You don't say?

Once again the government seems to have (rather like the previous government) a flawed grasp of good housekeeping where it comes to budgetting. It like Labour appears to believe that the best and most efficient way to do anything is to tax us all to the hilt and then distribute what's left of the proceeds to various groups deemed 'worthy' by them.
Telegraph.

A scheme to “bribe” new mothers to breastfeed with shopping vouchers is flawed because there is no way to check the recipients are breastfeeding their babies, an MP has warned.
Researchers said the trial scheme is an attempt to tackle “stubbornly low” rates of breastfeeding in parts of the UK. From this week, new mothers living in parts of Yorkshire and Derbyshire will be offered £120 in vouchers for high-street chain stores such as Argos, Debenhams and Poundstretcher and supermarkets Tesco, Asda and Morrisons, if they sign forms declaring that they have breast-fed their child for six weeks, with a further £80 at six months. Researchers admitted there is nothing to stop the women who enrol in the scheme from using the vouchers to buy cigarettes or alcohol.

Gosh, researchers have found that people will behave like people when given vouchers or cash and spend them on stuff they want, rather than what the health fascists believe they should spend it on.
Bribing a woman to breast feed is probably a waste of time anyway, they'll either do it because they want to or simply not, but if you throw in a taxpayer bribe, well hey, they'll agree to breastfeed whether they actually do or not and simply pocket the cash. It's exactly this sort of government profligacy that irritates the hell out of taxpayers because it's simply not necessary, same with green taxation and family tax credits.
Just lower the bloody taxes and stop funding enviroloonies, quango's health Nazis, fake charities and give us all a break from those who hector us from the public purse!
You know it makes sense.

Negotiating from a position of strength

When negotiating for something, it's always best to do it from a position of strength, however the Tory party despite having a significant EUphobe presence cannot deal with the issue of the EU as some see it because its leader wants to keep us in as he's repeatedly stated.
Express.

DAVID Cameron last night hit back at opponents inside the Tory party over his battle to win better terms of membership from the EU.
The Prime Minister struck out amid claims that by repeatedly saying he wants the UK to stay in Europe he is weakening his own chances of getting a better deal.
Opponents inside and outside the Conservative party are increasingly concerned about current membership terms, which will allow in a new flood of migrants when Bulgarians and Romanians get the right to come to Britain from January.
“The Prime Minister couldn’t have been clearer – there will be a referendum by the end of 2017 at which point everyone will be allowed a say. Most people in this country want Britain to be part of a reformed EU, not staying in with the status quo or out altogether."

Unfortunately that last statement appears to be a bit of wishful thinking on Cameron's part as a poll back in July had 71% of the UK public eligible to vote actually wanted out of the EU. There is no reforming the EU, the bit of it that makes decisions isn't even subject to scrutiny nor recall via elections it's basically a self sustaining committee whose aim appears to be to enforce political unity across the board in all countries of the EU whether the voters like it or not. The EU parliament as such appears to be a rubber stamping body with no power to institute bills, merely discuss them.
It will be interesting to see how the EU elections go next year though (assuming they aren't cancelled as there are fears amongst the EUphiles over the rise of anti-EU parties across Europe) I rather suspect Ukip will do rather well at the expense of both Labour and Tories, possibly the Lib Dems being wiped out in the poll.
Still, I believe Cameron is merely stalling for time in the hope that somehow public opinion will change and the EU becomes popular again.
I have my doubts that he's in for a pleasant surprise (for him)

Lest we forget

 

 

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning,

We will remember them.

Asking for it...

It should come as no surprise that terrorist subjects are roaming the UK and are being observed by the security services. It should also come as no surprise that periodically such observations are reviewed by a parliamentary committee. Sadly it should also come as no surprise that with Lib Dems in the government there's a problem...
Mail.

A would-be suicide bomber, a jihadi fighter and an extremist who trained with the failed 21/7 attackers are among six terror suspects who will have restrictions lifted in just two months.
The British citizens, aged 25 to 39, all have close links to Pakistan, Somalia and Iran. They have all been under the supervision of MI5 thanks to Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Orders, which involve tagging, restricting their movements and who they can talk to.
But, according to The Sun, the orders expire on January 26 after two years - and so far Liberal Democrat ministers have refused to allow their renewal.

