Apologies not needed

I had a little bit of a grin on my face when Owen Paterson the former environment secretary laid into the enviroloonies last week saying stuff that I basically knew to be true in that groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth do very well for themselves by constant claims of trying to help when more often than not they are an utter hindrance to looking after the environment.
Telegraph.

Owen Paterson is facing calls to apologise after claiming that he was “burnt in effigy” by green protesters when he was temporarily blinded from an illness.
The former Environment secretary said Greenpeace had set an image of him on fire in protest as his controversial plans to control TB in cattle by culling badgers.
Mr Paterson made the claim as part of an attack on professional environmental campaigners who repeatedly lobbied him when he was in office.
These were “the highly paid globe-trotters of the Green Blob who besieged me with their self-serving demands, many of which would have harmed the natural environment”, he said.
“I soon realised that the greens and their industrial and bureaucratic allies are used to getting things their own way.

Odd, they only want him to apologise about the effigy which may (or may not) have been burned, not the other claims he made which were far more serious. Still, I suppose if you can force someone to apologise for one part of a claim they can make it look like he's apologising for all.
The problem for the enviroloonies is that Paterson's tale is credible, it has the ring of truth about it as we've all seen the tales of the swampies breaking the law to try and prevent any kind of progress. We also saw the results of their efforts in the Environment Dept in Somerset with the flooding when EU directives influenced by the Green movement in Brussels caused rivers to silt up and the flood plains become water traps again.
So my first thoughts on what to do if I were Paterson would simply be to ignore Greenpeace, but after a few more minutes thought, I reckon a good 'f*#k you!' wouldn't go amiss either.
The Green movement like all leftard movements are not about saving the planet, they are about taking over and forcing us to comply to their will. They are dangerous because they hide their intent behind what appears to be good intentions.
Like all leftard groups through, they simply cannot be trusted.

Storm in a (Daily Mail) teacup

Certain news papers have certain agendas which come out obviously when you read them, they're either populist or in other cases designed to get the readerships blood boiling. The Daily Mail has a reputation of winding its readers up with stories about immigrants, criminals cocking a snook at the law, the dangers to children from porn etc. They're good at it too, but relentlessly authoritarian as the response is usually to ban or demand ever more laws.
Mail.

Thieves, burglars and violent thugs will be free to work in schools, hospitals and care homes after a ruling by judges.
The Supreme Court said thousands of criminals should be allowed to wipe their record clean so they are not haunted forever by past offences.
The change means people will not be forced to disclose some convictions to prospective employers – because this breaches their human rights. Those affected by the ruling include people applying for certain kinds of jobs involving work with children or vulnerable adults.
Up to now, anyone wanting to work in these areas has had to disclose any previous convictions or cautions, which stayed on their records indefinitely. But a panel of five Supreme Court judges yesterday upheld a Court of Appeal judgement that blanket checks could breach a person’s right to a private or family life.
The Home Office challenged that judgement, saying it compromised the protection of children and vulnerable groups, but in the meantime introduced a system to filter out single minor convictions or cautions during an enhanced criminal records check.

Actually I'm with the Supreme Court on this one, caught nicking a bicycle age 11 shouldn't mean that you be denied a job working in a care home at age 25. Under the old rehabilitation of Offenders act, any crime which got you a prison sentence of less than ten years did not have to be declared after ten years had passed. It was presumed if you could stay out of trouble over ten years, you'd reformed. CRB checks, particularly the enhanced ones more or less told your past criminal history back to the year of your birth. Sure it kept the dangerous ones away from the vulnerable, though it couldn't prevent one off's or check on those who did a crime after being offered the job.
Some crimes are of course going to remain on the checks, the sex offenders register is not covered by this ruling. Crimes of violence in certain categories will also mean you remain on the register after ten years. Expunging a caution because of drunken folly after five years however will.
It means those who have reformed their lives after perhaps a stupid mistake will now be able to find work in expanded areas. Hopefully the ruling will still keep the dangerous ones out.
But lurid headlines sell papers and the Mail is convinced paedogeddon is on its way because a guy who stole a bicycle when 11 in 2002 is going to have his criminal record expunged.
The blanket CRB check one size fits all was never a good idea. Giving people a chance after time has passed is.

I thought it was illegal anyway

Seems moves are afoot to attempt to block interpreters from being placed in polling stations because there are indications that they have been abusing their position in not just telling people who can't speak English how to vote, but who to vote for.
Telegraph.

