The Guardian voluntarily name a source: do they want him executed?

First things first: no one knows who leaked the information from the US government to Wikileaks. The US have arrested Specialist Bradley Manning who they allege leaked the documents. Manning has not been found guilty of any crime, indeed hasn't had his day in court so it isn't proved to be him.

In the eyes of the law he is innocent.

More pertinently Wikileaks have repeatedly stated that because they have a system whereby any whistleblower can leak information to them anonymously they have no idea who leaked the information.

I've no idea if it's true, but I tend to believe them as their site is constructed to give whistleblowers protection.

It's how they get people to leak stuff to them. no protection for whistleblowers = no leaks. Without anonymity there can be no Wikileaks.

The above is the public line.

I'm not a journalist but I find the book written by two 'journalists' from the ever so right on paper, the Guardian sickening. They have written a book in order to make a few quid which brakes every journalistic convention and names Manning as the leaker of US secrets.

The authors, David Leigh and Luke Harding, are a disgrace.

Where is all this high sounding rhetoric about protecting confidential sources?

They did not name Manning because they were forced to by a court, though many journalists have gone to prison in order to protect their sources.

No they did it to sell a few copies of their book.

That's cheap.

Wikileaks say they don't know who leaked the information. They are adamant that if they don't know the Guardian certainly don't.

Even if Wikileaks knew their source why should they blab to a newspaper?

What really disgusts me is the fact that these writers and the Guardian are eager to earn as much money as possible printing the leaks and now publishing their bloody book and willingly betray the person they say is their source. The same person who earned them their money in the first place.

I don't know who leaked the information or why. Three million people had access to the secrets I don't know who leaked.

But for the sake of argument say the information was leaked by "Joe". What type of journalist, much left a self-defined leftwing one would write a book telling people who it was who leaked the information in the certain knowledge that doing so would send their Joe to prison for life or get them executed?

Never mind what type of journalist; what type of person does that?

There are some real mercenary scum out there isn't there!


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

New York Times' childish Julian Assange insults

Julian Assange is not the most popular of people in the US. This dislike is part of the 'shoot the messenger and ignore the message' theme. By calling Assange a terrorist, criminal, and the like some of the more extreme elements in the US are diverting our attention from the very real abuses that some of the leaked data seems to have unearthed.

Murder, torture, rape, etc., are forgot and names are called.

One can look at the comments pages of Fox News, et al, and you'll see vile comments.

It is what we have come to expect the extreme comment poster.

However I have to say I'm disappointed by the New York Times magazine's childish insults about Assange.

It is frankly pathetic that the writer Bill Keller disparages Wikileaks by grandly claiming that they never thought Wikileaks was a media outlet, or partner, and regarded them only as a source.

Wikileaks have given the NYT their biggest scoop in at least forty years. Wikileaks did all the work and have taken all risk. Wikileaks received the information. NYT didn't.

That single fact is important. It shows who is the most important part of the equation.

Just a little hint: it isn't the New York Times.

The whole article reads like frantic back peddling by an old media group who distancing themselves from Wikileaks because some politicians are calling for the NYT as well as Wikileaks to be prosecuted for publishing the Wikileaks data.

More than that it reeks of fear. The greatest journalistic coup in living memory was broken by a new media Internet site not one of the old media monoliths.

Wikileaks gave away their information freely.

NYT depend on money to fund their grandness.

People are becoming loath to pay for news when they can get better information on the Internet free.

That's real terror.

This makes the NYT look irrelevant, old, and burdened with a business model which in untenable in the modern Internet era.

What I find worst is that the NYT should stoop to the childish insults. What is really sad is Keller calling Assange smelly, dirty sock wearer, and much much worse.....has been known to skip.....

And this was published in the New York Times?

It doesn't matter what Assange looks like, how he smells, or his penchant for the odd skip.

It doesn't matter.

The only thing that matters is what is released.

For the NYT to act like the worst of the gutter press and play the man not the crimes revealed demeans them. For a great paper it's tragic.

At its best Wikileaks destroys the need for the old media. For good or bad Wikileaks have changed the way the world works.

Putting on my psychic hat I can predict that Wikileaks in whatever form will release more data which will unearth more scandal and crime.

