He who pays the piper

Calls the tune.
Bit obvious really, and a great danger to political parties who become to dependent on one source of income. What tends to happen is a form of dependency as the contributor starts to call the shots rather than simply hand over cash as a gesture of support for the policies of the party, demands are made to make policy the way the contributor wants. It's why the funding of political parties needs to be open, though I rather suspect they'd much prefer to keep their contributors hidden.
Express.

ED Miliband was facing a new funding storm last night as it was revealed that the Labour Party has pocketed more than £20million from trade unions since he became leader.
The largest chunk of cash, £7.5million, came from the Unite union led by Left-wing firebrand Len McCluskey.
A further £3.6million each came from Paul Kenny’s GMB and Dave Prentis’s Unison.
All three unions backed Ed Miliband for the party leadership in 2010.

Though I rather think that many in Labour do not see their union funding as a problem, despite the obvious influence on policy that these mostly public service unions exert. Nor do I believe it healthy for any political party to be subject to the influence of Len McCluskey, who quotes a mass murderer (Che Guevara) and was once a member of the Communist Party and a supporter of Miltant Tendency. We really ought to consider Communists in the same way we consider Nazi's, even the ex ones need careful watching and really ought not to be allowed near any levers of power. Not that the left in general like to see themselves compared to Nazi's as such, despite such similarities in their modus operandi once they get their hands on power as both beliefs have a tendency to trash the economy before being removed from power, often after trying to use violence and intimidation to remain there (both are statist philosophies after all)
Still, it's not healthy for any political party to have 81% of its funding coming from those whose political beliefs are suspect to say the least, if 81% of Tory party funds came from just three sources you'd imagine Labour (and others) would be all over it like a rash.
This on top of the Pilgrim abuses where unions use public bodies to fund their activities mean that to an extent Labour and the unions recycle a lot of public funding to pay themselves and this needs to be stopped. Nor do I support taxpayer funding for political parties either, if they want my money, they can ask me personally, not just grab it from the magic money tree.
Perhaps it is time to look at party funding, with a view to making sure it only comes from private individuals and not businesses or unions. Perhaps then we'll have political parties who will do what we want, not what unions and business want...

I doubt he thinks he's British...

How people define themselves will tell you a lot about them, I define myself as English, certainly not British and definitely not European, despite the best efforts of the various hierarchies to jolly me along into those beliefs. Scots and the Welsh do the same, though the Protestants of Northern Ireland regard themselves as British simply because those whom they see as the opposition regard themselves as Irish. Yet there are those born here who do not regard such national definitions as the be all and end all, they use another far more dangerous category...
Telegraph.

A British man has been detained in Mauritania amid reports that he was trying to join up with an Islamic terror group in the Sahara desert.
The Foreign Office (FCO) said they are investigating reports that a British national had been detained in the African country. The man was allegedly held on the border between Mauritania and Mali as he attempted to cross the vast Sahara desert on foot to join up with terrorists linked to al Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). An FCO spokeswoman said: "We are aware of reports of the detention of a British National in Mauritania and are seeking further information." Islamists have seized control of northern Mali, including the ancient desert city of Timbuktu. They have imposed Sharia law, carried out public executions, stoned to death a couple accused of adultery and destroyed mausoleums listed as world heritage sites.

So why do I have the feeling that this 'man' will not regard himself as British at all? Unless of course it's to claim benefits for all sorts of freebies. No, this 'man' I suspect will believe that he's a muslim and that killing the infidel is the be all and end all of his existence, except when it comes to raping infidel women. Oh I've no doubt if it does turn out that he was born here his local mosque and parents will try to keep up the fiction that somehow he'd been led astray or they never suspected etc. Yet it's becoming ever more obvious that he's actually the archetypical muslim, the one that follows the quran and sets out to slay the enemies of islam.
No, this man is not British, but a muslim, a true muslim and one that really ought to be put down like the rabid dog he's chosen to be.

Hitting a nerve somewhere

You can normally tell when a minor political party is starting to hit a nerve when smear stories start to come out in the MSM about the activities (true or otherwise) about its leadership whilst ignoring pretty much the endemic corruption of the mainstream parties. And so we have a hatchet job by the mail on Nigel Farage...
Mail.

So, Mr Farage, why does UKIP's leader have a German wife? ...and did she make you kip in the spare room over that 'seven-times-a night fling' with a Latvian?