The “integrity of the ballot box” is under threat because councils are allowing interpreters in polling stations, a minister has said.
Voters who do not speak English are at risk of being pressured or influenced by translators, undermining local democracy, Brandon Lewis said.
It follows allegations of “remarkable swings” to Labour in recent elections in Tower Hamlets, East London, in cases where it is claimed Bengali interpreters wrongly directed people on how to vote.
Mr Lewis, the local government minister, said council officials, the police and the public are unable to scrutinise the electoral process if officials are speaking to voters in a foreign language.
He told the Commons: “In light of previous instances of electoral fraud, including impersonation in polling stations, postal voting irregularities and allegations of improper influence, Ministers in this department have concerns about the practice of allowing foreign language translators or interpreters inside polling stations.
Cllr Peter Golds, the leader of the Conservative group, claimed a council-employed translator had instructed Bengali women to support Ken Livingstone in the 2008 mayoral election and had checked ballot papers after they had voted to ensure it was “correct”.
Certain wards saw “remarkable swings” where translators were employed, Cllr Golds alleged in a letter to the Electoral Commission sent earlier this month. There is no suggestion Mr Livingstone was aware of any wrong-doing.

Why am I not surprised by the fact that it was Labour who benefited?
I was under the impression (apparently wrongly) that the only people allowed in a polling station were the presiding officers and police and that no one else including party workers were allowed. So having an interpreter available seems like a breach of the law anyway, particularly in the light of quis custodiet ipsos custodes (who guards the guardians) when the presiding officers and the police have no idea what is being said to the voter.
Like the millions spent wasted on foreign language translation in this country, this is a practice that need to be stopped, if you don't know enough of the language to be able to interpret how to vote that's your lookout and there ought to be no one available save those who are legally obliged to be there in a polling station. After all, there's the suspicion that if you can't interpret the polling form, you won't know who your candidates were anyway.
As English is the recognised language of this country, then it should be the only language permitted on official forms and for official business. You want to speak Urdu or Gujarati in your own home, fine, but when dealing with the rest of the country you speak the language that the country speaks.
Otherwise there is the suspicion that by pandering to your laziness, the above happens.

For once I'm with the BBC on this...

I rarely agree with what the BBC allegedly puts out as news and opinion, they claim to be impartial, although the evidence gathered by such sites as Biased BBC clearly shows that they are anything but. Generally the BBC see themselves as impartial as they get equal complaints from both left and right or what the BBC consider to be 'right' if we're trying to be accurate. The evidence though tells us that left wingers such as the Labour Party get a far easier ride with the BBC and when reporting certain news stories the BBC will always slant them from a left wing viewpoint which is why they never report accurately on stories about muslims, Israel, the EDL or indeed the Tory party.
Still, when it came to the royal christening, the BBC appears to have got it right... admittedly from my jaundiced viewpoint.
Telegraph.

The BBC has been criticised for its coverage of the Royal christening after relegating Prince George’s baptism to an “and finally” segment.
The Corporation’s flagship news shows both made Prince George’s christening the last item on their programmes.
BBC 1’s 6pm and 10pm news programmes devoted two minutes each to the event at the Chapel Royal of St James’s Palace.
A segment about the spread of false widow spiders was given greater prominence on one of the BBC programmes.
“I was appalled,” said Andrew Rosindell, the Tory MP for Romford. “The BBC is the national broadcaster.
“An event such as that should have been given greater prominence. People will be very surprised to see that it was an ‘and finally’ item bearing in mind that it is a slot usually reserved for non-serious items.”

Well to me it was an 'and finally' article and pretty much non-serious either, my interest in the royals begins and ends with how much money they bring into the country via trade and tourism, not their soap opera lives. It was a Wednesday and it was obviously a slow news day hence the inclusion of the christening I presume, otherwise why bother other than to pander to the diminishing royalist watchers.
As you can gather I've little time for most of the royals, I respect the Queen, like the Duke of Edinburgh's talent for speaking what's exactly on his mind and grudgingly respect Harry for at least sticking with the Army, although how much in danger he really was in is anyone's guess.
As for the rest, sorry not much time at all for them, not saying some don't do a good job, but if they do, it's not newsworthy or of interest to me.
So the BBC sticking the story right on the end of the news was fine by me, I don't watch it anyway and at least with my radio at work I can tune out the inanity of the presenters when they go a-gushing about trivia, which is essentially what most news about the royals is...

Just common sense really

There's been a poll (yes another one) in which the public were asked about press regulation (how come no one ever asks me?) the answer was pretty unsurprising, well unsurprising to me and probably you.
Mail. (The Ukip smear press)

A clear majority of the public wants politicians kept out of a new system of Press regulation, a poll suggests.
It showed that only 16 per cent believe that MPs and peers should have the power to change the terms of a Royal Charter enshrining a new watchdog that will have the power to issue £1million fines and require prominent corrections.
Sixty-seven per cent – a huge margin – said the new system should be set up in a way that does not give politicians the final say, the basis of an industry proposal put forward to rival a cross-party plan.
The Royal Charter agreed by politicians in a late-night deal in Ed Miliband’s office would allow changes to be made in future only if two-thirds of both Houses of Parliament agree.
The public also believes that there should be a public consultation on proposals to establish a new system, something the Government has refused.
Only 12 per cent agree that the public should be denied a say, while 76 per cent believe ‘the Royal Charter should be subject to consultation’.
Voters also agreed by a large margin – 64 per cent to 36 per cent – that they were proud that the UK is currently regarded around the world as a model of Press freedom.

