because while it may be arguable "there aren't enough rich people to make a substantial difference" the fact is that the dearth of rich people is more than compensated by the fact that currently 1% of the population hold 70% of the wealth.. I would argue that while there may not be enough rich people, they certainly hold enough of the wealth.

JAM TOMORROW?

2010-06-23T20:17:00.001+01:00

VAT increased to 20%- thus reducing sales

Public sector wage and pension cuts- less spending power

Benefit cuts- again, less spending power

How do Messrs Cameron and Clegg suppose this will ease the deficit? These actions may in the short term leave some money spare to pay off the deficit. But long term, they will mean less jobs, less spending, less growth.

More unemployed, so the benefit cuts will be wiped out by more people claiming lower benefits.

History shows us that penalising the poor- no, let’s call it what it is- making poverty a crime- is not the answer and it does not work. It was tried with 17th and 18th century parish poor relief and 19th century workhouses. The early 20th century saw benefits, but only if you could prove you were poor and had to sell anything not absolutely essential to life before relief was given.

In other words, a workhouse in your own home! So what happened? People died or turned to crime. Perhaps that is why Ken Clarke is considering cutting £2bn from the legal aid bill. We all know who that effects. Not Ken.

David Cameron, accompanied by a distinctly uncomfortable looking Nick Clegg effectively said benefit cuts, both in amount and those entitled to them would encourage people into work.

So would removing anti-Trades Union legislation and allowing higher wages thus negotiated. As one would expect in the Thatcherite free market economy. The other nail in this particular coffin is the prevalence of a generation of young people who have never worked or known job security and are perfectly able to make a good living selling drugs. Does he believe this underclass will worry if their benefits are cut?

IS CAMERONISM THE NEW THATCHERISM?

2010-06-23T18:43:00.005+01:00

It has just been announced on BBC news Cameron has turned down his pension of around £66,000.

Now, does he mean he will never claim it? Or does he mean he won't claim it unless the deficit is dealt with?

Well I'd like to say I couldn't care less. This problem has been caused by private financial institutions. Yet all I have seen or heard so far are cuts to wages, cuts to benefits and cuts to public services. In other words, public services and the neediest paying for the mistakes of wealthy bankers who STILL receive their massive bonuses.

And Ken Clarke, another of Thatchers Thugs is talking of £2bn cuts to legal aid and closing 103 magistrates courts. So if you protest the cuts and get arrested, don't expect to be represented- unless, like Ken you can afford to retain legal representation.

Nick Clegg tried to soften the blow by saying that public servants wage cuts will start at the top. Quite simply they are the ones who are most able to bear the burden and as for Cameron's attempt at empathy by giving up his pension, well I wish to hell I was wealthy enough to turn down £66,000 a year.

This is just a return to Thatcherism. The global economic recession and the deficit must have Cameron and his cronies laughing all the way to the bank. What a perfect excuse for austere financial restraints on the poorest to maintain the rich.

The only small light I can see is that Nick Clegg, confronted by an audience of ordinary people with Cameron looked decidedly uncomfortable. Though he tried to give the impression of unity, I can only hope he has become disillusioned with the coalition and that it hastens my prediction that we will see it collapse before September this year, leading to a general election. And I hope the Labour Party seize the opportunity to return to grass roots socialism and win a massive landslide victory.

AT LAST! A WITNESS!

2010-06-21T07:35:00.002+01:00

Amazingly, we have a man who worked on the BP rig and has the inside story suddenly appear. I wonder where he has been for the last few months?

ONE LAW FOR THE RICH

2010-05-29T23:32:00.003+01:00

There is only one test here, irrespective of David Laws wealth, personal relationships or his character, be it good or bad. Did he or did he not illegally and knowingly claim and accept monies to which he was not entitled?

If the answer is yes, he should, like all the other thieving b*****s be brought to book in a criminal court, be stripped of office and barred from ever holding public office again.

But like the others, he will walk away with nothing more than having to pay back the alleged £40,000 he purloined. From his massive wealth it could be likened to me losing a pound.

Yet if you steal a packet of pork chops to feed your family your poverty or your hunger will not be an excuse. While you may be treated leniently by a judge or magistrate you will find yourself before one or the other and have a criminal record to be taken in to consideration should you find yourself before a court of law again.

And they try to tell us we live in a classless society? That we are all equal before the law? There is only one answer to this 'money talks' society thrust upon us by Thatcher and her 'ites' and that is a return to socialism.

To this end I hope to see Len McCluskey elected General Secretary of the Unite union. With millionaires abandoning New Labour they will have to rely on trades union funding once again and accept the agenda of the blue collar worker, not the wealthy entrepreneur or the City execs.

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION- IS IT REALLY MORE DEMOCRATIC?

2010-05-16T15:38:00.003+01:00

There has been a lot of talk recently about the need for electoral and parliamentary reform.

I have an idea that I believe would be simple to instigate and virtually cost free. It would bring some real democracy to parliament and allow members of the house the individual freedom that all politicians claim is a basic human right.

On many issues, MPs vote according to his/her conscience or according to his/her constituents' wishes. However, there are circumstances where MPs are forced to vote according to party policy.

And these circumstances tend to be votes on the most important issues.

If we consider that MPs tend to agree with the policy of the party of which they are members, we can assume they will generally vote in accordance with that parties' policy. In the instances where the party whip is used to ensure MPs vote 'correctly' we can reasonably assume enough MPs disagree with the policy to vote against it and thus endanger its' success. In these circumstances it is not just MPs freedoms that are restricted by the party whip, but parliament's and by extension the wishes of the people. It removes the right of an individual to practice the democracy their party lays claim to.

So if we remove the party whip (not in the political sense, in the 'real world' sense of stop using it) and allow MPs to vote freely on all subjects, they will mostly vote within the policy dictates of their party, which presupposes it is in accord with the wishes of the people that elected them. Where party policy is opposed to an individual's beliefs, he or she should have the freedom to vote according to conscience which we all hope is in accord with the constituents that elected them.

There is some debate that a change in the electoral system to proportional representation or a similar system of voting would call into question the constitutional rights and responsibilities of the monarch to dissolve parliament or to invite a party leader to form a government. While this may be a good thing, and I tend to this view I am also aware that it could also cause constitutional complications from which the democracy we currently enjoy might never recover. Put simply, we may, contrary to the popular assumption, leave ourselves open to a much less democratic system of government. Simply giving an elected representative of the people the right to vote according to his/her conscience or the wishes of his/her constituents, I believe would bring about some real democracy without the expense and complications associated with constitutional electoral change.

WORRYING EMANATIONS FROM THE COALITION.

2010-05-13T20:58:00.003+01:00

Worrying Emanations from the Coalition.

Theresa May, appointed Home Secretary is trying to sound diplomatic, democratic and caring. Unfortunately when we strip away the thin veneer of compassion we see little difference from Old School Tory thinking. And little difference from New Labour thinking.

She says that ID cards will be scrapped. What ID cards? I was under the impression that ID cards had been shelved long before the election. And, just like the previous administration, she doesn't mention the massive database on which the ID cards were to be based. It is not the cards themselves that are intrusive, and in the wrong (even government) hands downright dangerous. It is the database that stores the information, and not just name, age and fingerprints. The database is an organic, growing beast storing ever more information about people, gathered from every form, paper or electronic you fill in, from phone and email conversations and sundry other sources. The capacity for error is massive. The capacity for misuse is equally horrendous. Yet there is no mention of its being scrapped, along with the ID cards it was created for. in fact, there is no mention of it at all.

Personally, I wonder if the whole fiasco is actually a well defined plan. Producing the database might produce unease in the electorate, so we plan ID cards, build the database then if and when the protests become loud enough we scrap ID cards but maintain the database, which nobody has actually noticed. Nice one.

About the DNA database, she said: "One of the first things we will do is to ensure that all the people who have actually been convicted of a crime and are not present on it are actually on the DNA database."

