The most overused word in the bansturbators lexicon

And that word is 'could' it's frequently used in odd statistics to try and justify something being done which cannot be proven to be true under any circumstances.
Express.

25,000 lives could be saved if we cut salt
REDUCING the amount of salt we eat could save 25,000 lives a year, health experts said last night.
Deaths from heart disease and strokes would dramatically fall if shoppers checked the ingredients of everyday foods like bread and cereals.
Doctors blame the high levels of salt-laden processed foods we eat for pushing up blood pressure levels, raising the risk of heart disease.
They say most Britons have no idea how much salt they consume, or what the guideline amounts are.

These are pretty much the same group of people who came up with the alcohol unit recommendation, by plucking figures out of thin air remember?
Salt is necessary, the amount of salt in our blood equals that of seawater and this is no coincidence as evolution should you believe it infers that we descended from marine life, it's pretty much the same for all mammals, too much, you might die eventually, too little and you die quicker. Reducing your salt intake to zero as some idiots will try will actually kill you. A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (May 4, 2011), reported that among 3,681 study subjects followed for as long as 23 years, the cardiovascular death rate was more than 50 percent higher among those on who consumed less salt. So using an actual scientific test for comparison it appears that doctors and the government in the UK are recommending a course of action that will actually kill us quicker than hypertension which might (just might) be exacerbated by salt but which salt doesn't actually cause. (Stress and misery are far more likely along with a genetic tendency to hypertension)
I have high blood pressure, my doctor and her nurse continually check it and recommend ever higher doses of something which might bring it down (no luck yet) Yet I feel perfectly healthy if a little old these days and when checking my diet they found I'm actually eating far healthier than they apparently do.
So junk science is being used with the word 'could' to try and justify ever greater intrusions into our lives by legislation which the cost of which will be passed onto us.
Perhaps when reading the word 'could' we should substitute 'probably will not' instead...

♫ When Irish eyes are crying ♪

Another day another England victory, though this was a far harder test than Scotland at home. England had not won in Dublin for ten years and our record against the Irish in recent years has not been that great, though the Welsh still can be considered our hoodoo team in the Six Nations. Still this was a (relatively) inexperienced England side (250 caps) vs a more experienced Irish one (500 caps) yet it didn't show at all in a scrappy first half not helped by the weather which led to a lot of handling errors though mostly on the Irish side of things. One major area of failing though for England was the line up throws, for some reason or other the communication skills were not so great yesterday and there were a lot of unforced errors though the Irish were unable to capitalise on them. Still England led at half time by 0 to 6 courtesy of some well taken penalties.
The second half started badly as a series of unforced errors led to Ireland getting three points back on the board followed up by equalising the score after James Haskell was given a yellow card for hitting the ball with his foot when attempting to leave a ruck. At this point with Haskell off the pitch for ten minutes you'd suspect a game change opportunity for Ireland and indeed they got one with England suddenly putting the lock down with two more penalties and an almost try for Tuilagi leaving the score at Ireland 6 : 12 England. It was a scrappy match and Ireland can complain about key injuries on the pitch, though they certainly could consider themselves lucky that Cian Healy remained on the pitch after a vicious stamp on an England players ankle during a first half ruck.
So a good victory for England, grinding out a result against an Irish side which dominated the possession, though did not look like scoring any tries and indeed very rarely looked threatening or able to gain ball possession in England's 22'. A mark of a good side is its ability to grind out results when the conditions or opposition make it necessary. This England side are not a great side yet, but it looks quite promising.