It's not that the public don't want to see some form of regulation, probably based on self regulation. It's that once again the public are announcing to the world that they simply do not trust politicians to have any say in regulation, based mostly on the suspicion that sooner or later politicians would try to hide behind some form of press regulation by adding amendments to any regulatory body laws.
After all, MP's have form on trying to use the law and legislation to hide their misdeeds, it's doubtful we'd hear anything about their arrant gross thievery if they did have a say on whether or not the charter could or should be changed.
So, the people are saying that politicians are simply not to be trusted with regulating the press. Hard to argue really, it kind of fits my view too. Though unlike most people I wouldn't want to see any press regulation. We actually have laws which could (and should) have been used in those cases which came up in certain pressure groups demands to regulate the press. Phone hacking is a crime, prosecutions could and should have been made without a lobbying circus demanding regulation for something which was a crime anyway.
Still, at least the majority agree with me about the need to keep politicians away from any levers of power...

No good deed goes unpunished

No good deed goes unpunished.
Clare Boothe Luce

 It's a popular trope and it seems particularly apt in the case of this good Samaritan...
BBC.

Firefighters cut the roof off a woman's undamaged car to rescue two people she gave shelter to following an accident.
Janice Dunlop narrowly avoided the accident herself when a lorry overturned on the A27 near Arundel, colliding with two cars.
She allowed the pair to wait in her car but firefighters cut the roof off after the two complained of neck pains and paramedics needed to move them.
Mrs Dunlop said she is still unsure whether insurers will replace the car.

Ouch, plus the possible insurance scam ruling I do have sympathy for the woman, though first aiders would probably have told her it wasn't a good idea what with potential whiplash or other injuries. A car is probably not the best enclosed space in which to find yourself trapped.
That said, kudos to Janice Dunlop for at least caring enough to help the injured in the aftermath of the accident though her later quote of sheer carnage is rather undermined by the Ambulance boss statement that  no one was seriously injured in the collision, so carnage it wasn't, though certainly messy.
Still, you can't help but wonder if it was the fear of getting sued rather than the fear of exacerbating an injury that caused the decision to cut off the roof. No doubt injury lawyers would have salivated at getting their hands on a case where their prospective clients had been dragged out of a car by medical staff at the scene. Certainly worth a couple of grand I'd expect.
I do hope Janice Dunlop's insurers do come through for her, giving aid to the injured is not as common as it was in society a few years ago when political correctness and no win no fee lawyering came about.
Still, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't.

Accepting is not the same as wanting

A Tory MP has said what a lot of us think (shock horror) in that a lot of parents don't want their children to be gay despite the states attempts to treat it as normal...
Mail.

A Tory MP last night claimed most parents do not want their children to be homosexual - because they are desperate to have grandchildren.
Monmouth’s David Davies made his comments as he opposed his party leadership’s plans to allow gay marriage.
But campaigners said most parents do accept their child’s homosexuality and simply want them to be happy.
Mr Davies told the BBC: ‘I think most people are very tolerant and have no problem at all if people are gay but, and I hate to say this in a way because I expect it’s going to cause controversy, but I think most parents would prefer their children not to be gay, knowing most parents want grandchildren if nothing else,’ he said.
‘What I’m concerned about is... having gay marriage recognised by law which opens to door to all churches being forced to do that.

Now I could accept if my children were gay, but it wouldn't be something I'd want for them, but I do enjoy my grandchildren and certainly would not expect to see any if my kids were gay. And that is the point Davies is making and as ever there's a deliberate attempt to misinterpret what he's saying. Despite claims that no religion will be forced to provide 'marriage' to same sex couples, I rather suspect that the lunatic judges in the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg have yet to stick their oar in. Gays have a civil partnership which provides exactly the same rights as a married couple, so the only reason I can see for them to be allowed to marry is a prelude to try and force churches (and mosques and synagogues) to marry them. I cannot for the life of me see another reason for this. It also flies right in the face of public opinion, A ComRes survey published today found that 62 per cent of voters and 68 per cent of Tories believe marriage should continue to be defined as a ‘life-long exclusive commitment between a man and a woman’. Whilst Two thirds of voters back civil partnerships for same-sex couples. So it's not exactly bigot city out there as most people believe gays should be happy with what they have which is equality with marriage.
Though I do believe most people just put up and shut up when faced with extremism of one form or another be it Islamic or gay, there's far to much of the point and scream bigot method of debate stifling goes on with those two communities...

Litigious

Oh what a tangled web we weave When first we practice to tweet unsubstantiated allegations deceive. Well it seems the twitter and media storm over Lord McAlpine is about to go into overdrive with several letter naming his intention to sue after the leftists premature ejaculation of joy over the child abuse allegations spectacularly misfired.
Mail.