"The last government did not do that. It focused on retaining the DNA data of people who were innocent."

Again, it sounds like what we want, but what does this mean? Since everybody convicted of a crime is automatically on the database, she must intend rounding up past criminals and putting them on the database. Does that mean a 50 year old man found guilty of stealing sweets when he was 14 will go on the database? Does it mean one mistake will have you on the database forever?

I am not against the DNA database, but I do think this is being used as political spin, saying what the politicians think we want to hear; if you are a criminal, you are on the database, if you aren't you won't be. What they should be saying is how they can use the technology fairly, more justly. For example, if your conviction is spent under the rehabilitation of offenders act, then your DNA should come off the database. This may well be the intention, but if so, say so.

Health secretary Andrew Lansley said the coalition would go further than Labour's plan to save £20bn in the health service by efficiency savings over the next three years.

"Of course we do need to do that, and we may need to do more because we have increases in demand in the NHS and a need to improve the outcomes. Every penny that is saved by doing things better can be reinvested for the benefit of patients."

But patients will not benefit from the savings. There will be no reinvestment. Savings will be used to cut health service costs and consequently government funding.

So while it all looks shiny and new, scratch the surface and the foetid stained inner shows nothing much has changed and where there is change, it is not necessarily for the better.

IS CAMERON A SOCIALIST?

2010-05-11T22:06:00.003+01:00

David Cameron:

"Those who can, should, and those who can't, we will always help"

The Communist Manifesto:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

THE DEFICIT MUST BE TACKLED- BUT NOT BY US!

2010-05-10T08:22:00.003+01:00

I have just watched the director of the CBI and some other business noteworthy on BBC Breakfast. I wasn't taking much notice until I heard them say that an incoming government must tackle the deficit immediately, not next year like New Labour wanted, but then said that spending by bodies such as the NHS should not be restricted because small business relies on this and many might go to the wall

So they want the deficit tackled but don't want public funding cut in a way that affects them. Just the sort of thinking that got us into this mess. And where do they think cuts will be made? Benefits and hike taxes, but only for the workforce?

Without a doubt we will be made to pay for the bankers mistakes. I'm not happy about it, but unless there are riots in the streets as we have seen in Greece, it's going to happen. But I am damned sure that the businesses and banks should pay proportionate to their income and maybe more as a financial penalty.

AND SO THE ELECTION IS DONE...

2010-05-08T18:16:00.003+01:00

I accept that whichever party was elected we would have seen cuts or increased taxation or both at some time. I can only groan in horror and disbelief that the people of this country (more accurately some of the people) have elected a government that will use the deficit as an excuse to introduce swingeing cuts to the services that the most vulnerable among us rely on for some semblance of a reasonably comfortable existence.

At the same time I hazard a guess that their wealthy pals will see tax breaks and a free reign to continue profiteering on the backs of the needy.

I can only hope that the hung parliament and Mr. Brown's insistence on clinging to power results in a speedy second election and the people of Britain get their thinking heads on vote with their conscience not on a balance of probabilities of who might win.

I urge you to vote for a fringe party to show the three (maybe two now) contenders that they cannot ignore the electorate. Beat them into last place, behind the Greens and the Monster Raving Looney Party. I must say, after 18 years of disastrous Tory rule and 13 years of equally disastrous New Labour Monster Raving Loonies aren't sounding quite so loony now.

GORDON BROWN – BIGOT

2010-04-29T08:00:00.005+01:00

Gordon Brown forgot he still had a mic on and called a woman he had just visited a bigot because she said, amongst other things “she used to be labour” (people seem not to have heard this comment- or chosen to ignore it) .

I think you’ll find Gordon, what she meant is she is still Labour but you and your cronies are not.

SETTING THE SCENE FOR MASSIVE CUTS

2010-02-22T21:08:00.003Z

William Hague is accusing the New Labour government of deliberately failing in its economic strategy so that an incoming Tory government will be handed a 'poisoned chalice' of massive debt. Now to be fair, he does say 'an incoming government'. But we all know what he means.

I think that from my other posts you will see I am no lover of New Labour. But this claim is ridiculous in the extreme. First, this presupposes the Conservatives will win. Yes, I know it is looking likely. But surely the basis of this pronouncement is that the Tories intend whatever the condition of British finances to introduce massive public spending cuts to fund massive tax breaks for their wealthy pals. And this sets the scene, putting the public's mind in 'service cutting' mode.

And he forgets that New Labour might actually win. Would they want to return to power to face their own 'poisoned chalice'? It smacks of playground name-calling, hoping that if enough muck is thrown, some of it will stick.

I suggest you ignore the tactics of the gutter and take a close look at policies, not just of the big two or even the big three. But see who is saying what you believe. Forget a tactical vote to keep New Labour or the Tories out. Vote with your conscience and maybe we will see a surprise result. Maybe more people are thinking like you than you give credit.

PEOPLE’S BANK BONUS. (DON’T FORGET TO TELL SID!)

2010-02-21T12:10:00.003Z

The Tories have come up with a plan to pay back the public for the investment in failing banks. The idea is to sell shares at discount prices to the public, with extra discounts for those on low-incomes and the young.

How will this help? With shares at hundreds or even thousands of pounds what kind of discount will they offer? If it is a large discount, selling shares at a few pounds then the banks will be disadvantaged and we will find a similar situation that the public investment was designed to ease. If it is a small discount, once again it will not be the less well off, but the Tories rich mates that will benefit.

Even if we ignore this and the obvious publicity stunt this is to catch a few votes, and accept it is a good thing and will help, we will see the shares bought up at slightly inflated prices that the small shareholders will see as attractive and a quick profit by the biggest and richest players and we shall be back to square one with the banks owned and run by a few rich individuals who care only about quick profit, whatever the cost.

Mainly, however we should look at the shares fiasco of the 1980's. It is obvious that the Tory Party has not learned anything, that it has not changed and is dogmatically following the tenets of Thatcherite monetarism. If that's what you want, vote for them. I want something different. Something none of the three major parties are offering. A return to the manufacturing base that made Britain great and paid high wages to ordinary people. A return to a system that put people before profits, not the utopian ideal that the benefits of capitalism and profit will inevitably trickle down to the less fortunate.

MONEY TALKS

2010-02-06T11:57:00.003Z

There are two scandals in the news this week. The BAE Systems £208m out of court settlement and the three MP's and one lord, Elliot Morley, David Chaytor, Jim Devine and Lord Hanningfield who are trying to use Parliamentary Privilege to avoid a criminal case.

In the first situation, the £208m 'fine' paid by BAE seems a massive penalty. But when one considers they count their income at over £1,000m and cash flow in the thousands of millions, it pales into a rather less significant consequence. And it has avoided an open court which may have uncovered further wrongdoing; I think they got off lightly.

As for the MP's and lord, to break the rules sufficiently for prosecutors to believe a crime may have been committed and then try to use Parliamentary Privilege to avoid open court questions, I'll make this point. If your extravagant expense claims are truly mistakes, you have nothing to fear from a criminal prosecution, for you will surely be found not guilty. Or does 'nothing to fear if you've done nothing wrong' only apply to us lesser mortals, who often have only Legal Aid, which MP's seem intent on removing, to call to our defence.

These politicians should remember that Parliamentary Privilege was enshrined in law to prevent the monarch from interfering in the proceedings of Parliament, and prevented an MP from being impeached for proceedings or speeches made in Parliament. While I don't claim a full knowledge or understanding of the Privilege, it seems to me it was not designed to protect politicians from prosecution for criminal activity, inside or outside of Parliament.

CUP HANDS, THERE GOES CADBURY’S II

2010-01-19T22:38:00.003Z

Straight away, we hear 'job cuts inevitable after Kraft takeover'. Gordon Brown said the government was "determined" to ensure that Cadbury jobs were secure.

"We are determined that the levels of investment that take place in Cadbury in the United Kingdom are maintained and we are determined that, at a time when people are worried about their jobs, that jobs in Cadbury can be secure," he said.