The enemy within

There have been warnings about hate preachers for a number of years now, though the MSM rarely if ever took them seriously. They were far more concerned with the so called 'thugs' of the 'far right' who as any examination of the evidence would show were neither thuggish nor far right in any way shape or form. Perhaps it was that these hate preachers were just preaching to minorities and small minorities at that, plus the groups they were preaching too were voting fodder and so protected by the powers that be under various bits of legislation and political correctness to the point where valid accusations of a two tier system of justice were being levelled at law enforcement and the judiciary. (Look up Emma West still untried after more than a year, still presumed guilty by some despite evidence that she was set up and the evidence edited to suit)
There are people who are out there preaching hate against us, and it's only now just becoming obvious to organisations such as Ofcom that the MSM have occasionally been complicit in helping them reach out to a far wider audience than they would normally be able to get too.
Telegraph.

The communications watchdog, Ofcom, has made a series of rulings against channels which allowed “inflammatory” material to be broadcast in breach of rules which forbid extreme opinions gaining a platform on British television. The cases, disclosed today, include examples of an imam telling viewers that those who disrespect the prophet Mohammed should be killed, and another broadcaster saying homosexuals should be beaten and tortured. The stations were found to have committed serious breaches of the broadcasting code by allowing the extreme opinions to be aired unchallenged. Last night experts warned that the extent and seriousness of the broadcasting breaches raises questions over whether extreme Muslim speakers who were previously confined to small audiences in mosques are able to reach thousands more people by broadcasting intolerant teachings on television. Although the channels have tiny audiences compared to the mainstream, they are targeted at Muslim communities, including people of Pakistani background, with some of the content being broadcast in Urdu and other languages.

Now if you or I were to make speeches telling others that gays were to be killed, unbelievers executed and that anyone who insults our religion should be massacred I suspect our feet wouldn't even touch the ground before we found ourselves in a prison cell awaiting trial for 'hate speech'
Just recently Lars Hedegaard a 70 year old European journalist who is critical of Islamic fundamentalism was visited by an assassin at his front door, the attacker was described as foreign looking, however two years ago Hedegaard was put on trial for discussing 'honour killings' in Denmark though the charges were later dismissed though nothing he said would have warranted a trial other than the Danish states attempts to appease.
In our country we have 'shariah' patrols in places like Tower Hamlets where non muslims are told that they are in a muslim area and attacked for 'disrespecting islam, attacks on gays have happened and also on people drinking.A week ago a young woman had acid thrown in her face by a veiled person, her crime? Possibly working for Victoria's Secrets.
For far too long the powers that be and our media have been brushing under the carpet and/or ignoring the hate coming from this minority because it suited their purpose. Oh I'll allow the usual caveats that it's not all the minority etc. But there are those amongst them sucking at a very dangerous extremist poison and are protected by the muslim community as a whole.
Even if we shut down the hate preachers, they'll continue to have their adherents and they now live in numbers amongst us.
If you aren't worried about this, then you should be.

Give it a rest

The University of East Anglia infamous for its Climate research Unit and its lying researchers has another waste of space working for its Media Studies Dept. Dr Brett Mills head of the dept wrote in European Journal of Clinical Studies that Sir David Attenborough's various wild life programmes do not show enough of the prevalence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. You really can't make this stuff up...
MSN News.

A study carried out by The University of East Anglia has shown that Attenborough's BBC programmes do not depict enough gay animals.
The study, led by Dr Brett Mills, claims that the programmes too often create narratives of animal life based around the traditional heterosexual family unit, even though those animals may be gay.
Dr Mills says, 'Heterosexuality is upheld as the norm in wildlife documentaries and the idea of the family it presents is one which equates the family with heterosexuality.
'The central role in documentary stories of pairing, mating and raising offspring commonly rests on assumptions of heterosexuality within the animal kingdom.
'This is despite a wealth of scientific evidence which demonstrates that many non-human species have complex and changeable forms of sexual activity, with heterosexuality only one of many possible options.'

Now it may well be that certain animals are queerer than a queer thing being queer, however it's all down to interpretation of the commentator and researcher, it's not as if we can ask the animals now is it?