But I cannot see the NYT having the same impact.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

The favours still being shown to David Chaytor

David Chaytor was a labour MP. He is also a thief. He is the is the first MP in recent history to receive a prison sentence for stealing from the taxpayer. He is a symbol of the very real and very passionate uproar the corruption of many of our MPs caused amongst the public through their long standing and systematic fraud.

Personally I have not seen the sheer amount anger directed against MPs as I have with the expenses scandal. It has been massively damaging to our country. This damage continues.

Chaytor is in prison for his admitted crimes. However even there the establishment is showing him bias and falling over themselves to do him favours.

Even though he is a thief, and has been for many years. Even though he has admitted to stealing, though perhaps not all his crimes, he is being treated very leniently. His sentence was very lenient considering the damage his crimes have done. It gets worse though. He has been in prison only a few weeks yet he is being lined up to be transferred to a very cushy open, minimum security, prison. In short Chaytor is being fast tracked for such a move because he was an MP and better than any other common criminal.

News flash: is isn't. Chaytor is a thief. A common crook. A corrupt dick.

And yet the establishment looks after their own. See here.

Prison is about punishment and deterring others. It is symbolic of the anger the public feels toward to a crime and a criminal. Treating a thieving MP leniently doesn't do this.

Look at it this way; the public anger directed at Chaytor, and the other thieving MPs is not going to be diminished by favours done for him by the establishment.

The danger is that people are going to say that the political elite are all like that. That they see themselves as better than the rest of us. That they cannot understand why stealing from us is wrong. That favours are done for others in the "club". Favours and leniency not shown to the rest of us.

Such a perception will not heal the political system the politicians have damaged. Perhaps worse than that, if people think that our political parties are corrupt little bubbles made up of identikit people with more in common with each other than us, then people may be tempted into apathy or extremist parties.

That is why favours done to criminal politicians and guilty ones being let off with their crimes matter.

It seems the establishment don't understand the continuing damage their actions are doing.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Wikileaks giving credit to Al Jazeera

Wikileaks can come across as a tad boastful. I feel this is not helped by the glamourous photograph of Julian Assange plastered over their website. I have to admit that this could just be me but I find this boastful. And very American, which is very funny if you ask me.

However I am pleased by their latest Tweet,





I find their crediting of another media outlet for their part in recording the Egyptian unrest laudable. Without this TV station, and sat dishes, who knows what would be happening in Egypt.

For all their controversy, and for all their faults, you have to say Al Jazeera at it's best is a game changer.

For all their self regard I'm pleased that Wikileaks is mature enough to understand and credit others.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci investigated by the EU

Several months ago I wrote about a report writen by a leading member of the Council of Europe which accused the Hashim Thaci, the Prime Minister of Kosovo, and the Kosovo Liberation Army, of serious war crimes. These crimes included murdering people of another ethnic group to sell their organs.

As I wrote this is an obscene crime if they are true. It is also unheard for such a report to actually name a leading serving politician by name, do so repeatedly, and explicitly link them to war crimes. And yet this report does.

Needless to say Thaci denies all charges, politicians do that I've found. He issued dark threats of the legal action he was taking on the reports author Dick Marty.

To my knowledge such action has been notable by its absence.

When I wrote last time this report was an independent one written by Marty.

Thaci supporters have made much of the fact that the report wasn't a 'real' COE report. they accused Marty of being a lose cannon, biased, and the report not being true.

Last Tuesday the full Council of Europe accepted Marty's report and his conclusion regarding Thaci's party in crimes against humanity

More than this the EU legal body, Eulux, and the EU authorities in Kosovo are making investigations, See here. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe are demanding action be taken about the allegations in Albania and internationally.

I do not know the truth of these allegations. I do know that it is unheard of that such important bodies like the EU , and perhaps more importantly, the politicians behind the Council of Europe, to take such strong actions and name another serving politician in relation to such horrific crimes.

These allegations need to be fully investigated and the guilty brought to trial.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Labour's Egypt connection

Today has been marked with growing unrest in Egypt. With the police and some army units refusing to attack protesters the world may be changing.

So Egypt is a matter of international concern.

Unless you're the labour party and the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Dougie "investigated for fraud and let off but my sister was found guilty and had to resign from leading labour in Scotland" Alexander. If you're him, like Guido points out, it is a matter of no concern that a dictator is using force to suppress the people.

I'm sure it is only a coincidence that the labour party and Mubarak's National Democratic Party are both members of Socialist International.

