First we have ballot fraud, threats to democracy and accusations of treason. Then we have a Labour plot to rig votes in the parliamentary candidate selections. And now we have broken seals on a ballot box containing the rigged votes.
The Labour Party has called off a hustings to choose a parliamentary candidate after discovering a ballot box had apparently been tampered with.The contest in the Erith and Thamesmead constituency in south east London had already provoked controversy when it was taken over by the central party.That led to complaints that non-local candidates were being favoured.A London Labour spokesman said Saturday's hustings had been postponed and an investigation had begun.Sitting MP John Austin, who is retiring, has previously lodged a formal complaint with Ray Collins, the party's general secretary, over alleged rule breaches by campaigners encouraging local members to sign up for postal votes.A London Labour spokesman said: "It was discovered that the seal on a ballot box containing previously received ballot papers for the selection of Labour's parliamentary candidate for Erith and Thamesmead was broken."In order to maintain the integrity of the process, [Saturday's] hustings meeting has been immediately postponed and a new date will be fixed."The candidates include Georgia Gould, the 22-year-old daughter of Lord Gould, a key aide to Tony Blair during his time as prime minister.The other seven people hoping to be Labour's candidate for Erith and Thamesmead at the next election are: former minister Melanie Johnson, Greenwich councillor Angela Cornforth, Kensington and Chelsea councillor Marianne Alapini, former Bexley councillor Teresa Pearce, Unite union official Rachael Maskell, Greenwich councillor Jagir Sekhon and Emily Bird.
A leaked decision note from European Parliament President Hans-Gert Pottering has revealed that taxpayers may have to foot the bill for an estimated £105 million (€120 million) shortfall in the European Parliament's controversial Additional Voluntary Pension Scheme. The scheme is facing a gap in funding due to the collapse of the stock market and investments reportedly related to the Bernie Madoff scandal in the United States . (WAZ Der Western, 14 April; Mail, 16 April)
MEPs are entitled to a standard pension from their member states, but are also able to opt in to this additional fund if they desire, as 480 currently do. Under the scheme, MEPs pay in €1194 (£1052) a month, which is matched by publicly funded payments of €2388 a month. After a five year term of service, MEPs can expect an annual pension, from the voluntary fund alone, of over €16,000. Combined with their standard MEP pension, they can expect annual payments of over €30,000 from just five years of service. (Times, 17 April)
However, with the pension fund now facing a shortfall, the leaked note asserts that the, "parliament will assume its legal responsibility to guarantee the right of members of the Voluntary Pension Scheme to the additional pension".
To meet this responsibility, the taxpayer could be asked to make up the €120 million shortfall to provide the payments for MEPs' additional pensions.This voluntary pension scheme has been repeatedly criticised by the European Court of Auditors (ECA) over the last ten years and in its latest report from November 2008, the ECA said that the Parliament should have "clear rules to define the liabilities and responsibilities" of the Parliament and members of the scheme in the case of a deficit.
As a result of the mounting criticism, the scheme will not be available to new MEPs taking up their seats from June. (European Voice Telegraph, 16 April) The European Parliament has consistently refused to name the beneficiaries of the fund, citing the privacy of the individuals, despite criticism from the European Ombudsman.
Open Europe has today published a list of MEPs signed up to the fund, obtained by German investigative journalist Hans-Martin Tillack. It reveals that 79 percent of British MEPs and 77 percent of Irish MEPs had signed up to the fund as of December 2007.
Meanwhile, following the European Parliament elections in June, UK MEPs are set to receive a pay rise of over £15,000. Under new rules to be introduced under the next session of Parliament, MEPs will no longer have to receive a salary equivalent to national politicians, but can opt for a salary of 38.5% of an ECJ judge's salary. This works out as €91,980 annually, which is worth over £80,000 at current exchange rates because of the collapse in the value of the pound. This is up from the £64,000 current salary, and represents a pay-rise of 22%.The new rules have caused further controversy because it states that MEPs will now be entitled to claim compensation for business class flights, even on short-distance flights within the EU. Previously, MEPs were entitled to claim the maximum economy fare, regardless of the actual cost of their flight. (Die Welt, 8 April)
How did so many bloggers and respondents to the death of Mr Tomlinson get it completely wrong. On the day it occurred, many bloggers covered the situation and like myself were completely outraged by the actions of police even before the death of Mr Tomlinson. The entire aspect of policing has to be looked at and reinvented from scratch, not least because a man has died. The London Met has a big question to answer for that man's grieving family of course, but there are wider concerns too for the policy of holding people for hours, barring their movements in public areas, and for placing them under direct threat of physical assault if they resist methods which can only vaguely be described as utterly contemptuous. I will continue to say it again and again and again, that the police have no rights whatsoever to stop legitimate protest and 'arrest' thousands of people for hours without reason whilst denying them access to their most basic needs. Make no mistake, that's what the tactic of 'kettling' amounts to and it is most highly provocative, and is a blatant disregard by police for life and limb and basic needs. Inhumane is the word I would use to describe it.
It is simply not good enough either to have 'tooled up' policemen and women, dressed in 'SAS' style uniform with orders to 'assault' the public if they protest against police actions which are akin to what you'd find in an old Soviet Russian state during a coup d'etat. Fuck em!
The coppers who did this to Mr Tomlinson should ALL be questioned and should ALL be suspended, and should ALL be investigated as to their complicit parts in this aggravated assault against a British citizen. If the inquiry currently being conducted by the IPCC does not address these matters and place a nail in the coffin of aggravating police tactics, then this one isolated incident, followed shortly the next day by yet another episode of another assault upon a young girl with the back hand slap and beating by another police officer, then I predict things will become a lot worse than 114 demonstrators meeting in a school to talk about a protest outside a power station.
Hot Fuzz? I think they need to be cool fuzz right now.