Peter Mandelson added his two penneth saying Kraft's chairman and chief executive Irene Rosenfeld had already written to him to assure him of Kraft's "respect for Cadbury's heritage and employees".

He said he had now invited Ms Rosenfeld for talks on the details of Kraft's plans, which he said he would then immediately disclose to the Cadbury workforce.

Well he should have been discussing that before the takeover went ahead. Or was he fooled by the pre-emptive letter of assurance mentioned above?

I still say five years maximum before Cadbury's UK and production is moved abroad. Of course there will be financial reasons. Like wages are lower in South America or Eastern Europe.

A poor excuse for Cadbury employees and British industry.

CUP HANDS, THERE GOES CADBURY'S

2010-01-19T07:37:00.004Z

Kraft has bought Cadbury's. Another British company owned by foreigners. I predict within 5 years Cadbury's in Birmingham will be gone and Cadbury's chocolate production will be moved abroad. They'll keep the name and they hope to keep the customer base and good will. If they move production abroad, I for one will not buy Cadbury's again.

I’ll Never Buy Bosch Again

2010-01-15T18:49:00.003Z

Bosch has announced the closure of their plant in South Wales with the loss to the area of 900 jobs. The production will move to Hungary, where labour costs are 65% lower.

The BBC website headlines it as '900 Bosch workers to get support'. This is a devastating blow to jobs and communities. The headline is meaningless. People don't want support, they want their jobs.

The Welsh Assembly should demand repayment of the £21 million Bosch was given in 1991 as an incentive to locate there.

One Good Man and (hopefully) True

2010-01-13T01:55:00.003Z

For the first time in 350 years Englishmen face a trial without the benefit of a jury, the case presided over by a judge.

Will this mean an end to justice? Is it the first step away from our adversarial legal system toward the European model?

The men concerned are charged with serious crimes. (I'm not going into the details as I want to concentrate on the principles. You can read more detail HERE). Three trials have collapsed, the last of which was halted because of suspected jury fixing.

But should we remove the right to jury trials? I believe this to be a dangerous precedent. Better, in my view to house the jury securely so that here can be no question of interference and give the men a fair trial.

There are also the dangers inherent in leaving guilt and legal procedure and precedent in the hands of one judge.

I also suggest that if a jury can be omitted from the legal process on the grounds they may be at risk of being influenced, how long before a jury trial is suspended because a defence counsel may adversely affect the outcome of a trial by persuading a jury a defendant is not guilty?

The case is well put in the conversation between William Roper and Thomas More in 'A Man for all Seasons':

"William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"

And there lies the danger. If we dismantle the law to convict the guilty, how will the law protect the innocent?

VIRUS ALERT! From an email I received today

2010-01-12T15:33:00.002Z

Warning of a huge virus coming

Hi All Tamworth Watchers

Please pass this on to all your friends, family and other contacts.
I received this warning via my father in Australia where Norton Anti Virus who are gearing up for this virus!

You should be alert during the next few days . Do not open any message with an attachment entitled "POSTCARD FROM HALLMARK", regardless of who has sent it to you... It is a virus that first copies all your contact list and then shows you A POSTCARD IMAGE which burns out the whole of your hard disc of your computer.

This virus will be sent from someone who has your e-mail address in his/her contact list. This is the reason why you need to send this message to all your contacts.

If you receive this message called "POSTCARD" DO NOT OPEN IT! even if it has been sent from a friend, shut down you PC immediately. This is the worst Virus announced by CNN.

It has been classified by Microsoft as the most destructive virus ever. The virus was discovered by McAfee, and there is no repair possible yet. The virus simply destroys the Zero Sector of the Hard Disc, where the vital information is kept.

Keep Safe

Don

***********************************************************************************

Harriet Harman. Fine!

2010-01-09T10:39:00.002Z

Harriet fined £350 for careless driving. I suggest they keep a close eye on her receipts. They may find a £350 bill slipped in.

The Truth is the Truth- but Whose Truth is True?

2010-01-08T22:13:00.002Z

Until reading this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/8448469.stm article about the Muslim protesters who called British soldiers murderers, I have not really had a view on the case. I don't think British soldiers should be described as murderers. They act on the orders of their officers and are sent to war by the government. If anybody, it is they who should be the object of Muslim wrath. On the other hand, we are supposed to be a free country, and if we take away one person or group of people's freedom to demonstrate, we endanger the freedoms of everybody. But, they have chosen to live in Britain and should accept our way of life and foreign policy. But we can't expect everybody to give up all aspects of their beliefs and culture... and so the arguments could go on, a swing one way and then another.

In this enlightening article, Munim Abdul claims their behaviour was not threatening, abusive or likely to cause offence, because it was the truth. He went on to claim : "If it's the truth then there's no way they would find it upsetting" and "It's like calling a paedophile a paedophile, that's what he is."

That is where I took the view he and the six other defendants were wrong, morally if not legally. There are many things we are restricted from doing and saying, even though they may be or we may perceive them to be truths. For example, Mr. Abdul has a darker skin than I do. In Britain, we have a very specific law that prevents me from discriminating against Mr. Abdul, or from abusing him based on the very real truth that his skin is a different colour to mine. So arguing abuse is not abuse because it is the truth is at best very weak. It could also be very dangerous if this claim is upheld by a British court, because allowing a defence in this case on the basis that the abuse was truthful would allow a racist to use a similar defence.

Expenses plans 'not watered down'

2010-01-08T03:43:00.006Z

Looks like the expenses reforms are more subtle than substance.

"The man in charge of overhauling MPs' expenses denies backing away from some proposed radical reforms to the system."

Isn't whitewash mostly watered down?

Back the Ban

2009-12-26T14:35:00.002Z

http://www.labour.org.uk/backtheban?utm_source=taomail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=100140+Hilary+Benn+Fox+Hunting+Email&tmtid=706-100140-3-220-1690200

Smokers are Jokers?

2009-12-26T13:23:00.004Z

The government is to roll out new smoking kits to help 'addicts' quit. Waste of money. The restrictions we currently have on smoking mean we can't smoke in enclosed public places, effectively, if we adhere to the law we can't smoke in open public places because throwing away our cigarette end constitutes littering. Presumably, so does flicking the ash. We can't smoke in workplaces, including vehicles even if we are the sole occupant and nobody else is allowed to ride in or drive the vehicle. In America (and rest assured we'll soon follow suit) Apple Computers have voided warranties because smoking near them creates a biohazard. Well, I'll stop smoking when cars stop spewing filth into the atmosphere. I'll stop smoking when Steve Jobs (CEO of Apple computers) stops putting Lead, Chromium, Cadmium, Mercury, Bromine, Brominated flame retardants (BFRs) and PVC into computers.

No, the only place we can smoke now is in our own homes and gardens. But how long will it be before councils stop smoking in council rented accommodation? (Already we can't smoke when expecting visits from council employees) and the government requires the same of private landlords? I see the ploy of the government not to ban smoking outright, the honest and in my opinion realistic thing to do, but to restrict the places one can smoke until there are none left. Effectively a ban, but they haven't banned it, have they? And it's all done, not in the name of protecting you from yourself, but protecting others from your filthy habit. Thanks. But no, thanks.

Baby P Murderer Assaulted

2009-12-19T02:06:00.002Z

Baby P, who we now know as Peter Connelly died with 50 injuries including broken ribs and a broken back. His mother's boyfriend, Steven Barker has been attacked in prison, felled with one punch. He got off lightly.

Teflon Tony Looking Decidedly Like Troubled Tony

2009-12-12T18:30:00.004Z

Tony Blair has finally admitted that he would have invaded Iraq even if there had been no evidence of WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) which we now know and suspected then there were not. And that he would have invaded and found alternative arguments for the invasion if necessary. He further stated that a régime change justified the invasion (which ignores the UN rules permitting 'military intervention on the basis of self-defence', but did not apply in this case because Britain was not under threat from Iraq. The UN does, however make illegal military intervention on the grounds of régime change.) He looked very edgy as he admitted this to Fern Britton. I got the impression he was trying to develop arguments and groundwork for his appearance at the Chilcot Enquiry.