Picture courtesy of Daily Mail

 As you can see from Dr Mills' comments, he simply does not know what actually might be going on but is interpreting the data to suit his study rather than the observed behaviour of Sir David, it may well be that he's right, though I rather suspect that most people will go with Sir David and presume that Dr Mills has some form of axe to grind or is being funded to 'normalise' gay behaviour despite most of us not giving a damn and not wishing to have our noses rubbed into the constant litany of gay propaganda.
Media studies has a pretty bad rep when it comes to academic esteem and clearly Dr Mills is a leading light in its never ending search to plumb the depths of inanity by studying what people watch and reinterpreting it to fit the desires and agenda of the powers that be.
Then again, as with the CRU tape scandal, East Anglia university has a reputation for mercenary academic behaviour and following the money, churning out any old rubbish so long as the funding is there. As gay rights seems to be the big thing on the agenda with Cameron's government, it's not too surprising we're being hit with drivel like this.

Regulation

There are always some people with something to hide, be it from friends, family or in the case of (so called) celebrities and politicians pretty much everyone. That doesn't excuse attempts to get information about them illegally using the so called public interest get out clause if it's in the manner of snide gossip rather than criminal activity. But it doesn't excuse them attempting to rewrite the law to prevent legal scrutiny of their affairs, after all, the laws are already there it just requires the police to actually act upon them.
Mail. (usual caveats)

Free speech campaigners yesterday condemned a House of Lords amendment to introduce statutory regulation of the Press as an ‘unacceptable’ attempt to ‘hold the Government to ransom’.
Earlier in the week, an alliance of Labour, Lib Dem and rebel Tory peers passed the proposal to introduce an arbitration service for members of the public who have been wronged by the Press.
The amendment to the Defamation Bill raised the possibility that some of the most controversial aspects of Lord Justice Leveson’s report on the Press would become law by the back door.
Prime Minister David Cameron opposes statutory regulation of newspapers.
But Index on Censorship has condemned the amendment, proposed by Labour peer Lord Puttnam, the film producer.
The group, which has been campaigning to defend freedom of speech for 40 years, warned the proposal threatens the ‘vital’ Defamation Bill.

Now like a lot of people suspect, I believe that any tinkering with our limited freedom of speech has an ulterior motive, with politicians it's probably expenses and the occasional sex scandal, though I can't help wondering if the recent Huhne case might have been unearthed had the law been stricter.
Celebrities and politicians live off the back of publicity, they have to put up with the press scrutinising their lives in a manner which the general public as a rule do not. Such however is the price of fame and occasionally notoriety and frankly attempts to prevent the press reporting the bad along with the good make my hackles rise.
There are already laws in place to deal with libel and slander, we do not need more regulation, just better enforcement. After all, if you look at the current Savile case and the ongoing islamic grooming cases, there are ways for the general public to be kept in the dark for years if permanently.
If you lie down with lions, you have to take the occasional risk that you'll get gored if you do something stupid. Trying to remove the teeth and claws of the lions makes them something else entirely...

Humour (and the lack of it)

How many times must we reitterate the fact that no one has a right not to be offended?
As many times as it takes apparently...
Mail. (usual caveats)

A local councillor has been suspended for posting a comment on Facebook comparing Muslim children wearing burkas to bin bags.
Chris Joannides also messaged friends during meetings with his constituents asking for updates on football scores and complaining about missing his favourite television programmes.
The Conservative councillor for Enfield, in north London, has denied being Islamophobic and defended his comments as 'blokeish banter'.
Mr Joannides posted a photo showing a woman and child dressed in burkas standing next to two bin bags.
He wrote underneath: 'I saw her standing there and I told her she had three beautiful children. She didn't have to get all p***ed off and threaten me. It was an honest mistake!'

Tbh I found it funny, however as a Councillor he should have known what would happen next  when the multiculti humourless you're a racist cos you're white brigade get involved being offended in proxy for everyone wearing a burka.

Local resident Samantha Cox said: 'His comments might seem harmless, but they are incredibly offensive.
'He is comparing bin bags to Muslim children and that cannot be right, "blokeish banter" or not.'