Now whilst I believe the state has far too much power over us and has with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act allowed some in power to abuse their spying on us, I do believe that there are occasions when some people need to be watched. Not necessarily hindered or prevented from living their lives, but kept under observation because they may pose a threat to the rest of us. By threat I do not mean trying to get their kids into a better school or putting the wrong recycling in the wrong bin.
Why do I also have the suspicion that these people do not see themselves as 'British' except when it's convenient for them to be British but rather see themselves as something else, possibly beginning with the m word.

Suspect 1: A British man, 25. Involved in liquid bomb plot to blow up transatlantic flights.
Suspect 2: British train driver, 31, married with three children. Went to Pakistan for terror training in '08.
Suspect 3: Thirty-nine, British, married with five children. Funded brothers' terror activities in Pakistan.
Suspect 4: Trained in 2004 with failed 21/7 bombers. Plotted attacks on UK. Aged 29.
Suspect 5: Iranian/British, 29, went to Somalia in 2006 for training.
Suspect 6: In Afghanistan to fight western troops in 2008 and had terror training in Somalia in 2009. Fought with al-Shabaab.

Can't help but think that there is some sort of common factor linking these people, but it escapes me at the moment ;-)
 Yet again the Lib Dems appear to not have the best interests of the people of the UK at heart... though why the Tories allowed them influence over security measures is beyond me.

Yes... and?

You can always rely on the Lib Dems to come up with some entertaining if useless/pointless defence of the EU, the Human Rights Act, taxation, envirolooniism, defence, sex, politics etc. The list being somewhat endless and meaningless and is merely a demonstration of how out of touch with the general public/reality they are...
Still, this one's a corker...
Telegraph.

Gibraltar could be expelled from the European Union against its wishes because of David Cameron’s desire to hold a referendum, a Liberal Democrat MP has warned.
Martin Horwood, the MP for Cheltenham, said that a private member’s bill setting out demands for a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union by 2017 could mean that Gibraltar is forced to leave the EU. He said that when the European Union (Referendum) Bill was initially drafted, voters in Gibraltar were excluded from any poll, despite being able to participate as part of the South West of England constituency in European elections. James Wharton, the Tory MP for Stockton South who is bringing forward the legislation, has now introduced an amendment which will include Gibraltar in any referendum after the omission was spotted when the Bill was in committee. Mr Horwood, who sat on the committee which analysed the Bill after second reading, warned that the people of Gibraltar may choose to remain in the EU and then be forced to leave.

It appears that Mr Horwood has failed to recognise that democracy is the dictatorship of the majority of one. Essentially, Gibraltar, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and indeed England are all in exactly the same boat, same with the Channel Isles too I presume. It may be that any such referendum of  our membership of the EU may produce a result that the majority of people in a country disagree with. But that's the joy of our current democracy, the majority rules, though admittedly only in the case of England there may be a problem with the lack of democracy therein whereby the Parliaments/Assemblies of the other places can go it alone and leave the UK and overseas territories if enough of their people want and vote in a government of their own to do so, the people of England have no such recourse save only violent overthrow of the government at the moment as they have no parliament of their own.
So, that's the price Gibraltar will pay for being part of the UK if we leave the EU, so do they, of course they can leave the UK and apply for membership of the EU if they so desire.
That however is their problem should such an occurrence happen and they wish to remain part of the EU, not ours...

Justice today

Let's face it, British justice is a joke, it's arbitrary, two tiered and has the oddest set of values where theft is regarded far less tolerable than violence. Nor has the Human Rights Act helped where the legal profession has brought itself into disrepute several times owing to cases brought and judgements made.
Still, this is a new low.
Mail.