I wonder if labour are silent in the hope that we don't realise their ties to a dictator?

More than that why on earth does a democratic party of a advanced Western country have such close ties to dictatorships?

Something is wrong here.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Joe Biden: Julian Assange is a terrorist but Egypt's dictator is a friend

The Vice President of the USA doesn't seem the brightest tool in the box. Only the former. But he has excelled himself with his latest stupidity.

In a TV interview Biden told the interviewer that he would not call Egyptian President Mubarak a dictator but rather an “ally” even though he Is a dictator. He also cheapened the very real danger people in Egypt are putting themselves in in their attempt to overthrow their dictator by saying it is only down to some selfish middle-class people whining for more opportunities for themselves.

This is frankly an insult to all Egyptians.

So Biden thinks a dictator isn't a dictator but s friend.

His ire isn't moved by repressive regimes. No he is much more concerned by the real threat to humanity: Wikileaks and Julian Assange. With a marked lack of reality Biden has called Assange a criminal, though no conviction has been achieved, nor is he wanted by the US for any crime. Worse than that Biden thinks Assange is a terrorist. See here.

This is frankly pathetic. Refusing to describe a dictator as a dictator but willing to smear an embarrassment to the US as a terrorist makes him and the US look stupid.

The way the US is supporting Eqypt with $1.8 billion a year and giving a dictator moral support is the reason why the US is hated in many parts of the world. We've seen US morality being fundamentally undermined for decades by their support of obnoxious regimes. It seems this hasn't changed even though they know the damage it does to US interests.

Biden's lose mouth means that President Obama cannot spin the Egyptian unrest as a personal triumph. Some Bush supporters are trying to play the Egyptian fight for freedom as being down to a speech he made calling for Middle Eastern democracy. I don't really believe this but he has more claim to it than the current administration which is sad.

Wikileaks claims the unrest as being down to their works as they released US diplomatic cables saying that Mubarak will remain dictator for life. They say this caused the unrest when it became known in Egypt.

Maybe Wikileaks are right about giving the people the final push needed to cause the unrest. I don't know.

Biden's stupidity has allowed Wikileaks to post a killer Tweet though:




In spin terms you cannot argue with that.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Charlie Gilmour charged

Our old chum Charlie Gilmour, see previous posts, has been charged with violent disorder and theft. See here.

I have to say that I'm a tad surprised that a posh boy of a very rich daddy managed to be charged.

Obviously he won't be seriously punished. Technically he could receive seven and five years for each offence, but he won't.

The thing is this: if he was a working class lad with no vast fortune to cushion him and give him the best legal defence his dad's money could give, do you think he'd escape, if convicted, with a slap on his wrist?

I don't think so.

Even if he is convicted which a very expensive legal team will strive not to let happen, it won't make a difference to his life. A working-class kid would find a conviction for violence seriously damages their employment prospects.

Charlie is above such matters.

I find that wrong.

Charlie boy apparently like to pose as some kind of socialist radical looking like a toy box Che. Of course he doesn't give up all the lovely cash his father gives him, but then champaign socialists are not noted for a lack of hypocrisy.

In light of this I am very amused by his theft charge.

What does the charge say this fatuous revolutionary steal?

The classic police mans helmet, that ever popular item?

No.

What about the ministerial briefcase of a hated minister?

No.

A picture of Mrs Thatcher perhaps?

No.

A leg of a mannequin!

A plastic leg.

And that what this radical is charged with, there are photos of him with the said leg though how he acquired it is up to the jury to decide. Not really revolutionary is it? Not very 'hard'. Not really showing solidarity with the working classes trashing a shop where the lowly paid working people have to work knowing that they'll lose commission on sales and have to clean the mess up.

It does give rise to the rather nice image of Charlie is prison talking about the crimes which sent them there.

One for armed robbery, another for gbh, a third for forgery. And then Charlie would have to say he is there for stealing a mannequin's leg.

Obviously he is innocent until proven otherwise, and he won't end up in jail. But I find the image delicious.

It's a funny old world and no mistake.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Andrew Napolitano of Bradley Manning

I think my views on Rupert Murdoch's media empire are well known here. My regard of Fox News is really low. However I've found a clip from Fox News's chief legal expert on Fox Business which is reasonable and sane.