Well, Tony, Teflon or otherwise, whatever the outcome, and I sincerely hope you are brought to justice for your war crimes, you have consistently pushed your Christian ethics and have converted to Roman Catholicism (which, by the way just happens to be one of the most violent and oppressive Christian sects since Christ's birth, and beats a few of the so called heathen religions) so I wonder if you can you can sleep at night when you try to justify the deaths resulting directly from your lies.

Are You Stealing Intellectual Property?

2009-11-29T12:54:00.002Z

ACS:Law, a law firm that specialises in protecting the intellectual rights of copyright holders has said it intends to send out 15,000 letters to people suspected of illegally downloading and sharing films and games. According to the BBC these letters include an opportunity to settle out of court for a few hundred pounds rather than be taken to court and risk paying thousands of pounds. As is rightly considered in the report, this sounds a lot less like enforcing the rights of intellectual rights holders and very much like a money-making exercise.

As I have said before, how will or do they know people are illegally sharing files? There is a suggestion in the report that information is gathered using special software that identifies illegal file sharing. I doubt anything like this exists. I suggest the software (if it exists) does one or more of several things. It identifies file sharing software (not in itself illegal). It identifies large file uploads or downloads. Neither is this illegal. It identifies encrypted uploads or downloads. Again, encryption is not, in itself illegal.

The software has not yet been tested in court. I doubt it will ever be. People who have been accused have either paid up and/or consulted a solicitor. None, it appears who have refused to pay have been taken to court, suggesting there is no real evidence.

Should I receive such a communication from ACS:Law or anybody else (and I predict there will be many) who jumps on the bandwagon my responses will be several.

Since I have a laptop and desktop PC, my son plays X-box games online and has a desktop in his room and my daughter has a laptop, my bandwidth usage will be quite high, I assume. So if the suggestion is my high bandwidth usage arouses suspicion of illegal downloads, they will get short shrift from me. If they claim they have acquired my address from my ISP I will want to know on what grounds they obtained a court order to get this information and investigate the possibility of a contravention of the Data Protection act. Because by requesting a court order, they must surely have investigated my internet usage to provide evidence to justify such a request.

I will make it quite clear to them that I cannot pay several hundred pounds to avoid court action, so take me to court where, if they win they will have even less chance of getting the several thousand pounds they are chasing.

And finally, if they do wish to proceed with a legal challenge and I win, in the face of all their 'evidence', the grounds on which I win will open the door for others to appeal their convictions (if they ever get any) and will provide a legal challenge for all other such prosecutions.

They ought also to remember this is Britain, not the US and cases are taken on merit, not money.

Who’d be a Teacher?

2009-11-29T02:57:00.002Z

According to a BBC report new teachers cannot find secure jobs. Welcome to the real world. Ordinary workers haven't had job security for three decades. This is a result of the new world economy where profit supersedes people.

However, I must ask what the problem is? If the current advertisements on T.V. are to be believed, a teacher can expect a starting salary of £30,000 a year. Not bad, in my book. I wish somebody would offer me that sort of money for working my butt off in a manual job. So O.K., the issue seems to be they can't get these jobs. But the report goes on to say that 95% of newly trained teachers find temporary or supply work. Assuming temporary means short term contracts and assuming that as in real-world jobs this means showing ability, commitment and reliability results in an offer of a permanent position the onus is on them to show they are worthy of such consideration. As for supply teachers, I see advertised supply positions paying £100 a day and more. I would be happy to seek work as a supply plastics moulding technician at £100 a day.

What do they want? Jam on it?

Bonus Crackdown- the Bankers are Crying. Ha Ha!

2009-11-16T23:55:00.002Z

Former Bank of Scotland chairman Sir George Mathewson has said the government's move to remove bonuses for bankers that take unnecessary risks is a dangerous one. He claims that it may be an interference with the rule of law. His premise for this is that it is a dangerous move to interfere with contracts negotiated by willing parties.

Well, Sir George, when those contracts and bonuses cost innocent taxpayers and savers money, when it threatens the banking system as a whole while the perpetrators walk off rich(er) men, there should be control and I don't think it goes far enough. They should take back bonuses already paid and put a limit on bonuses either as a percentage of salary or a fixed limit (my preference).

Angela Knight, chief executive of the British Bankers' Association, said the UK had already taken steps to address bonuses and that any legislation had to take into account its impact on the UK as a global financial centre.

Sorry, Ms Knight and Sir George. You're just making excuses to keep your grubby hands on the cash.

And we don't hear you when ordinary workers are told wage rises must be kept below inflation. But then, that suits, doesn't it? Hold down pay rises and the money can be shared out amongst yourselves in big bonuses that bypass below inflation rises.

You'll never go hungry or be out of work unless by choice. You'll never worry about which bill to pay this week. You'll never go 16+ years with only two holidays and one weekend away, both only affordable because of the generosity of friends.

No, I'm afraid there are no tears shed here.

What’s the Difference Between Russell Brand and a Mushroom?

2009-11-15T03:41:00.005Z

Very little. Neither are funny and both thrive on horse-s***.

Russell Brand is about as funny as toothache. Like most so-called celebrities, he needs a gimmick to maintain his limited popularity and to maintain his public profile. When his stupid hairstyle was no longer enough, he created controversy by abusing a fellow performer (one who at least is able to create comedy and cause me to laugh) Andrew Sachs.

Now that the furore over that episode has died down he has said at a signing of his latest DVD that though he apologised for the incident, he found the subsequent scandal funny. More than I can say for you, Mr Brand.

This only confirms my belief that he is neither funny nor truly apologetic. If you look at the true greats of comedy, the like of Tommy Cooper who needed only to walk on stage to raise hysterics from the audience, or Frankie Howerd, Morecombe and Wise or Dave Allen it is not difficult to see that the modern trend in comedy to raise a laugh at the expense of undeserving innocent parties is the gimmick of second rate so-called comedians, a ploy to keep themselves in the public eye and to hide their lack of skill with controversy.

I may sound biased, and perhaps I am. (And perhaps with good reason.) But I have tried to watch Mr Brand. I just couldn't see the humour in his ranting. He tried too hard to be 'in your face' but without the finesse of greats like Bill Hicks who too was controversial, but raged against the establishment and its representatives and as far as I am aware never abused a fellow performer, always had a point to make and didn't use abuse for its own sake or to divert attention from a lack of talent.

Unfortunately, today's audience encourages such behaviour. The paymasters know it improves viewing figures and instead of the likes of Russell Brand becoming a non-entity in entertainment as would have happened in the past, the controversy keeps them in demand.

Thank heaven for the off switch.

You’re nicked, mate

2009-11-13T23:56:00.003Z

Sandwell council fined a woman £75 (a fixed penalty charge) for feeding the ducks at a duck pond. Apparently, she and her 17 month old son were not in the designated feeding area. What a lot of rot! Another little Goebbels given a uniform and obeying his Hitler-like council masters.

Now, I might- the operative word being might- understand had the fine been for littering- throwing the bread on the ground or into the pond. Even so, it would be ridiculous. But to say it isn't in the designated feeding area, I ask what is the difference? The bread is going to be eaten by the ducks or swans or geese, they aren't aware of these 'designated areas'. Or are we to see Donald [Duck] in court for eating outside his designated feeding area? It just beggars belief. I certainly would have refused to pay and contested the fine in a court of law.

Well, Ms. Kelly and son, see you on the [DNA] database, you threat to society, you.

Why is Mandelson Politician of the Year?

2009-11-12T23:55:00.003Z

Lord (ha!) Mandelson has been named |politician of the year by Spectator magazine's annual awards. I fail to see why. He is unelected, does not sit in the House of Commons and as a politician sucks. I've seen better policies on the back of a beer mat.

