Travellers (again)


Proposals to create what would be the UK’s longest coastal path have been jeopardised because a group of travellers are objecting to the route of the path passing close to their site, thereby invading their privacy.

A small part of the 1,400km route would pass close to the Rover Way Camp, on the Cardiff stretch of the footpath. “You don’t know what type of person could use it; there could be drug dealers or paedophiles” said Richard Probert, who lives there with his wife and family. Officials from the local authority have rejected  the proposal to build a 5m screen around the camp because “it would be like a prison” and have demanded that the path be removed.

The fact that most people have a public road and a footpath outside ther houses seems to have escaped the travellers and – without wishing to cause offence – why are travellers living in what appears to be a fixed abode when they claim their lifestyle is a nomadic one. How long will it be before hordes of indignant, ordinary Brits demand the same privileges that Travellers now enjoy. Put another way round, does this mean that the hundreds of thousands of old folk that live in retirement caravan parks are actually now classed as Travellers?

Tory at any price?


The Consergvatives have again exposed themselves as ‘little Englanders’. In the vote calling for a referendum about Britain’s membership of the EU,  81 Tory MPs defied the whips, whilst two others actively abstained by voting both ways and a further 12 are known not to have voted.

It has to be said that if the Tory grass roots are so unhappy with our continuing membership of the EU, why don’t they jump ship and vote for UKIP? It is quite ridiculous that they are so wedded to the Conservative ethos that they cannot even vote for the party that has the clearest mandate on the issue.

Whilst Eurosceptics would rather see us completely independent of the EU at any cost, many people wonder how secure their livelihoods will be if we do cut abandon the EU and try to go it alone.

Like a rat from a drain …


Where the rat was found ...

Muammar Qaddafi`s death takes the Arab Spring one crucial stage further on it`s path: This is the first Arab despot to uprooted by force and killed in this wave of uprisings. We can only hope that Libya will now move to democracy without further bloodshed as this pan-continental rebellion is about nothing if it is not about the people giving a mandate by electing a government.

The former ruler of Libya met his end in his home town of Sirte, killed, the National Transitional Council say, with a single bullet to the head, mown down by crossfire after his capture. Few Libyans can have believed the events of the past few months possible.


Reaction has been near-universal – though some may query the circumstances of his death, and many more believe it would have been better had he been tried, few are mourning his grisly end – least of all those who suffered under his regime, victims whose voices we should hear above all others.

The former ruler of Libya met his end in his home town of Sirte, killed, the National Transitional Council say, with a single bullet to the head, mown down by crossfire after his capture.

This war has been different. It is no longer orchestrated by the United States, but has risen from the Libyan people themselves, whilst assisted by the forces of NATO. Considering Qaddafi`s armaments it was wholly justified that the international community should try to prevent the previous regime from committing wholesale slaughter on the people of Libya.

This victory for the ordinary Libyan will spur on the population of Syria and Yemen, who must by now be aware  that their efforts are likely not in vain. Qaddafi is but the first in a line of tyrants that persihed becquse of his own stubborn stupidity. He had the chance to leave his country and he arrogantly rejected the notion.

Confusion surrounds the fate of other members of Gaddafi’s family and inner circle. An NTC representative said up to 17 senior members of the Gaddafi regime have been apprehended or killed. His son Mutassim has been killed but reports say Saif al-Islam has fled.

The irony lies in the fact that he referred to the rebels as `rats` but it is Qaddafi who has been mercilessly slaughtered in a drain under a highway. God, if he exists, certainly works in mysterious ways.

Quote for today


Globe artichokes (Cynara scolymus) are large, architectural perennial plants, which are grown for their large edible flower buds. They are part of the thistle family.

“These things are just plain annoying. After all the trouble you go to, you get about as much actual ‘food’ out of eating an artichoke as you would from licking thirty or forty postage stamps. Have the shrimp cocktail instead.”  MISS PIGGY

Werrittygate


 

A whitewash?

 

Is this the beginning of the cover up?

Liam Fox has possibly taken the right decision, but for what reason? If he quit because he genuinely feels he did not live up to his own standards, then that is probably the right course of action.

What worries me most of all are comments like the spokesman from the MOD on Radio 4’s ‘PM’ programme today who said that with the Minister’s resignation, “no one is sure if the Cabinet Secretary’s  report will be published now.”

Such a prospect should ring alarm bells. Did Fox resign so that the cover-up begins? Why would the Cabinet Secretary not publish his report? David Cameron must allow this report to become public knowledge, with all the attendant possibilities of a public enquiry. No less thorough a process should be accepted.