The Coroner appointed by the IPCC has returned a different opinion on Mr Tomlinson's manslaughter death at the G20 protests.
SKY REPORT A second post-mortem into the death of G20 protest victim Ian Tomlinson has shown he died from an "abdominal haemorrhage" and not a heart attack.
The 47-year-old newspaper vendor was seen being shoved violently by police and pushed to the floor during the London rally.
The officer involved in the incident has been questioned under caution for manslaughter, the Independent Police Complaints Commission has confirmed.
Mr Tomlinson was first thought to have died from a heart attack but the second post-mortem examination has contradicted these findings, Mr Tomlinson's family solicitor said.
The second post-mortem was carried out by Dr Nat Cary at the request of the Independent Police Complaints Commission and Mr Tomlinson's family.
A statement from City of London Coroner's Court, released through Tuckers Solicitors, said Dr Cary's preliminary report contradicted the initial findings.
Dr Cary rejected the conclusion of Dr Freddy Patel that Mr Tomlinson died from coronary artery disease.
It said: "Dr Cary's opinion is that the cause of death was abdominal haemorrhage. The cause of the haemorrhage remains to be ascertained.
"Dr Cary accepts that there is evidence of coronary atherosclerosis but states that in his opinion its nature and extent is unlikely to have contributed to the cause of death."
On the day Mr Tomlinson died
The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), which is investigating the circumstances of Mr Tomlinson’s death, said yesterday that it had received 120 complaints about the policing of the G20 protests in the City of London. Many complainants were responding to the footage of the apparent assault on Mr Tomlinson, but a significant number were people who were trapped inside the “kettle” — the police cordon thrown around the Bank of England — for several hours and not allowed to leave.
Following rank condemnation of the Metropolitan Police officer's unprovoked attack on Mr Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests last week, the Metropolitan Police has been ordered to review the crowd-control tactic known as the “kettle”, which was used to pen in 5,000 people who they said were protesting at the G20 summit. I hasten to add at this point that many who were said to be protesting were in fact innocent bystanders who worked at nearby offices, coupled with an array of reporters simply recording details of the protests. Having watched the protests myself, I'm aware that BBC News reporters and presenters for instance were held trapped inside the police cordon along with protesters and clearly were not themselves in protest yet were held there for hours on end without access to food, water or toilet facilities despite they were not taking part, and like many of the protesters, had not committed any illegal activities.
We've since learned about Mr Tomlinson of course, the victim of an attack by a riot police officer who was clad in full body armour, with a helmet and stab vest, big thick soled boots and shin pads, gloves and baton, who happened to think he had the right to go smacking innocent people with his baton and lurching at T-Shirt clad Mr Tomlinson with his full weight to Mr Tomlinson's spine which inevitably propelled Mr Tomlinson forward and left him sprawled heavily on the pavement. We've also learned that prior to this, Mr Tomlinson is said to have been 'blocking a police van and that the police van tried to "nudge" him out the way as he 'apparently' stood defiant against the police who wanted to move forward to control the crowds. "Nudge him out the way"? - With a 4 ton police riot van? - Is this permissable? - Is it not itself both provocative and illegal? - Why not simply step out of the van and arrest Mr Tomlinson for causing an obstruction or for being 'drunk and disorderly' if this is what the police are alleging? - What's the reasonable action for an officer to take in this situation? - Bump him with the van like he's some worthless piece of shit, or 'speak to him' like a member of the public who is deserving of respect from his police force?
Let us also remember as we recall that a life has been lost, when we ask ourselves whether one incident which remains unproven, where Mr Tomlinson is unable to defend himself from allegation that he intentionally blocked a police van, and attempt to look impassionately at the situation of whether any alleged act by him would warrant that he be smacked by a police baton and pushed to the ground. This was the act after all which led to Mr Tomlinson being injured before he died relatively soon thereafter after suffering a heart attack.
I think one incident does not lead to another except if the same police officer was involved in both situations and was now at the end of his tether with Mr Tomlinson. So much so, that he was so sick of Mr Tomlinson sauntering before them with his hands in his pockets which blocked their path to move forward, that the officer 'lost it', and launched his attack on Mr Tomlinson? That said however, the pictures show officers were 'standing still' rather than walking forward, and do not show police vans at all. Thus the two incidents are really unconnected save that they may or may not have involved the same police officer and of course the same Mr Tomlinson who we cannot ask about either incident because he died.
All we know is what we see
We seen Mr Tomlinson beaten and thrown to the ground, and we seen other innocent people, unconnected with the protests, which had incidentally been given permission by the police, being trapped, engaged or encaged, cordoned off, 'kettled' or arrested without charge, call it what you will, but in essence against their right to move freely providing that they had not been formally 'arrested' or charged and were not acting in any way which was illegal and had 'permission' to protest, as they did.
I should say here, that my sympathy goes to the G20 protesters and of course to Mr Tomlinson and his family before I commit myself to launching my own attack against Metropolitan Police tactics of penning and holding people in a zone surrounded by armed officers for what amounted to an otherwise peaceful and approved demonstration. (RBS windows are of course an exception here, over which I note no arrests have been made). On the day, I blogged that it was police tactics I felt were wrong and that the officer responsible for having given that order should be sacked along with the 'so called' police officer who attacked Mr Tomlinson. At the least he should be investigated as to his reasons why he ordered riot police in to hit innocent people with their batons, dog handlers and mounted police, along with those terror tactics which denied them of their basic rights for hours on end. I said 'so called police officer' when referring to Mr Tomlinson's assailant because I didn't want to generalise about all police officers and I'm sure it's still the case that most are not as brutal as the officer who threw himself at Mr Tomlinson after beating him with his baton. Fingers crossed that they are not all brutal people bashers but there are video recordings on YouTube of people with their teeth knocked out by these bastards, the place was like a day out for the paparazzi, and I'm sure the same copper wasn't responsible for all of it. More pictures
However I do believe such tactics, as evidenced by riot police, mounted police and dog handlers, who coralled the protesters (demonstrators), into an area where they were unable to fulfill their most basic needs, least of all the right to actually protest at all, was in my view shameful. I also think it debateable as to its legality, if police officers are allowed to prevent legal protest, and to hold people under what amounts to arrest, if people in such situations are prevented in their most basic needs and under further threat of a beating if they protest.