First mistake is of course assuming that UKIP being anti-EU is actually anti-European, it's often the first mistake deliberate or otherwise that the EUphiles fall into as well. I suspect most people who support UKIP rather like Europeans, but cannot stand the government they've allowed to happen which overrules our laws and rights and believes it can do no wrong.

A lot of people don't seem to like UKIP ­ leader Nigel Farage. They roll their eyes and dismiss him as brash and vulgar - part used-car dealer, part public-school fool, 'utterly unembarrassable' and 'a poor man's Boris Johnson'.
They mutter about the BNP, a supposed tryst with a very passionate Latvian lady and the £2 million of EU expenses that he claimed over ten years 'to prove a point'.
They do, however, all know who he is. Because, love him or loathe him, he's impossible to ignore - blasting the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, as having 'the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk'; dismissing Robert Kilroy-Silk as a 'vain, orange buffoon and a monster'; camping it up on TV's Have I Got News For You; or dangling upside down from the wreckage of a light aircraft in the middle of an election campaign, UKIP rosette still flapping.

Well the so called intelligentsia of the political classes must really have a burr up their arse if this is how they are going to play the game, not that I suspect Farage gives a damn. It's a pretty much predictable hatchet job by the left leaning political classes who don't like the idea that the people of the UK might just vote for something they hate in an exit from the EU and an end to mainstream party politics in the UK leaving them adrift from the levers of power for the first time in nearly sixty five years. So I suspect that the Tories are in somewhat of a funk over Farage, as they see him as the guy leading a party who will take votes away from them at the next election and let Labour in. Not that I think Labour particularly like him or his party either as they've shown that if the circumstances are right then UKIP can take Labour votes too. As for the Lib Dems, well they're still coming to terms with actually getting the blame for what the government does and seem likely to struggle in the next general election as they are now seen as 'establishment' and UKIP as the protest vote.
I expect we'll see a lot of this sort of thing over the next couple of years as we head towards elections, UKIP are on a roll, though whether or not they'll actually get any politicians into Westminster is debatable. Still it's nice to see the establishment rattled for once.

A new take on conjugal rights

It's always been a problem when people talk rights, particularly politicians who encoded some rights into law and allowed judges (and the legal system) to twist them beyond what was actually intended but still within the letter (if only barely at times) This in essence is why proper legal documents are rather bizarre to read at times as legalise is a very precise language where what is stated is exactly what is meant. Politicians (and people) rarely realise this and their idea of a right has all sort of exclusivity built into it unknowingly whereas to a legal expert it's all open to interpretation. Also no system of rights seems to come with a system of responsibilities, otherwise we probably wouldn't have stories like this in the press.
Mail.

Four murderers and a drug dealer are in line for taxpayer-funded fertility treatment so that they can father a child from behind bars.
The killers are demanding to be allowed to take part in IVF treatment despite serving life sentences. Ministers may be powerless to refuse because of a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights concerning the right to a private and family life.
Turning down the prisoners’ demands could lead to court action and compensation claims running into tens of thousands of pounds.
Last year the Daily Mail revealed that a prisoner had been given access to artificial insemination treatment on the NHS at a cost of around £2,000.
Since then, 13 applications have been made by inmates in England and Wales. Eight have been rejected but five remain in ministers’ in-trays.

As it's the Mail, usual caveats apply, however there are several documented cases where criminals have used the rights system to evade justice as well as use the Human Rights Act and its various clauses to act as if they are not prisoners at all. That has ever been at the core of the Human Rights Act in that it remained specifically vague as to the differences between the law abiding and the criminal. Rather than go for a basic set of rights, it opted for all encompassing and got a hell of a surprise when it got used in ways they never envisioned by people who clearly ought not to have access to IVF fertilisation or indeed the right to vote. This is what comes of allowing badly written law onto the statute books, a table of rights for all, should also have come with a table of responsibilities for all which if not abided to, restricted you to a very limited set of rights. As it is, the way that the EU is set up with regard to the European Court of Human Rights means that in order to get this odious piece of legislation off the statute books means we'd have to leave the EU. Nor would bringing in an extra layer of 'British rights' in the manner of a new Magna Carta work either as it would simply be a layer on top of the HRA and not a replacement as some politicians would have us believe.
I'm not against people having rights as a protection from the state, I do have a problem when the scope of those rights goes way beyond what was originally intended (in the public's eye at least) you should only get the full raft of rights when you take on a full raft of responsibilities. We don't need to just get rid of the HRA, we need to add a Human Responsibilities Act in future rights legislation to prevent things like this ever happening again.

