The Lib Democrat conference is on and they are all gathering together to pat themselves on their narrow shouldered backs of how well they had done in a coalition government. Of course we all know they have been appalling. I noticed though as one famous and nefarious Lib Dem MP was briefly and politely interviewed how no questions were asked about the Post Office sell off. The Guardian newspaper on the 20.11.13. reported the sell off at 330 pence a share compared with a current valuation of 550 pence a share meant the sale had lost £2.2 billion. Such a phenomenal amount equates the complete negligence on behalf of the coalition government and in particular Vince Cable who was a key player. Though, personally I can't help feel as business secretary he was given a poison pill by the coalition government. Whatever happened it was going to be unpopular, but the worst thing of all has happened the gross under valuation and sell off of Great Britain's crown jewels. This seems to be a constant thing which happens whenever a Tory government comes into power and it seems the people who always make the most out of selling public assets are those who are already wealthy and seeking to get wealthier. Every single one of those shares should of first been offered to the British Tax payers as free shares. The minimal restriction on selling to private investors was so low as to mean this government only wanted to sell shares to institutional investors overseas, they effectively rather give tax payers money to free loaders in different countries than their own population.
It would of made interesting news had the interviewer the bollocks to of asked a difficult question. I think it should of been more along the lines of "Mr Cable, don't you feel it would be appropriate of you to resign from government after the atrocious short selling of the Post Office?" Or, "Mr Cable, can you explain why the population of the UK should consider voting for the Liberal Democrats when the selling of the Post Office at a vastly under valued level represents exceedingly bad judgement and governance?" A more simple question could also of been, "Do you honestly think your party will ever recover it's reputation as a democratic party after being in coalition?"
Every time there is a Tory government there is always a single guarantee, the poor, the working classes will be pushed into greater poverty. Cable you and Clegg have your days numbered, watch this space.
Saturday, 8 March 2014
Saturday, 1 March 2014
Yanukovch brings the Ukraine to it's knees
What do Viktor Yanukovych, Saddam Hussein, Mohammed Morsi, Bashir Al-Asad and Hitler have in common? It's simple, they were or are all power crazy in their own way. Two are dead, one has absconded, one is in jail and one is still in power. It seems democracy doesn't rule when a country's ruler decides the people under them are nothing more than pawns. However, we see Al-Asad doing his best to play of different nations against each other so he can stay in power. Whilst unfortunately Victor Yanukovych ran away like a frightened little girl who had been just spooked the three bares and greedily ate all their porridge. Fortunately for the people of the Ukraine they have formed an interim parliament, unfortunately for them it looks like Putin has now decided to get involved in the game. Perhaps Putin was impressed by Yanukovych's wonderful home, the one with the replica Spanish galleon. Most of the Ukrainian people didn't like Yanukovych's penchant for corruption, which had permeated through their society. Further they want to move more towards Europe, whilst he has his sight set on Russia. Like Al-Asad, Yanukovych to has played off different minority groupings in order to help justify his rule. As the old adage goes, "divide and conquer" which is certainly what he has done. Although he ran away like a little girl he has found a big brother in the form of Putin. The problem is Putin is not just a big brother he is a giant and already he is now starting to make his move on the Ukraine again. It is another power play. If his friend Yanny wasn't so greedy and wasn't so corrupt he would not be in this position. The reality for Europe is they will not get involved because it is too impracticable, certainly at a military level there is nothing they can do. The Ukraine could just of found it is now going to be in a fight with Putin. They may not of liked the corruption, but now their lives could be on the line. Depending on what hostility they show.
So democracy is a freedom in itself, and some people such as Al-Asad and Yanukovych don't know the definition. Unless they happen to think it is something related to fine wine sipped in a Spanish Galleon. Of course like the greats villains of the world Yanukovych may find he'll one day be in the dock of a war tribunal.
So democracy is a freedom in itself, and some people such as Al-Asad and Yanukovych don't know the definition. Unless they happen to think it is something related to fine wine sipped in a Spanish Galleon. Of course like the greats villains of the world Yanukovych may find he'll one day be in the dock of a war tribunal.