In 2011, Lucy Walsh was abducted by three men after a night out
They raped her repeatedly, laughing when she cried out
Two were convicted and sentenced; police are looking for the third attacker
But the two successfully appealed and were given less prison time
And one of them was granted British citizenship while in jail
Fearful for her safety with an attacker still at large, Lucy has fled to Canada
Lucy Walsh woke up in a dimly lit, grubby room she didn't recognise. She quickly realised, to her horror, that she was naked, and that she was not alone.
A man was on top of her, pinning her to the floor, while another raped her. There were others there, too, talking in a foreign language, and laughing when she screamed in terror and pain. The 24-year-old was subjected to a horrific two-hour attack, as the men took it in turns to rape her.
But the repercussions for Lucy went far beyond the physical injuries she sustained that night. It would destroy her faith in her country and its legal system, which she'd always trusted to protect her, but which seemed to her to favour the rights of her attackers above hers.
Her ordeal was described by a judge as 'among the worst to have come before this court in recent years' - yet in a sick irony, one of her attackers was granted British citizenship as he awaited trial.

A case of rape jihad, where muslim males believe that any woman not a muslim is fair game (and some muslim women too who dress western style) However that is by the bye, I would be disgusted and outraged had the men been white Anglo-Saxons, though I have a sneaking suspicion that they at least would have been given a much tougher sentence and certainly would not have had their sentence reduced to a mere 12 years on appeal.
A true justice system would have had these men (though clearly they are not real men) castrated or hung for doing this, but as we only have custodial sentencing, then life would probably have been far too short, by life meaning remaining under lock and key until they die.
This woman has had her life ruined, she's fled the country and our legal system has decided to rub salt into her wounds.
Words cannot express just how disgusted in our legal system I am today...

Nineteen, not out

Well it's nineteen years and once again the EU's auditors have failed to sign the account books off, citing fraud as the main culprit for £6 billion going missing.
Express.

The EU misspent almost £6billion in 2012, official auditors found, as the amount of money squandered on fraudulent, illegal or ineligible projects soared by 23 per cent.
And for the 19th year in a row, the auditors refused to sign off Europe’s annual accounts.
The spending watchdog found that, overall, 4.8 per cent of the EU’s £117billion budget was spent in “error” on projects that were either tainted by fraud or ineligible for grants under Brussels’ rules.
This meant £832million of British taxpayers’ contributions was wasted at a time of public spending cuts.

Strange thing is, there are still people out there who think the EU is somehow a good thing, though whether they'd think the same about their banks if they were dipping into their pockets and misspending their cash  is anyone's guess. These are the people who believe that ever closer political union is a good thing, despite the facts that recent headlines shows politicians to be utterly corrupt and untrustworthy with the taxpayers cash.
Sure, we should leave for any number of reasons, immigration, corruption, Human Rights Act, constant meddling and imposing stupid laws (at least we could have home grown stupid laws) the use of sanctions and tariffs to keep us from buying cheaper goods and products from elsewhere.
Essentially the EU is holding this country down and preventing us from trading with the world as a whole and setting our own policies to deal with economic matters that are relevant for us.
Quite frankly the biggest reason for leaving now looks like we simply cannot afford the EU.
So let's just leave... now!

Honesty doesn't pay

I like to think I'm an honest man, opinionated yes, but I'd like to believe if I found a bundle of money in the street or on someone's premises, that I'd hand it in...
Well at least until today I did...
Mail.

An honest builder who handed in nearly £18,000 in cash to police after he found it stashed in a fire-damaged flat will go without any reward following a High Court judge's ruling.
Steven Fletcher found the hoard of 'neatly bundled' notes in a metal box in a burnt-out property he was renovating in King Street, Leicester, in September 2011.
The £17,940 cash haul - all in £20 notes and neatly packaged into £1,000 bundles - was concealed under a kitchen unit.
The flat had been empty since a fire gutted it six months earlier and Mr Fletcher immediately handed in his find to police.
But a High Court judge has ruled Mr Fletcher does not have any right to the cash after police failed to trace its origins.
Police experts and forensic analysts examined the mysterious hoard. Drug-testing was, however, 'inconclusive', although some notes showed minute traces of cocaine.
Magistrates nevertheless ordered forfeiture of the cash under the Proceeds of Crime Act after Leicestershire's Chief Constable, Simon Cole, successfully argued that it probably came from 'unlawful criminal conduct'.