Ah the inevitable must...

I don't think the boy Clegg has quite grasped this democracy thingy yet in that politicians are supposed to represent the views of their constituents (I know I know in an ideal world etc) But it does seem the lure of his pension overwhelms his responsibilities in a clear case of getting them wrong. Not that Lib Dems have such a great recent track record with democracy, I suspect it comes from taking in all those deluded socialists from the SDP demise.
Telegraph.

Nick Clegg has warned David Cameron that Britain must not back out of Europe and dismissed plans for a referendum on the country’s membership of the EU as “putting the cart before the horse”.
The Deputy Prime Minister made the intervention as his Coalition partner, under pressure from members of his own party, prepares to set out a new approach to the issue in a speech in the New Year.
The Prime Minister is widely expected to demand a repatriation of powers from Brussels as the price of agreeing financial reform of the eurozone, with the promise of a referendum in the 2015 Tory general election manifesto.
Mr Cameron has already promised Conservative MPs that the party will fight the election on a “clear Eurosceptic position”.
Meanwhile a poll today shows that most Britons now want to leave Europe, with 51% saying they would vote for an exit – in a marked hardening of eurosceptic attitudes.
But Mr Clegg argues in a newspaper interview today against offering a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU and says that Britain should instead be exercising its leadership role in Europe.

It's the usual tired old lies about Britain's leadership in the EU as Britain does not nor never will lead the EU short of conquering it. They tell us what to do and the people of Britain know this and whilst previously were prepared to put up with it or ignore it, attitudes are hardening and there is a small but definite trend towards getting out and sticking two fingers up to the corrupt bastards in charge there. Not that the EU can be trusted in any referendum (same as Cameron really) but it does look like most politicians at least are starting to read the writing on the (UKIP) wall and harden their attitudes at least towards the EU, even if they still think we should remain in (most of them do I suspect). However in Cleggy boys denial of democracy should such a referendum be held and return a massive slap in the face of the EU in a in/out referendum in insisting that we musn't back out regardless of what the people want, then we see the true colours of an EUphile revealed. The one that trots out the old hackneyed arguments about it being a disaster and we'd be on our own (despite being unable to prove it) whilst ignoring the success of such countries as Norway or Switzerland who have trade ties but no political ties and so can stick two fingers up to the meddlers if they interfere in national interests.
The UK can be a good trading partner with the EU without being part of the EU and that's what the EUphiles truly fear that in going alone we'd prove that the whole corrupt edifice is not necessary at all.

 

Infantilism

No this isn't aimed at the general public, though God alone knows I've run across an increasing number who appear to have opted out of thinking for themselves and allowing the state to do their thinking for them. Still you can always rely on the EU to come up with some idiotic standard only to have companies fall over themselves to comply...
Mail.

A kickabout in the park might leave many dads suffering after their exertions, but it could have deadly consequences for toddlers – according to EU officials.
Toy footballs now have to be stamped with a warning that they are a choking hazard for the under-threes, despite the balls being bigger than an adult’s head.
The brightly coloured plastic balls with a circumference of 25in – just under the size used in the Premier League – come with the caution: ‘Warning! Not suitable for children under three years. Choking hazard.’
One manufacturer, Bellco Sports, which sells tens of thousands of its £1 balls every year in high streets all over the UK, confirmed it has had to comply with the EU regulations and brand them with the warning.
The balls bear the CE mark, which stands for Conformité Européene – translated as European Conformity – to show that they comply with EU legislation and are passed as meeting ‘harmonised levels of safety’.

My granddaughter is two and I rather doubt her ability to swallow a full sized football, even a deflated on, she was far more likely to have choked on a little green ball of death sprout over Christmas and we had far more in the way of choking hazards around than footballs, most of us wouldn't even recognise a football as a choking hazard. Still that's the way the EU works, someone has justified their (excessive) salary by producing such a ridiculous rule and is probably laughing themselves all the way to the bank at the manufacturers for falling into line to put it on the footballs.
Are we expected to take such rulings seriously? Well try not taking one seriously and see what happens if you don't, swinging fines as an example of opening broadsides springs to mind, imprisonment may also be mentioned.
Sadly though our own governments are not above infantilising the populace so leaving the EU may not protect us from the control freaks in charge.
Still, it would be a good start...