In It Judge Napolitano, a Republican. criticises the US governments treatment of PFC Manning, who they allege, with no proof apparently, leaked sensitive documents to Wikileaks.

In it Napolitano reminds people that Manning is in fact innocent of any crime until he proved guilty in a court of law. It is strange that this fundamental aspect of Western law is lost on many people.

More damming Napolitano highlights the 'KGB' like tactics the government are using against Manning's supporters. This includes wrongfully confiscating he supporter's computer, and doing everything possible to make their life hell.

All these points are true and well made.

I may not like Fox, but you have to give Judge Napolitano credit for his sterling report.

You can love anyone you like in the US military says President Obama: you cannot

First things first: this post isn't about gay rights. One of the very few plus points about me is the fact I'm not homophobic. This post isn't about gay people serving in the military. If a democratic government say they can it's fine by me.

Now I've told you what this post isn't I should tell you what it is. The US President Barack Obama sent a Tweet yesterday. If I'm totally accurate I should say that one of his minions sent a Tweet in Obama's name. At least I hope it is a minion who sent it because if it is the President himself who sent it it's worrying. He should be too busy to Tweet..

Any road up the Tweet was as follows:

Barack Obama (@BarackObama)
Starting this year, no American will be forbidden from serving the country they love because of who they love. #SOTU
Wed Jan 26 03:06:26 2011



So what's wrong with that you might ask...go on ask.....do it!

The Tweet is about Obama's change of the military rules to allow gay people serve in the US military.

But the Tweet is off.

Firstly it has a very puritanical view of human beings and secondly it isn't true.

No government can dictate who we love. The rule change doesn't deal with law. No law can define what love is. That is far to ephemeral of feeling to pin down.

It's all about who one is attracted to. It is at simple. Most people do not save themselves for marriage. Most 'dabble' with sex. A lot of military, at least initially, are not married. It's about sex not love.

There is no law which says that sex, heterosexual or homosexual, is illegal unless the people are in love. Even in Iran and other Muslim states ban sex outside marriage. But even they don't try to place love into the law.

Love and sex are different.

Secondly it is untrue.

Homosexuals and heterosexuals are going to be allowed to serve in the US military.

But that's it.

If you "love" your dog you cannot serve. If you are a sick bastard and try to excuse your child rape by saying you "love" your victim you cannot serve.

No one would wish that such people could serve in any military. We all want such people brought to justice.

My point is this, the law change isn't about love. It doesn't allow anyone to serve regardless of whom they are attracted to or love.

The law change allows two types of people to serve in the military. It allows gays and straight people serve. And that's it.

Such a simplistic attitude the Tweet exhibits is childish. This is about political spin. That's all.

I find it very odd. Americans are not as stupid as this Tweet seems to think.





- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Fox News anti-"Skin" crusade continues.

And still Fox News continues it's crusade against the US version of "Skins".

And still they 'forget' to mention that Fox's sister station showing both the US and UK versions of Skins.

The article contains this gem from an unelected rightwing think tank.

Calling “Skins” the “most dangerous program that has ever been foisted on your children,” The Parents Television Council has waged war on MTV and its sponsors for the show’s “foul language, illegal drug use, illegal activity as well as thoroughly pervasive sexual content.”

On January 20, the PTC has even called on called on lawmakers and feds to open an investigation regarding child pornography and exploitation on MTV’s “Skins.”

Strangely these bandwagon jumping nuts don't condemn Fox for showing, what they think is child porn. Then again if they alienate Fox who would allow them airtime? Apparently child protection comes a poor second to publicity.

Skins may, or may not, be very good. But to say it is the most dangerous programme ever is frankly a ridiculous statement. I'm pretty sure that in the dark days before civil rights laws there were programmes which espoused vile racism which resulted in actual violence.

That is more dangerous than a adolescent drama.

And Skins isn't foisted on anyone. No one is forced to watch it. If some parents don't want their children to watch it it is their parental duty to stop them. If adults are too stupid to stop their kids watching Skins when they feel it's vile it's their fault not MTV.

I don't understand why MTV should cancel Skins because of sponsors being forced to drop out. It is gaining massive publicity from Fox and is a popular programme.

I mean to say Fox didn't drop Glenn Beck when his sponsors pulled out because of his alleged racism.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Liam Fox: proof that not all MP's are useless? Or just jinxed?