The only Fox in England being hunted by hounds ….


Fixed smile ... terrified gays - sorry gaze!

The discussion boards online were working overtime today because of the Liam Fox affair. The Telegraph had the headline:

Liam Fox: sacking me would make David Cameron look weak

to which one wag had replied “Shouldn’t the headline read  ‘Liam Fox: sucking me would make David Cameron look weak’?”

My own contribution was no less wicked as the web page had a video embedded into it. I commented “In the video above … Fox is seen entering the MOD with a caption quote over that says “I’m focusing on Libya” … well we didn’t think he was focusing on Labia …”.

Others commented that the situation with Werritty sucks and yet another suggested “When Werrity was living in Fox’s flat, and he forgot to pay any money to live there, did Fox ever ask “Where’s the rent, boy?” Another, alluding to ministerial red boxes observed “I’ve heard that his wife’s red box hasn’t been used much recently.”

More amusingly, “Dr Fox today declared he has no intention of standing down – and won’t name the guest he had met for drinks when he was burgled”. So the truth is he went out on a bender …

You can see where the argument is going (I hope) and probably where Dr. Fox is going too. He’s the only Fox left in England that is being hunted by hounds.

Weirdly, I have noticed that the Air Force staff officer next to the Defence Secretary appears to have his arm round him giving him a cuddle!

The alarming ‘offence’ of photographing your own daughter?


We all know the story about a Home Secretary who cited a cat as the reason for an immigrant being allowed to stay in the UK, but have you heard the one about – and it’s along the same you couldn’t make this up’ line – a father that took a photo of his infant daughter in a shopping mall only to find himself being questioned by police on the pretext of anti-terrorism law?

... and they didn't charge her with dangerous driving?

A security guard hurriedly approached Chris White whilst he was in the throes of using his phone to take a photo of his 4-year-old daughter after he had bought her an ice cream at Braehead shopping centre, on the outskirts of Glasgow. Mr White claims that the security officer all but ran towards him and threatened him, stating that the photo he had taken of his own child, Hazel, was “illegal”.

Mr White says that he explained  that his young daughter, who by this time was crying, was the only person featured in the photo, but his understandable protest was ignored. The  police were then summoned to the shopping centre and they quickly threatened to confiscate his phone, citing the Terrorism Act, when he refused to delete the photos he had posted on Facebook only minutes before.

But the Terrorism Act does not give officers the right to delete photos or destroy storage media during such a search unless permitted to do so under a court order. As they were powerless to do anything else and their verbal threats had been met with a rebuttal, the police in attendance allowed him to keep the images and no further action was taken.

Clearly incensed following this incident, Mr White said: “I wonder how many shoplifters got away while they were dealing with my act of ‘terrorism’. Surely thousands of people have taken pictures inside shopping centres.”

Superintendent George Nedley of Strathclyde Police confirmed last week’s incident. “My officers attended and gave advice and no further action was taken by the police officers. I can confirm we have received a complaint regarding this incident and one of my officers has spoken to Mr White regarding this.  “As a result, a full review of the circumstances surrounding the incident and the allegations made is underway.” All the Braehead shopping centre management could say was that they sought to “maintain a safe and enjoyable environment” for shoppers. Not so for Mr. White, apparently, who remains shocked and angered by what appears to be an astonishing overreaction to what must come naturally to any parent.

It is quite absurd to find so many instances of a father not being able to take a photo of his own child in a public place. Shopping centres, swimming pools and schools are but a few places where you may find yourself being confronted or even threatened with the law. Is there really nothing better to occupy the time of police officers than this sort of nonsense?

Why does Facebook find rape a joke? (“You know she’s playing hard to get when your chasing her down an alleyway”)


Facebook has upset both individuals and companies that use the social networking site because of its refusal to take down a page that attempts to make humour out of rape situations. The group page, called “You know she’s playing hard to get when your chasing her down an alleyway”, has 205,160 likes. Facebook users – individuals, companies and charities – have condemned the decision. Victim support organisations have described it as “disgusting”.

Facebook has refused to delete the page by explaining that they wanted to allow freedom of expression. “It is very important to point out that what one person finds offensive another can find entertaining, just as telling a rude joke won’t get you thrown out of your local pub, it won’t get you thrown off Facebook,” a statement said.”Groups or pages that express an opinion on a state, institution, or set of beliefs – even if that opinion is outrageous or offensive to some – do not by themselves violate our policies. These online discussions are a reflection of those happening offline, where conversations happen freely in people’s homes, in cafes and on the telephone.”