Saturday, 11 January 2014
The Niqab and the burka, should they be banned from the UK
In 2012 France banned the public wearing of the niqab and the burka. This is the only European country at this time which has taken this action. It may be a purely political decision, but there are a lot of other reasons why wearing a niqab and burka is wrong. For example, Dr Tarj Hargey from the Muslim Education Centre, Oxford states these coverings are a pre Islamic cultural practice, a throw back to the Byzantine and Persian empires. Dr Tarj Hargey is an Iman and has on demonstrated his dislike of these coverings by burning them in public. Quite clearly, not all Iman's have the same view on the topic. However, saying this, there is no mention at all in the Quran suggesting female followers of Islam should follow this practice. Dr Hargey goes on to state this practice was used by the aristocrats of these early empires to show their ownership of women, by not letting other males gaze upon them. The Quran instructs men and women to dress modestly the words niqab and burka can not even be found in it. So it comes down to interpretation which then gives sholastic Iman's the influence and power to preach to their flock, as to what they should wear or how they should react to the rest of the world. Dr Hargey and many Europeans also agree on one thing, these coverings make women appear as second class citizens who have to follow the words of men. The directions to cover up are misogynistic and offensive.
The face is an intimate tool of communication. It is said in language the message is 90 per cent non verbal from the actual words spoken. In verbal communication there is a phenomenon known as the McGirk effect, where viewing the lips of a speaker helps to actually hear what they say. This is because in part we lip read as well as listen to the words spoken. Covering up the face in any way is the kind of thing racing drivers, motor bike riders and bank robbers do. It is associated either with anonymity or with safety in the form of a visor. It is anonymity which comes across in public as being offensive. I've seen young males cover their faces with pull up scarves, the don't want people to see them to recognize them because they may have a nefarious intent. It is to protect themselves, because they may well be in the process of committing a crime. Which then makes me ask are these Islamic following females about to commit a dastardly deed when they cover up? Of course not. Yet, do they understand how this may be seen and viewed by others? I doubt it. There is a liberal freedom in the UK to wear what you want, in most part. Yet at the same time there is a recognition you would not walk down the street with an offensive or racist slogan written on a t-shirt. While in another instance hiding a face if not for safety reasons is also an offensive act, in being a factor of male domination and anti-social terms, but yet it is not banned in the UK. It could very well be the UK is too liberalistic. For, here all types of fundamentalist views are allowed to be held within the law, they coexist at the same time even if they are disliked. While then advocating it is the law of the land and justice which reigns supreme, when in fact we all know it is more of who has enough money to buy the best lawyers and then they are the ones who reign supreme.
For a Muslim woman the wearing of these coverings may be based in additional reasons than just religious. Men will and do like to oggle women, especially if they are attractive. Or attractive to the man. Wearing a full body covering and face covering doesn't give a man a chance to see an features of a woman at all. In so doing a woman may feel they are no longer being judged either by men or other women for what they wear or on how attractive they are. The coverings become a shield, endorsed in the guise of religion or culture. Or indeed it could be a very self enlightened freedom of expression. It could be said a woman wearing this covering does so through choice and free choice, but it could also be argued in Islamic circles wearing these coverings is not just a choice it is a social norm and there is a degree of social pressure, where women are coerced into this attire. In this instance the full hijab and niqab becomes a standing moving coffin. Others will argue it is not for the state to dictate what an individual wears and all persons should have freedom of choice. Which is ludicrous because if I chose to walk down the street naked it would only be a matter of time before I am arrested for indecent exposure. People would find it offensive, but in the same instance the acknowledgement of public decency and offensive undress should apply to offensive full dressage.