Come to think of it, wasn't he sacked or had to resign or something? Seems to me one need not be good at ones job. Just be controversial. Like Jedwood.

(now awaiting my bonus, thankyou.)

Would You Give a Community Order for Child Rape?

2009-11-11T23:42:00.002Z

A sixteen year old boy, who cannot be named was given a community service order for molesting a seven year old boy. Eight days later he abducted and raped another five year old boy.

I could go on and on about the stupidity of the law, the ivory towers of judges, deterrents, justice and revenge, etc. etc. But I dare say I will only be repeating what others are already saying, what you are already thinking. So I'll just say this is what happens when discipline is removed from schools, a country goes soft on crime and criminals are rewarded instead of punished.

Full Story

We Know Who You Emailed Last Summer.

2009-11-10T22:07:00.002Z

The government is to push ahead with plans to insist CSP's (Communication Service Providers) keep records of our online communications. This includes social networking sites like Facebook. Hell, it means any company or website that processes any communication online.

The government says it doesn't want to create a single database to hold these records. Just that the CSP's keep records of communications, not their content just a record of who communicated with whom, and that these records will be used for investigating and solving crime. Well, we saw what happened with similar anti-terrorism surveillance laws where councils were spying on people to see if they were living where they said and to catch dog owners not cleaning up their mess.

If you ask me, this isn't about crime in general. It is about specifically targeting illegal downloader's and if that is the case then they should come right out and say so. What other reason could there be? If the content of a communication won't be kept, what good is knowing a communication took place? The only reason I can think of is proving a communication with a known download site.

The other side of the coin, in these circumstances is supposing I email somebody and this communication is held for 2 years. What if some months later the person I emailed is arrested on a serious criminal charge? There is no record that I merely responded to an advert for a ladder for sale, only that the communication took place. So will that communication be ignored, making the law ineffective and irrelevant or will we see thousands of innocent people targeted merely because they sent an email?

Where is the evidence that this will have any effect on crime? This is just another draconian law designed to look like protection for the population in general but in reality will be restrictive and dangerous for the ordinary citizen whose worse crime is putting their bin out on the wrong day.

BBC Poll Says Free Market Flawed

2009-11-09T01:58:00.002Z

According to a poll commissioned by the British Broadcasting Company most people believe the free market economy is flawed. There are also stark contrasts as to whether the fall of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall were good things.

Of course, there is no explanation of why people now believe these things might not be such a good thing. It could be that they feel a diametrically opposed political, social and economic system (somewhere else in the world) struck a balance. A balance that prevented financial institutions and the capitalist system from running amuck and bringing down banks, pension schemes and mortgages.

But I think it is not this that has brought about a differing opinion around the world. I think it is the same thing that has seen a hundred years of alternate Labour and Tory governments in Britain. It is the same thing that is the great flaw in democracy. A flaw exploited by the rich and powerful. That the majority of people change their opinions according to circumstances.

When the Soviet Union was a powerful counter-balance to capitalism it was seen as evil and counter-productive. Now it is gone, we have seen capitalism and the free market economy run wild and threaten the financial system of the world. While communism and socialism was a powerful threat, capitalists could not take the risks we have seen taken in recent times because there was an effective alternate system to fill the void. Without this alternate system, the risks could be taken and if they failed, as they did, the only option was to rebuild capitalism.

Much like the rampant capitalism that filled the void in communist Russia, socialism could and possibly would have filled the void left by a failed world economy. That is what the poll is reflecting. That is what the ('democratic') capitalists are afraid of.

RBS- Taxpayers Bank or Not?

2009-11-07T22:59:00.002Z

I don't get this. I'm no financial wizard. But the taxpayer has a majority holding in the Royal Bank of Scotland. Presumably, since I don't get asked, the government, in our name, takes care of the day-to-day issues. And presumably, since they gave them loads of our cash, they are keeping an eye on them?

And yet, I read 'Treasury seeks RBS lending proof'. The gist of the story seems to be that the RSB is claiming it cannot meet its lending target because businesses aren't asking for loans. So the treasury is asking RSB to prove this in the next four weeks, and to produce their loans terms and conditions to prove that they are not 'too harsh'.

So, we (for we, read the Government on our behalf) own this bank, yet we do not know how it is being run? We do not know the terms and conditions of the loans?

This shows gross neglect of duty by the treasury and by implication the government. It beggars belief that these things have not been scrutinised and modified if necessary. You just do not invest billions of pounds of your own money, never mind our money, without taking an active part in decision making.

Leaving it until now to ask for the information is ridiculous. We inject billions and leave the bank to their own devices, which created the problem in the first place.

At the same time I notice a government sponsored advertisement condemning benefits cheats as thieves. So you claim your £50+ jobseekers allowance and make a bit on the side, you're a criminal, fined and/or imprisoned and made to pay back the money. Squander somebody else's money to increase your bonus, walk away with a £multimillion, gold plated iron-clad pension and you can have a few billion more, but don't be naughty again.

Some things never change. The rich will stay rich, get richer and flaunt the law with impunity. The poor will stay poor, get poorer and flaunt the law at their peril.

It's the rich what gets the pleasure

It's the poor what gets the blame

It's the same the whole world over

Ain't it all a bloody shame?

Sleepers?

2009-11-06T20:34:00.002Z

With the US army officer killing 13 fellow soldiers and an Afghan policeman shooting British soldiers, both of whom were trained or being trained by the nation they purportedly worked for, one has to ask whether these people are 'sleepers'- individuals, perhaps part of a larger organisation put in place to commit these acts of betrayal.

I don't believe an army officer killed his comrades simply because he didn't want to go to Afghanistan. There are other, less lethal ways of avoiding such deployment. Neither do I believe an individual joined a police force in good faith and was recruited while serving.

It brings into question our reason for having troops deployed in an unwinnable war. By their very nature, the guerrillas in Afghanistan will, if apparently defeated, reappear when foreign troops are withdrawn.

Or are we to be there forever?

Lose/Lose- Video Game or Trojan?

2009-11-06T00:01:00.004Z

A new game that deletes files on your hard drive has been described as a Trojan. The game clearly states the intention, so is it a Trojan or is it a game? If a virus writer clearly labelled his work a virus, called it destroyyourfiles.exe or iamavirus.exe, then does that exonerate him/her? I'd say no. A virus (in this I include Trojans and other similar destructive files) is recognised as such because of what it does. Warning a potential victim does not change this behaviour. In fact I can see that pretty soon a real malicious virus writer will use this as a social engineering technique to get you to download his work.

We all know spam exists because people respond to it. Well, it is pretty dammed certain that if I call a virus 'Iwillstealyourpasswords.exe ' and state clearly on the download page that my intention is to steal passwords from every computer it is run on, there will be enough people gullible enough to disbelieve it, download and run the file to make it worthwhile.

Like the 'Wet Paint' sign. There is always somebody who just has to know.

Full Story

‘No referendum’ Say Tories.

2009-11-04T23:41:00.002Z

Now that the EU Treaty has been ratified by the Czech Republic Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague has said the Tories will not hold a referendum.

Quite correct. The treaty, love it or hate it will be European law by the time the Tories are elected, if they are in fact elected- as seems likely. A referendum will be pointless, as it and the UK will be unable to change anything.

However, anybody with a modicum of intelligence will see through this spin, ploy, political manoeuvring, call it what you will. They knew, when they announced they would hold a referendum that the treaty would or would not be ratified. The Czech Republic could not have held out for that long without a decision one way or another. If they had not ratified, there would be no need to ask the British people since the treaty could not become law under such circumstances. Now they have ratified, there is no point. Heads we win, tails you lose.

However, the Tories might have the courage of their convictions and ask the British people (if they are elected next year) whether they want to stay in Europe.

Brave New World

2009-11-03T22:44:00.003Z

In these times of 'restraint' isn't it amazing the British government has found another £32.9 billion to put into Lloyds and RBS?

