The Tesco tax

In ever desperate attempts to avoid cutting Council Tax in order to keep their executives and non essential services high on the hog (whilst being perfectly prepared to get rid of weekly bin collections, street lights, sports fields etc.) Derby council and others in England have proposed a Tesco tax to fill their coffers using the excuse that they'll filter the proceeds back into the local community.
BBC.

A group of local councils in England is formally asking the government for new powers to tax large supermarkets.
BBC News has learned that Derby City Council has called for the right to bring in a levy as a "modest" effort to ensure supermarket spending "re-circulates" in local communities.
Some 19 other local authorities back a so-called "Tesco tax" on big retailers, which could raise up to £400m a year.
The government said additional taxes on supermarkets would push up food prices.
A similar tax already operates in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

Derby City Council is of course a Labour run council and probably haven't run across a tax they didn't like.
Others hinting that they'd like the tax are Oxford (minority Labour run), Brighton and Hove (Watermelon  Green run), Preston (Labour run), Southwark (Labour run)and Sefton (Labour run) councils. Basically it's all socialist driven and sounds good till you realise just who will suffer and trust me it won't be the likes of Tesco, it will be those who shop there. As with other taxes proposed by socialists, expect the money as ever to go into a bottomless pit to pay for things that they think the public want such as translation services, diversity officers, out of pocket expenses, community support (so long as you aren't white and working) and of course attempts to prevent anyone enjoying themselves in an unapproved manner.
Expect calls for such taxes to grow, particularly as the government are looking at just what it is Councils actually are spending money on (and telling them to stop it)
Labour Councils are notorious spendthrifts on unessential services such as translation and equality services, they'd rather keep them going rather than collect the rubbish on the streets.
Let's hope the government has more sense than to give way on this.

Jobsworths

The world is a weird place, give someone a modicum of power and a few rules to hide behind and  common sense just goes out the window. Sure humans are territorial, but you'd think if a crime had been committed then a rule would not be supplied to tell someone to their fasce that due to the Data Protection Act you can't tell them who stole your property...
Express.

STAFF at a GPs’ surgery have refused to name a mother who brazenly stole an expensive pram – for “data protection reasons”.
Police hunting the crook have been reduced to trying to trace her by releasing a CCTV image, despite the fact that her name is well known to employees at the practice.
The woman turned up at the surgery with her own child in a cheap pram.
But she left with the infant in mother-of-two Hayley Skidmore’s £300 pushchair, a limited-edition black Maclaren buggy.
When police arrived surgery workers immediately recognised the thief on CCTV.
But in a move branded “ridiculous” yesterday, they refused to tell officers the woman’s name saying it would break data protection and patient confidentiality laws.
Miss Skidmore, 26, of Cadbury Heath, Bristol, who was at the Cadbury Heath Health Centre on February 5 with her son Lewis, aged one, said: “I think it’s vile that a mother could do that to another mother. I’m still in shock about it.
“The manager told me she had been told not to reveal the name because of the Data Protection Act. I don’t understand it. Obviously the woman who stole my pram was there for an appointment but giving her name to police would have nothing to do with her private medical information – it’s about a crime.
“She should be prosecuted. She shouldn’t be allowed to get away with something like that.”

I'm pretty sure the Data Protection Act is only to prevent access to confidential records, not prevent identification of a theft on the premises. However it does appear that the staff are using a ruling to prevent the police carrying out their duties by simply giving them a name. I don't believe the patients records will need viewing, simply a means to find the thief rather than rely on video evidence.
However interpretation of the Act and its consequences does appear to give jobsworths a whole new level of power to play with and refusing to cooperate is a hallmark of a jobsworth in action. Never mind common sense, rules is rules and my interpretation of them makes me a little tin god, or so I believe they think.
I suspect the police will find the woman, it may be too late to save the buggy of course, it might have been sold on. Yet they could have had it sorted within hours, not days or weeks.
Yet because a manager decides that a name, is covered by the Act, rather than the record, someone has to suffer.
Welcome to the UK....

Charity? More like pickpocketing!

Charity is supposed to be voluntary giving, where you choose a cause and give some of your cash towards it. At least that used to be the definition of charity in the old days before the government decided which causes your cash was going towards...
Telegraph.