The group wall now contain a comment from the authors which thanks the people claiming, saying: “thank you to the people who are ‘trying’ to get this group banned. yous are just promoting this group and getting it more likes :D”. This sort of comment is typical from some Facebook users and, indeed, no matter how unacceptable or inappropriate a subject is, as long as it get more ‘likes’, well that’s funny – 😀 – isn’t it? Here are some typical comments from other web pages and message boards:

“It was the top story on the Radio 1 news this morning. Must admit to LOLing quite loudly. Apparently rape victims are up in arms because Facebook won’t remove it. :D” From Safeway at Brighton & Hove Albion’s North Stand message board.

“Description: Grammar Nazis are not wanted!” On the same group wall, presumably because the founders of the group are semi-illiterate, which they seem to be as they wrote this: “Sorry about the statuses but this admin has to write my comeback to this http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/15130624 i d not support rape this group doesnt bbc are obviously made up or a bunch of bored house wifes who like to target this to fill there time such as this ” Robin Knowles” who wrote an article abut this group  thanks for supporting us uve made us get even more likes s i thank u for that but this group has not dne anything wrong according to the terms and cnditions f facebook groups s if it does get taken down it will result in court because it has done nothing wrong Robin Knowles from 200,000 people who can take a joke please lighten up and have a nice day 🙂 (dk don boss)” No, chasing women down dark alleyways is never wrong, is it?

Recently Facebook has banned pictures from mothers breastfeeding children, which does rather put an awkward slant on their capacity for moral judgement. Facebook is the dominant social networking facility on the web and their recent decisions paint a disturbing picture if this is how they view women, where breastfeeding is considered obscene and jokes about violent rape are acceptable

Companies who place advertisements on Facebook – including American Express, Sony and BlackBerry – have insisted that their adverts should not appear on the page.

The terms and conditions Facebook said: “You will not post content that is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.” But victim support organisations claim that the material on this group breaches those rules.. They have started a petition calling for the page to be removed.

Facebook are beginning to look like a product that are out of touch with their client base. They have been beset with problems recently regarding being to lax with the privacy of their users. One example involved Facebook cookies collecting data about Facebook users browsing, even when they were not logged into the site.

Bank of England uses QE to boost economy ….


Sir Mervyn King was speaking after the decision by the Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee to put £75billion of newly created money into the economy in a desperate effort to stave off a new credit crisis and a UK recession. Economists said the Bank’s decision to resume its quantitative easing [QE], or asset purchase programme, showed it was increasingly fearful for the economy, and predicted more such moves ahead.

Sir Mervyn said the Bank had been driven by growing signs of a global economic disaster. “This is the most serious financial crisis we’ve seen, at least since the 1930s, if not ever. We’re having to deal with very unusual circumstances, but to act calmly to this and to do the right thing.”

Announcing its decision, the Bank said that the eurozone debt crisis was creating “severe strains in bank funding markets and financial markets”.

The Monetary Policy Committee [MPC] also said that the inflation-driven “squeeze on households’ real incomes” and the Government’s programme of spending cuts will “continue to weigh on domestic spending” for some time to come.

The “deterioration in the outlook” meant more QE was justified, the Bank said.

Financial experts said the committee’s actions would be a “Titanic” disaster for pensioners, savers and workers approaching retirement. Sir Mervyn suggested that was a price worth paying to save the economy from recession.

Under QE, the Bank electronically creates new money which it then uses to buy assets such as government bonds, or gilts, from banks. In theory, the banks then use the cash they gain to increase their lending to businesses and individuals.

By increasing the demand for gilts, QE pushes down the interest rate yields paid to holders of these and other bonds. Critics of the policy say it pushes up inflation and drives down sterling.

The National Association of Pension Funds yesterday called for urgent talks with ministers to address the negative impact of lower gilt yields on pension funds. Joanne Segars, its chief executive, said QE makes it more expensive for employers to provide pensions and will weaken the funding of schemes as their deficits increase. “All this will put additional pressure on employers at a time when they are facing a bleak economic situation,” she said.

Ros Altman, of Saga, said the latest round of QE was “a Titanic disaster” that would increase pensioner poverty. As well as fuelling inflation, she said, falling bond yields would make annuities more expensive, “giving new retirees much less pension income for their money and leaving them permanently poorer in retirement”.

The MPC also voted to keep the Bank Rate at its historic low of 0.5 per cent, another decision that hurts savers. Yesterday, protesters outside the Bank’s headquarters smashed a giant piggy bank to symbolise the situation of pensioners and others forced to raid savings to keep up with the rising cost of living.