The UK is celebrated as a secular country, and it's current laws are such to allow freedom of expression unless of course the intent of this freedom is abused to cause harm to other persons. However, this harm is considered primarily when it is a real physical threat. The law to a lesser degree tackles psychological harassment, but it is a much lesser degree. To the extend if one wishes to be offensive to other people by demeanor then it is fine. The world is made up of a mixed bag of people and there will always be those who are idiots, it's a fact, but probably an interpretive fact. The bottom line is wearing a face covering is an alien aspect to the UK society, historically you will probably only find it when used to protect the face, such as in war. It is not an every day aspect of life. Therefore it does appear offensive, because the face is a major communicative tool and facial expressions tell a lot about a person. So why should one person show their face while another keeps it covered up? The answer is because the UK has now become a multi cultural society and societies within societies are both allowed to exist and at the same time be contradictory and offensive to those not part of the in group. Ultimately it is down to the individual what they wear. However, like the phenomenon termed Stockholm syndrome, where a kidnapped victim begins to identify with their kidnappers, the same mental bending can be interpreted of those adherents of some religions. Unless of course you happen to be living in France in which case, being covered up in a black clothed coffin is probably known as locked in syndrome.
Viva La France.
The face is an intimate tool of communication. It is said in language the message is 90 per cent non verbal from the actual words spoken. In verbal communication there is a phenomenon known as the McGirk effect, where viewing the lips of a speaker helps to actually hear what they say. This is because in part we lip read as well as listen to the words spoken. Covering up the face in any way is the kind of thing racing drivers, motor bike riders and bank robbers do. It is associated either with anonymity or with safety in the form of a visor. It is anonymity which comes across in public as being offensive. I've seen young males cover their faces with pull up scarves, the don't want people to see them to recognize them because they may have a nefarious intent. It is to protect themselves, because they may well be in the process of committing a crime. Which then makes me ask are these Islamic following females about to commit a dastardly deed when they cover up? Of course not. Yet, do they understand how this may be seen and viewed by others? I doubt it. There is a liberal freedom in the UK to wear what you want, in most part. Yet at the same time there is a recognition you would not walk down the street with an offensive or racist slogan written on a t-shirt. While in another instance hiding a face if not for safety reasons is also an offensive act, in being a factor of male domination and anti-social terms, but yet it is not banned in the UK. It could very well be the UK is too liberalistic. For, here all types of fundamentalist views are allowed to be held within the law, they coexist at the same time even if they are disliked. While then advocating it is the law of the land and justice which reigns supreme, when in fact we all know it is more of who has enough money to buy the best lawyers and then they are the ones who reign supreme.
For a Muslim woman the wearing of these coverings may be based in additional reasons than just religious. Men will and do like to oggle women, especially if they are attractive. Or attractive to the man. Wearing a full body covering and face covering doesn't give a man a chance to see an features of a woman at all. In so doing a woman may feel they are no longer being judged either by men or other women for what they wear or on how attractive they are. The coverings become a shield, endorsed in the guise of religion or culture. Or indeed it could be a very self enlightened freedom of expression. It could be said a woman wearing this covering does so through choice and free choice, but it could also be argued in Islamic circles wearing these coverings is not just a choice it is a social norm and there is a degree of social pressure, where women are coerced into this attire. In this instance the full hijab and niqab becomes a standing moving coffin. Others will argue it is not for the state to dictate what an individual wears and all persons should have freedom of choice. Which is ludicrous because if I chose to walk down the street naked it would only be a matter of time before I am arrested for indecent exposure. People would find it offensive, but in the same instance the acknowledgement of public decency and offensive undress should apply to offensive full dressage.
The UK is celebrated as a secular country, and it's current laws are such to allow freedom of expression unless of course the intent of this freedom is abused to cause harm to other persons. However, this harm is considered primarily when it is a real physical threat. The law to a lesser degree tackles psychological harassment, but it is a much lesser degree. To the extend if one wishes to be offensive to other people by demeanor then it is fine. The world is made up of a mixed bag of people and there will always be those who are idiots, it's a fact, but probably an interpretive fact. The bottom line is wearing a face covering is an alien aspect to the UK society, historically you will probably only find it when used to protect the face, such as in war. It is not an every day aspect of life. Therefore it does appear offensive, because the face is a major communicative tool and facial expressions tell a lot about a person. So why should one person show their face while another keeps it covered up? The answer is because the UK has now become a multi cultural society and societies within societies are both allowed to exist and at the same time be contradictory and offensive to those not part of the in group. Ultimately it is down to the individual what they wear. However, like the phenomenon termed Stockholm syndrome, where a kidnapped victim begins to identify with their kidnappers, the same mental bending can be interpreted of those adherents of some religions. Unless of course you happen to be living in France in which case, being covered up in a black clothed coffin is probably known as locked in syndrome.