A mandatory “charity” plastic bag charge which comes into force next year will rake in millions of pounds in tax for the Treasury, Telegraph discloses
Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, unveiled Government plans to charge 5p for plastic bags from October 2015 at September’s party conference.
He justified the new plastic bag charge next year by saying it will raise money for charity and stop damage to the environment.
However ministers have now admitted that the charge will raise millions of pounds a year in VAT for the Treasury.
Dan Rogerson, the environment minister, told MPs on the Environmental Audit Committee that he expected the charge to raise £95million a year, only £70million of which will go to “charitable causes”.

Now I suspect that many people might just start taking their own bags to supermarkets, although there will be times when it isn't possible. That said giving the government £25 million in VAT because the boy Clegg wants to be a poster boy for the environment strikes me as a step too far in the usual ill thought out government scheme. Nor do I like the idea that the government deciding where the rest is to go on 'charitable' causes, mostly because their idea of a charitable cause isn't mine. They are quite likely to spunk it away to enviroloon causes and global warming prevention rather than somewhere where it might actually do some good.
Essentially we are in the realms of fake charities here where groups suckle at the governments teats for funding, some of it to do with lobbying the government to do what the government wants to do anyway, but making it appear like its a popular decision by 'the people.' You can normally spot them by the name, although some long established so called charities have gone down this route too where they are doing very well (paid directorships etc) from supposedly doing good, although a quick check of the accounts will tell you the majority of the funding goes on wages and lobbying, rather than charitable works.
This in essence is why charitable giving by many members of the public is tailing off simply because the bloody government is giving away our taxes direct from out pockets and deciding who gets our cash, rather than us deciding who if what gets it.
Unfortunately whilst we have morons like our current crop of politicians who believe they know best who should get their ill gotten gains, this will continue... at least until we hang them all.

Other people's money

It's the party political conference season and currently the Lib Dems are trying to dig themselves into an early grave by raids upon the taxpayer to pay for goodies for people who don't contribute. Other than a leaked email telling the world that they intend a mansion tax (again) coupled by a tax raid on anyone earning above £50,000 who they reckon are on a “very large salary” and should pay more income tax. They also announced that the taxpayer is going to have to pay for all infants attending school in the UK to get free dinners...
BBC.

All pupils at infant schools in England are to get free school lunches from next September, Lib Dem leader and Deputy PM Nick Clegg has announced.
The change - for children in reception, year one and year two - will save parents about £400 a year per child.
Targeting infants would ensure "every child gets the chance in life they deserve", teach healthy eating habits and boost attainment, Mr Clegg said.

Magic money tree economics at its best, no doubt parents with infants will think 'oh goody' whilst those of us who don't will probably think 'the thieving bastards, dipping into my pockets again' or something along those lines.

But Labour said the Lib Dems could not be trusted to deliver.

And Labour would know, they're past masters on taking the piss when it comes to financing those they see as worthy.
Still no doubt this will make the Lib Dems somewhat popular with parents of infants, though like as not, no one else. They'd rather take money from us all and spunk it up the wall than actually take less money off us and make us all a little better off. Special interests rather than general interests.
It makes for good headlines, but so far no one (on the BBC is asking just how much this is going to cost, though judging by the leaked email on the tax raid, I suspect one group of people have a pretty good idea.

The enemy within #2 or possibly #3

As a nation the English and indeed the British generally have pretty good sense and have an instinctive knowledge of right and wrong even if many choose to ignore such strictures. Yet sadly that good sense seems to constantly elude the political classes who have tried and in many cases succeeded in destroying many of those values with a torrent of unwanted mass uncontrolled immigration. What we are now discovering is a network or fifth column of undesirables using their residency here to destroy, corrupt or criminally abuse our society...
Mail.

Between 80 and 90 per cent of the world’s trade relies on sea transport, with half of that – billions of pounds’ worth – funnelled through the Gulf of Aden, that part of the Arabian Sea between Yemen and Somalia, through the Red Sea to the Suez Canal to Europe. It’s crucial for the transport of Persian Gulf oil.
And everything is fair game for the pirates, from 1,000ft-long oil tankers to tiny sailing boats with two people on board – as in the case of the Chandlers. They were seized in October 2009 and held for 388 days.
The huge scale of the problem makes it all the more remarkable that the hub of this trade in misery is London – the world’s centre of shipbroking and insurance.
The pirates’ moneymen and informers lie hidden among the city’s large but nearly invisible Somali population. Some 15,000 Somalis live in the borough of Tower Hamlets, and a further 5,000 in Hackney.