Which suggests Samantha Cox needs a humour transplant too. Though perhaps she didn't see the picture, or is one of those people who believe that criticism via humour is racist/sexist/islamophobic.
No doubt Mr Joannides will utter a suitable apology (forced) and have this thrown in his face every so often by the opposition. But sadly another blow against freedom of speech will have been eroded again by those who get offended in our name...

Too little, too late

Some of the Lib Dems must be getting a tad desperate when looking towards the next general election. Down in the poll's becoming increasingly unpopular and having reneged on several electoral promises as part of the compromise they made to share power, they're discovering the price of that power.
It's very unusual for an elected party to remain in power indefinitely, the urge to meddle and form society along party doctrine usually ends up with them becoming increasingly unpopular as they move away from what ordinary people want into doctrinaire la la land. Some however see the writing on the wall and seek to distance themselves from the party by jumping onto the band wagon of popular causes...
Mail. (usual caveats)

Immigrant communities cannot adopt a ‘pick ’n’ mix approach’ to living in a liberal democracy, a Home Office minister will insist today.
Liberal Democrat Jeremy Browne will attack multicultural doctrines which have meant the state turning a blind eye to so-called ‘honour crimes’, forced marriage and female genital mutilation.
He will condemn ‘misplaced cultural sensitivities’ for a failure to tackle such issues in Britain.
Speaking at an event in the House of Lords, Mr Browne will warn that ‘thousands – perhaps hundreds of thousands’ of women and girls in this country are not enjoying the proper ‘benefits of living in our liberal society’.
He will add: ‘That is not because of some accident or oversight. It is because of a deliberate rejection of the emancipation revolution and the equal opportunities now afforded to women and girls.
‘This situation is wrong. It is unacceptable for the individual women and girls whose freedom and opportunities are stifled.
'And it is wrong for our society. There cannot be a pick’n’mix approach to living in a benign liberal country. The benefits must be universal, without exceptions or exemptions.
‘I do not believe that cultural relativism provides an excuse to opt out of our shared liberal social settlement. Everyone should enjoy the freedom to make their own choices, without the fear of social coercion.’

Well I've got news for you Mr Browne, the time for such words was back in 1997 when the previous government came in and opened the floodgates of immigration, introduced the Human Rights Act and inculated the divisive policy of multiculturalism and political correctness throughout the branches of the state to make damned sure that all cultures were to be deemed of equal value (save the mainstream one) and above reproach, investigation or condemnation from their critics. This is why Councils like Rotherham and their social services turned a blind eye to the grooming scandal of muslim males of Pakistani/Bangladeshi heritage using underage girls as sex toys for over a decade and in many cases blamed the girls for the exploitation because it was politically incorrect for them to actually blame the perpetrators for doing as their culture did. All cultures being equal and some being more equal than others. This is why we have 'shariah' gangs roaming London's East End beating up gays and telling any woman or drinker that they are in a 'muslim' area and such things are not allowed, because they've been allowed to think they can get away with it and be above criticism. It's why some poor woman who worked in Victoria's Secrets had acid thrown in her face by a veiled woman simply for working in a shop where underwear was sold and not wearing the full islamic marquee outfit as favoured by devotees of the religion of peace who believe the rest of us will either convert, pay protection money or die before they've finished with us.
All this (and more) could have been prevented by integration policies rather than multicultural ones where they were simply allowed to ignore the laws and standards of the country.
So sorry Mr Browne, you've left it too little too late to do anything about this save only in the most draconian of forms, the boil should have been lanced a decade ago, now it looks increasingly like amputation will be needed.

Value for money?

Why is it when airlines will offer bargain flights at ridiculous cheap fares do UKBA manage to get charters to take unwanted foreign nationals home at roughly £5,000 a head?
This is Kent.