I was always under the impression that lack of evidence doesn't constitute proof, though it does appear that the legal system of the UK operates under different rules (surprise, surprise)
Now it may well be that the cash was being used for criminality, or was the proceeds from criminal activity, but there's no evidence that it was (or wasn't)
There is of course the drug traces, however as the Mail itself told the world back in 2010...

Every bank note in the UK is contaminated with cocaine within weeks of entering circulation, experts have revealed.
Police have stopped testing notes for traces of the drug in criminal investigations as the contamination is so widespread.
According to the Forensic Science Service the results are now meaningless as every note tests positive for cocaine.

So, other than the fact that the police were suspicious about the way that the notes were carefully sortied into bundles of one denomination which meant they were 'unlikely to be the profits of legitimate cash trading in their eyes and in the eyes of the court. This along with the fact that no-one came forward to claim the cash meant they felt justified in keeping it.
I'd be willing to bet the next time Mr Fletcher or anyone else reading the Mail article finds a wad of cash hidden away, handing it in to the police will not figure in their thought processes.

Well, there's a surprise

Seems the Labour party's troubles in Falkirk are not going to go away so easily, despite a police investigation, it appears that the accusations of vote rigging by Unite can't be brushed under the carpet quite so easily.
Mail.

Labour could reopen its inquiry into vote-rigging scandal which exposed union dominance, the party's leader in Scotland said today.
Johann Lamont admitted the original investigation into Unite's influence on candidate selection 'wasn't entirely complete' and should be looked at again.
The leader of Labour MSPs and MPs north of the border also said the long-running row had left people in Falkirk 'embarrassed' to be members of the party.
Lorraine Kane triggered a major probe into alleged electoral corruption when she revealed her family had been signed up to the Labour Party without their consent.
The investigation into Mrs Kane’s case was dropped suddenly in September, after Unite officials produced documents stating that she had withdrawn her claims.
But, speaking for the first time, Mrs Kane, 61, told the Mail: ‘I did not change the testimony. I did not change anything. I did not withdraw anything.’ She is now demanding to know whether the evidence she gave was tampered with by Unite.

Always the problem with declaring something with the testimony open to dispute, something you'd think the left would be very wary of having been involved in scandal after scandal in... well pretty much its entire history.
You get the feeling that 'the end justifies the means' is a mantra running through the collective consciousness of the left as they will say or do anything to try and enforce their will on a populace who frankly cannot stomach socialism when it comes out in its own clothing and has to wear the colouration of the Labour Party to try and get itself elected. Unions themselves have a major problem in that whilst most of us can see the point of having someone to represent the workforce in negotiations over pay and conditions, unfortunately those that representation tend to be full time activists with their own 'political' agendas. which are often at odds with what the ordinary members want.
I suppose it comes down to the fact that Union members get exactly the leadership they deserve, then again they rarely get a chance to elect their leadership once its in place, nor do they usually get a chance to select the candidates. Which I suppose is pretty much socialism in action where 'the people' are merely cannon fodder in the great scheme to enslave mankind in leftist barbarism.
After all, what else can you think about an economic and political philosophy which has failed time and time again yet still is advocated by Unions and leftards as the way forward?
The only way that these people can ever get elected is by sneaking in under the radar of the Labour Party, this time Unite looks like its fingers will be burnt...
Let's hope so.

Bansturbation

Remember, remember the fifth of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I see no reason, why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.

Bonfire night as it's sometimes known as, a celebration in the UK of a plot foiled to destroy our Parliament and possibly herald in a different regime more friendly to Catholicism. Or in my eyes a reminder to Parliament that next time they might not be so lucky.
Still, as ever there's someone out there who wants to ban it, but not for the usual 'fireworks are dangerous' meme that comes around at this time of year.
No, they want it banned because it's anti-Catholic.
Express.

BONFIRE Night should have been stopped years ago ­because of its anti-Catholic overtones, campaigners say.
Burning an effigy of the Pope at Lewes, East Sussex, is especially offensive, they insist, and setting fire to a likeness of Guy Fawkes is just outdated.Bonfire Night commemorates the Gunpowder Plot of November 5, 1605, when ­Catholic rebels tried to blow up Parliament and kill the Scottish Protestant king James I.
They were caught, tortured and put to death, but Fawkes ­declared: “Our intention was to blow back the beggarly Scots to their native mountains.”
Now Edinburgh Secular Society chairman Gary McLelland wants to purge Bonfire Night of sectarian links. He said: “I think we should have stopped years ago. Bonfire Night should become a purely secular event.”