All invited in by bloody leftard New Labour because they thought they were buying votes, not trouble. The idiots even apologised for it, yet this is something which is unforgivable, it's divided societies and allowed an alien culture whose grasp of the basic tenets of civilisation and decency is severely limited to take root here.
It does boil the blood somewhat that there are 15,000 Somalis in Tower Hamlets and Hackney, it strikes me as about 15,000 too many, even if they are mostly law abiding as we don't have enough knowledge of which ones are or aren't.
Pretty much the same with any community who regard their laws and their religion to be above the laws of this land. It really ought to be quite simple, integrate or leave. Abide by our laws and don't try to change or ignore them or go.
Be good citizens or bye bye...

Spring has sprung

Spring has sprung,

The grass is riz
I wonder where the warming is
Some say the planet's gettin hotter.
But the planet ain't doing what they think it ought'er.

Express.

BRITAIN is set for a white weekend after forecasters predicted up to 6 inches of snow to cover most parts of the UK.
Much of the country will be bombarded by blizzards and strong winds which will dash any early springtime plans.The Met Office has issued a severe weather warning for snow across many parts, with predictions of 10-15cm (4-6 inches) possible in the north Midlands, north east Wales and north west England.
High areas could see 20-40cm (8-16 inches) of snow fall and strong and even gale force winds could lead to blizzard conditions, as the miserable March continues.

All doggerel aside, global warming (the original and best!) is still being promoted by certain 'scientists' and the environmental movement ably supported by the hard of thinking political left. They still appear to believe that if they point and scream long enough and loud enough that people will quietly go freezing into the still windless night in their efforts to save the planet (and the 'scientists' and the environmental movement ably supported by the hard of thinking political left) Never has so much been invested into producing nothing other than higher energy bills and useless bird mincers blotting dotting the landscape on their massive concrete pedestals (concrete is really environmentally unfriendly, trust me I've worked with the stuff)
All that's left now that the jig is well and truly up is to apportion the blame. It won't be those at the top of course, nor the Monbiot's or the Gore's. Nor any politicians one would suspect. No it will be the likes of the enviroloons who took some (though not the majority) of the money and howled at the moon that the planet was going to turn into a desert with whole countries swallowed up by the rising seas.
A pity really, I still believe we should hang them all, from top to bottom.

Like father like son

Islam the religion of choice for the hard of thinking in pretty much the same way that socialism is the politics of choice for the hard of thinking. So it comes as no real surprise to learn that the son of Hooky Hamza is pretty much cut from the same cloth as his dad.
BBC.

The son of Islamic cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri has been jailed for 11 years over an armed raid on a Norfolk jewellers.
Imran Mostafa, 20, from Slough, was convicted with three London men at Norwich Crown Court in September.
Gems worth £70,000 were stolen from the shop in King's Lynn in January.
Jonathan Abdul, 18, from Fulham, was sentenced to 11 years, Ossama Hamed, 19, also of Fulham, to eight years and three months, and Ahmed Ahmed, 20, of Enfield, seven years and four months.
Judge Peter Jacobs said: "This was plainly a terrifying robbery.
"Staff were praying that they would not be shot and they continue to suffer trauma."
Mostafa's father Abu Hamza last month pleaded not guilty to terror charges in a New York court following his extradition from the UK.

Seems to be a clear cut case of Shariah thinking in action in that what non muslims have is to be taken by force from. After all if it was good enough for old Mo the fence

8:41 And know that whatever ye take as spoils of war, lo! a fifth thereof is for Allah, and for the messenger (Mo himself) and for the kinsman (Mo's relatives)

Then thievery is ok so long as it's not muslims stealing from muslims, then technically it's hand lopping time.
His father took a far bigger role of course with the kidnapping of tourists in Yemen, but again as they weren't muslims, they were fair game, at least to the mind of an Islamic.
And there lies the nature of the problem, not all muslims are terrorists/paedophiles but their religion does seem to throw them up at an alarming rate using the religion to justify the basest of motives and crimes.
I've said it before and I maintain it, there should be no place for islam in a civilised society.
Unfortunately, the left choose to disagree over Hooky Hamza, there's a puff piece over at the Guardian lamenting his extradition, whilst coyly never mentioning why he was actually extradited and trying to use Gary Mckinnon as somehow justifying not sending Hooky on his way.
Hard of thinking? yes, that will be a socialist for you... 