As I said. Where is the law in all this and where is the government?
I'm glad that an inquiry is being made into this situation in addition to an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the sad and untimely death of Mr Tomlinson who was by all accounts caught up in the affair unwittingly. But throughout it all, I can see not one reasonable argument for pushing him, hitting him from behind with a police baton, or any justification for holding thousands of people in a cordon for several hours where they didn't even have access to a toilet.
I would also add that I wonder why BBC reporter Ben Brown has not made a complaint against the police for blocking free movement of the press. Where is the CCTV footage which is otherwise ordinarily availiable at other scenes. Also, if the BBC itself has footage of any of the incidents which occurred with Mr Tomlinson then it has a duty to come forward with it. Since I was well aware that BBC aerial cameras were being used to follow the demonstrations, then for some reason the BBC has still yet to show whether they have the aerial view of what happened to Mr Tomlinson or to any of the actual protesters who are now complaining. Are they helping truth or are they helping to conceal it?
I would ask the BBC to come forward if they have evidence. 120 people have since made allegations against the London Met for police brutalityand yetdespite the BBC appears to give coverage of this ongoing protest, now turned into protest against the brutal actions of their own police force, the BBC has not said whether it has any evidence to help them. Or has it been edited or 'lost' in the BBC's archives again? Tell us!
A day after the G20 Protests: A march of respect for Mr Tomlinson took place
This is the film footage of the brutal police officer who felt it was his place to beat the people he is supposed to serve and protect. The first film shows footage of the march of respect prior to him and other officers arriving with their batons.
It was taken on the day following the death of Ian Tomlinson during an otherwise peaceful march of respect by approximately 300 British protestors of the previous days climate camp protestors who were themselves made the subjects of police brutality. It shows tactics of the police, once more, which serve to prevent silent protest with the open use of brutal and unprovoked force against people who simply chose to exercise their right of protest. Shame must hang on the heads of those Police Officers who were responsible for this, and an inquiry must surely ask serious questions about the tactical methods deployed by their chief officer to order tactics such as those being used , which as displayed openly by this and others officers serve only to provoke violence and give their victims grounds for retaliation rather than seeking to keep order peaceably. The lady who the officer slaps with the back of his hand and then beats with his baton so willfully ignorant of her rights, is half his size and bears no threat whatsoever. She simply wanted to remonstrate with him to ask why a man was being held and beaten by other officers when he was not part of a protest and had not caused a disturbance. See for yourself what she got in return for her having dared to question the London Metropolitan Police.
The officer in question has been suspended for this action but the problem goes far deeper than another cop who "lost it". The incident raises deeper questions about the culture of our police service and of the government itself which allowed it to happen and failed to take action when only the day before, it knew a man had died after having been beaten and pushed to the pavement by police whilst walking away with his hands in his pockets. His death pervades the country like a dark cloud when it comes to making legitimate protest against government, the police and civil servants, and their manifestly undemocratic handling of government policies right through to 'crowd control' of those who happen not to agree with them. The government itself, lashes out verbally against any and all dissent and smears those who oppose it, yet the government is responsible for the actions of officers and policing tactics in general that led to the brutal approach by these things they call police officers.
The government took a responsibility to protect people when it set about creating a police force. But it didn't create a police force to block legitimate protest did it? I mean this is still a free and open democracy isn't it?
Perhaps not?
Perhaps not when you see the footage of the video because this shows firstly a man trying to go about his everyday business but being prevented by the police and set about like a pack of snarling dogs because he resisted. It shows secondly, a young lady, having seen the way the man was being treated, remonstrating with another officer only to be given a heavy backhand slap across her face which was followed by a thrashing to her legs with a police baton by the same officer who looks as though he cares nothing for the lady's rights at all.
We don't pay police for this and we don't pay government to permit this type of policing do we?
You have to be able to walk about in the world feeling that you are basically free to go about your business, to speak out, to live and love and work as you want to without causing harm, that you are not under suspicion, not at risk of violence or censorship or bullying just for being who you are, believing what you believe , and that if you or your property are harmed, there will be justice and redress.
Once that goes, everything goes. And that's why speaking out about abuses and injustice is important, tiresome and unpopular though it is. Before it gets too late.
I'm so bloody glad that everyone carries cameras. Sometimes being the media is the only way.
Another blogger says;
Look at the face of the police officer in the film as he casually slaps a young woman in the face with the back of his hand. Have you seen such an expression before? The casual, confident thuggery? The absolute sense of entitlement? It can be seen all the time on the faces of government officials, spokesmen for the "causes" supported by the government, people from the protected groups which constitute the new aristocracies of New Labour's New Britain. It's the shameless look on the face of Sharon Shoesmith, the woman who perhaps best represents New Labour's New Woman, just as Damian McBride and his control freak boss perhaps best represent New Labour's New Man. It is a look that can now even be seen on the faces of non-government busybodies "empowered" by New Labour's culture of continual, personal interference.
Why they were there:
Liberty's Director Shami Chakrabarti said it was essential that IPCC investigators did their job properly. She said: "The clock is ticking for the IPCC. This is a body we want to believe in but they are not proving themselves capable. It failed its first big test with the inquiry into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes. This investigation has to be got right in terms of speed, sanctions and transparency if there is to be any public confidence in this fledgling watchdog.”