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to all those who have taken the time to look at my meanderings.

“During the coming
Christmas season
May you be blessed
With the spirit of the season,
which is peace,
The gladness of the season,
which is hope,
And the heart of the season,
which is love”

 

The consequences of not using joined up thinking...

The government may or may not put up the minimum price of alcohol, Cameron seems to favour it, though he seems to have a problem convincing his EU masters that it somehow doesn't breach their rules. However the consequences of driving up the price of a product that many of us legally enjoy is now being felt by those who sell it...
BBC.

UK tax authorities are not doing enough to tackle alcohol duty fraud, claims a leading off-licence chain.
Bargain Booze told the BBC that the number of stores telling HM Revenue and Customs that they face illegal competition is rising.
Last year HMRC received over 600 reports to its tax hotline relating to alcohol fraud.
The Revenue said it acted on every piece of intelligence, but admitted investigations could take years.
The government has given HMRC £17m to tackle the gangs behind the fraud.

The obvious solution is of course to reduce the price of duty to make it not worth the illegal traders time, but governments never think that way, their solution is always regulation and enforcement, aka jobs for the boys.
What they won't do is tackle the actual problem of people who go out and get blotto, nor even study as to why it's happening, possibly because they suspect the problem is actually them and that people will drink themselves into oblivion to try and forget all the shit that the government and life has foisted upon them. Perhaps is the government would butt out of our lives or improve our way of life and standards of living (pipedream I know) then they wouldn't have people getting so concerned over drunken behaviour. As it is we have laws which can deal with drunken behaviour, though too few police to deal with them and no social mechanisms in place to control it, mostly due to state interference in peoples lives by restricting the ways we can deal with law breaking and lawbreakers. That's why ordinary people end up getting arrested whilst criminals get away with it essentially, we don't know the rules, they do.
Still for as long as the government believe that putting the price up on anything that we enjoy then there will be those in the criminal fraternity that will provide those services at a much cheaper price (though not necessarily the quality) than the legal commodity.
It's called market forces, something no politician (or bureaucrat) really understands as they so rarely have to deal with the folly or consequences of their actions, except to put it on expenses.

To costly to sack

Those clever sods at the centre of the Saville scandal at the BBC have managed to get themselves into a position where they cannot be sacked because it would be too expensive to do so. Which rather begs the question as to who the hell negotiated the contracts in the first place. After all, most companies have certain procedures in place to weed out incompetents and gross misconduct. Then again this is the BBC we're talking about so I suppose we must assume that they believe their top people are above reproach and of the 'right' (in this case left) mindset.
Express.

CUSHY contracts at the BBC mean it would cost more than £600,000 to fire the four most senior people at the centre of the Jimmy Savile and McAlpine debacles.
The revelation that those criticised would have had six months’ or more of their inflated salaries will ­reinforce the view that more heads did not roll because the BBC could not afford the sackings.
Fears will be raised that more incompetence could be tolerated because 451 senior managers at the BBC have contracts that mean they get six months’ pay if they are sacked for not doing their job properly.
Seven members of the executive board, the top jobs at the BBC, have contracts giving them a year’s pay if they are fired.
Matthew Sinclair, of the TaxPayers’ ­Alliance, said: “The BBC has been engulfed by a crisis and much of the blame for that lies at the door of senior bosses at the broadcaster. They should be given the boot, not a wedge full of money.”

Of course there is the problem that these people actually think they did nothing wrong in presiding over a cover up and mudslinging that brought the BBC into further disrepute. It's always someone else's fault after all isn't it? Besides in Savile they have the perfect target, he's dead, can't tell no tales and cannot prosecute them for libel or slander. Shame about McAlpine, but much of what he's doing is threats, some out there doubt he'd actually get a lot of sympathy in court but why take a chance, besides he's establishment and deserves the cash etc.
Time and time again when it comes to incompetence in public service we find that the contracts negotiated have been bound in iron clad clauses which effectively mean that being caught and proven unable to do your job might get you sacked but with a golden handshake that beggars belief. It does seem that in public service different rules apply than to the rest of us, you know the ones who actually pay for this sort of stuff by making money rather than spending it.
I used to only think that politicians were worthy of being strung from lampposts, now I'm coming to the conclusion that we need a massive clear out at the top where the scum has apparently risen...

Easy targets

One of the more downheartening aspects of watching (so called) radical atheists these days is that so many of them are looking at the wrong target. Or rather they are going after easy targets possibly because they know what will happen if they go after the harder one...
Mail.

