So it's the EU's fault now is it?

With incredible ineptitude and timing a senior Tory who just happens to be a minister for the Dept for International development has turned around to blame the EU for wasting the massive foreign aid budget...
Telegraph.

A senior Government minister has accused the European Union of squandering Britain’s international aid budget on schemes that often have nothing to do with alleviating world poverty.
Alan Duncan, the minister of state for aid, said the Department for International Development (DfID) was “forced to give” British taxpayers’ money to the EU and was powerless over how it was spent.
The charge will raise tensions within the Conservative party because it touches on two of the areas where the Tory Right is most concerned about David Cameron’s policies - foreign aid and Europe.
Brussels insists it does not “impose” its choice of aid projects on Britain but - in an escalation of hostilities - a senior Conservative separately accused the EU of lying. “If you want an EU lie, this is a classic one,” said the senior Tory. “It is a 100 per cent lie. We have been arguing with the EU whenever we can that the money should have a poverty focus.”
At next week’s party conference in Birmingham, Justine Greening, the new International Development Secretary, will face calls from the party grassroots to clamp down on wasteful spending and projects which are not squarely aimed at tackling poverty.
An investigation into overseas aid by The Sunday Telegraph has revealed how £1.4 billion, one-sixth of DfID’s budget, is diverted to the EU for its own schemes - many of them in relatively wealthy countries that the UK no longer believes should receive aid.

To my mind if we didn't have a foreign aid budget then the EU couldn't 'steal' it, then again if we weren't in the EU they couldn't steal it either. Nor somehow does this explain just how aid is allocated, particularly to countries with space industries (India) a nuclear weapons industry (India and Pakistan) or kleptocracies (Most of Africa).
The government should not be giving away a penny in foreign aid whilst we have problems at home that need sorting, that should be a personal choice for individuals. If the aid budget reaches £14 billion as is predicted by 2014 then think of just how we could spend that money here, couple it with the scam of the bird mincer subsidies and we could reduce our fuel bills for heating and transport too. Pensioners would not be dying in cold winters because they aren't faced with the choice of eat or freeze. Pensions could be sorted out after the ruinous Labour raid on them by Gordon Brown.
But no we waste it on foreigners and then attempt to blame the EU.
I'm no big fan of the EU, but they aren't the ones raising the foreign aid budget here, yes they may be culpable of taking advantage of it, but that's easy to fix...

 

The silence of the Imam's

A lot has been written over the past year (including this blog) on the sexual exploitation of underage girls by Muslim males of Pakistani/Bangladeshi origin. Whilst politicians and so called community leaders have tried to maintain the fiction that there isn't a racial/religious element to the abuse (yes we're looking at you Keith Vazeline) Yet the evidence kept coming including that of a massive cover up and wilful neglect from those in authority due to considerations of 'community cohesion' and fear of accusations of racism.
Always from the community and religion involved there has been silence, other than to claim it's all some kind of racist islamophobia yet all the time the accusations and arrests continued.
BBC.

Labour peer Lord Ahmed has called on mosque leaders in South Yorkshire to speak about the issues surrounding sex exploitation.
His comments follow a Times newspaper report of widespread abuse of girls by Asian men in the county.
It prompted MPs to order South Yorkshire Police's chief constable to answer the claims in Parliament.
Lord Ahmed said: "It's important that the community, rather than going silent... talk about it."
An investigation by The Times said a confidential 2010 report by the Police Intelligence Bureau detailed "a significant problem with networks of Asian males exploiting young white females, particularly in Rotherham and Sheffield".

Talk about it? How about the 'communities' involved stamping it out and handing over the perpetrators to the authorities instead? Or is that a rather simplistic way of looking at things?

Mr Ahmed said he did not know the reason why Asian men were exploiting young girls.

Apart from the fact that they aren't Muslim or Pakistani/Bangladeshi one must suspect.
The islamic religion in this country does not get a great press, its adherents attempts to blow up tube trains, buses, cafe's, grooming of underage girls for sexual purposes, spitting at our troops and burning poppies on Remembrance day have pretty much assured its deep seated unpopularity amongst the ordinary people of this country. Only the politicians, political classes and the utter loons of the political left seem to be somehow in favour of the rest of us putting up and shutting up.
They as much as the Muslim community are to blame for this utter disgrace to civilised values yet sadly as ever I suspect they'll shift the blame elsewhere (as the police did by arresting the girls, parents and guardians rather than the perpetrators) and bury their heads in the sand hoping it will go away.
Personally I'd settle for nothing less than stringing them up and letting them rot in hell for this outrage to our young women.