Sally Bercow is set to be sued by Lord McAlpine after she wrongly named him on Twitter as a paedophile - but despite the threat of legal action she still went back online to tweet: 'Gulps'.
The Speaker's wife has been sent a letter before action by the Tory peer's legal team - warning her to apologise publicly and agree a settlement or be hauled before the courts.
Mrs Bercow, who admits she will be seeking legal advice, joined a Twitter frenzy following a botched Newsnight report that incorrectly put McAlpine at the centre of a North Wales sex abuse ring.
A source told MailOnline a 'handful' of letters will be sent to people today with more to follow in the coming weeks and months.
Meanwhile, Phillip Schofield was accused of 'destroying' Lord McAlpine's reputation and 'embarrassing' the Prime Minister as he was disciplined by ITV for his paedophile TV blunder.
Lord McAlpine has already received two apologies from Guardian journalist George Monbiot, who had named him in the Twitter storm

Now I don't tweet, I regard it as somewhat akin to mass texting and at 180 words to get your point across I can't really see the point. Nonetheless it has produced a series of gaffes amongst the rich and famous as well as certain of the powers that be which suggests that very much it is a medium where you can open mouth and insert foot with startling ease. Not that bloggers can be exempt from such activities, it's just that with most of us a blog post is something that requires a modicum of thought rather than texting what we think and having second thoughts afterwards.
Twitter itself seems to be an area where the hard of thinking particularly on the left thrive, though I do know a good number of right wingers who also partake of that online bloodsport. Taunting and undermining the left being a particularly easy task in a target rich environment. Still hopefully some out there might just be a tad more careful in the future about tweeting unsubstantiated rumours as gospel fact...
Actually, what am I saying, this is the liberal left we're talking about they never learn.
Still, couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.

Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.

Well the appeals are over, justice has been seen to be done and we're finally getting rid of Hooky Hamza.
BBC.

Five suspected terrorists including Abu Hamza al-Masri have left their UK prison to begin extradition to the US after losing the last appeal in a long legal battle.
The High Court ruled Hamza, Babar Ahmad, Syed Talha Ahsan, Adel Abdul Bary and Khaled al-Fawwaz did not show "new and compelling" reasons to stay.
They had appealed again after the European Court of Human Rights backed the decision of successive UK courts that they could be extradited.
The men left Long Lartin prison in Worcestershire in a police convoy.
Three police 4x4s, two armoured vans and a blacked-out police people carrier left the jail at 19:15 BST.
The men are travelling with members of the Metropolitan Police's extradition unit to an airbase where they will be handed over to US marshals.

He leaves behind of course 9 children, from two marriages, and four of them have already served jail terms, while the fifth is awaiting sentencing for an armed robbery.
he claims 'democracy' has let him down, though for the life of me I cannot see what he expected from a democracy, as an Islamist he was plainly against it. 
His mates were out protesting that notable oxygen thief Anjem Choudary leading the way but finally, finally we're rid of him. Pity it took between 8 to 14 years to do it and cost so much.
Still in celebration lets have a little musical interlude from Pete and Dud...

 

Not nearly harshly enough.

The whingers are out in force over the last couple of days complaining about the GCSE exam results being marked far too harshly. After all in scenes reminiscent of the old Soviet Unions tractor production stats higher grades were being achieved every year without fail despite the claims of employers that kids coming to them for jobs were unable to do basic literature or mathematics. Nor did anyone with any sense believe kids were getting smarter, which just left the unpalatable fact that exams were getting easier.
Mail.

More than two decades of GCSE grade inflation ground to a halt yesterday, provoking a furore as school heads claimed results had been ‘fixed’.
As top-grade passes fell for the first time in the exam’s history, it emerged that exam boards ‘manipulated’ grading in English at the last minute to make it harder for pupils to pass.
Furious teachers claimed that thousands of pupils unfairly missed out on a C grade in English – which is often a minimum requirement for taking A-levels, going to university and landing a good job. As many as 10,000 are thought to have been affected. Schools are now expected to lodge record numbers of exam appeals in an attempt to avoid slipping down the league tables.
The situation has echoes of the 2002 A-level grading fiasco which saw scores of teenagers unfairly downgraded as boards attempted to restrain the number of top grades.