If we did this we'd be prosecuted and jailed

Seems that child molesting isn't the only scandal to be happening in Rotherham under its MP's nose. Though again, that nose would appear to have been firmly in the trough to take much notice of what was going on under his watch. Besides in the wonderful world of socialist politics, minorities (apparently) do not come under the same rules as the rest of us. Nor it would seem do MP's either (though we already knew this)...
BBC.

Former Labour minister Denis MacShane is facing suspension from the Commons for 12-months.
A Parliamentary committee found he had submitted 19 false invoices which were "plainly intended to deceive" Parliament's expenses authority.
The committee said it was the "gravest case" which has come to them for adjudication.
Mr MacShane, who has been suspended from the Labour Party, said he was "shocked and saddened" by the move.
The MP for Rotherham had been suspended from the Labour party while police investigated his expenses claims, but he had the whip reinstated when the criminal inquiry was dropped.
The committee's report described Mr MacShane's false claims as "far from what would be acceptable in any walk of life" and "fell far below the standards of integrity and probity expected of every member of the House".
The false invoices related to work Mr MacShane carried out in Europe and he was particularly criticised for his use of public money for European travel.
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards said the "real mischief" of Mr MacShane's actions was submitting invoices that bypassed the "checks and controls" of the House and "enabled Mr MacShane to spend public money as he thought fit".

As the post title says, if you or I had tried such a thing with our employer and been caught then the criminal investigation would not have ceased, we would have been suspended, enquiries made, sacked, arrested, charged and possibly imprisoned.
What made it worse is that this was our money, we're the employers here, not the  Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who are supposed to work for us. Yet as ever the old boys network came into play, MacShane will not be sacked, not banned from public office and after a year it will be as if nothing ever happened. We probably couldn't even trust the voters in Rotherham to kick him out as the 'Socialist Republic of South Yorkshire' is notorious for voting in donkeys provided they wore a red rosette.
The people of Rotherham who don't vote for the likes of MacShane and who have seen their towns name dragged through the mud due to the authorities looking the other way whilst muslims of Pakistani origin were raping under age young girls supposedly in their care on almost a factory production line have my sympathy. Those who voted for the likes of MacShane and the various council members under whose watch corruption and abuse festered seem to have gotten the representation they deserved.
Pity we cannot sack him, pity we cannot bring those authorities to justice, but those in power seem to have made sure we can do no such thing...

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear?

Seems the squeaker of the Houses of Parliament is trying to block the publication of a new report on MP's expenses. Can't think why, it's not like they're not a wonderful bunch of law abiding, honest citizenry is it? I mean they did promise to clean up their act didn't they and surely their word is their bond?
Or is it more a case of what we don't know might slow down attempts to have them thrown in jail or hung from lampposts?
Telegraph.

John Bercow has written to the expenses regulator warning him not to disclose official documents that show the identities of MPs’ landlords for “security” reasons.
Publication of the names, which was supposed to take place today, would expose the extent to which MPs are exploiting a loophole in the rules that allows politicians to rent their homes to one another. The loophole means that MPs can still effectively build up property nest eggs at taxpayers’ expense, despite official attempts to stop the practice following the expenses scandal.
Sources at the expenses regulator confirmed that “some MPs” were engaged in the practice.
In a letter released last night, it emerged that Mr Bercow had written to the regulator claiming that publication of details of MPs’ landlords jeopardised their security and had led to “grave concerns” in the House of Commons.
“The processing of the data … could involve causing unwarranted damage and distress,” the Speaker wrote in the letter to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa). “I should be grateful if you and your colleagues would reconsider such a plan.”

Ah the old security loophole which is used to cover a multitude of sins and one with which our MP's are far too well aware of and have often tried in the past to use to hide the evidence.
Fact is there's no security issue involved, if you want to know where an MP lives it's easy enough to find out. By showing who the landlords of a rented property are it would also show again how the thieving rogues are exploiting the system to get more cash into their pockets directly from the taxpayer by renting out property (possibly at very high rent) to pay off said mortgages on said property so at the end of the day the taxpayer buys them another house.
Whilst I'm not suggesting that Bercow is involved with the scam, it is rather suspicious that he's leading the charge to block the report and using the tawdry 'security' banner to justify his actions.
All this does in most peoples eyes is suggest that those elected to lead us are far more concerned at lining their own pockets at our expense rather than looking after our interests.
Just one more thing to remember at the next election if you vote mainstream...