Well, I have news for Mr McLelland, bonfire night is pretty much a secular event as even Catholics take part in it and thoroughly enjoy setting off fireworks like the rest of us.
Again though this is simply just another case of someone (or society) with an agenda looking to generate headlines at a particular time of the year. The various Secular Societies are not particularly nice people in that they believe that those who are religious should be treat differently from the rest of society, not just the dangerous religions though, all religions. It is these killjoys who would ban Christmas and Easter,  something even Cromwell tried and failed at. Naturally though the Secular Societies usually pick on religions they know will shrug and get on with things, you rarely hear of them having a go at islam for instance which shows that self preservation rather than actual commitment is at the source of their litany of complaints.
As it is, Edinburgh Secular Society chairman Gary McLelland has his fifteen minutes of fame and the rest of us know what a tosser he actually is.
There is nothing religious about Bonfire Night any more, hasn't been for several generations. I know that, you know that, the Roman Catholic Church knows that.
Shame Gary McLelland doesn't appear to know it...

I'm surprised its actually that many

The Human Rights Act with its various annexes as used by the legal fraternity to remove common sense from the legal system is a bit of a sick joke. Sure there needs to be some sort of rights for the vast majority, but nothing like what the HRA actually allows for and are interpreted by lawyers. A lot of people believe that there should be a gradiated scale of rights from absolute basic (we won't shoot you without a trial) to full citizen. In other words we treat lawbreakers differently from those who are innocent.
And hence lies the big problem with the HRA.
Express.

Metropolitan Police figures show only one in 100 foreign ­nationals arrested are removed from Britain.
Senior officers have raised concerns over the sheer number of foreign offenders.
Around 70,000 people arrested in London a year are from overseas – half from outside the European Union.
But Scotland Yard said a mere one per cent ended up ­being deported.

Isn't it a joy to know that we arrests them, try them, imprison them and yet they are allowed to stay for various spurious reasons due to the UK's legal systems interpretation of the HRA, which is apparently far, far different to that of judges anywhere else. The main reason used to stay is of course the odious 'right to a family life' despite the case that a lot of the time, the family are estranged and in a few cases the offender is/was a child molester or rapist and their rights trumped those of societies for remaining safe.
In a sensible world, any foreign national who commits a crime would find themselves kicked out after serving their sentence and even charged with the bill for doing so, but sadly the bleeding heart liberals and hard of thinking leftards who came up with the HRA do not usually have to live with the mess they created and so they get the right to remain.
No wonder the first cry in a lot of revolutions is 'kill the lawyers'

Bollocks

As in talking bollocks.
Apparently the people who can't mind their own business when it comes to what we do with our bodies have told the government that a 20% tax hike on certain soft drinks might make some people less fat.
Mail.

Slapping a 20 per cent tax on soft drinks would cut the number of fat Britons by more than a quarter of a million, claim experts.
Researchers say a price hike would drive down sales of the sugary beverages and therefore benefit the nation’s health.
A new study claims a 20 per cent tax on sugar-sweetened drinks would reduce the number of adults who are obese or overweight by 285,000.

In other words preparing the grounds for the government to raise revenue, the evidence is out there that raising taxes simply doesn't work and people will either carry on the same or find something else that they enjoy drinking/eating. It didn't work with cigarettes, it didn't work with alcohol and it won't work with fizzy drinks, it's simply an excuse to raise revenue. Indeed there's a direct correlation on the price of something going too high and people switching to illegal and untested substances when cigarettes became expensive. It even drove people into the hands of criminal gangs and I rather expect the man in a van who sells cheap ciggies and booze from France will add another sideline to his trade.
No, in this case as with most other cases involving the government raiding our pockets, the experts involved will simply be telling the government what they want to hear.
Nothing more, nothing less.