Thing is, we want these exams to be tough, we want only the brightest and best to progress, we want our kids to be able to read, write and do maths and the system in place was failing them. They were the ones facing employers or universities and having to do catch up courses for stuff they really should have known at age eleven (or even earlier) Yes, the exams might have been marked more harshly, but in this year any kid with good grades knows that they'll have earned it a bit more than the previous year. Exams need to be tough, they should stretch kids memory and deductive powers and 60%+ of kids getting top rates suggests that the exams are either not tough enough or that the system is/was fixed to continually increase the percentage getting the higher grades. Nor did the introduction of the A* grade give any confidence in the system, after all if they had to tack an extra grade on top, it meant that the exam itself was far too easy. In my days getting a top grade from a good exam board was very difficult indeed, only 1% of the intake normally managed it, not the 8% of recent years. That 1% pretty much were the ones who stayed on for 6th form and A levels, the rest of us found jobs, it was easy enough we were pretty much all literate and numerate after all. Though jobs were easier to find too in the way of apprenticeships etc and didn't require ridiculous academic qualifications for that matter either, much of the training happening on the job.
The education system and its tinkering with by the all must have prizes do gooders has badly let our kids down, it might take generations to repair the damage assuming it's possible at all.
Harder exams and tougher marking is simply a start.

Biblically speaking

Matthew 18:8 If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away...

Not terribly good advice from a physical point of view, though that wasn't really the advice Jesus was giving, it was more about keeping stuff around that makes you sin, a close analogy would be letting a toddler loose in a sweet shop.
But for this woman it sounds as if it might be a good idea...
Telegraph.

A British woman is considering having her hand cut off and replaced with a bionic one after she lost use of her right arm following a car crash. 

Nicola Wilding, 35, suffered serious neck and shoulder injuries 13 years ago, which left her entire right arm paralysed.
Although nerve transplants and physiotherapy allowed her to regain movement in her upper arm, her hand has remained paralysed and withered.
She is now hoping to have the hand removed because she said it is “useless” and merely gets in the way.
Mrs Wilding believes a bionic hand would change her life by allowing her to carry out basic tasks such as cooking and dressing.
She said she was inspired to take the drastic step after seeing a television news bulletin about an Austrian man who underwent elective amputation to have his withered hand replaced with a prosthetic one.

Five years ago, I had a tumour removed from my right arm, it was growing to the front of my elbow and was wrapped around the radial nerve, it was also malignant and growing pretty fast. I was lucky, I was put in the hands of a very skilled surgeon in one of the leading cancer research hospital in the UK (Royal Marsden) Under normal circumstances, I'd probably have lost the arm, as it was he was prepared to attempt to save it, though he warned me that he might just have to sever the radial nerve on my arm leaving me with no wrist control. As it was, I lucky, I lost half my bicep, suffered some nerve damage but essentially was able to return to work after a 6 month convalescence mostly due to the nerve damage. (I would be very reluctant to hold anything if I'm the one hammering, but at least I can hammer) Fine motor control is a thing of the past with me, but I can type and can write, though sadly my guitar playing days are behind me, I can no longer strum very well or finger pick.
Still, for all it seems extreme, I can well sympathise with the lady having been in a similar if not so extreme position. It is of course an all or nothing position to be in, most people intending to have something similar have already lost a limb.
I wish Nicola well, I'm fairly sure that bionics so to speak is only in its infancy and we're nowhere near 6 million dollar man territory yet, they haven't as far as I'm aware even got to touch or pain sensation yet.
Still, great oaks from small acorns etc...

An exceptional quote

It is often said debating the left is like playing a pigeon at chess, they knock over the pieces, shit on the board and then strut around like they won.

17 HDoodson // Mar 9, 2012 at 2:30 pm

Political discourse in the modern age

Tim Worstall.

Anna Raccoon and Longrider have the full story  

A pub of character(s)

Today was my bi-annual trip into London to get my arm checked over since I had a cancerous tumour removed. The visit to the hospital was routine with a chest x-ray and a visit to the radiotherapy clinic who check me over mostly by asking how I felt and checking my lymph glands and poking at the scar. What makes it a good day though is a visit to my favourite London pub, The Anglesea Arms on Selwood Terrace SW7 close to the Royal Marsden Hospital where I go to be poked and prodded.

As pubs go it has a very friendly atmosphere and a clientèle which can only be described as eccentric after all how many pubs do you know where a customer turns up riding one of these?

Yep, that's right, as we just sitting there enjoying a pint of Doombar this guy pulls up on a penny farthing and greets another customer with "You're looking smart today." And gets the reply,  "Another bloody funeral."
It's one of those pubs where you could sit all day with a pint or seven and just people watch. Bare floorboards and scrubbed tables, but wood panelling, old photos, prints and some impressive oil paintings, coupled with the absence of any music or fruit machines, almost heaven really.
The selection of beers and wines is huge, you can even get mulled wine there if you are so inclined. Pub meals can only be described as "gourmet" class and although they aren't as cheap as a "Brewsters" or "Weatherspoon's" they aren't as generic either and all prepared on the spot from fresh ingredients.
If it weren't for the Anglesea Arms, my trips into London would be so much more boring and lengthy seeming, it's almost a shame that after next July I'll only be going in once a year. It's almost tempting to just go in and visit the museums for a chance to go back more often.
Lady QM loves the place too, so I'll probably suggest a visit just for a chance to people watch again.