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...

Ongoing theft

The Dartford crossing of the M25 was paid for a number of years ago, when it was, the tolls were supposed to end, it being a Labour government, of course they didn't. Promises were made to use the tolls to pay for other road improvements in Kent and Essex, this being a Labour government, of course they didn't, they even came up with the ludicrous excuse that somehow or other the tolls and the collection booths were some sort of traffic calming method, this despite the booths contributing to massive delays at peak periods and often enough through the day. Now the prices are going up again and lo and behold they have a new surprise for us too...
BBC.

An increase in road toll charges at the river crossing between Kent and Essex, which were announced earlier this year, will take effect from Sunday 7 October.
From 06:00 BST, drivers of cars and 2 axle goods vehicles will pay 50p more to use the Dartford-Thurrock crossing.
Heavy goods vehicles will cost an extra £1.30, while the crossing will remain free for motorcyclists.
Discounts will continue for local residents and DART-Tag account holders who pay in advance.
Any vehicle using the crossing between 22:00 and 06:00 will continue to do so for free.
Cash payments at the crossing will increase from £1.50 to £2.00 for cars, from £2.00 to £2.50 for 2 axle goods vehicles, and from £3.70 to £5.00 for heavy goods vehicles.
Electronic charging, which means vehicles will not have to stop, will be introduced in 2014, when the charge for cars will rise to £2.50. Drivers of 2 axle goods vehicles will also have to pay £3.00, and £6.00 for heavy goods vehicles.

Proof if ever it were needed that they're simply after our money and that traffic calming was simply a lie to fob us off with, after all if we don't have to stop, where's the calming effect?
Nor can I believe the gall of the rest of the article in which the minister says the charges will be used to pay for other infrastructure improvements, after all, isn't that what the road tax fund was supposed to be for? (I know, I know, it's never been used for that, but the point remains, motorists are being used as a cash cow by the government)
Where is there a political party determined to reduce taxation (of all kinds) to reduce the size (and power) of the state and who will bring honesty (for a given value of honesty I know) back into Westminster?
We certainly need one...

The number of the beast...

Well you can't let a good opportunity pass when it comes to a blog heading now can you and this news is particularly apt...
Express.

EUROCRATS are to demand an extra £900million from taxpayers next year, taking the annual cost of EU membership to £666 for every family in Britain.
Brussels was accused of gross ­hypocrisy for planning what one critic branded a “disgusting” cash grab while demanding swingeing austerity ­measures across Europe.
Yesterday the UK signalled it would press for restraint but no single country can veto the EU Commission’s annual budget, meaning the Government would have to build alliances with other like-minded governments to win a vote to block an eye-watering hike.
The Commission’s draft budget for 2013 is understood to propose a “substantial” seven per cent, £7.4billion, increase in spending power from this year’s budget of 129.1billion euros, or around £107billion. The percentage rise would be double Britain’s latest inflation rate and more than four per cent above the EU’s cost of living increase.
And it would raise the cost of EU membership for Britain – which ­contributes 12.4 per cent net of the Brussels budget – by £898million next year to £14billion.

Always nice to know where you stand isn't it? Though it gives me no pleasure to be in this position or read that the politicians who are supposed to be fighting for us are simply planning to ask for "restraint" rather than a more apt "bye, bye, thanks for nothing".
Sadly not one of the mainstream parties has the balls to tell the EU where to get off, the Lib Dems practically orgasm over the whole edifice such is their love affair with the EU. The Tories and Labour leadership both control their parties and both support ever greater integration into the EU, which simply turns around and keeps asking for more and now we can't even simply veto it.
More than ever we need to be starving the beast, do not vote mainstream, oppose state funding of political parties, get out there and get active.
Also we must never fall into the trap of asking for a referendum, the EU has a history of cheating, bribing and spending millions on its own propaganda, they also don't take no for an answer either, just ask the Irish.
Can we please just leave? Anyone?

Stealth tax

The Tories if you believed Labour were ever ones for stealth taxes as opposed to Labours up front robbery of pensions and general economic incompetence. Though the Tories admittedly on the enviroloony theft green levy are just building on Labours platform. So yet again we have another smash and grab raid on our money should we choose to spend it, so as to reduce our "carbon footprint" Though personally I rather like carbon and do not see it as any sort of danger to the UK.
Mail.