Viva La France.
Wednesday, 1 January 2014
A need for housing which is not being realised
The UK has an ever increasing problem. There simply are not enough properties to house the population. Probably one of the truest facts of life is, everyone needs somewhere to live. We all need a home. Without a home everything else falls apart. A roof over your head is everything, it also helps to have money to pay the bills and enough to warmth and comfort to satisfy the basic human needs. Food, friendship or family, adequate shelter. When I say home I don't mean something which is temporary, it has to be permanent and preferably not rented from a private landlord. The best choice would be owned.
There are many reasons why the UK does not have enough properties. The population is increasing every year. This is not organically either, immigration is higher than net migration. Over the last two decades or even more, the number of new build properties in the entire UK has not kept up with these population increases. It has been pitiful no matter what government has been in power. There has always been a proportional trend for citizens of the UK to purchase their own home, so once in ownership it will stay in ownership for many years. Families no longer live in the cohesive units they used to live in. They break up. There is not the social pressure for partners to stay together. This is a good thing for those who want to get out of a relationship so they can do so. Unless they happen to believe in a religion which sees marriage break ups in a poor light. Individuals and organizations own more than one property, those excess properties are used as cash cows by renting them out, we see an ever growing set of entrepreneurs have developed in an ever growing buy to rent market. There should be a maximum number of domestic properties any single individual can be allowed to own in the UK.
As people buy their own homes, it means taking out a mortgage and a number of years paying this back. Home owners hope the valuation of their property increases every year. Over time the actual mortgage level drops lower than rental values and they win out on two fronts. For banks and for home owners there is an interest in keeping property valuations high and consequently there is also an advantage in more properties not being built and synchronized with the needs of a growing population. In a catch 22 like situation, the fewer people own their own homes the better it is for those who do own their own home. Property ownership is static wealth, those with high mortgages are tied to banks with their burdens. The higher demand the higher property valuations but this comes at a caveat, if interest rates increase home owners may have difficulty in paying back their mortgage. Those with interest only mortgages actually become the most vulnerable. In a time of recession which has been more than a decade, being in work is also one of the most valuable factors anyone can have.
The solutions can only come from a multiple fronts. Especially when looking at the interdependent link between banks, mortgages and home ownership, which is insidious to the entire country. A nationally owned and nationally ran bank, not one of those which has been bailed out might be an option, but is unlikely to happen. More stringent regulations on allowing mortgages, interest rates, the even the failure of banking institutes should be considered. In an ever chaotic financial situation it is unfair the tax payer has to bail out banks because they are too big to fail. If they really are too big, then they need to be broken up, their capital held increased and the culture of awarding massive financial rewards to the few ceased. House builders should be forced to either sell back the land banks they have or to actually build on them. Local Authorities should be given permission to purchase and to build their own housing again, their role has previously been central in stabilizing the housing crisis, but they have been shut out. A new rent regulation should be introduced, the maximum level of rent any private organization can charge is then capped. No matter where the property is situated. Empty and abandoned properties should also be examined, with forced purchase orders come into play given owners had sufficient time to act.
The introduction of apprenticeship schemes which are only a few weeks long are worthless to everyone. The definition of an apprenticeship should be defined with a minimum period and a minimum standard of education associated to it. Universities and colleges must create courses centred on vocational skills should provide vocational qualifications and those who go on these courses given financial support. The agism of apprenticeship schemes should also be examined. People of any age should be given an equal chance to go on these schemes. You are never too young to learn, if the retirement age is increasing it stands to reason older people need to be included higher in new workforces. The UK no longer produces goods in factories and through engineering to the degree it used, the entire field of private sector industry must be encouraged and supported. Through reduced business rates, increased financial support, tax breaks and long term R & D investment. The future of the UK has to be considered beyond the term of one or two governments. We now should be looking 30 to 50 years ahead. This can only be done a little bit at a time.