Asked about the plight of savers, Sir Mervyn said it was more important to support the wider economy than to support them. He suggested that savers would not be helped by deliberately pushing the British economy into recession. Yesterday’s decision was the first move on QE since 2009, during the global credit crisis, when the Bank injected £200 billion into the economy.

Some analysts believe that this round of QE could be less effective than the previous one, forcing the Bank to create even more money this time.

Michael Saunders of Citigroup, forecast that there could be as much as £225 billion more QE by next year. “I think they will do lots more QE,” he said. “It’s both that the economy is weak but also that the MPC’s view is that QE is not a very powerful tool, or rather it takes a large amount of QE to have much effect on the economy.”

The Bank is supposed to keep inflation near a target of 2 per cent. Inflation now stands at 4.5 per cent, and the Bank admitted it is likely to hit 5 per cent as soon as this month. The Bank’s own research shows that as well as stimulating the economy, QE pushes up prices.

Sir Mervyn insisted that yesterday’s move was still consistent with the 2 per cent inflation target, saying that the slowing economy means inflation could actually fall below that mark “by the end of next year or in 2013”.

The Governor insisted that the MPC’s decisions had been the correct response to events. “The world economy has slowed, America has slowed, China has slowed, and of course particularly the European economy has slowed,” he said. “The world has changed and so has the right policy response.”

City traders took heart from the Bank’s move to boost growth, with the FTSE 100 rising 3.7 per cent to 5,29, its biggest two-day gain since 2008.

The Bank’s decision came after mounting political pressure from ministers worried that Sir Mervyn was not reacting urgently enough to the darkening global economic outlook.

George Osborne, the Chancellor, welcomed the Bank’s move, saying: “The evidence shows that it [QE] will help keep interest rates down and boost demand and that will be a help for British families.”

This move does illustrate, however, how cynical this government have been in criticising ‘Gordon Brown’s Debt Mountain’ but following in his footsteps 18 months later!

Irresponsibly playing to the Tory gallery … the Home Secretary


Foolishly playing to a political gallery, Theresa May announced to the Tory Party Conference that a ruling that involved a man not being deported because he owned a cat here in the UK was a textbook example of what was wrong with the Human Rights Act..

However, a spokesperson for the Judicial Office said the pet in question had had nothing to do with the judgement that allowed the man to stay. Mrs May has since put out a press release  claiming that her speech had been screened for accuracy. Mrs May argued against what she maintained were excessive uses of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights – the right to a private and family life. She said Article 8 had been used to prevent the removal of foreign national prisoners and illegal immigrants. “We all know the stories… about the illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because, and I am not making this up, he had a pet cat.” She said.

Shortly after her speech, a spokesperson at the Royal Courts of Justice, which issues statements on behalf of senior judges, was denying the Home Secretary’s version of events, saying: “This was a case in which the Home Office conceded that they had mistakenly failed to apply their own policy – applying at that time to that appellant – for dealing with unmarried partners of people settled in the UK.

“That was the basis for the decision to uphold the original tribunal decision – the cat had nothing to do with the decision.”

Mrs. May was referring to a case dealt with in 2008. The subject, a Bolivian student, said he could prove that he had an established and lasting relationship with his partner and therefore should not be deported.  The judge at a previous hearing in the case, in his summing up, said : “The evidence concerning the joint acquisition of Maya – the cat in question – by the appellant and his partner reinforces my conclusion on the strength and quality of the family life that appellant and his partner enjoy.”

But the judgement had nothing to do with the cat, said his lawyer. Barry O’Leary said “As part of the application and as part of the appeal, the couple gave detailed statements of the four years of life they had built and spent together in the United Kingdom, which showed the genuine nature and duration of their relationship – one detail provided, amongst many, was that they had owned a cat together for some time.”

The appellant finally won his case because the Home Office had not followed its immigration rules on unmarried couples: that no person should be routinely deported if they can show they have had a relationship that is both genuine and has endured over a number of years. The Immigration Tribunal said that the fact that the Home Office had failed to follow this rule was the key issue in the case, not the human rights considerations – and not the cat.

There is considerable disquiet in the UK with regard to some of the judgements made as a result of applying the Human Rights Act, but sensible debate about balancing the right to stay with the right to deny settlement in certain situations will not be helped by Mrs. May making such a childish speech and augers badly for the Conservative Conference, most of whom laughed gleefully at her account of what had happened. Mrs. May would do well to bear in mind that her party is largely responsible for running the show now and such a massively erroneous statement is undoubtedly a huge embarrassment for the government.