Not so quietly abolished

Suckling at the state teat has become a truly outlandish business for various "experts" in all sorts of fields where they can pronounce their current bias against anything the public seem to enjoy doing. Of course, when a new government gets in and starts threatening the finance you can hear the squeals in the press, even if it was supposed to be something supposedly quietly abolished.
Telegraph.

A panel of advisers on tackling obesity has been disbanded over claims the Government was too sympathetic to the food and drink industry.
Members of the advisory group, which was set up under Labour, said the Government preferred to consult food and drink firms than scientific experts over Britain's obesity crisis.
The decision to dissolve the panel was taken some weeks ago but was not revealed until this week, according to the Financial Times.
Experts were disappointed with Health Secretary Andrew Lansley's approach to "nudge" people to make better lifestyle choices.
Klim McPherson, a member of the panel, told the FT: "Ministers were more inclined to involve food and drinks companies than scientific experts."
He said the health issue was as big a problem as global warming, adding: "An obesity epidemic cannot be prevented by individual action alone and demands a societal approach."

I suspect the food and drink industry has its own scientific experts too, considering how likely it might be that they'll get sued if they cause problems with peoples health. But the main reason that this lot had to go was the fact that it really isn't the governments job to hector people over what they eat, it should also not be the governments job to hector people over what they drink or smoke either, but we're still working on that one.
Another clue that the people involved are just placemen was the raising of the old shibboleth of "global warming" clearly someone has not been outside in the real world for far too long otherwise they'd know that the warmist industry has had to change its tack to "climate change" and then "global climate disruption" or whatever it is they're trying to scare us with these days.
I wonder how much these panelists were claiming, I suspect it was far more than the minimum wage, I suspect it was far more than the average wage. I doubt we'll miss them, the IQ of the various public services probably went up a notch or two when they were disbanded. 
Still, that's only one down, probably thousands to go, but good riddance all the same.

Picking the wrong fight

One of the things I've learned in the school of hard knocks that constitutes daily living for most of us, is to pick very carefully the fights I get into with authority and figures of authority. if I do choose to go up against them, I make damned sure of the ground I'm standing on and whilst I'm not averse to helping out a losing (if just) cause I also know that sooner or later a situation might arise when it's time to call it a day and cut your losses.
It's a lesson some people never seem to learn.
BBC.

A private clamper accused of immobilising royal protection officers' unmarked cars acted "belligerently", a Hampshire court heard.

Gareth Andrews refused to removed the clamps despite the fact PC Mark Cox showed him his warrant card.

Mr Andrews, 39, of Privett Road, Fareham, denies wilfully obstructing a police constable in his duty.

The officers were protecting the Queen as she visited Portsmouth, the city's magistrates' court heard.

PC Cox told the court that because of Mr Andrews's "belligerence" he had no option but to arrest him.

The officers were both dressed in plain clothes during the operation on 25 May, having parked the cars at Gunwharf Quays marina.

Colin Shackel, prosecuting, told the court parking spaces allocated to the officers were temporarily being used by a delivery lorry so, after consulting security staff, they parked in adjacent spaces.

He said Mr Andrews had arrived and clamped the cars and refused to release them because he did not believe he was dealing with real police officers.

"By the time you have been shown a warrant card and security guards are involved, it would be clear to anyone that it was real officers who weren't just trying to avoid a clamping charge and had duties to perform," he said.

 Now sometimes it pays to take on the police/authorities when they are abusing their position to gain some sort of advantage either financially or through abusing their position, however trying to prevent the close support royal protection group by essentially immobilising their cars strikes me as a war you cannot possibly win.
I can only assume the years of abuse Gareth Andrews must have suffered as a clamper have inured him to what appears to be a suicidal tendency, not that I have much (if any) sympathy for a clampers seeing them as state/authority sponsored parasites operating on the fringe of legality and often enough taking advantage of those who were not aware of any restrictions on a parking space. That plus the fees they charge often enough amount to legalised blackmail. So all in all I'm fairly pleased the guy is getting his comeuppance.
Just a shame that the ordinary people in this country don't have similar means to make those who make our lives a misery a misery in turn.

She may just have secured my future vote

My MP is Tracey Crouch, you may not have heard of her, but I've met her and she seems a nice enough lady, though I didn't vote for her to represent me in Westminster as I have grievous qualms about voting mainstream at any time. Yet she did me proud last night even if under the Cameron regime she may have put her career on hold for a time.
Express.