Green tax on conservatories: Home improvements will trigger 10% levy

• Householders must first agree to pay for measures such as wall or loft insulation
• Officials accept the scheme will cause huge inconvenience but claim it will reduce the nation’s carbon footprint

Millions of householders who want to build a conservatory, replace a broken boiler or install new windows will be forced to spend hundreds of pounds more on ‘green’ projects.
They will not be permitted to carry out the home improvement or repair unless they agree to fork out for measures such as loft or wall insulation.
The work is expected to add ten per cent to the cost of any building project in the home.

Those who do not have the money will have to borrow it under the Coalition’s Green Deal – and pay it back for years through an extra charge on their energy bills.
Officials accept the scheme will cause huge inconvenience to homeowners, who will have to take time off work and organise visits by a string of workmen.
But they insist it is worthwhile because, ultimately, it will reduce the nation’s carbon footprint.

What this really is of course is state mandated theft, the equivalent of loan sharking where the interest you pay far exceeds the cost or value of the product you're purchasing. In essence the government is demanding that you pay extra because somehow or other this will be good for you, though considering the recent weather and the latest statistics showing that the planet is slightly cooling seems rather far fetched, a bit like believing that bird mincers and solar panels will somehow meet our energy needs. No, this is just another blatant attempt to raise money for the government and will end up costing homeowners and those who wish to improve their properties 10% more (at least) than the actual cost of the goods they are receiving. In essence it's a 10% stealth tax on a home improvement loan.
Once again the ordinary people of the UK are being forced to shell out extra to pay for something that doesn't really exist save in the minds of a few fanatics and is being used as an excuse to extort more revenue for the government.
The thing that grates most though is that one way or another the people of the UK will still at election time vote for these thieving, conniving, unscrupulous political parties then carry on grumbling that they are all the same.
It's time for change, real change, if you want it, do not vote mainstream, ever.

The lowest of the low

Well perhaps not quite but this guy is certainly down there with this little number...
Mail.

A man has been arrested after a handbag and shoes were apparently taken from a woman left decapitated in a horrifying traffic accident.
CCTV footage released in the aftermath of the accident shows an Asian man walking away from the scene with what appeared to be the dead woman's belongings.
A spokesman for Greater Manchester Police has confirmed a 46-year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of theft and is currently being held in custody.

I don't care what religion, race or even species you might be, there are just some things that you shouldn't do and robbing the dead or injured is one of them. The distress to the victims relatives must have been immense considering just how serious the accident was in the first place. Most people in a situation like that either try to help or they try to observe, it's human nature after all, though I often curse rubberneckers when they do it on roads and have nearly had accidents myself when some have slowed down suddenly to observe the goings on across a road. Yet I could never imagine for one second doing what this guy did and believe if convicted the courts should throw the book at him.
But that sadly is another story...

Consequences

There are consequences to every government attempt to force people into doing something they don't want to do, be it with booze or cigarettes, or simply by allowing through their actions the price of a commodity to become too high via excessive taxation.
10+ years ago, no one would really have considered wood burning stoves as a way to heat their house, or even to help cook, yes it was available, but it wasn't mainstream so to speak. Well not until the environmental levy on fuel prices...
BBC.

The large-scale theft of timber from National Trust woodland in Gloucestershire may be due to high fuel prices, say countryside rangers.
Staff at the Haresfield Beacon estate near Stroud say people are driving away vehicles laden with logs.
An increase in the use of wood-burning stoves because of high gas prices has been blamed for the thefts.
The trust says dead wood left on the ground is an important part of the woodland habitat.
National Trust countryside ranger Tim Jenkins said at least 20% of trees cut down in managed woodland were left on the ground deliberately. The remaining trees are sold on.