DOVER MP Charlie Elphicke has exposed a £9 million bill picked up by the tax-payer to fly home failed asylum seekers and foeign criminals on private jets. The flights are costing a staggering £5,263 for every passenger.
The UK Border Agency has hired planes to return deportees to Iraq, Sri Lanka, Jamica, Nigeria and Afghanistan on seats which cost twice the price of a comparable first class fare.
Mr Elphicke said: "It is ridiculous - and people will be staggered by the cost. It seems inherently wrong that it costs £5,000 to send back people who had no right to be here in the first place."
Figures obtained by Freedom of Information requests and through parliamentary questions revealed that just 45 deportees were carried on each flight in 2011 and 2012. The total bill was £9 million.

 Now I suspect these people don't go back unaccompanied, yet the cost does seem a tad excessive considering that you could simply use RAF transport and parachute the buggers out of the back of a Hercules. (parachute optional) over their country of origin. After all it might discourage them from coming here if they know they'll be 'unkindly' treated if caught.
Wishful thinking I know, there's this idiotic Human Rights Act in the way which means we have to treat criminals better than we do our own citizens. Yet it remains that the UK is a target for immigrants and criminals the world over because our border agency just gives up on trying to catch anyone and we have idiot politicians wanting to declare amnesty for them to boot.
The first thing to go should be the HRA.
Next, illegals get one appeal, then they are out on the next flight, handcuffed if necessary.
All their worldly goods sold off to cover the fare and some form of tracker put into them to prevent re-entry in a place that will leave an obvious scar if removed.
If their families want to go with them, fine, but they don't use them as an excuse to stay.
No legal aid for illegals, if you wish to appeal, it's your cost which will be refunded if you win.
Draconian? Perhaps.
But we need to send a clear message that if you come here illegally, you won't like it at all if you're caught.

And they think this is justice and want it introduced here

Shariah law is the law of islam and is often imposed upon islamic society by muslims. They think it's an equitable and fair way to live, the rest of us think it's medieval barbarism writ large, inflexible, misogynistic and violent. It also permits certain crimes to be committed by muslims that can be paid off by blood money. Naturally a crime against a muslim, the higher the blood money, a crime against the infidel assuming it even gets to court will produce nothing but a few coppers.
Naturally the idiots in our courts and the government along with the liberal left think it's a marvellous idea...
RT.Com.

Public anger has gripped Saudi Arabia after a prominent preacher who raped and beat to death his 5-year-old daughter was sentenced to a few months in jail and a $50,000 fine – known as 'blood money' – to compensate the victim's relatives.
­According to Islamic law, the 'blood money' can be paid in lieu of the death penalty. The preacher's fine was reportedly half the usual amount because the victim was a girl.
Saudi preacher Fayhan Ghamdi, a frequent guest on Muslim TV networks, confessed to using cables and a cane to inflict the injuries, AFP reported, quoting activists from the group ‘Women to Drive.’
Ghamdi reportedly doubted that his daughter, Lama Ghamdi, was a virgin, and forced her to undergo a medical inspection.
In December 2011, Lama was admitted to hospital with multiple injuries, including a crushed skull, broken ribs and left arm, and extensive bruising and burns, according to the activist group. Hospital worker Randa Kaleeb said that the girl's back was broken, and that she had been raped "everywhere."

Just following the example of his false prophet Mohammed who had a penchant for related young girls too no doubt.
This is why we must fight shariah and attempts to imposition itself in our society. Why we have to decide whether we wish to allow islam to prosper in a civilised society and if necessary remove it root and branch from this country as being incompatible with decency and morality. Those who choose to give up their religion and integrate can of course remain, however if you wish to remain a muslim then you can be a muslim elsewhere in one of their wrecked societies which strangely enough they all seem desperate to escape from (can't think why) Problem being of course that they bring the cancer which wrecked those countries with them in the form of islam, though they strangely cannot see it.