CNN's Dan Rivers reports: Thai political Yellow Shirt leader Sondhi Limthongkul has been shot and wounded.
Also reported in The Times: Sondhi Limthongkul, the founder of the political movement that overran Bangkok’s airport last year, is in hospital recovering from surgery after gunmen wielding automatic weapons ambushed his car and sprayed it with bullets.
An unknown number of gunmen shot out the tyres of the car owned by Mr Sondhi, the head of the People’s Alliance for Democracy "yellow shirt" movement, and riddled the vehicle with bullets. Stray bullets also hit a nearby public bus.
The tycoon’s media network reported that more than 100 bullets were fired by the gunmen and AK-47 and M16 shells were found around the car. Mr Sondhi's bodyguard and his driver were also injured, his driver seriously.
A spokesman for Wachira Hospital in Bangkok said that Mr Sondhi, 61, had been wounded in the head but was recovering well from surgery to remove the shrapnel and stem the bleeding in his brain.
Secret police (sometimes political police) are a police agency which operates in secrecy to maintain national security against internal threats to the state.
Secret police forces are typically associated with totalitarian regimes, as they are often used to maintain the political power of the state rather than uphold the rule of law. Instead of enforcing the law as ordinary police agencies, the secret police organizations are endowed, sometimes officially, to operate beyond and above the law. The secret police forces are accountable only to the executive branch of the government, sometimes only to a dictator. They operate entirely or partially in secrecy, that is, most or all of their operations are obscure and hidden from the general public and government except for the topmost executive officials.
Secret police agencies have often been used as an instrument of political repression.
States where the secret police wield significant power are sometimes referred to as police states or counterintelligence states. Secret police differ from the domestic security agencies in modern liberal democracies, because domestic security agencies are generally subject to government regulation, reporting requirements, and other accountability measures. Despite such overview, there still exists the possibility of domestic-security agencies acting unlawfully and taking on some characteristics of secret police.
Which government agencies may be classed or characterized, in whole or part, as "secret police" is disputed by political scientists.
Meanwhile, in another part of my home country where I used to feel free
Councils in England and Wales face new restrictions onthe use of surveillance powersfor minor offences such as dog fouling and littering.
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) allows public authorities to intercept phone and e-mail data and use CCTV to spy on suspected criminals.But Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has launched a review after fears it was being used for "trivial" offences.I think I can agree with that. Happily, the Tories and Lib Dems say Ripa has become a "snooper's charter".But the government has resisted opposition calls for the use of the powers to be authorised by magistrates, arguing that the decision to use them should be left with councils and police.That'll be the same police who ripped into a load of innocent people recently making a right tit of themselves, and the same councilors who rip people off with council taxes in order to pay themselves fat salaries and fat pensions whilst the rest of us little people are either starving for work or having our teeth knocked out by coppers if we complain?
The entire British economy is about to fall into the biggest pile of shit you could imagine today with government interference and incorrect regulatory controls being heralded by the Witch Finder General - Financial Services Authority - which unveils its so called plans to further tighten or should I say strangulate, lending in the UK which is in the first stages of a depression and about to hit the UK like a tidal wave unless it is sorted out by people who know what they're talking about. This I hasten to add is not the FSA, the government nor Gordon Brown, or Alistair Darling or certainly not Peter Mandelson when it comes to financial markets or very much else when I come to think about it, except bollox perhaps.
Lord Do Nothing Peter Mandelson, long on talk short on action, has been delivering his vast knowledge of the industry today on the BBC, where his interview went something like this: Everyone should have had some system in an international system which sets off a red alarm. The FSA will be bringing forward its proposals today, and we created the FSA. Who me? Yes I'm the business secretary and of course it's got nothing to do with me, Alistair Darling is the Chancellor not me. Who me? You say why am I doing his job for him? Well you invited me on your bullshit news show. I'd have been happier if you hadn't bothered asking me except I love being in front of the media talking utter crap whereas Alistair doesn't have a fecking clue what to say so he's busy.
And whilst he's yapping away, bigging himself up about how he invented the regulator and how we'll all be safe with a 'red alert', rather like a smoke alarm which wakes you at night whilst you're asleep and when you run downstairs to check where the fire is you find one of your family members happened just to be wanting a couple of slices of toast before bedtime, you begin to see the problem in installing a smoke detector in the kitchen just above the toaster.
So if you imagine a financial alarm then, I'll draw a short analogy of where it needs to be placed after you can answer this question: Firstly, you have a bank in London that loans £20 million to a German firm which has a contract in the UK. The bank lays off some of its risk by placing the loan into a hedge fund which he sells and takes an insurance premium against it falling below a certain value if the German firm happens to go bankrupt. The investor who bought the hedge fund is able to claim a certain amount of loss incurred on his new hedge fund which will have reduced in value as the German firm has been making repayments, so the ultimate loser would be the insurance company and partly the bank which have together spread the risks between them. Meanwhile, the bank has raised new loans because his hedge fund has been sold and thus his capital has risen so he can now 'leverage' more money on the returned capital. The capital isn't really his because it still remains under risk, and will not be entirely free of risk until the German firm has repaid the £20 million.
If you now multiply the above transaction 50 billion times and spread those transactions across the globe whilst giving access to any global partner to invest in your hedge funds, then you begin to see the problem for the alarm engineer as to where to place the 'alarm' .
You can't put it in the bank because he has increased his capital and lessened his risk. You can't put it with the insurance company because the insurance company has spread that risk amongst other insurers, banks and pension funds. You can't put it with the investor because the investor is a global investor and not subject to UK regulation, and you can't put it in the hedge fund because the hedge fund belongs to the international global investor. Personally, I could make a suggestion that they shove the alarm up their collective fat arses and stop talking bullshit.