One of the guys I work with has just fitted a wood burning stove into his house, unsurprisingly he has a chain saw, as far as he's concerned if it's left lying on the ground for more than a day, is not on private property (he doesn't regard country parks etc as private), it's his, otherwise known as gleaning.
This is a direct consequence of the idiotic government green levy to pay for global warming climate change global climate disruption. He sees it as a relatively cheap way to heat his house and frankly considering my heating bills, I can't blame him. I guess you could call it the dark side of social engineering, alongside feral youths and welfare sink estates. You make something too expensive or restrict access to it, you either start a black market in the product, or people will find some alternative and to hell with the supposed legalities, as the National Trust is finding out.
Oddly enough the National Trust are all for measures to assist with global warming climate change global climate disruption. Save possibly people nicking their timber because of the measures taken to deal with this imaginary concept, though burning wood does release the carbon captured in the substance, so I guess they hate wood burners all the more.
But, if the government is going to use our taxes and levies us on our guel bills to subsidise bird mincers and uneconomic solar capture, this sort of thing is going to happen, legal or not.
You can almost imagine the enviroloons grinding their teeth over this, but then again they rarely consider the consequences of their actions fully anyway.

Honesty being the best policy

I've occasionally had to return goods to shops, most times I've had to have the receipt, occasionally at Christmas time the goods have been recognized as being part of the shops range and exchanged. Occasionally they've asked me for proof of address or some form of identity, though it's never been a problem. I do wonder what Harriet Wheeler thinks of the process though...
Mail.

When Harriet Wheeler was given a £2,000 Mulberry jacket by a generous male friend, she faced an awkward dilemma.
Beautiful though it was, she felt it did not suit her.
Not wanting to upset her friend by telling him, she took the black quilted leather jacket back to Mulberry's flagship store in London and asked whether she could exchange it for something else.
There the ancient art specialist found herself handcuffed, arrested and marched off to a police cell on suspicion of handling stolen or fake goods.
To make matters worse, her friend was dragged into the row when he was telephoned as part of the criminal inquiry.
Now police have decided there is no case to answer, and have told Miss Wheeler, 25, she can collect her jacket from them.

Looks like an anorak to me

Now in my closeted world of ordinariness I've never heard of Mulberry, I suspect it's probably well made if overpriced tat where you pay for the label for something you could get at Primark for 100th the price (at least) though no doubt without the quality stitch up ing. Still,the store does appear to have over reacted just a tad, even if they did have suspicions of the item being either a) a fake or b) stolen, a simple we'll have to take this higher as you've no receipt and can we have a contact number/address for when we've made a decision would probably suffice. As it is, the maxim "there's no such thing as bad publicity" is probably not going to hold up too well to scrutiny this time, especially since the store have refused to apologize and still maintain the article is possibly a fake, not even a mealy mouthed "we were just following procedures and lessons will be learned".
Now I realize that shoplifting and making fakes is a problem for certain companies, though in this case charging over £2,000 for what ostensibly appears to be an anorak does seem to be asking for trouble, however, arresting someone and taking them off your premises in handcuffs on a suspicion of handling stolen goods does appear to be a little counter-productive, especially since the person arrested has been freed, has no case to answer and went straight to the Daily Mail.
The only odd thing about this to me is why wait a couple of months and wouldn't her friend expect to see her in the jacket at some stage.
But then again, that's not a crime either...

♫ You gotta pick a pocket or two ♪

Well a taxpayers pocket certainly, the furore over benefits caps goes on and the Daily Mail in its usual style lets us know just where the cap isn't being applied yet...
Mail.

At least 100 families raking in enough housing benefits to fund a £1MILLION mortgage each
Thirty families receiving £6,000 a month and at least 60 families getting £5,000 a month
Unemployed living in luxury homes in upmarket parts of London such as Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster
Poor families should not be allowed to live 'swanky' lifestyles in postcodes beyond their means, says campaigners
Calls for the Government's £400 per week cap to be properly enforced
Housing benefit costs taxpayers £22bn a yearAt least 100 families receiving housing benefit are living in luxury homes on handouts that could fund £1m mortgages, figures have revealed.
More than 30 of those families are being given a staggering £1,500 a week to live 'swanky' lifestyles - more than three times the national average wage.
Of the 100 families, 60 have their rent paid by the state to the value of £5,000 a month, according to the Department for Work and Pensions.At a time when millions of people are struggling to get on the housing ladder, the handouts would easily cover the monthly payments on a £1m mortgage.

Just another example of why many of us call for the introduction of legislation that prevents any immigrants or asylum seekers from claiming any sort of benefit until they have paid into the system something like 10 years worth of taxation per person at the average wage level of taxation.
There are simply no excuses for the state at national or local level to house people who are not contributing, weren't born here and giving them priority over people who do. Yet here we are, year after year, the same stories come out about people who quite frankly are taking the piss and the government appear to be doing bugger all about it. In fact some sections of the government actually oppose capping benefits, usually Lib Dems, the occasional leftist and for some reason C of E Bishops. Then again, they don't live in the real world with the rest of us.
They really are driving us towards violent revolution aren't they?