More jobs for more people at a higher level of skill and education will ensure they are able to have a better standard of living and so purchase their own house or afford to rent. However, the idea is to bring down rent levels and increase numbers of available homes. These are just a few ideas some of which have been mentioned in previous BLOGs.
There are many reasons why the UK does not have enough properties. The population is increasing every year. This is not organically either, immigration is higher than net migration. Over the last two decades or even more, the number of new build properties in the entire UK has not kept up with these population increases. It has been pitiful no matter what government has been in power. There has always been a proportional trend for citizens of the UK to purchase their own home, so once in ownership it will stay in ownership for many years. Families no longer live in the cohesive units they used to live in. They break up. There is not the social pressure for partners to stay together. This is a good thing for those who want to get out of a relationship so they can do so. Unless they happen to believe in a religion which sees marriage break ups in a poor light. Individuals and organizations own more than one property, those excess properties are used as cash cows by renting them out, we see an ever growing set of entrepreneurs have developed in an ever growing buy to rent market. There should be a maximum number of domestic properties any single individual can be allowed to own in the UK.
As people buy their own homes, it means taking out a mortgage and a number of years paying this back. Home owners hope the valuation of their property increases every year. Over time the actual mortgage level drops lower than rental values and they win out on two fronts. For banks and for home owners there is an interest in keeping property valuations high and consequently there is also an advantage in more properties not being built and synchronized with the needs of a growing population. In a catch 22 like situation, the fewer people own their own homes the better it is for those who do own their own home. Property ownership is static wealth, those with high mortgages are tied to banks with their burdens. The higher demand the higher property valuations but this comes at a caveat, if interest rates increase home owners may have difficulty in paying back their mortgage. Those with interest only mortgages actually become the most vulnerable. In a time of recession which has been more than a decade, being in work is also one of the most valuable factors anyone can have.
The solutions can only come from a multiple fronts. Especially when looking at the interdependent link between banks, mortgages and home ownership, which is insidious to the entire country. A nationally owned and nationally ran bank, not one of those which has been bailed out might be an option, but is unlikely to happen. More stringent regulations on allowing mortgages, interest rates, the even the failure of banking institutes should be considered. In an ever chaotic financial situation it is unfair the tax payer has to bail out banks because they are too big to fail. If they really are too big, then they need to be broken up, their capital held increased and the culture of awarding massive financial rewards to the few ceased. House builders should be forced to either sell back the land banks they have or to actually build on them. Local Authorities should be given permission to purchase and to build their own housing again, their role has previously been central in stabilizing the housing crisis, but they have been shut out. A new rent regulation should be introduced, the maximum level of rent any private organization can charge is then capped. No matter where the property is situated. Empty and abandoned properties should also be examined, with forced purchase orders come into play given owners had sufficient time to act.
The introduction of apprenticeship schemes which are only a few weeks long are worthless to everyone. The definition of an apprenticeship should be defined with a minimum period and a minimum standard of education associated to it. Universities and colleges must create courses centred on vocational skills should provide vocational qualifications and those who go on these courses given financial support. The agism of apprenticeship schemes should also be examined. People of any age should be given an equal chance to go on these schemes. You are never too young to learn, if the retirement age is increasing it stands to reason older people need to be included higher in new workforces. The UK no longer produces goods in factories and through engineering to the degree it used, the entire field of private sector industry must be encouraged and supported. Through reduced business rates, increased financial support, tax breaks and long term R & D investment. The future of the UK has to be considered beyond the term of one or two governments. We now should be looking 30 to 50 years ahead. This can only be done a little bit at a time.