Meanwhile of course, whilst people can't get mortgages, businesses can't get customers, customers can't get jobs, government can't get taxes, people can't get money to live on in retirement because their home values have collapsed, and builders are out of work. I guess it's pretty immaterial where an alarm is actually placed, since there are no transactions in financial markets on account all the investors have fucked off elsewhere to markets which don't feel they need 'alarms' because they have people who know what they're doing running their economies and have an International Monetary Fund and Bank of International Settlements which Gordon Brown has been ignoring for the last 10 years, to advise them properly how to regulate a 'free market'.
Recession is a natural occurrence. So when financial markets are connected globally and a recession occurs, then you'll have a global recession. This is why global regulation, whilst appearing to provide a political solution, is really deficient when looking to avoid another global recession. Resolving an economic problem which could devastate the entire human race, which is both a mathematical and an economic certainty, would instead mean tackling how you limit that damage from becoming global, or apply a limiting effect such as a TAX, which automatically and naturally claws back some of the money supply so as to stem the effects of recession and provide more stability when it occurs, by placing money to one side to reduce or negate the future need to 'borrow your way out of debt' like we're doing now.
Essentially, continuing with financial markets in a global environment will inevitably result in another global economic crisis unless we realise that exponential growth will ultimately lead to global disaster. Not just financial but also for the human race itself as it has the real likelihood to cause effects upon the entire planet, to our food supplies, our political systems and even to population size which will at some point reach an unsustainable level otherwise.
To limit the global impact of the next recession, we need to restrict global finance by placing an automatic limiter to exponential growth and to what we call globalisation, and that decision can only be taken at global level for it has to involve limitation of the money supply with one possible consequence such as a global tax on money exchange perhaps. e.g. Such as the late economist James Tobin had suggested with his Tobin Tax which he'd advised the European Commission should adopt in order to avoid this very crisis occurring. If there'd been a Tobin Tax in place then money would not have moved around so freely, but if it did and it led to crisis, then governments would have had the resources to bail the system out without resorting to borrowing. The simple fact is, that because the EU Commission refused to apply a Tobin Tax, it is now the people who'll be picking up the cost of the crisis in terms of jobs and pensions and higher taxes, rather than those who created it.
Rather than adopt Tobin tax, the European Commission decided to reject the idea and instead allow currency speculation to continue, which had to all intents and purposes really ignored the possibility of recession occurring by a continuation to permit exchange in foreign currency at low or infinitesimal currency exchange charges of between zero and 0.25% presumably to effect transfers of currency between nations more freely due to a more liberal approach to markets. For the currency speculator it has since been almost currency nirvana as you could say, with large transaction flows freely able to move and in doing so, continuing to place the European Community at unnecessary and possibly greater risk of recession.
I speak for no one but myself on here of course but.....
I guess that could be said for most blogs as really they are just open letters to the world rather like a library of sorts where bloggers compare notes and opinions with each other. Some trade insults and arguments in some cases, and it's not really difficult to see that they reflect all sorts of opinions, give information, excite and arouse the intellect, some just frustrate the hell out of others, and some are just downright boring. But nevertheless, they are a reflection of open opinion in that they are all different like the different people and the different views they represent, and they hold value even if you disagree with the comments on some of them, or indeed whether you have your own facts to counter the arguments presented. They are life itself in what they reflect of society in general. Except in the case of bloggers that society is the whole world. Though it should be remembered that many blogs are simple blogs whereas others are better thought of as 'forums' where exchanges often take place on a far wider scale than on a personal blog like this blog, and as most are in fact. In fact most blogs will carry perhaps a few comments from readers but they don't really measure up to the number of exchanges on a 'forum'. (Different really altogether when you know the blogosphere), so it's as well to be distinct about which kind of 'blog' you are meaning if you then go on to call blogs in general "corrosive", as Hazel Blears did recently.
Someblogsexplore the inner workings of a buffalo's ear or a sheeps intestinal tract, whereas others might recall an episode of cancer, a walk on the moon, or a range of conspiracy theories which can surely be backed up and supported with links to this and links to that if you want to click them. Thus, bloggers are happy doing what they do and do whatever takes their fancy at a particular time. They type thoughts, hopes, dreams and aspirations, or just a simple message in some cases or critique on all manner of things in life, which incidentally we're all part of and are effected by it in totally different ways. All of us to some degree or other will find some relevant piece in a sense that some blogs offer to inform or persuade or give a view about a subject which you either hadn't considered, or were unaware. Blogging then, should really be an advantage when it comes to social interaction if you happen to find some which share your own views or inform you of something which previously you knew nothing about.
All you really have to do is to remember they are not really the last stop in opinion. Unless you're a big league blogger like Guido Fawkes, Iain Dale or Tim Montgomery, which I would say are forums rather than blogs, then you're not really going to impact that much on the world or on your readers because there are so many blogs out there and yours is just one. A blog is an individual's comments rather than a social connection of many, such as you'd find on a forum. That's how I see it anyway.
I'd also mention that in my case, I have absolutely no interest at all in making long lists of contributors or driving traffic to it in any way at all as my only interest whilst blogging is to make an inventory of my thoughts and a record of political and other events which I'll later use as a diary of sorts when I need. I currently have an active interest in such matters whenever they take my fancy, along with an appetite for truth as I see it, and to have 400 to 500 comments on my blog every time I had a thought? Well I'm sorry, but that would simply be a distraction to my day. I don't think like that and I don't need the comments because MY blog is for ME and I say what the fuck I like to say on it and the opinions of others who may disagree with what I type seldom count for much if anything because I've already thought out my position, I don't class myself as thick, nor all knowing, but I have the ability to make my mind up and I'm seldom persuaded I'm wrong once I've done it. Call me a bigot or attach another label and I'll just ignore it because I'm better at forming my own opinion than those who's only argument in this world is to throw insults like bigot about the blogosphere, which they appear to forget is for all of us, me included, whilst having lapse of thought themselves of the ridiculous position of insulting people when you don't know them is itself 'biggoted'. Whoopee Do! Some clown I don't know and couldn't give a fuck about because they have no argument, thinks I'm a bigot?LMAO - ROTFLMAO - ROFL .