Why is it only we ordinary, poor folk have to tighten our belts and have public services slashed?

It seems to me if I squander my money; pay myself more than I am worth for failing in my job or fiddle my expenses I need only be sure I am already extremely wealthy or a public official to have UK Government PLC bail me out or turn a blind eye.

Where was the funding for Rover, LDV etc and where is the funding for the Royal Mail to keep people in jobs and maintain a state owned and managed mail? Or is keeping people in jobs, particularly service jobs diametrically opposed to the Government view of Great Britain LTD where we are all stockbrokers or bankers?

Of course, we cannot all be financial wizards and so must ask what is to become of those not inclined to such careers? I suggest you look at the veneer of the education system, purporting to make a good education available to all. The best education still goes to the wealthiest. Poke a little more through the thin skin of the education system and you will see that even a mediocre education is being priced out of the reach of ordinary people. With tuition fees and student loans (soon to be sold off to the highest bidder) families either reliant on benefits or in low paid jobs one can see that further education will soon be the domain of the elite. The producers of wealth (that's you and me) will be consigned to a life of drudgery and want. And our ability to advance reasonable argument against such inequality is severely curtailed by our lack of education.

Welcome to our Brave New World.

Marlon King

2009-11-02T11:47:00.002Z

I don't know what you think, but as Miss Carr, his victim said Mr King should be banned from professional football for life.

For a grown man, a fit and able bodied man to punch a lady in the face because she rejected his advances that were to my mind a sexual assault is abominable.

And Mrs. King should really reconsider her relationship with him. Not only because while she is pregnant and presumably waiting at home with their three children he is trying to find a sexual partner in a night club, but because such violence could quite easily one day be turned on her.

As for his brag "I'm a multimillionaire, love... you're not even in my league." I can only say, neither am I, thank heavens. I would never stoop so low.

Harriet Harman – Don’t Sack Spouses

2009-11-01T19:14:00.002Z

Harriet Harman has said that MP's who pay family members to work for them should not be forced to sack them.

Parents are not allowed to pay family members to help with childcare because such a system would be open to abuse. Why should MPs employ their families when they have shown they cannot be trusted to apply allowances legally, let alone fairly?

Sorry, Mrs. Harman. MPs have had it too good for too long, taken advantage of generous allowances and now comes the time to pay the piper. You'll find little public sympathy and your comment only serves to underline how out of touch you really are.

It proves to me my belief that the Labour Party has ceased to exist, along with morality and integrity in politics. Clawing at each and every straw to try to retain as much as you can when the honourable thing would be as a minimum accept the recommendations with what grace can be mustered in light of the abysmal and flagrant abuse of taxpayers funding.

Drugs are Drugs are Drugs...

2009-10-31T21:49:00.002Z

I'm not going to discuss the resignation of Professor Nutt or government policy. But drugs- including alcohol – have a devastating effect on families. Alcohol is governed by licensing laws with consequences, which could include loss of livelihood if contravened. Drugs however are illegal and therefore unlicensed. It seems that licensing the use of and distribution of illegal drugs might be the way to go. It surely must be worth a trial period. Remove the indirect dangers such as thuggish distributers who work outside the law, impure drugs whose 'fillers' (the substances various levels of distribution 'cut' the product with to increase profits) which are often more dangerous than the drug. Remove the 'street cred' value and restrict the usage to adults and we might clean up the drug scene, improve society in general and reduce crime.

The problem with this approach is it won't work. Minors will find ways to access drugs. Adults will supply them. There will still be an illegal trade to avoid the excise duty any government will surely apply.

It is my opinion that the only answer is zero tolerance. Prosecute whether in possession of a gram or a kilogram. Change the law so that possession is not the only criterion by which a user/supplier can be prosecuted. Chemical testing to establish contact with drugs should be used. Make the consequences severe.

I understand the argument that prohibition doesn't work and often quoted is the US Volstead Act (prohibition). But this did not work for two reasons. First, it was an attempt to prohibit the use of an already legal and socially accepted intoxicant. Second, the Act only prohibited the distribution of alcohol. It did not prohibit the use or sale of alcohol.

I also advocate the removal of classification of drugs. A gram of heroin or a pound of cannabis should be treated equally under the law. Sentencing should be adjusted according to mitigating circumstances, not that this is bad because it's heroin or not so bad because it's cannabis.

It is certain current legislation is not working. Equally, educating on the dangers of drugs alone is inadequate. Telling people a drug is dangerous creates an atmosphere of disbelief when drug users can be seen to suffer few ill effects from their habit in the short term.

Both solutions have their advantages and disadvantages. The only certainty is that something must be done.

Anti-Slavery Laws and Single Parents

2009-10-30T10:38:00.003Z

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8325158.stm

Liberty and Anti-Slavery International are asking for laws to protect workers, particularly migrant workers from exploitation- effectively slavery. Interesting that one of their suggestions is 'a second offence of forced labour, [punishable by a maximum of seven years in prison.]'

Isn't that what the Government has just imposed on single parents of young children?

UK to Block Web Access in Effort to Control Piracy

2009-10-29T11:52:00.002Z

The UK is to introduce laws forcing ISP's to cut off internet access to illegal file sharers. This will be a last resort after warning letters and a first stage of reducing internet speeds.

Here's what I say. For years the big players in music and film have charged excessively for music and video. CD's doubled the price of an album, even though they were cheaper to produce. DVD's are much cheaper to produce than video tapes yet the cost is similar, if not more. They have trouble getting the providers of illegal content, so focus the laws on the users. And now the technology is available for the ordinary user to bypass the artificially high prices, they are crying it ain't fair.

Sell your content at a realistic price that actually reflects production costs and most of us will be happy to pay. You don't like being ripped off. Neither do we.

Now, apart from the moral and legal implications, there are the technical facts. It is already easy to encrypt downloads. There are already networks that give anonymity.
So how do they propose enforcing the law? If your data is encrypted, you must be downloading illegally? If you download large files you must be doing something illegal?

Well no, this cannot be the criteria for deciding guilt. Many legitimate programs are now hundreds of megabytes. Cloud computing means people back up huge amounts of data to the web. Online gaming eats at bandwidth. And many homes have multiple computers (We have four and my son plays online games on his Xbox for many hours a week.) It seems we are being given the technology but governments are intervening to restrict its (legal) use.

And besides, if I get a letter from my ISP, before there is any penalty I can switch ISP and wait my first letter from them.

This has not been thought through. Whatever technology is used to try to catch file sharers, a way round it will soon be found. Just look at how quickly video encryption was cracked. And as I already said if the criteria are to be large downloads or encrypted data, then they lose the moral high ground. The innocent will be presumed guilty. Especially in a household of four where only one illegally downloads, yet all have their internet access cut.

The only fair way is a change in social attitudes away from glorifying huge profits at the expense of the consumer to reasonable profits and reasonable prices that by their nature discourage theft. Why would I want to wait two or more hours to download a film at the risk of prosecution if I can go down the video store and buy it for £5, and be watching it in 20 minutes or less?

Which introduces another, often ignored point. Piracy actually encourages sales rather than reducing them. Because many people who download music and video from illegal sites often go on to buy the original content. Yes, I know it sounds silly, but they do actually want to own the original in its nice packaging and on a CD or DVD that will not deteriorate over time. But they do not want to risk £10 or £20 on an original they might not enjoy. Back to price again! So they download an album and if they like it, they buy it.

Story Here

Careers Advice for Seven-Year-Olds

2009-10-28T11:55:00.003Z

The government now wants to give careers advice and introduce university to 7 year olds.

What a ridiculous idea. Children need to be allowed to be children. Better focus on discipline and teaching children to be able to read, write and do basic mathematics before moving to high school. That is the place to introduce them to careers advice and the aspiration of university.

But if we look closely, this is just another 'seen to be doing something' scheme by the government which I believe will do little for children, education or employment.

Indeed, I suggest it may have the opposite effect, that of reducing aspirations because children feel pressurised and 'switch off'.