More jobs for more people at a higher level of skill and education will ensure they are able to have a better standard of living and so purchase their own house or afford to rent. However, the idea is to bring down rent levels and increase numbers of available homes. These are just a few ideas some of which have been mentioned in previous BLOGs.
Saturday, 12 October 2013
Tragic and stupefying sale of Royal Mail
The sale of the Royal Mail (RM) is yet another instance of selling the crown jewels by this current government, it has been grossly undervalued. The initial public offering (IPO) has valued them at £3.30 per share and after just a single day the value of these shares has jumped by 38% to £4.38. As suspected by many sources the original valuation of this organization was grossly wrong. Vince Cable personally owes the British Taxpayer at least £1 billion plus. Not only this, the dividend yield of RM has been estimated at 6-7%. The RM is a money making, profit making, public loved, public needed machine. The decision to sell it off is a typical short termism fix which a ridiculously inefficient, crazy government has done to try and reduce the deficit. There should of been a public vote on whether the sale of RM should be allowed. When you sell something you can only do it once this is so crass. , not This is one of the worst back stabbing public to private sale to date.
So anyone in their right mind would ask why on earth sell it, I did say in their right mind. Whereas this sale is in the mind of Vince Cable and his Tory partners. At a House of Commons committee on 09.10.13. Vince was directly asked about the sale of RM being undervalued. His response was that the price of shares goes up and down. It was revealed also the prospectus weighed in at 440 pages long. The period of notice between offering and actual selling was so short no single body would of had a chance to read through this prospectus. It turns out RM was also 7 times over subscribed. Vince doesn't consider vast amounts of shares would of been bought by overseas investors. These private organizations will for now make massive profits, massive. Vince says the shares will fluctuate but what he isn't understanding here is the IPO is now not one month or two months or six months, it is the current IPO pricing which has fallen exceedingly short of actual value. It is as though Vince has gone out of his way to give away money to foreign investors. Vince has in no doubt lost the plot, he can not be allowed to stay in office or to remain an MP. As Vince was asked how he came about the value of the RM he used the term "pilot fishing" and when questioned by MP Julie Elliott it was evident Vince had valued the RM by anecdotal, unrecorded discussions with investors. The same investors no doubt who were about to buy shares. I suppose it didn't occur to him they might devalue the price so as to enhance their own profit. Again this is evidence of a man who should not be in government, a man who has made a billion pound mistake. When asked about the capital assets of the RM one MP advised the Mount Pleasants building in London to be valued at at one billion pounds asked if this was going to be offset against the pension liabilities the government had accepted for RM employees. Vince as ever hesitant in his reply dodged around the question, forehead with a troubled frown. It is as though Vince has not actually considered the repercussions of this sale, has not considered the real value of the business and just jumped on the Tory bandwagon of selling off assets for a doddle.
So who gets the useful idiot award for the Tories, Mr Vincent (frown head) Cable, who probably should be considering a retirement from office. A long one, and as quickly as possible.
So anyone in their right mind would ask why on earth sell it, I did say in their right mind. Whereas this sale is in the mind of Vince Cable and his Tory partners. At a House of Commons committee on 09.10.13. Vince was directly asked about the sale of RM being undervalued. His response was that the price of shares goes up and down. It was revealed also the prospectus weighed in at 440 pages long. The period of notice between offering and actual selling was so short no single body would of had a chance to read through this prospectus. It turns out RM was also 7 times over subscribed. Vince doesn't consider vast amounts of shares would of been bought by overseas investors. These private organizations will for now make massive profits, massive. Vince says the shares will fluctuate but what he isn't understanding here is the IPO is now not one month or two months or six months, it is the current IPO pricing which has fallen exceedingly short of actual value. It is as though Vince has gone out of his way to give away money to foreign investors. Vince has in no doubt lost the plot, he can not be allowed to stay in office or to remain an MP. As Vince was asked how he came about the value of the RM he used the term "pilot fishing" and when questioned by MP Julie Elliott it was evident Vince had valued the RM by anecdotal, unrecorded discussions with investors. The same investors no doubt who were about to buy shares. I suppose it didn't occur to him they might devalue the price so as to enhance their own profit. Again this is evidence of a man who should not be in government, a man who has made a billion pound mistake. When asked about the capital assets of the RM one MP advised the Mount Pleasants building in London to be valued at at one billion pounds asked if this was going to be offset against the pension liabilities the government had accepted for RM employees. Vince as ever hesitant in his reply dodged around the question, forehead with a troubled frown. It is as though Vince has not actually considered the repercussions of this sale, has not considered the real value of the business and just jumped on the Tory bandwagon of selling off assets for a doddle.