A good idea

Apparently part of the 2011 education Act gives teachers (and other educators) the right to anonymity if accused or suspected of some form of assault (physical or sexual) by a pupil or parent of a pupil. They key is in the word 'suspected' in other words they aren't actually guilty of anything (as yet) not that some agree with such protection...
Telegraph.

Members of the public, the media and even the police could be banned from automatically naming teachers in cases such as that in which Jeremy Forrest fled the country with his pupil, Megan Stammers, it has emerged.
From Monday, anyone who names a staff member at the centre of a criminal allegation made by or on behalf of a child, could face prosecution or a £5,000 fine.
The power, enshrined in the 2011 Education Act, is being introduced to protect innocent teachers against malicious claims from pupils and parents, but critics fear that the legislation has gone too far and will hamper investigations and stifle free speech.
Police chiefs, politicians and senior lawyers specialising in media, have criticised the law, with some warning that it could hamper missing person investigations, such as the one involving Megan.

The 'Megan' case is an interesting one, she appears at least to be a willing victim and they've escaped to a country where the age limit is lower (supposedly).
That said, technically what the teacher has done is abduction/kidnapping and wouldn't really be covered by the anonymity law, this simply appears to be a case of the Telegraph making mischief. Though I suppose it's always possible for the justice system to take the provisions of the act far further than they were designed, it wouldn't be the first time...
Yet I have to ask myself if this law is good enough for the teaching industry, would it also not be applicable to those men who are simply accused (not found guilty) of rape or sexual assault? Julia at Ambush Predator blog has a catalogue of cases where men have had their lives ruined, their DNA taken and held in custody their names being spread all over the MSM on the say so of women, whom when it's been investigated have merely been crying wolf rape. Yet the women have had their anonymity protected until they are found out.
Seems there's now one law for teachers and another for the rest of us...

Progress

Progress takes many forms and often leaves  certain groups of workers behind in its wake. That's often why a flexible attitude in the jobs market will help, after all these days there's not much call for blacksmiths, steam train drivers, Roman legionaries etc save in very small specific areas of hobbies or pastimes.
BBC.

Tube workers are to be balloted for strikes in protest at plans to test driverless trains.
Rail Maritime and Transport union (RMT) members will vote on industrial action ahead of preparations to test trains without drivers.
The union said it would initially ballot its members who are set to take part in the trials.
Transport for London (TfL) said any call for action at this stage was "ludicrous".
London Mayor Boris Johnson said during his election campaign driverless trains would be operational within a decade.
RMT general secretary Bob Crow said: "RMT reiterates this union's complete opposition to driverless trains. Every train must have a driver to ensure the safe and effective running of the Underground.

Now I don't know how the public will react to driverless trains, they may not be too keen on the idea. After all the thought that there's at least a last resort of a guy on the brakes is quite comforting. That said it has to be put in the same consideration of a union who appear to be willing to strike at the drop of a hat and get paid well above the national average with less working hours per man than than the average commuter.
Perhaps the unions have (as ever) priced themselves out of the market and technology is ready to take their place. Wouldn't be the first time after all, look at Wapping and the print unions, they got greedy and paid the price. Same can be said about the RMT, they have got greedy, called strikes at the drop of a hat, held TfL to ransom over the Olympics and now look as if they are about to find out the cost of the ultimate freedom, that of taking the consequences for your actions.
I guess in the end it depends on whether the price will come down, the system keeps running and that people are happy with unmanned trains.
I do know it was bound to happen though, the actions of the RMT made it inevitable...

Avoidance

Why can't the Lib Dems grasp the very obvious point that avoiding paying tax is not an illegal activity, it's almost a civic duty? Yet still they come out with measures to penalise people and companies who are not breaking any laws whatsoever...
Express.

TAX dodging firms will be banned from winning Government contracts under a crackdown unveiled yesterday.
In a speech to the Lib Dem conference in Brighton, Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander, said: “If you want to work for us, you should play by our rules.
“There is nothing that prevents firms that don’t play by the rules from winning Government contracts. That is not right. And I am determined that it comes to an end. Taxpayers’ money should not be funding tax dodgers.”
He said Treasury officials were drawing up new rules to prevent companies using loopholes and off-shore investments to avoid paying tax while providing services to the Government.
“In this country, we tax work, effort and income too highly and unearned wealth far too little,” he added.