Raising your children as Roman Catholics is worse than child abuse, according to militant atheist Richard Dawkins.
In typically incendiary style, Professor Dawkins said the mental torment inflicted by the religion’s teachings is worse in the long-term than any sexual abuse carried out by priests.
He said he had been told by a woman that while being abused by a priest was a ‘yucky’ experience, being told as a child that a Protestant friend who died would ‘roast in Hell’ was more distressing.
Last night politicians and charities condemned the former Oxford professor’s views as attention-seeking and unhelpful.
The remarks are due to be broadcast tonight by Qatar-based TV network Al Jazeera.
Interviewer Mehdi Hasan asked Professor Dawkins about previous comments he made, when he said: ‘Horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place.’

You would think that Dawkins talking to islamic mouthpieces might just have noticed the islamic tendency to bring their children up believing that women are second class citizens, that Jews and Christians are descended from apes and pigs, that it's ok to beat your wife, that paedophilia is fine after all look what the 'prophet' did, that blowing up innocents  and other acts of terrorism are fine because the people aren't muslims. Or indeed the ever growing hatred between shia and sunni sects in the religion of (not) peace at all.
No, Dawkins does as many militant atheists do, go after the easy targets, the ones who don't threaten to kill you if you look the wrong way at them.
It would be interesting to see him have a go at islam, but I'm not going to hold my breath on that, I rather suspect he never will...

It's the end of the world as we know it...

Hunkered down here in Schloss QM waiting for the end of the world whilst eyeing the Christmas treats I cannot help but feel slightly cheated here. After all it's the last day of the Mayan long count calender and as everyone knows the world is supposed to end, or should it be the biggest new years eve party ever? I'd prefer the latter to be honest, it would at least mean I got a lie in rather than face having to go into town and do some Christmas shopping for all the stuff I cannot get online and pre wrapped.
Still whilst we wait here's a particularly apt song by REM.

For as much as it's worth happy new long count Mayan calender...

This is no victory

The Mail seems to believe that it's campaign to get the government to censor the internet for parents rather than parents doing it for themselves is a good thing. You'd think that by now people would have realised that giving any government control of something usually leads to unforeseen circumstances such as the government using the legislation in ways that no one ever anticipated.
Mail.

Children will be protected by a block on online pornography which parents will have to choose to have lifted, David Cameron vows today.
After weeks of confusion over the Government’s plans to protect youngsters, the Prime Minister makes clear that under the proposals, web filters will be ‘default on’ for houses with children.
In an article for the Daily Mail, the Prime Minister says it is ‘utterly appalling’ that so many children have been exposed to the ‘darkest corners’ of the internet, adding: ‘A silent attack on innocence is under way in our country today and I am determined that we fight it with all we’ve got.’
He announces that Conservative MP Claire Perry, who has led the campaign for a broader, automatic block on adult material for all internet users, is to be appointed as his adviser on reversing the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood.
She will be in charge of implementing the new web filter system, which will also require internet providers to check the age of the person setting controls.

Anyone remember the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act? Remember how we were told it was 'necessary' in the fight against terrorism to be used to monitor suspected terrorists? Remember also the use it was put too in checking litter bin use, peoples locations vis school catchment areas...
Derby City Council, Bolton, Gateshead and Hartlepool all used RIPA powers to snoop on dog fouling, and Bolton used powers under the Act to investigate littering.
The most prolific user of the Act in 2008 was Durham County Council which used the legislation 131 times almost exclusively against traders suspected of selling counterfeit goods or suspected of selling age-restricted products to kids.
Anyone want to bet that as soon as the government can force ISP's to censor their content that the range of content that can actually be censored will increase to the point where any criticism of the government or anything they don't want us to see is included?
Think we'd discover about MP's expense scandals, Islamic grooming gangs, social services 'disasters' even mention of the family courts scandal?
Well we would, though we'd have to go via various unblocked sites (probably based abroad) to get it. It's not like the UK's attempt to block the Pirate Bay was terribly successful. I'm pretty sure that most bloggers and other net savvy individuals will find things out, but ordinary people???
Asking governments to take on powers it really ought not to have is a recipe of disaster because there is always mission creep and frankly politicians cannot be trusted, one government might initially behave itself but the next one?
The Mail may be crowing about victory, but this is no victory at all, they've just campaigned for the government to have the power to censor them.