So who gets the useful idiot award for the Tories, Mr Vincent (frown head) Cable, who probably should be considering a retirement from office. A long one, and as quickly as possible.
Thursday, 3 October 2013
Fed up with the Tory machine
The last few weeks have been a living Tory nightmare, of publicity. I am beyond saturation point in seeing them on the news, if it's not Cameron it's Ozziborne, neither of them are fit to organize a piss up in a brewery let along run a country. And yet again I'll harp on to the fact Ozz has a degree in modern history not in economics so why the hell is he running the country's economy. He can only get it wrong and get it wrong on a massive scale. I am fed up with every one of his budgets. He gives them titles like "this is the budget for growth" hell it was more like the budget of puke. If you look at Ozz's early promises of where the country would be on it's deficit and spending they are all wrong, he has not achieved anything. The country has 1.2 trillion pounds of debt and as far as anyone in blue is concerned it's down to every person who gets welfare benefits in any form at all. They have removed laws which made employers take on disabled members of staff, they have villified those who claim benefits even though the majority of people who do are actually working and need them to subsidise their daily living costs. There has definitely got to be something wrong if the cost of living is so bloody high even people in work can not afford to pay their bills and feed themselves. It was with irony when Ozzy was asked by MP Teresa Pearce at a Public Accounts Committee meeting whether he knew how many times a family could go to a food bank, and he didn't. Ozzy thought because the Job Centre were advising claimants about going to food banks it was enough. The answer to the question was three times. When Cameron was asked recently if he knew the price of a basics loaf of bread he mumbled a fictionally high price and then had the gall to say he owned a bread maker so they made their own bread. Bloody hip, hip, horay for Cammy it's good to know he can afford the electricity to run a bread maker, let alone own one. Because I don't know anyone who does own a bread maker.
The level of tripe which has been applauded from the Tory conference is outlandish as well. It is like there is a group of people living in some Utopia world on a hill in the middle of London who looks down on everyone else and doesn't have any insight about what it is like beyond their own hill. The Tory party are an insular millionaires club. Quite rightly Nadine Doris has described Cammy and Ozzy as upper class Eaton toffs. Both these people need a lesson in humility. Take them out of their offices and put them on welfare benefits for two weeks, put all their politics on hold. Put them in the land of the unemployed, the working classes, those scraping together a living from hand to mouth. Of course they have to do this as actors and get dressed up in the part, add a couple of plane cloths minders in the wings to keep an eye on them as well. Maybe, just maybe they would then understand the consequences of their actions, of their government, maybe they would learn some humility, maybe they would learn compassion even. Hell, I doubt it. To tell the truth it would be easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle before these obnoxious suit wearing idiots ever walked across the road.
Another raving Tory scoundrel is the editor of the Daily Mail, Paul Dacre. He has gone so far as demonise a deceased second world war veteran, Ed Milliband's dad. For something he had written in a diary when he was 17 years old. It is like Dacre has no sense of decency, The Mail has gone to the pits and can not call itself a newspaper. I'll not read a copy ever, but I'll use it to wipe my arse after a good big dump, because that's where it deserves to be, flushed down the toilet with the excrement of life. Dacre unbelievably was also a member of the Press Complaints Commission, which I guess was from necessity because no doubt there have been a hell of a lot of complaints about the Daily Fail. Dacre believes in sensationalism and he follows the whims of public opinion in the truest manner of a fair-weather friend. However, with with the advocated belief he represents middle Tory Britian and the free market economy. I wonder if he'd say this were he in an NHS hospital only to get a hip replacement which had come via the free market economy of Rumania. What is it about Tories nowadays that they have to be bullies, Cameron acts like this when opposite Milliband at every PMQ, he ducks and dives questions constantly, it got to the point PMQs are farcical, nothing more than a propaganda machine and vilification of the opposing bench.