After all the anger that useless MP's cause there is good news to lighten one's heart. The Minister of Defence Liam Fox sprang into action when the pilot of the commercial plane on which he was flying asked if there was a doctor on board as a pregnant woman needed assistance. See here.

Fox is a medical doctor and so came forward and provided the medical care the lady needed until the plane landed.

See some MP's are useful.

Occasionally.

I'm glad things turned out well.

I also have a sneaking suspicion that it's best not to travel with Doc Fox. This is the third time in four years he's had to step in to provide medical treatment.

3 in 4.

That's got to be way over the normal frequency for doctors to have to give emergency treatment. The man may be jinxed!!

Any way regardless of your politics of view of Fox I'm glad that he had a real career and was able to help a woman in their time of need.

Maybe politicians are not all bad. Or maybe they not as long as they don't do politics.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Lord Taylor Guilty!!

In good news the Tory peer, Lord Taylor, has been found guilty of stealing over £11,000 from us. See here.

Like I keep saying, I don't care who they are are, how senior of junior, or what party they are from, all criminals should face justice.

Taylor wasn't an MP. He tried to stand as one but lost to the Lib-Dems. Oh the cries of racism that caused. Maybe it was, but maybe the local people saw that there was something iffy about him. Anyway wracked with guilt the Tories gave him a peerage, a say in our laws, lucrative expenses...for life.

And now he is facing jail but he will still have his has his seat in the Lords for life, with expenses, which he fiddled, for life.

Something wrong here I feel.

By the way Lord "criminal" Taylor is a barrister!


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Skins: more Fox News hypocrisy

With Fox News usual tactic of flogging a story to its death, and then flogging it for a few days more just to squeeze the last drop of synthetic outrage out of a gullible public, they carry yet another story about the US version of Skins.

The 'story' being about how Subway, that well known seller of unhealthy fast food has pulled out of sponsoring the show because of rabid, Fox created, outrage.

And still no mention of how Fox is broadcasting both the UK and US versions of Skins in Australia.

It is little hypocrisies that make Fox News what it is; hated and ridiculed.

Ex-MP says he had his phone hacked....by labour's paper of choice!

I have been consistent with my view that any reporter or paper who have acted illegally in bugging or hacking anyone should be prosecuted. I don't care who the reporter is, or who they work for. Any illegality needs to be punished with no favoritism.

In the real world we all know that if you're a nobody like most of us, there is no chance in hell that the authorities will take action against the powerful media empires. If you're a minor celebrity or politician they'll take a look and perhaps if your celeb or political friends kick up a fuss they'll do something. The rest of us don't matter so we can be hacked, bugged, lied about, and generally abused by the media with no meaningful help.

It's all about power. And we don't have any.

Now all the scandal about hacking has been directed against News International and its News of the World rag. I've been saying that such illegality was not confined to this media empire. And so it transpires.

A ex-MP, Paul Marsden has complained to the police that he was hacked by the media. Marsden was a labour MP  1997 to 2001. He then swapped to become a Lib-Dem. He left Parliament in 2005 . He is now labour again. So he isn't the most consistent of politicians. But that does not mean he can be hacked or bugged.

So who who does he allege hacked into his phone in 2001. Well that would be the New........

Nope he alleges that the most pro-labour of papers the Daily Mirror hacked him. Now the Mirror is the labour paper of choice. Not for the leaders or the middle classes who run labour, but for the working class. The Mirror has been at the heart of labour since its inception. Its reporters and columnists, especially Kevin Maguire who was at the heart of the labour lie scandal where the targeted the families of opponents.

And yet a labour supporter, and ex-labour MP says it was they who illegally accessed his phone.

The News of the World and News International deserve punishment for their actions, if guilty, but so do the Mirror, and every other reporter or paper who broke the law.

Strangely the Mirror does not mention the allegations against the,. That must be an oversight....

Oprah's "confession"....according to Fox News

I don't watch Oprah Winfrey. There is no real reason for this, it's just that this type of TV isn't my thing. And yet in spite of this she's done quite well. Obviously this success is a fluke!

Anyway she's just found out she has a half-sister she never knew she had and announced the fact on her programme. I didn't see the programme so I don't know if it was good or not.

This is a simple story of siblings finding each other after decades long ignorance. It's heart-warming.

Unless you are Fox News. On Fox the headline was

Oprah Winfrey Confesses: I Have a Sister I Never Knew About

Tell me in what way is announcing you have a sister a confession?