We already give too much.

I am sick and tired of politicians of all parties deciding that they can just dip into taxpayers pockets and taxpayers goodwill to help fund problems abroad that likely don't concern us or can be resolved by other means.
Sky.

Rich countries are failing to contribute to an international emergency fund leaving the world "dangerously unprepared" for future disasters, the International Development Secretary has warned.
Andrew Mitchell said the United Nations' disaster response funding system is expected to be left severely underfunded.
Mr Mitchell's warning comes after a wave of large-scale disasters over the last year, including famine in the Horn of Africa, the Japan tsunami, the New Zealand earthquake and floods in Pakistan and the Philippines.
Growing numbers of people living in vulnerable areas means the number of those affected by major tragedies is expected to increase in future, he added.
The Government is giving £20m to the Central Emergency Response Fund (Cerf) next year, in addition to £40m already pledged, and has called on the international community to "wake up" to the challenge ahead.
It said many rich countries wait until a disaster strikes before responding, which means critical emergency first response work could be put at risk.
The fund - set up following the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami to provide a coordinated international response - is expected to have a shortfall of £45m next year.

It rather looks like the main contributor at the moment is the UK government with £20 million this year on top of £40 million already pledged, yet there is a £45 million shortfall. Which rather suggests someone (that being the UK taxpayer) are being taken for mugs again by a government determined to keep spending our income on something that could easily be covered by charitable giving at home and not involuntarily filched from our pockets by politicians who clearly don't have a clue as to how the money might be spent by the bureaucrats running it. No I don't accept the premise that somehow or other a co-ordinated response will be better than a patchquilt response either, I've seen far too many cases of government aid going to the wrong areas, terrorist groups and various other ne'er-do-wells to trust a co-ordinated response group who are far too likely to be doing far too well for themselves at doing well.
Charity begins at home when it comes to government spending (or it should) any spending on international aid should be done by direct appeal to the public and we'll see just which causes actually appeal, if any.

Credo quia absurdum

It strikes me as totally absurd that the small band of thieves* prosecuted over the expense scandal in Westminster should not face the full cost of their thievery as well as the full legal cost of their ridiculous attempt to use parliamentary privilege to exempt them from prosecution.
Yet that is what appears to be happening...
Express.

A RULING that expenses-cheat MPs will only have to pay just over a third of their £345,000 trial costs met with fury yesterday.
The decision means taxpayers will have spent more than £200,000 both to prosecute and defend former Labour MPs David Chaytor, Elliot Morley, Eric Illsley and Jim Devine.
The first three have asked to pay back £125,000 between them in legal fees while Devine, who cost £108,000 in legal aid and prosecution costs, was spared because he has been declared bankrupt.
Legal aid paid to the four totalled just over £245,000 while prosecution costs were estimated at nearly £100,000. The Commission which administers legal aid had applied for all its money back.
But judge Mr Justice Saunders said at Southwark Crown Court it would not be reasonable to demand repayment of costs incurred by Morley, Chaytor and Devine when they went to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court to argue that Parliamentary privilege exempted them from prosecution.

I somehow doubt, though I may be wrong, that anyone else would be treated so leniently (Well save if they weren't white angle Saxon, where different standards and rules apparently apply) Fact is, these people were crooks who took advantage of a lax expenses system to systematically loot the public purse, their only bad luck seems to be the fact that they were the only ones prosecuted. Their good luck (and all the other porcine purloiner's) is the fact that it wasn't me handing out a sentence of death pour encourager les autres. I'm not saying that those who run the country should not get adequately recompensed for doing their job, what I am saying is that those who run the country should also face some fairly extreme penalties for robbing the public and abusing their position. Though it became fairly obvious in the Blair years that the dishonourable members were looking after themselves first, middle and last, hence the removal of the death penalty for treason.
It's now long past time that our parliament needs to be reformed root and branch along with the civil service and various other public services, though unfortunately until we take to the streets and force them to reform at the point of a gun we have to rely on them doing it themselves, which essentially means never.

*Out of the rather larger band of thieves who got away with it.