I have so truly had enough of the lies, and deceit of the Tory machine the more I hear from them the more a pressing need to speak out against them and to even consider active campaigning against them as well. .
The level of tripe which has been applauded from the Tory conference is outlandish as well. It is like there is a group of people living in some Utopia world on a hill in the middle of London who looks down on everyone else and doesn't have any insight about what it is like beyond their own hill. The Tory party are an insular millionaires club. Quite rightly Nadine Doris has described Cammy and Ozzy as upper class Eaton toffs. Both these people need a lesson in humility. Take them out of their offices and put them on welfare benefits for two weeks, put all their politics on hold. Put them in the land of the unemployed, the working classes, those scraping together a living from hand to mouth. Of course they have to do this as actors and get dressed up in the part, add a couple of plane cloths minders in the wings to keep an eye on them as well. Maybe, just maybe they would then understand the consequences of their actions, of their government, maybe they would learn some humility, maybe they would learn compassion even. Hell, I doubt it. To tell the truth it would be easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle before these obnoxious suit wearing idiots ever walked across the road.
Another raving Tory scoundrel is the editor of the Daily Mail, Paul Dacre. He has gone so far as demonise a deceased second world war veteran, Ed Milliband's dad. For something he had written in a diary when he was 17 years old. It is like Dacre has no sense of decency, The Mail has gone to the pits and can not call itself a newspaper. I'll not read a copy ever, but I'll use it to wipe my arse after a good big dump, because that's where it deserves to be, flushed down the toilet with the excrement of life. Dacre unbelievably was also a member of the Press Complaints Commission, which I guess was from necessity because no doubt there have been a hell of a lot of complaints about the Daily Fail. Dacre believes in sensationalism and he follows the whims of public opinion in the truest manner of a fair-weather friend. However, with with the advocated belief he represents middle Tory Britian and the free market economy. I wonder if he'd say this were he in an NHS hospital only to get a hip replacement which had come via the free market economy of Rumania. What is it about Tories nowadays that they have to be bullies, Cameron acts like this when opposite Milliband at every PMQ, he ducks and dives questions constantly, it got to the point PMQs are farcical, nothing more than a propaganda machine and vilification of the opposing bench.
I have so truly had enough of the lies, and deceit of the Tory machine the more I hear from them the more a pressing need to speak out against them and to even consider active campaigning against them as well. .
Tuesday, 3 September 2013
Firefighter cyclist killed by sandwich eating motorist
Today another incident of death by dangerous or rather careless driving has surfaced. Paul Brown, 30, hit off-duty fire-fighter Joseph Wilkins on a country road near Abingdon in May 2012. Now was during summer, the accident happened about 9 p.m. and Paul Brown was eating a sandwich while driving. He elledged the sandwich was already eaten and his attention was on the road but he somehow still hit Joseph Wilkins. In this case perpetrator Paul Brown got the sentence of 240 hours community service. This is such a cheap crime to have committed.
How can a life be so cheap? There is definitely something wrong with the British legal system to allow road death to be so cheaply punished. An advocate could of argued Paul Brown had murdered Mr Wilkins intentionally, that there may have been an earlier altercation between the pair of them and Mr Brown sort revenge. This could of been a possible explanation as well as the sandwich eating story.
It is heinous to allow death by driving such paltry punishment.
How can a life be so cheap? There is definitely something wrong with the British legal system to allow road death to be so cheaply punished. An advocate could of argued Paul Brown had murdered Mr Wilkins intentionally, that there may have been an earlier altercation between the pair of them and Mr Brown sort revenge. This could of been a possible explanation as well as the sandwich eating story.
It is heinous to allow death by driving such paltry punishment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)