Neither woman has anything to be guilty about. Oprah was nine when he sister was put up for adoption and didn't know her mother was pregnant. Her sister, Patricia, was a baby.

Both are totally blameless. Not knowing the family circumstances it would be wrong to blame the parents. We don't have the right to judge people in such obvious dire straights.

This isn't a confession.

You can confess to murder, or being unfaithful, or fiddling your taxes. Not this.

This headline is ridiculous. It's also part of the whole ethos at Fox to ramp up the drama and to make the trivial seem life shattering. We see it when they break into their news with serious music and red text to announce the slightest traffic mishap which injures no one.

And we see it with Oprah's confession.

American journalism must be better than this. I believe it is, but Fox turns it to pap.

A shame.

Gordon Brown phone hacked? Give me a break!

Gordon Brown has been missing ever since the election he lost. Of course he still claims his wage and expenses just doesn't do any work.

However he's jumped on board the News of the World phone hacking scandal and has asked the police to see of his phone was hacked. See here.

The short answer is "no".

The long answer is "of course not you idiot".

My views of the Murdoch press are well known here. I despise them and find the way they destroy lives to sell papers obscene. Anyone who hacks phone messages, bearing in mind that most of those found guilty of such abuses are not Murdoch's thugs, should be jailed.

However the very idea that Gordon Brown's phone was hacked into when he was Chancellor or PM is just ridiculous. Is he seriously saying that the British security services didn't give him an encrypted phone or make sure he changed the phone's voicemail password?

These people are experts in communications. They would not let any minister, especially one in an important position, be hackable.

The very idea is preposterous.

This is simply Brown coming out of the woodwork and trying to get some cheap publicity off the sacking of Andy Coulson.

It's all rather sad.

A few weeks ago John Prescott made a similar attempt to gain publicity by asking the police to see if he was hacked. This in spite of the fact that the police had already told him, with proof, that he wasn't.

It's all about yesterday's men trying to suck the teat of publicity one last time.

Hacking sounds very high-tech doesn't it? It gives rise to young computer geniuses in darken rooms full of blinking computers. Fiends who are typing code and chuckling.

But that's not what this phone hacking scandal is about. This is gutter journalists phoning famous peoples mobile phones and keying in voicemail passwords in the hope that the said celebs didn't change the password from the default one. It's wrong, illegal, should be punished, but hardly skilled hacking.

I make no bones about it all journalists who hack into private phones, emails, and the like, should be punished. I don't care who they write for. Freedom of the press is vital, but it doesn't give them the right to break the law.

However labour's faux outrage is frankly pathetic. These hacks were done when labour were the government in power. They did nothing to punish the illegality. Any fuss they make now is sheer political opportunism of the worst kind.



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Fox News asks if "Skins" is child porn

I've never watched the UK programme "Skins". As I'm far outside their target audience I'm sure they are not unduly sad about this. Though I don't watch it I know it is a multi award winning program noted for it's young cast and writers.

And now MTV America are making their own version of this popular programme. So basically a youth oriented station makes their own version of a youth drama.

Happens all the time.

But for some reason Fox News have taken exception to this and ask if MTV are showing child pornography by showing Skins.

The answer is obviously "no". MTV is a mainstream channel they are not going to show child porn you idiot!

This self-evident truth hasn't stopped Fox from spending the last several days running story after story attacking MTV with the ludicrous charge that they are making child pornography, see here, here. They even have their own pet medic Manny Alvarez call it "liquid child pornography"

Skins isn't child porn.

The thing which gets me is Fox's hypocrisy. If they seriously think Skins is child porn I'd disagree but if it's their view so be it.

But it isn't their real view. Fox 8 in Australia show the UK, which is more racy, and US version of Skins, see here. This means that Fox News believe their sister station is broadcasting child pornography and is promoting peadophilia.

They are not calling for Fox 8 to be prosecuted, fined, or even have the advertisers boycotted.

This is rank hypocrisy. It's also taking Fox News viewers as idiots.

I seem to remember that several years ago Sky, which is owned by Fox's owners and provides them with most of their profit, was fined for showing a child in one of their many porn channels.

What does that say about News International?

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

MP's new ruse to use their expenses to hide a wage increase

The public is hurting. We see VAT rising, we see our bills rising, we see petrol sky-rocketing. We also see job security becoming a thing of the past. Just living is becoming harder.