Considering, also that there just is not and probably never again will be such a thing as full employment, we are setting up young children to fail, the effects of which could be devastating both at a personal and socio-economic level.

And what do we tell the children who we convince university is the career path for them, those this idea is focused toward from deprived backgrounds, when they find they cannot afford to go to university?

Once again I see a proposal that on the face of it appears to be advantageous to the disadvantaged, but the result will be the opposite. The education and aspirations of those people will be reduced, leaving an underclass that can more easily be controlled.

I suggest to the government another way, if better education and greater aspiration is the aim. First, we invest in real jobs that produce goods people want. Pay a decent wage and allow employees the right to negotiate better conditions. Then we will find more children in families where the mother can afford to stay at home to raise children. We will have a generation of children growing up in a working household and will see that as the norm, rather than benefits and low esteem.

And you never know, contrary to popular belief that high wages cause inflation and cripple the economy, all this extra money to spend and being spent might actually stimulate and strengthen the economy, truly bringing prosperity to all.

Invasion Alert!

2009-10-27T18:04:00.002Z

This government has been one of the most intrusive, legislative and paranoid in the history of Britain. Emails and phone calls monitored, credit and debit card transactions logged, CCTV in every town and city and now they want to try to discover who you might be sleeping with. Yes, the 2011 census will want to know about overnight visitors.

I cannot think of any realistic assumptions one could deduce from having this information. What possible relevance can a mate staying over have? Or a girlfriend who missed the last bus? Or you daughters school friend, a casual pick-up or a regular Saturday night visitor?

What are we going to hear? That there is a massive trend toward homosexuality because many males had male friends stay overnight? Or that benefits cuts can be justified because you have had an unemployed friend stay one night, so why not all week?

And even if a plausible case for having this information was made, how will they know we are telling the truth? It might be possible with a family member, but can they know that a friend stayed if you say they did not? It throws the whole census into disrepute, making the figures and assumptions there from meaningless.

It can only be assumed this is dataveillance for its own sake or for some nefarious government purpose.

And I thought 1984 was 25 years ago.

David Miliband calms to have no EU Job Ambitions

2009-10-26T10:13:00.003Z

"I am not a candidate for that. I am not available," he said, adding that he was "committed" to his current job.

That just convinces me he wants the job. He is, after all a politician and when such a plain statement is made, with no ambiguity one has to assume the opposite.

He goes on to say that Tony Blair is the best man to be the first EU president. Here, I agree with him. If he does the same job as EU president as he did as British Prime Minister, he'll split the EU, seeing it a multi-tier state ruined and bankrupt. Then the British can get back to governing Britain.

Human Rights Act v British Bill of Rights

2009-10-25T12:32:00.002Z

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8319703.stm

Keir Starmer, Director of Public Prosecutions says the Human Rights Act (HRA) works. He says it is not biased in favour of the criminal.

Shadow justice secretary Dominic Grieve's plans to abolish the HRA and replace it with the British Bill of Rights (BBR).

Well, firstly Mr. Starmer should know that any law that is perceived by the public to be biased or otherwise not in the public interest is by definition an unfair law. It doesn't matter if the law is fair in practice. The perception of bias is enough to warrant a re-assessment of the law.

Repealing and introducing a new, fairer law that gives and is perceived to give a balance in favour of the victim rather than the criminal is the right thing to do. I personally, and suspect most ordinary people aren't greatly interested if a criminal's rights are infringed. Criminals should not expect the same protection under the law, save that they receive a fair trial.

I am more than a little worried, however that the idea is a Tory one. It does make me wonder just what are they up to? It would be fairly easy to introduce draconian legislation we all agree with concerning criminals but that also criminalises the innocent.

Like the saying goes, be careful what you wish for. You might just get it!

Call to end middle class benefits

2009-10-24T22:46:00.003+01:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8319646.stm

I have to say I totally agree. While I am not sure I am in agreement with where the cut-off point should be, I do think benefits should be targeted at the most needy. I don't believe a millionaire should be able to claim child benefit. I don't believe a rich pensioner should get a heating allowance purely on the basis they are old.

The problem I have with this suggestion is that the money saved will not benefit the genuinely needy. I think the money saved will be used to reduce borrowing so the government looks good or will be used for tax breaks for the wealthy.

Even if these two scenarios do not arise and the money is used to help the needy, I think we will find the hangers-on, who already give genuine claimants a bad name, who already know how to play the system will get the money. The genuinely needy will get the blame.

Nick Griffin on Question Time

2009-10-23T23:01:00.002+01:00

Well, I watched Question Time and I was not persuaded by Nick Griffin to don a bed sheet and terrorise anybody thinking or looking different to me. Neither was I persuaded that he or his party were legitimate or honest. But I was dismayed that the impression I got was of David Dimbleby and his panel using the forum to specifically attack Nick Griffin- not his policies or beliefs but the man himself. I have to reluctantly admit to a certain amount of sympathy for the man. And I have to also admit I thought he stood up rather well, considering his opinion is generally abhorrent to most right thinking people.

You might think this attack on his person reasonable. I do not. Trying to destroy the man will only win him sympathy. Destroying his beliefs will render him and his cause impotent.

Truancy at Record Level

2009-10-23T17:49:00.013+01:00

According to this report, truancy is at record levels. Not really surprising when I know of at least three local children who have not attended school since they were 14 and are not in any other educational program as they are regularly seen walking the streets. Nothing, it seems is being done.

This despite the report 'Truancy jailing every two weeks' because it certainly is not happening round here. Or if it is happening, it isn't having any effect.

When I see three girls from the same street leave education at 13/14 because they are pregnant, I have to wonder at the society our de-regulation and liberalism is creating. And of those three, only one prosecution. Then it was only the father, despite him being invited to stay in the family home by the parents.

We should bring back the 'wagman' who instilled fear in children and parents alike when I was at school. With today's digital connectivity an unauthorized absence report from each school could be sent to the LEA or a local communication point who can then send Mr. 'Wagman' to the house to question the parents and assess whether the child is legitimately off school or 'wagging it', with or without the parents consent. Appropriate action should then be taken.

Or is this, together with student loans, tuition fees etc. another part of the educational 'dumbing down' plan to keep us in our place?

Let's face it. If we don't enforce the law and educate the children, they won't grow up to be a thorn in the government's side.

That could be New Labours election cry. 'You'll never miss what you never had. And if you had it, you shouldn't have.'

Target pavement cyclists, say MPs

2009-10-23T17:42:00.003+01:00

There is a lot of legalese and moral talk here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8319630.stm

Of course it is illegal for cyclists to ride on the road. It puts pedestrians in danger. Some, I know ride on pavements because they are afraid to ride on roads because of the volume of traffic and speeding and inconsiderate motorists.

I do it very occasionally myself. When one considers that round here, the council's idea of cycle paths is a white line drawn down the middle of the pavement, it is not too surprising that cyclists stay on the pavement or assume pavement cycling is o.k. When one considers that pedestrians rarely accommodate cyclists by keeping to the pedestrian side of these paths one can see a cyclist's frustration at being targeted as anti-social.

On the rare instances I do ride on the pavement, I go slowly, slow down to walking pace when passing a pedestrian from either direction and resume road riding as soon as practical. I also ensure my bike is roadworthy- another legal requirement rarely enforced.

I think I have a solution to this. Reintroduce the cycling proficiency test. Make it a requirement for cyclists to ride a bike. Charge a small fee, which could be waived should genuine hardship be shown. And then enforce the laws we already have and prosecute those that refuse to obey them.

Nick Griffin on Question Time?

2009-10-22T09:24:00.002+01:00

Nick griffin, leader of the BNP has been asked to appear on Question Time. A lot of people are upset and some intend to protest.

There are two schools of thought here. One, that the protesters, both verbal and those who will travel to the studio are giving the BNP the oxygen of publicity.

The other, that a man with very similar views achieved power democratically in 1930's Germany because people did nothing.