I wonder if Danny Alexander considers the £100,000 he ripped off from the taxpayer via the Westminster expenses home flipping scam to be unearned wealth? I rather doubt it, these rules and regulations are usually aimed at anyone but politicians.
I suspect that the first time that any government tries to block a contract going to a company who hasn't broken any laws (save only those in the imagination of politicians) that law suits will fly and the taxpayer will be stiffed for the bill due to the governments blatantly illegal stance.
I also rather suspect that the governments idea of unearned wealth isn't the same as your average taxpayer either, after all those who simply have money to spare is not my definition of unearned. Flipping a second home to pick up additional expenses is, putting in false expenses claims is, using your position as a politician to pick up non executive directorships of companies is too, free holidays disguised as fact finding missions is as well. All stuff politicians do to supplement their already too generous income, yet they target those whom they believe are hoarding wealth.
Truly the Lib Dem's are unfit to be allowed anywhere near the levers of power in this country...

Never mind the crimes involved...

It really does come to something when a fear of being prosecuted for a breach of human rights trumps a case of sexual assault or the downloading of child pornography. Yet that's the kind of society we live in, the medical profession won't even strike off doctors prosecuted for such offences as it might breach their human rights...
Mail.

Dozens of doctors have kept their jobs despite being convicted of serious sex offences.
Medical chiefs claim they cannot ban all sex offenders from working because it might breach their human rights.
At least 31 male GPs, consultants and surgeons are practising even after having assaulted women, been in possession of child pornography or solicited prostitutes.
None of their patients have been informed.
Some of those with child pornography offences are even believed to be free to treat children.
Patients’ groups and MPs say people would be horrified to learn a sex offending doctor had examined them.

Now soliciting with prostitutes to my mind shouldn't be a crime, though there is an increased health risk to the patients via std's  so it's not exactly good practice.
Problem is to a certain extent that the medical profession is a closed shop at the level of doctors and physicians, you have to have done something really bad to get thrown out of the 'old boys' (or girls) network and frankly our laymans isea of bad doesn't exactly mesh with theirs.
Still human rights for crimes committed does appear to be a new one for them, though sadly it's not a new one for us. You'd think though that at least the medical profession would have higher standards, though again having heard a few cases of abuse by them I realise I probably shouldn't.
Criminal misconduct shouldn't necessarily mean that you lose your job of course, particularly if its committed outside of work and doesn't have a custodial sentence as a result. But when dealing with the public different rules apply and I'm pretty sure no parent wants a doctor who downloads child sex stories as a hobby wants them treating their kids. Yes it might be safe, but would you want to take the risk?
I'm pretty much sick to the back teeth of the excuse of human rights being used to excuse action on criminals, too many times they forget that we the law abiding have rights too and ours should trump theirs always.
Sadly that's not the society we have though...

Tag you're it...

One of my previous jobs was fitting tags to people released from prison but who were essentially supposed to be on some form of curfew overnight. It wasn't a great job and I didn't stay with it long, the equipment was fairly naff and could be easily fooled by someone with a bit of tech savvy. No I never fitter a tag to anyone with an artificial leg either, just in case you're wondering if that was me.
Mail.

Putting electronic tags on criminals has cost taxpayers £1billion over 13 years – but leaves them free to commit crime by day, according to a study.
Outdated technology, ten times more expensive than that used in the US, means offenders are unmonitored when not under curfew at home, says the think-tank Policy Exchange.
It is calling for new tags to monitor criminals’ every movement using GPS technology. Around 80,000 offenders are tagged every year, including former prisoners released early and criminals serving community sentences.

This was something actually pointed out to the people in the Home Office as well as the companies fitting the tags over 10 years ago. A tag merely (if used properly) had to remain within 30 foot of a monitoring station during a certain period of time, the monitoring station sent out an alarm via a landline to a call centre and the authorities were supposed to swing into action to pick up the out of curfew miscreant. What it didn't do is tell anyone where the miscreant was if out of curfew and it didn't stop any form of criminal activity during the times when the miscreant was allowed out of the house. Those tagged were given a phone number to ring if for some reason they couldn't be home, but the real kicker was that even those who set off an alarm were rarely if ever tracked down to see what they were up too anyway.
The system was expensive, difficult to monitor properly and the staff poorly motivated (and paid) and this was over 10 years ago so why it's taken them this long to admit it I don't know, unless it's one of those things the coagulation has finally got round to looking at as a legacy of the previous government.
Considering just how far the technology had moved on it would be simple to use GPS tags along with some sort of system to prevent people going where they aren't allowed (shops, leisure activities etc)
I expect however it will still take another 10 years to sort out another useless system though...