FIRST let us salute the MPs who held their nerve, despite heavy whipping and the threats and blandishments of their leaders. That so many stood firm and, after 36 years, got another vote on our relationship with Brussels counts as a stunning success.
These MPs are the ones who understand that political power can only legitimately be exercised by public consent.
Senior Tory and Labour backbenchers were foremost among the rebels.
But last night some younger MPs showed their mettle by voting in defiance of party chiefs.
Anybody searching for new political stars should look to them first. Big political figures are defined by their readiness to make elbow-room at the top table rather than just bow to the whips.
On that basis, it will be MPs like Priti Patel (Witham), Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) and Tracey Crouch (Chatham) who will have a big say in the future of the Conservative Party, for this vote will be long remembered by the British people. Those MPs who let them down will suffer the consequences at the next election.

 As for the vote, well, there wasn't much of a chance of success given the odds against it, but 111 MP's including 79 Tory rebels decided that conscience was to be their guide not the orders from on high.
Here's the list courtesy of the Guardian.

• Tory rebels Stuart Andrew (Pudsey), Steven Baker (Wycombe), John Baron (Basildon & Billericay), Andrew Bingham (High Peak), Brian Binley (Northampton South), Bob Blackman (Harrow East), Graham Brady (Altrincham & Sale West), Andrew Bridgen (Leicestershire North West), Steve Brine (Winchester), Fiona Bruce (Congleton), Dan Byles (Warwickshire North), Douglas Carswell (Clacton), Bill Cash (Stone), Christopher Chope (Christchurch), James Clappison (Hertsmere), Tracey Crouch (Chatham & Aylesford), David Davies (Monmouth), Philip Davies (Shipley), David Davis (Haltemprice & Howden), Nick de Bois (Enfield North), Caroline Dinenage (Gosport), Nadine Dorries (Bedfordshire Mid), Richard Drax (Dorset South), Mark Field (Cities of London & Westminster), Lorraine Fullbrook (South Ribble), Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park), James Gray (Wiltshire North), Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry), Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne & Sheppey), George Hollingbery (Meon Valley), Adam Holloway (Gravesham), Stewart Jackson (Peterborough), Bernard Jenkin (Harwich & Essex North), Marcus Jones (Nuneaton), Chris Kelly (Dudley South), Andrea Leadsom (Northamptonshire South), Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford), Edward Leigh (Gainsborough), Julian Lewis (New Forest East), Karen Lumley (Redditch), Jason McCartney (Colne Valley), Karl McCartney (Lincoln), Stephen McPartland (Stevenage), Anne Main (St Albans), Patrick Mercer (Newark), Nigel Mills (Amber Valley), Anne-Marie Morris (Newton Abbot), James Morris (Halesowen & Rowley Regis), Stephen Mosley (Chester, City of), Sheryll Murray (Cornwall South East), Caroline Nokes (Romsey & Southampton North), David Nuttall (Bury North), Matthew Offord (Hendon), Neil Parish (Tiverton & Honiton), Priti Patel (Witham), Andrew Percy (Brigg & Goole), Mark Pritchard (Wrekin, The), Mark Reckless (Rochester & Strood), John Redwood (Wokingham), Jacob Rees-Mogg (Somerset North East), Simon Reevell (Dewsbury), Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury), Andrew Rosindell (Romford), Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills), Henry Smith (Crawley), John Stevenson (Carlisle), Bob Stewart (Beckenham), Gary Streeter (Devon South West), Julian Sturdy (York Outer), Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth & Horncastle), Justin Tomlinson (Swindon North), Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight), Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes), Charles Walker (Broxbourne), Robin Walker (Worcester), Heather Wheeler (Derbyshire South), Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley), John Whittingdale (Maldon), Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes)
Two Tory MPs acted as tellers for the rebels. They were Peter Bone (Wellingborough) and Philip Hollobone (Kettering).
Two Tory MPs voted in both the Aye and Noe lobbies. This counts as an abstention. They were: Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) and Mike Weatherley (Hove)
• 19 Labour rebels Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley), Rosie Cooper (Lancashire West), Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North), Jon Cruddas (Dagenham & Rainham), John Cryer (Leyton & Wanstead), Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West), Natascha Engel (Derbyshire North East), Frank Field (Birkenhead), Roger Godsiff (Birmingham Hall Green), Kate Hoey (Vauxhall), Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North), Steve McCabe (Birmingham Selly Oak), John McDonnell (Hayes & Harlington), Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby), Dennis Skinner (Bolsover), Andrew Smith (Oxford East), Graham Stringer (Blackley & Broughton), Gisela Stuart (Birmingham Edgbaston), Mike Wood (Batley & Spen).
• One Liberal Democrat rebel Adrian Sanders (Torbay)
• Eight Democratic Unionist Party MPs who voted for the referendum: Gregory Campbell (Londonderry East), Nigel Dodds (Belfast North), Jeffrey Donaldson (Lagan Valley), Rev William McCrea (Antrim South), Ian Paisley Junior (Antrim North), Jim Shannon (Strangford), David Simpson (Upper Bann), Sammy Wilson (Antrim East)
• Independent Unionist who voted for the referendum: Lady Sylvia Hermon (Down North)
• Green Party Leader Caroline Lucas (Brighton Pavilion) voted for the referendum

Thank you, I often rail against politicians and their weird ways, but today for the 111, thank you for at least trying.