Controlling Blogs?
Unless you're the Gestapo then I'm afraid it can't be done. Next question or come and shoot me.
Another fallacy is that bloggers spend all of their time blogging, when in fact most bloggers appear on a part-time basis. Some have jobs to do of course, others like me are retired and take the odd peek 2 or 3 times a day, and I guess some feel the need to share more of their time than others for whatever reason they do. It's life and it's the choice of all how we live it after all is said and done.
However, I'd like to know why anyone would want to do that - control bloggers I mean? Because unless blogs are pushing something illegal like drugs, sex, firearms or pedophilia, then all they do is open the readers eyes to others thoughts like I've said. Yes of course they may criticise, and where there's criticism you'll generally find someone who is incapable of making a case for their position as in the case of McBride and all his trampy Labour followers like Hazel Blears, who nearly broke her neck recently in trying to defend the indefensible of McBride's smearing campaign not being part of the corrosive nature of the government she's part of, by accusing bloggers themselves of 'corroding politics'. How does that work then? The bloke who corroded politics is rightly criticized by bloggers and his underlings tub thump the bloggers? That's jolly Ms Blears but back in the real world it looks a bit different and I suggest you might try joining us here if you can stand it.Thus, politicians and some journalists try their best to stifle opinion and they corrode the very nature of our democracy where every citizen in every walk of life has the right of reply along with the right to give an opinion as long as it is fair and honest and not illegal. Now it's over to you and what you think, and in this case I mean Hazel Blears, the woman who said bloggers were "corrosive to politics". Will she back that up on a blog somewhere and open herself to reply? I very much doubt it because obviously she's in a different world to the virtual world of bloggers which is rightly becoming more real by the instant.
It's a real world versus a virtual world I'd say, and I know which world I'm in. I'm in a virtual world giving real comment like most bloggers like me, and like most forums like Guido, whereas you are in the real world really fucking everything up for the rest of us in reality, and that's why you no doubt find so many bloggers will escape to the virtual world of blogging. But it's just as well to remember that bloggers are real people with real votes and real decisions as to whether they buy real newspapers in the so called real world where their views are seldom otherwise represented. Perhaps bloggers reflect true opinion in reality therefore? It's just a thought.
Q: What are you doing here? A: Everybody has to be somewhere.
As if current events were not bad enough and if tensions between the public and its police service were not as strained as strained could be. i.e. On the verge of snapping.
I am greeted with a big flashing blue light when I open my paper this morning to see yet another taxpaying advertisement from your local friendly home secretary Jacqui Smith delivering her 'police pledge' initiative. (Loose name for an idea is that as in this case, it's a bad one).
Scare the public by shoving great big posters around their neighbourhoods and on bus stands, which show coppers wearing the new style "body armour"....how nice they look.
Then see the 'warnings' which describe that "Anything you say may be used in evidence".
FUCK OFF! Can you use that in "evidence"?
Or how about Jacqui Smith is a massively fucking overpaid lazy thick money grabbing expense fiddling twat who needs to resign before she's used all our money up on her expenses and on her expensive and pathetic campaign initiatives which not only insult the public's intelligence and purse, but adds also to their perception that their police service is living in some alternate reality where they are them and we are us and they spend all our money and kick our teeth in when we complain.
Please resign will you and let someone else in there who has a proper initiative to make my country England again instead of the place of terror and criminals and bogey men under my bed that you and the folk who live in your paranoia are indeed attempting (with my money) to make me believe. I'm sure Dominic Grieve would make a fine job of it as he seems a rather decent level headed chap who has good ideas. I think handling such a large department may be a bit too much for you Jacqui, seriously. I'd lie down if I were you, put your feet up and have a nice cup of tea, now there's a good lass, and I promise all these demons you are seeing will be gone when you wake up.
I think I can sum up the failure in policing in Britain with only a few words and only one comparison: When British forces entered Basra after the Iraqi invasion, one of the first things they did was to remove their helmets and to replace them with berets. This was done to lower the perception of ordinary Iraqi citizens that they still posed a threat. The forces went around 'making friendly with the natives', and that's a very long established 'tactic' in itself to maintain order and peace. Now I'd ask why we have "riot police" trying to "keep the peace" in the heart of London and other places amongst their own people during legitimate protests which they have a right to do, and I'd like to ask who is responsible for turning my country into something resembling a war zone rather than a democratic country where WE have rights? - Kettling, beating people with batons, containing people in cordons, police in balaclavas without ID, dogs biting and snarling at people, bobbies slapping innocent people in the face and acting like Gestapo Squads with riot sticks MUST STOP, and helmets and balaclavas have to be removed if public perception is to change from foe to friend surely?
There can be NO situation which warrants unprovoked violence being meted out to the public in this country!
Here comes Hot Fuzz
It's really not a laughing matter but one can be forgiven to likening recent 'episodes' of police mishap to that of Hot Fuzz. I don't suppose many will remember Key Stone Cops at all but things are starting to seriously look like one of their episodes are being directed up north, although it is deadly serious I'm afraid and much as people suspect, I fear we may be in danger of being delivered unto salvation by some door kicking, baton wielding, fist crunching, hand slapping copper, if we even THINK of demonstrating against this governments decision making unless government put a stop to it. I mean they are there to SERVE OUR INTERESTS are they not or is that a daft question?