Now our MP's are being pressurised to give up their pay rise for two years in recognition of the real pain we are feeling. Of course since it is these very same MP's, particularly of the labour persuasion, which allowed Brown and Blair to bankrupt the country with their insane PFI/PPP off book accounting, and weakening of the regulations governing banks, you'd have thought being thrown of of Parliament, and pelted with rotten fruit, would have been more apt.

Anyway a two year pay freeze is being spun as the MPs feeling our pain, we're all in this together......the usual lies.

But.....

You don't think the professional non-entities are really going to forgo any of their wages do you? Look at the trouble caused when they fiddled their expenses. For some money is all they are interested in.

And so they have a pay freeze, but at the same time they have an increase in their housing expenses of £2,000. This is more than the amount they lost with a the pay freeze. See here.

You know something my anger is dulled because we've seen so much naked greed from so many of our MPs. What really gets me though is the fact they think we are all thick. You see they think that we'll applaud their giving up their wage increase for two whole years, and not notice the hefty chuck of cash they are getting to make for it.

The whole thing stinks. Really it does.

MP's earn a lot of money. Most of them, and there are exceptions here, could never earn this wage in the real world. They haven't the experience, training, or ability to earn anything like this. They are not badly done by.

I accept that MP's need to be in London, though perhaps not as often as they are at the moment due to advances in teleconferencing. They don't need to second homes. As I've written before house the lot in a single building, B&B style for free, give them train or bus tickets for when they need to get to London, and stop all the expenses. This would be a lot cheaper, and would stop all their thievery .

You may think this is a bit harsh to tar all MPs as thieves, but when over half of them have been proved to have fiddled their expenses I think it is fair to tar them.

Politics should be about making our country better. About helping people. Making a difference. It should never be about becoming rich. Alas for many of them it is all about the money.

They have had there fun but this needs to stop now.

Andy Coulson quits

I've been consistent in my view, expressed here for two years, that Andy Coulson, the now ex-Tory spin doc, should never have been employed by the Tory party.

His ties to Rupert Murdoch and the phone hacking scandal made him toxic.

So I'm not sad to see him go. See here.

However I find the gloating of Alistair Campbell, labour ex-spin doctor under Blair, nauseating gloating about Coulson is sickening.

For all the faults Coulson has he is not Campbell. He isn't a man who a judge called a liar in court. He hasn't drove a good man to his death unlike Campbell. More than that, he isn't a war criminal again unlike Campbell.

Campbell is one of those who helped cheapen British political life. He is a liar and a bully. He personally wrote the lies which led to the Iraq War. Campbell has the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent people on his hands.

Campbell is the last person to criticise anyone.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

On Alan Johnson

I've always found Alan Johnson unimpressive. Seems a friendly, down to earth, working-class chap, yes, just not very good at being a minister. It is not for nothing he was called the laziest man in British politics. Recently as Shadow Chancellor he was embarrassingly bad. His ignorance of his job was woeful.

However saying that I'm sorry he has resigned his post due to his wife's affair, See here.

Regardless of ones political stance you have to feel sympathy toward betrayed. In politics it is usually the poor spouse of the politician who is cheated on, but my sympathy stretches to all. Even politicians!

Not sure why he resigned over his wife's affair when Robin Cook, John Prescott, and many other, who did the cheating clung on to their positions. Maybe being the cheater gives the impression of virility and power.

So I'm sorry he's gone in this manner. He should have been sacked for being useless, but that's another matter.

I do find it strange that the police bodyguard with whom Johnson's wife was having the affair is being investigated and suspended. See here.

How can you be penalised, perhaps losing your job, for falling in love? Or having a fling? Or even having consensual sex?

I mean that literally. As labour introduced European Human Rights law into the country which guarantees our right to a family life, self-expression, etc., which covers relationships, sex, and such, how can any action be taken against the officer?

The thing which really saddens me is Johnson's replacement, Ed Balls. Not only is his, and equally useless wife's promotion a mistake by Ed Miliband as it ties him to the disaster of the Gordon Brown government and it's wasted billions, which Balls was a key part of, it undermines his authority.