It's reform not thievery we want

It's fairly typical of the mentality of the Lib Dem's that they choose to target a certain group whilst accusing them of doing something perfectly legal, something which the government via its convoluted robbery with menaces tax collection system encourages.
BBC.

Individuals with assets of more than £1m face a new crackdown on tax avoidance, Lib Dem Treasury Chief Secretary Danny Alexander has revealed.
The number of people working in the Affluence Unit (AU) of HM Revenue and Customs is to increase from 200 to 300, to cope with the additional workload.
Previously, the unit only scrutinised the tax affairs of people with assets and property of more than £2.5m.
Mr Alexander told the Mail on Sunday the wealthiest "should pay more".
Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg said at his party's conference on Saturday that the party wanted more tax on unearned wealth.

First off this is the same Danny Alexander who conned the Treasury out of over £100,000 by flipping his home back during the expenses scandal.
Second, avoidance is not illegal, it's pretty much a civic duty if you can manage it the Lib Dem's as ever forgetting just whose money it actually is.
Our tax system has evolved to a certain extent by allowing loopholes in it to encourage investment in certain areas, it was known as tax breaks, there are other bits and bobs too covering necessary expenses including laundry costs. All in all though it's a bit of a dogs dinner and certain specialists at the high end of the market will for a price advise their clients as to the best way to set up their finances so they pay the absolute minimum of taxation, the savings made more than covering the cost of hiring an accountant. Often enough it's the accountants who know the system better than government ministers or even the treasury itself and one of the loopholes they've exploited is the offshore business account which only pays a fraction of the taxes a mainland based account would.
It's all perfectly legal and the requisite taxes are being paid yet the Lib Dem's are determined to go after anyone doing a legal activity rather than amending the system itself. They're especially targeting unearned wealth as in inherited wealth such as those living in houses that they got from deceased relatives, though what business it is of theirs who owns what is beyond me.
The thing is, percentage-wise the wealthiest do pay more, even if they are exploiting the system, what the Lib Dem's appear to want is for them to pay more than their fair share, or rather more than the system allows and instead of reforming the system they're choosing the path of punitary one off raids.
It's just another offshoot of the politics of envy which we've come to see embodies the thinking of those on the left of the political spectrum with regard to anyone having more money than they do.
Again and again we see those in power targeting those who are not breaking the law rather than reducing the size of the state and reforming the tax system itself to be more fair with regard to some form of flat rate or land value tax covering everything rather than the complex system of personal, corporate and value added mess we have today.
Though perhaps first we ought to be rid of the den of thieves that keep being elected year after year...

I don't think that word means what you think it does

The word is of course 'fair' and in part it means...

a. Having or exhibiting a disposition that is free of favouritism or bias; impartial: a fair mediator.

b. Just to all parties; equitable:

But not to politicians, to them it means favouring one group over another.

BBC.

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg is to repeat his call for a tax on the wealthy when he rallies activists on their party conference's opening day.
He will urge lower taxes for workers doing a "proper shift" but higher rates for those "sitting on a fortune".
Lib Dem calls for a one-off tax on "unearned wealth" have been rejected by their Conservative coalition partners.
Lib Dem deputy leader Simon Hughes did not rule out a future coalition with the Labour party.

Yes a mansion tax would to an extent 'force' some people to sell their residences and downsize, some would also choose to sell up and move out taking their cash elsewhere. But that isn't fair by any definition of the word. Fair would mean a tax system where everyone paid pretty much the same percentage into the system and not a set of one off 'punitary' raids on those who have. It's how politicians ended up wrecking the pensions system we had in the UK and also started the banks off into paying bonuses.
If Clegg was calling for flat rate tax on everyone, cutting out the offshore tax avoidance route that the wealthy are using that would be fair, but he isn't, he's going down the politics of envy route that those on the left love  because they think (and in a lot of cases are right) that the people of the UK believe that the rich should be taken for all they've got simply because they are rich. They ignore the fact that a lot of the cash the rich has goes towards investment, development and simply paying for others to do they stuff they don't have too. They also ignore the fact that if they squeeze to hard the rich will up and leave, something the rest of us can't or won't do.
If we had a flat rate tax it would eliminate a lot of anger at bonuses, avoidance and various loopholes in a complex system, unfortunately simplifying the system is not in the politicians mantra, they'd rather target groups they see as easy and unloved.
Typical politicians of the left in other words...

My gaff, my rules

I don't know if badgers carry or pass tuberculosis onto cattle, farmers say they do and want to have a cull of them. My general opinion is that it's their land so long as they aren't breaking the law it's their business...
sadly farmers have to put up with enviroloons who believe what farmers do is actually their business.
Telegraph.