So what's to do? As they say up north
Well Labour MP Alan Simpson, who once commented that New Labour's idea of democracy would have been recognised by General Franco, and that a choice between Blair and Brown was like having to pick between Saddam Hussein and his son Uday Hussein. Has now called into question a recent police guerrilla squad operation which led to pre-emptive arrests of 114 innocent people meeting in a school to talk about the environment protestors, by claiming the police acted like the "SAS" in an "Orwellian" State.
He said the "pre-emptive strike", had serious repercussions for the right to free assembly and had utilised overly heavy-handed tactics. "I am absolutely baffled by the sheer scale of the police operation," he said. "It was very Orwellian. What we saw was over-the-top, smash-and-grab, SAS-style, pre-emptive policing that was massively disproportionate to what was happening on the ground. The scale of policing was what you would expect to be used for a terrorist event or the break-up of a major crime syndicate, not to stop an environmental protest."
Eco-campaigners and civil liberty groups have questioned the circumstances surrounding the mass arrests, thought to be the largest single pre-emptive raid on a group of demonstrators in British history.
"Morning"
Police used more than 200 officers from five forces to arrest 114 men and women in Sneinton, Nottinghamshire, early on Monday morning because they were allegedly preparing to cause "prolonged disruption" to the nearby Ratcliffe-on-Soar coal-fired power station.
The group were released pending further enquiries and were charged with causing damage to the school, but the police themselves are alleged to have kicked fuck out of private property and acted like terrorists gone berserk , caused the damage themselves to two double glazed doors which together with the floor, now needs replacing. What the fuck the mess was on the floor is anyone's guess. It's beginning to sound a bit like the team at Hot Fuzz to me all of a sudden as opposed to IngSoc warriors but one can never be too sure about these things and shouldn't treat them too lightly. I mean don't even THINK to treat them lightly, just in case I'd say.
Any road. This together with some poor bloke in London Ian Tomlinson coming a cropper the other day for 'thinking' of walking home with his hands in his pockets, I mean how dare he. It's starting to look like a fucking war zone in Britain now with the London Met and Northern County Constabularies. is really starting to raise a few eyebrows and is giving the IPCC more work than it's had since it was formed more than likely.
Not content with being under investigation and awaiting a coroners verdict to find whether the police are actually in any way responsible and maybe thinking perhaps 'should we calm down a bit', the very next day they lash a backhander across a young girls face (apparently), and (apparently) continue to assault her further by laying into her with his fucking baton the bastard striking her repeatedly with a police baton, which anyone with more than half an eye can see that he has assaulted her without reason, and now I no longer need to use caveats on my blog to describe how despicable this action is for an officer of Hot Fuzz or even real police officers to take on the streets of London or anywhere else for that matter. For heavens sake you'd think we were in India at the time of the Raj. So basically, this MP is now providing a test on whether the MP might just be right in what he says about present tactics being deployed by our boys in blue (and black balaclavas like the SAS) these days, and he might just be able to impress a few ideas on government on behalf of the people who feel threatened by the state itself, as if we THINK it, we could very well be beaten up by some crazy fucking cop out there who thinks he's on a film set of some comedy script, except we people are not laughing this time.
Meanwhile, whilst we wait for a government to actually do something, could we please have a bit of order and could someone in charge please control these bastards this situation before someone else gets hurt. Thank you.
I'm sick to death of big retailers telling us what to buy.
A walk round any supermarket, looking for English produce, is akin to a game of hide and seek.Half an hour ago my wife returned from the local Co-op absolutely livid that she had looked for onions and had to ask "where are there any English onions", as none were displayed. She moved to Broccoli yet found no English again. ( Seasonal I guess but we do have the capacity to grow it and sell it throughout the year if people demandit ). Next the apples for god sake. Again, English were 'hidden' in a box which was squashed underneath the counter, yet when she again asked the assistant, she was pleased they were half the price and were better quality for the apple crumble she's making today.Okay, we live in a global world which apparently suddenly became bigger and more global when Tony Blair and his not so merry men said so. I ask those who detest Tony Blair and of course for any other reason you can think of, to band together to end the charade of people in England buying the first thing shoved in front of them on supermarket shelving when if they were to look hard enough (or ask), then the English farmers would not be going out of business if you were to buy it.Don't fall for the con of big displays when you can make a more discerning and deserving choice by asking for English and British produce.
Why?
It keeps British farmers in employment.
It saves truck loads and air loads of foreign produce being shipped half way around the earth to end up on your dinner table with resultant effects that our environment is damaged greater than we need to.
It is often better quality and less expensive.
Please make a stand for Britain next time you go shopping, and ASKfor British produce! Only this way, will the people take control of our country, our economy and jobs, and the environment and we'll safeguard the jobs in farming, packaging and retail if we make decisions to buy what's really best for us by buying British!
Another one to think about is English wine. Try English white Cider for a change why don't you. You can still get drunk on it if that's what you're after but it also has a lovely bouquet. Do youEVER think about buying the odd bottle and if not then why not?
Try it if you haven't already and I guarantee you'll be pleased at the price and also the taste which is often just like wine. But it's English and you'll be supporting your English Orchards. Cheese - Lamb - Beef - Greens - Apples - Strawberry and Cider industries all need you to help them survive and the earth needs you to stop wanting crap which has to be flown here or shipped here from half way across the globe at the cost of increasing CO2 levels. This way you'll help everyone as well as yourself and our global environment which cannot help itself. Only YOU can do it so what are you waiting for?
On 3rd March this year, Kevin Maguire, correspondent for The Daily Mirror and regular BBC raconteur, warned that; "Labour gambling on Georgia Gould is risking political suicide", and wrote; A shameless band of Blairites is deaf to Gordon Brown's warning that this is no time for a novice.
He said:
The string-pulling and spinning to gift a Labour seat to fresh-faced peer's girl Georgia Gould, 22, is an unwelcome revival of New Labour's control freakery.