Finally growing a (tiny) pair?

The sheer blandicity of the C of E over the last few decades has often made me wonder just what the hell they were up too. The placing of the Arch Druid in charge of them did them no favours either, as all he was to me was a political placeman of the Blair regime, too right on and politically correct to actually be a Christian of the type needed in this country. His comments on Shariah merely confirming that the guy actually hadn't a clue what was going on in Britain's inner cities.
Still it does look like the C of E or bits of it anyway might just be starting to grow a pair if this is anything to be going by.
Mail.

The Church of England has told its schools to ensure they are serving non-halal food after concerns that a number are only providing meat slaughtered according to Islamic law.

The official guidance was issued after Church members complained that the use of halal meat was effectively ‘spreading sharia law’ across Britain.

The Church’s financial arm has also come under pressure to withdraw its investments – worth millions of pounds – in supermarkets that do not clearly label halal food.

More than 10,000 Christians, many of whom have reservations about eating meat from animals that are bled to death while an Islamic prayer is recited, have signed a petition calling for proper labelling.

Animal rights campaigners have also expressed anger because animals are often not stunned before their throats are cut with a sharp knife.

The Rev Patrick Sookhdeo, an Anglican cleric who runs the international Barnabas Fund charity for Christians facing persecution, said some extremist Muslims viewed the growing  use of halal food as part of their efforts to ‘impose’ sharia law on the West.

 Halal is a cruel way to kill if stunning isn't used, but also I don't personally want a prayer to a vile false god said over anything I eat either. To me the only reason supermarkets don't label products as halal is because they know that many people wont buy them if they knew, yes it might be prejudiced, yes it might be petty, but people simply don't want it, so will buy alternatives if they know.
Who knows, if they are successful in this they could perhaps raise the matter of the slaughtered Copts in Egypt, or the fact that the last Christian church was raised to the ground in Afghanistan, or even the activities of the janjaweed militias in the Sudan and their use of slavery and ethnic cleansing on Christians in the Sudan.
For too long the C of E hierarchy has been blandness supreme, political placemen of the establishment. Perhaps, and it's only a perhaps, they are in danger of actually becoming a Christian church once more. Only time will tell.

Waiting for our own Oskar Freysinger

 Or Geert Wilders come to that



The man makes a lot of sense, yet the one thing noticeable about UK politics is the notable lack of anyone prepared in politics to actually say how it is to the ordinary people on the street.
Even the 2 party system we have is more or less designed to keep things the way they always have been, maintain the status quo. To get to the top is impossible for a maverick or personality as the compromises they have to make just leave us with recently a succession of interchangeable clones. Those who don't or can't play the game by the rules are destined to fail, just ask Gordon Brown, not that succeeding would have made him any more popular, but he might have lasted longer.
Yet when you hear what Freysinger has to say, it strikes a chord in many of the people who read it and you know that if we had a UK version he would be instantly shunned by the media and written off for not playing by the rules (as the left see it) yet like Pat Condell and others he would probably be very popular with the masses.
It's a shame the system we have turns out politicians rather than people who believe in doing what's right.

I'm sorry? Whose fault was it?

I blame the government for lots of things, mostly because they interfere when they shouldn't and act like kiddies in a sweetshop when it comes to spending taxpayers money. What I wouldn't do is blame them for not doing something which wasn't their concern in the first place.
BBC.

A couple held captive by Somali pirates for more than a year have criticised the British government in a book, for failing to support their family.

Paul and Rachel Chandler, formerly of Tunbridge Wells, Kent, but who now live in Devon, said assistance offered to relatives had been "derisory".

The couple's ordeal began when their yacht was seized in October 2009.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) said it had been in "constant touch" with relatives.

The Chandlers, who now live in Dartmouth, make their claims in a book documenting their 388-day kidnap.

It wasn't the British governments fault that those two idiots decided to sail in pirate infested waters, though I do believe that the government could have dusted off the old rules of conduct when dealing with piracy and wiped them out if they caught them.
Nor was it the governments job to look after the families of the two idiots other than to give them updates if anything was happening, which is what appears to have happened.
It should not be the job of any government to support families other than the normal means of support as provided by the state, even that I have railed against when it moves from support to pampering.

A spokesman for the FCO said: "Throughout Paul and Rachel Chandler's ordeal, a dedicated team from across the region and in the UK did everything we could to secure the couple's safe release. 

"HMG's policy is long-standing and well-known - we do not make or facilitate ransom payments."

As it should be, nothing more should be allowed or required. If you go sailing into dangerous waters, you only have yourself to blame if you get kidnapped and it isn't the duty of the government to look after your family in any special way if you do get captured. Keep them informed, yes, attempt to secure your release, yes. Offer your family counselling, tea and sympathy, no.