Humane Society International and Care for the Wild claim consumers do not want not want to pay a premium for organic products from farms that are shooting badgers.
But the Soil Association insist that it is up to farmers if they want to carry out legal pest control on their farms.
The Government has issued a licence for farmers to kill thousands of badgers in West Gloucestershire and is expected to announce the go-ahead for a cull in West Somerset shortly.
MInisters claim the two trial culls will stop the spread of the cattle disease bovine tuberculosis, that is carried by badgers.
Mark Jones, the Executive Director of the Humane Society, said people who buy organic food love wildlife and do not want dairy products from farms taking part in the cull.

I suspect that a lot of people who don't buy over priced bug ridden produce organic food also love wildlife too and by some strange chance would not appreciate coming down with tuberculosis come to that.
But we're talking about a group of people who clearly know what is best for us and have taken it into their heads that killing what farmers consider to be vermin on their own land constitutes the removal of the word 'organic' from any (presumably milk) that they produce, not that I expect a lot of hard pressed financially families will be buying anything organic unless it's cheaper than mass produced stuff. What we are looking at is a niche market, unfortunately what we're also looking at is unreasonable people and farmers have been threatened and intimidated by 'extremists' for starting the cull. Extremist seeming to mean 'average' when dealing with enviroloons as they have a predilection to attack people in support of their endless campaign to make us all dirt poor medievalists.
Personally if I were a farmer I wouldn't give a damn if my product said organic or not, the supermarkets will still buy the stuff.
As it should be...

The real rip off is by the government

Another day, another article about fuel prices and the fact that the pump price doesn't reflect the barrel price. Mostly though missing the point on who makes the biggest take on the price...
Telegraph.

The AA motoring group found drivers are consistently paying around 5p more for diesel at the pumps, even though it is often the same price as petrol on the wholesale markets.
The price of both fuels has almost reached the record high seen in April, with petrol at 140.21p per litre and diesel is now 144.6p per litre.
However, at three times this year, including this month, diesel has actually been cheaper than petrol on the international markets.
It now costs just over £70 to fill up a typical 50-litre family car with petrol and £72.30 to fill up a diesel one.

 Completely missing the point that 60% + is taken by the thieving government in duty and VAT. so what we could be paying is £28 and £28:92 at least according to the article, perhaps even less. The rate could be up to 64% or more rake off.
Just think of the boost to the economy if the government would give up on grabbing so much cash from a natural resource. Fuel affects the price of just about everything we buy or do, from groceries to travel, the money it would put back in our pockets along with the increasing competitiveness of our industries and goods.
Probably some stupid EU rule about it though, along with a Westminster politicians almost unnatural ability to see things to spend our cash upon, rather than save us some money by leaving it in our pockets.
Yes, that's right, it will never happen so long as we keep voting for the avaricious incompetents...

Scares over

Well all those people who went into hysterics over the 'evidence' (or lack of) that using a mobile phone would somehow end up microwaving your brain can breathe a sigh of relief as a study shows that the daft buggers should have known better.
Express.

MOBILE phones were yesterday given a clean bill of health after scientists found no evidence linking them to cancer. Research concluded low-level electromagnetic fields from phones and transmitters do not increase the risk of health problems.
It flies in the face of some studies which also linked mobile use to male infertility.
The Mobile Operators Association welcomed the Norwegian Institute of Public Health report.
It said: “It is consistent with the findings of the overwhelming body of evidence from a huge number of studies over the past two decades.”

Not that I expect people to believe this, there is a lot of evidence out there that electromagnetic energy can cause problems with your body, though admittedly it has to do with standing in front of radar masts and next to tv transmission masts. There are always scare stories out there the measles, Mumps, Rubella combined injection was one, sitting too close to the tv is another as is going blind from the practice of Onanism.
What's happening now though is that people are becoming jaded or inured to the efforts of so called experts and the state to scare us into doing things their way. Did the scare of you head exploding stop people using mobiles? Well no, other than a few parents panicking and removing their little darlings mobiles from them whilst ignoring the microwaves, computer monitors and tv's which also give off electromagnetic radiation.
There are simply too many scare stories these days, which is a bit worrying as one day a real scare might happen and we'll ignore it and die. The MSM are to a certain extent to blame, they'll big up any story they believe will get them viewing numbers.
But in the end time will tell and we're still here, still going no matter what they tell us.
Till the next big scare of course...