Iraq war cheerleader-inchief Alastair Campbell rang a local activist in Erith and Thamesmead, East London, to ludicrously claim the daughter of pollster Lord Gould is talked of as a future prime minister.
By theweapon of mass disinformation, maybe, but not by anyone serious.
The infamous McDonagh sisters, Siobhain and Margaret, who last summer tried to topple the real PM, areplotting to fix it for their protege.
I want more young people involved in politics, yet I suspect some enjoyunfair advantages."
Tony Blair's supporters in vote rigging row Mr John Austin MP has asked the general secretary of the Labour Party to investigate allegations of voting irregularities to try to secure a safe Parliamentary seat for the daughter of one of Tony Blair's closest friends.
By Andrew Pierce Last Updated: 8:25PM BST 15 Apr 2009.
The accused:
Georgia Gould, whose father Philip Gould was one of the founders of new Labour, has emerged as the unlikely front-runner at the age of just 22 to become the candidate in Erith and Thamesmead at the next election.John Austin, the retiring MP, is so incensed by the alleged tactics of Mr Blair's supporters to bolster Miss Gould he has written to Ray Collins, the General Secretary of the Labour Party, to demand an inquiry. The local party has been engulfed in a dirty tricks row after a third, an unusually high number, registered to vote by postal ballot in this Saturday's election.Some local party members have allegedly been approached by Miss Gould's supporters with postal application forms filled in with their names, addresses, and telephone numbers and the reasons for not being able to vote in person.Mr Austin told The Daily Telegraph: "It's for that reason that I have written to the general secretary to ask him to investigate alleged irregularities in the postal votes. Undue external pressure has been exerted."Mr Austin has also written to complain to Tessa Jowell, the Olympics minister and close friend of Mr Blair, after she spoke at a meeting in the constituency in favour of Miss Gould. "I wrote to tell Tessa it is highly inappropriate for another MP to interfere in another constituency party's selection process. I have also written to the Speaker because she ignored the usual courtesy of telling me in advance of her intention to speak."While Miss Gould has impeccable new Labour credentials she has no apparent previous connections to the working class constituency in south east London where Mr Austin had an 11,500 majority.
The plotters:
She lives with her parents in a multi-million pound town house near Regent's Park in north London.Philip Gould, who was made a peer by Tony Blair, was an architect of new Labour with Lord Mandelson. the modernisation of the party with Lord Mandelson. Her mother Gail Rebuck is the chief executive of Random House publishers who won the race to secure Mr Blair's memoirs.Miss Gould attended St Catherine's College, Oxford and works part-time for Mr Blair's Faith Foundation. Her parents are close friends of Alastair Campbell, who was Mr Blair's communications secretary. Mr Campbell has also been lobbying for Miss Gould.Her other supporters include Baroness McDonagh, the former Labour general secretary, and her sister Siobhan, a Labour MP who was sacked as a whip last year after calling for a leadership challenge to Gordon Brown.The involvement of Ms Gould has sparked controversy on a political blog which is used by Kent Labour activists who have derided her campaign as a Blairite "stitch-up". One post says: "A 22-year-old upper-middle-class daughter of a smarmy high priest of New Labour would go down about as well here as a bucket of week old vomit. If she is selected, my money's on a shock Tory gain." Another added: "A 22-year-old woman candidate wouldn't go down particularly well with quite a lot of traditional Labour voters in this seat.' While a third joked: 'Not bad serving drinks in the working men's club, though."Miss Gould is one of eight candidates on the shortlist in Saturday's selection battle. The youngest MP was the IRA sympathiser Bernadette Devlin who became an Ulster MP in 1969 at the age of 21. Miss Gould was not available for comment as she says the party's code of conduct banned candidates from speaking to the media.
The opportunity:
Mr Austin gave reasons last year for his retirement, saying: "It is unlikely that there will be a General Election before late next year or 2010; in either case I will then be over 65, and 70 by the end of the next Parliament. At present I feel fit and well and I had thought of delaying a decision until I reach 65, but that would have been unfair on the Party and risk the possibility of being so close to an election that there might not be time for a full selection process if I chose to stand down then. Erith & Thamesmead is one of the most challenging constituencies with one of the highest levels of casework and whilst I feel fit, active and enthusiastic now, I am not sure that I will want to be working a 7 day, 70 hour week when I am 70."
"Shameless Blairites"
Margaret Josephine McDonagh, Baroness McDonagh is a United Kingdom Labour Party politician and was General Secretary of the Labour Party from 1998 to 2001....became Labour's first female General Secretary in 1998. She had been a rising star and formidable organiser in the run-up to 1997, seen as the key party official responsible for the record landslide victory, but her fearsome style did not endear her to Party members and the left. Her handling of the candidate selection for the 2000 London mayoral election badly damaged her reputation. However her formidable organisational skills led to a second landslide in 2001. McDonagh left after the 2001 general election United Kingdom general election, 2001
Her Sister Siobhan McDonagh MP - LINK"A leading Blairite MP is to apologise to the House of Commons authorities after it emerged she had used public money to send a Labour party circular to her constituents.Siobhan McDonagh, sister of Labour's general secretary Margaret McDonagh, sent out letters on Commons notepaper to residents in her Mitcham and Morden seat. The MP's office had included a Labour questionnaire asking how well the Government was doing on a range of issues including schools, the NHS and crime".Constituents, who were also asked if they thought Tony Blair was a strong or weak leader and which party they would support at the next general election, were asked to reply to the Mitcham and Morden Labour Party via its freepost address in south London.
The Conservatives claimed the affair was embarrassing to the party as a whole as Ms McDonagh had broken strict Commons rules forbidding the use of Parliamentary stationery and post-paid envelopes for party political purposes.
Proven effective in over 12 years of tests:
Under Commons rules, policed by the Serjeant at Arms,MPs are forbidden from sending circulars which are unsolicited.