I'm not sure, myself. The British people can be somewhat naive when it comes to politics. But surely, that is the essence of democracy. An assumption that the electorate have the intelligence to decide their own future and government.

We could have an Uncle Joe (Stalin) telling us we don't know what's best, but he does.

We could have an anarchistic system of devolved government so that each town or collection of towns decides for itself.

Neither sounds too bad- as long as we pick the right Uncle Joe or the right neighbours to collude with.

But then we are back to democracy, because we want the right to kick out the leaders if we don't like the way they lead.

So I think I have to say, let's see Nick Griffin on Question Time. Let's see how he answers questions about economics, education, benefits, unemployment and Britain's place in the world. I am quite sure when he reduces each answer to immigration and the inferiority of some races, we will see him for what he is.

I think, though we might see him squirming, unable to answer and uncomfortable with the truth.

But if we prevent him from appearing there will be many people who will see it as martyrdom.

Acer Aspire 6930z

2009-10-22T09:03:00.002+01:00

In March I bought an Acer Aspire 6930z laptop for £399.

It's a pretty robust machine and has some good features. It's pretty powerful with an Intel T3400 2.1 gig processor and 3 gig of ram.

After a couple of months, the touchpad stopped working- the pad and the left and right click buttons. I was sure this was hardware related, but went through the usual procedures such as update the driver, system restore, back to factory defaults etc.

Contacted Ebuyer and they didn't try to run through lots of fixes, but immediately arranged a return. They confirmed the fault was a hardware failure and said a new laptop had been shipped, which I received within a week of returning the faulty machine.

What a fantastic service! Can't fault them. I have shopped with Ebuyer for a number of years, never had an issue before and when I did, got a fantastic service.

Then, a couple of months later, the touchpad failed again. Contacted Ebuyer who said I needed to send it back to Acer because they had no replacements and if they attempted a repair it would void my Acer warranty.

Now I know under UK law I could have insisted they deal with the issue since my contract was with them and not with Acer. But Ebuyer have never let me down and I didn't want to get all legal and bolshie with them. So I contacted Acer. A return was arranged for Monday. My laptop was beck today. In fact, about half an hour ago. I haven't unpacked it yet, but assume that it is repaired. (I'll soon let you know if it isn't!) Once again, can't fault the service. I was a little worried since I had read horror stories on the 'net where Acer had held laptops for months, were unable to locate them etc.etc. So I thought let's show the other side- the stories that are rarely reported, where the service is excellent.

Just a couple of issues I have- so let's hope somebody from Acer reads this.

First, the helpdesk seems to have been outsourced to India or some similar country. I had some difficulty understanding them and making myself understood. This of course meant the cost of calling them will be greater than calling a UK helpdesk who would not have needed to repeat, nor me repeat to them almost every statement and comment.

Also, the fact that this is twice the touchpad has failed. It suggests that the touchpad may be poorly designed. Which means it will be an ongoing issue, beyond the warranty. I do hope not!

Bereaved Treated Badly by Banks

2009-10-22T00:33:00.002+01:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8311552.stm

It appears that bereaved partners, wives and husbands are having difficulty gaining access to funds when their spouse dies, even if they if there is a will in place. The banks, who one would think have had enough bad press, are holding back payments, claiming it is training its staff.

Well, do they put staff in charge of investment without proper training? How many staff are allowed to deal billions on the money market without proper training? So why is it that staff dealing with customers or their deceased family is in need of training? I'll hazard a guess. The longer they can hold on to your money, the more they can make from your hardship and distress.

The banks have learned nothing. Their sole aim is to make money. Any customer benefits derived from that aim are purely coincidental.

And don't forget, it is virtually impossible to do anything financial today without using a bank. From benefits payments to buying a house, a bank is involved somewhere.

BNP to consider non-white members

2009-10-21T08:37:00.002+01:00

According to this BBC report the BNP are to consider non-white members. As I read it, the law says they must.

There is a very interesting video on the page I suggest you watch in which BNP spokesman Chris Roberts appears to be very uncomfortable discussing the issue.

The rights and wrongs I do not intend to discuss. Immigration is a problem, I don't believe the UK has got it right but do not adhere to the view a person should be discriminated against purely on the basis of his or her colour, any more than on their age, weight or political affiliations.

I would suggest, however the Mr. Roberts and Mr. Griffin have the courage of their convictions, state their case clearly and if it is opposed to current legislation be strong enough to take the consequences. The discomfort shown by Mr. Roberts serves only to support my contention that whatever they believe, they will present themselves in a manner designed to persuade the electorate differently. Well, they are politicians (sort of) after all.

Finland makes broadband a legal right

2009-10-20T01:08:00.003+01:00

Finland makes broadband a legal right for its citizens. Uruguay gives a laptop to every primary school pupil with plans to extend the provision to older schoolchildren next year. What are we doing in Britain? Arguing over whether formal education should start at five or at six years old.

I have theory about education in Britain. That there is a state conspiracy to see its people less well educated to better suit them to the totalitarian state the major parties seem to be inching toward.

While more and more of us go on to college or university, the quality of education seems to be falling. At the same time, the cost of higher education is being put beyond the reach of ordinary people. And this is done by the people who got where they are through free higher education paid for by the taxes of our parents and grandparents.

There have only been two major and successful revolutions in the UK. In 1215 when the Barons forced King John to sign Magna Carta and the English civil war. This is because the rulers, be they king or commoner, elected or appointed have known not to push too hard. Because the British people are essentially loyal, forgiving and accommodating. But the two instances stated show we will not be pushed too hard or too far.

Man 31 Give 3 Year Old Cigarette

2009-10-19T18:02:00.002+01:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/8308946.stm

While the reported facts of this case are themselves appalling there is no suggestion of the relationship of the 31 year old man to the 3 year old or the 14 year old.

I would like to know what a 31 year old man is doing in the company of young girls, apparently encouraging inappropriate behaviour. One has to wonder where this encouragement might lead.

Another Manufacturer Gone

2009-10-18T14:38:00.002+01:00

LDV's machinery is to be stripped out and sent to China. So along with the loss of skills that made us manufacturing capital of the world, we are also losing, piece by piece the means of production.

If you're an engineer, I suggest you re-train. Because even if the will was there, the means to resume British industry is not.

And don't suppose the money men will invest heavily in manufacturing when they can sit back and make just as much, if not more merely by shuffling money and goods around on a computer screen.

Underage Drinking

2009-10-18T02:16:00.002+01:00

I have just read - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8309827.stm - how the problem of underage drinking and thus related problems are being dealt with. It is successful the article appears to claim, because of the numbers involved. Well, when we are talking thousands of underage drinkers, amazingly from 10 to 17 years of age being effectively 'told off' one must suppose it's not working.

As with many aspects of criminal and anti-social behaviour there are solutions already prescribed by law to deal with such incidents. It is illegal to sell alcohol to minors. Use the existing law. Remove the licences of those that refuse to comply- do it once, be warned, do it twice be prosecuted. No excuses.

Now, hand on heart, and somewhat familiar with the intricacies and contradictions of British law, I am unsure whether it is actually illegal for a minor to drink. I suspect the crime is in the sale, not in the drinking. This to me is ridiculous. If minors wish to pretend to be adults by partaking in adult behaviour, let the law suppose them to be adults. I agree there should be some leeway, aid them in correcting their behaviour but we need consequences in the event their behaviour cannot be modified by helpful intervention.

Watchdog to get tough on Health Service

2009-10-16T23:00:00.002+01:00

I am heartily fed up of this government, and its predecessor introducing quangos, watchdogs, monitors and other sundry employment agencies for their pals. While they remain above investigation, or as the recent expenses scandal shows, above consequences they pass laws, introduce working practices and force unnecessary, inadequate and untrained managers onto services that by definition cannot be run on monetary disciplines. Then blame the services, not the restrictions introduced by the managers for failing to meet the targets imposed on them.