Oh Calcutta

Ever since England Rugby's win against the All Blacks back in December of lasy year I have been looking forward to the Six Nations championship just to see if the promises hinted at during that final match of the Autumn  campaign were coming to fruition.
I was not disappointed.
Yes certainly there were areas in which England could improve, however the stupid mistakes and unforced error count which was almost sky high when England were in either their own or their opponents 22' were virtually gone and they have moved away from grinding down their opponents with endless frontal assaults to a game of rapid movement from the ball being moved quickly if possible out of the ruck's and mauls.
Yes it left them exposed at times particularly to a counter attack which Scotland were able to use magnificently on two occasions to get two very good tries, but in the end it left England dominating the field for long periods in which they were the ones forcing the errors rather than has been in the past having errors forced upon them.

The Calcutta cup

Btw, did anyone notice that England appeared to have a very young Brian Blessed playing for them?

Yes, him on the left

Moronic

I have a friend who buys wine because she likes the look of the label, not because it's any good (sometimes it is) or because someone recommended it, she occasionally goes off the bottle shape too. Other people will choose a product for many different reasons, not all of them having to make much sense, it's simply a method of choosing. In the same manner that trying to hide cigarettes or put them into plain packs won't work, it simply gives the bansturbators something to do to justify their existence, nothing more, nothing less.
Telegraph.

Bottles of wine and beer could display how many calories they contain to discourage people from drinking too much, under new Government plans.
Anna Soubry, a health minister, said officials have been in talks about “the possible inclusion of calorie content on labels” with the alcoholic drinks industry.
Ministers are concerned about the issue as an official study has linked the high calories of alcoholic drinks to people being overweight and obese.
They are separately looking at how to reduce deaths caused by alcohol and tackle anti-social behaviour fuelled by drink.
It is thought displaying calorie content could encourage those who watch their weight to moderate consumption.
Lager can be as fattening as a slice of pizza at around 250 calories per pint, according to the Drink Aware Trust.

Meddlers and bansturbators all. I doubt many of us (if any) give a damn what's written on the label so long as it's doing what it's supposed to be doing. Still, if there's a way to stick it to the public whilst justifying taking our money off us to do it that's what these people will do. They don't realise truly what a waste of space they are, they get off on power, not alcohol.
In an ideal world the government would not bother to stick its nose into our business, nor give taxpayers cash to fake charities like the Drink Aware Trust. They'd simply do their job of making sure that we don't get invaded and that there were few barriers to trade as well as making sure a few basic laws were maintained. If people wanted to get drunk, that was their business, so long as they weren't bothering anyone else by doing so. If they were, well there would be drunk tanks and courts if necessary, no relentless propaganda to tell them to give up something that helps them ignore the constant propaganda.
Perhaps people would drink less if they were happier?
Happier being less government and state interference in their lives.
It's a thought...

Come and see the madness inherent in the system

You'd think that having cheated the system you'd face some sort of penalty if you were on benefits. Then again judging by the amount of tales coming around you might not be all that surprised.
Express.

Britain's farcical benefits system was exposed yesterday after a cheating mother was told she can now claim twice as much rather than go to jail.
Joanne Gibbons, 23, fiddled £3,140 in income support while holding down two jobs, a court was told.
But after she was caught it was revealed the shop assistant mother-of-one was entitled to claim £130 a week – £64 a week more than the amount she was swindling the taxpayer.

Yes, that's right, she was actually saving us money till she got caught. Now, no prison and extra cash because she's entitled to more in the way of benefits.
No wonder that there are some out there who are quite happy making only a partial attempt to even look for work and not trying to get any. Yes, I realise that there are some out there who would simply just love to have a job, any job as it's a form of self respect. Yet the madness of the system means that in many cases they are actually better off not having a job. Whilst this woman might well have tried to keep on with her work whilst claiming extra benefits had she known they were available it does beggar belief that she could simply have given up the jobs and been on more money had she known to apply for it.
Something clearly needs to be done, but it won't, politicians will tinker, but they won't actually solve things.
They never do.