But worse than that, why could the so called party of the working person not find any working-class people to fill Johnson's vacant position? Balls and his wife, Yvette Cooper, as both public school, Oxbridge types who have never had to worry about money in their lives. Both are rich. Both were VERY lucky not to be charged over their expenses (which included claiming for the same house on both their expenses).

Why are there no working-class people in labour's ranks in parliament?

This I find awful.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

John Bercow the expense abusers friend

In a telling final paragraph of a story about John Bercow's support for the hunting ban, see previous post, is a telling fact.

Bercow is going to allow MPs to help decide their own expenses, set the rates, conditions and the like. This in spite of the scandal we've witnessed about how over half of our MPs have abused the previous, MP created system, indeed we've and seen of their members, one a serving MP being jailed, or facing jail, or currently in court for their actions.

And yet Bercow is watering down the already weak system setup to stop the abuse and is allowing the very same MPs who abused the old system to rig the new one.

This is scandalous. It is also stupid for when the new abuses come to light, which they will, it will make the last abuse scandal seem like a storm in a teacup.

The thing is Bercow is the expense abusers friend. This is a man who has never seen an expense he has not claimed. A man who lavished fortunes on himself out of our pocket since becoming Speaker. He is one of those who thinks our money is his.

Yes we know where is sympathies lie.

Perhaps it is a move to shore up his crumbling Speakership. A move to buy the support of MPs in any vote to remove him. God knows he needs all the help he can get.

But he shouldn't be allowed to use our money to secure it.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

An arrest made in Jo Yeates' murder

I've written here before about the truly awful murder of Jo Yeates. She was a young, talented, loved, women senselessly murdered.

In particular I wrote about the sickening press coverage of this case. Specifically how the press were calling her landlord her murderer, insinuating this even before the police took him in for questioning.

He was released on bail.

And now the police have arrested someone for Jo's murder. They have not released his name and we don't know if he is guilty. It is clear however that it isn't the landlord as the arrested man is thirty years younger than him. See here.

I hope he is the murderer so that justice can be done and Jo's family and friends have the solace of knowing her murder has been caught. Perhaps not much comfort but it would be some.

I'm also glad for the landlord that someone has been charged with Jo's murder. If the murderer, and obviously we don't know if the arrested man is guilty, remains uncaught then the landlord would live under the shadow of doubt. People would think him a man who got away with murder. To me that would be unbearable.

By rights the press should apologise to the landlord, perhaps make a donation to charity in his name.

But they won't. The press don't do that. They can destroy your life on a whim. But they don't apologise for their mistakes.

I can only hope that Jo's murderer is found and is brought to justice.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

John Bercow's bias

The Speaker John Bercow has let it be known that he has come over to his wife's thinking about fox hunting and is against it. It's strange how Bercow who was once a rapid right-winger has surrendered to his lefty wife on this, and every other issue.

You can argue for or against fox hunting. I myself have never hunted a fox. Nor have I ever had the desire to, but I accept people have different views.

However fox hunting is a deeply contentious issue which raises passions on both sides of the argument. A open, non-violent, debate is a healthy thing in this issue, as it is in all issues.

But Bercow is supposed to be impartial. His position is supposed to make him above politics. Literally. He is there to facilitate parliamentary debate. To allow politicians of all hues the chance to debate and reach a decision based on such debate.

Bercow has the power to call, or deny, some debates, he is the one one who calls people to speak. If he wants he can deny an MP a chance to speak in any debate.

In short the Speaker can scupper debate and stop MP's giving their views.

This is why the Speaker has to be unbiased.

This is why some have questioned Bercow's suitability in the light of his anti-fox hunting admission. See here.

For many anti-fox hunting people their first thought might be happiness that one of their fellow thinkers is in a position to scupper the opposing views. That would be a mistake though. Replace the issue of fox hunting and replace it with any other issue, say anti gay rights, pro or anti a specific war, pro or anti global warming, anti-black racism, or even a pro-slave ownership before the banning of this obscenity. Would these same people want a Speaker working against them on these issues?

I don't think so. The bias of any Speaker can work against you just as easily as it can work for you. It is this reason why our ancestors demanded that the Speaker be unbiased.

The Speaker needs to be independent and unbiased. Their views are unimportant. They are there simply to allow other members to have their say and reach their decision.

And that's it.

Speakers give up their right to free speech. They voluntarily surrender their right to bias. ANY bias.

It is frankly pathetic that this pip-squeak is so thick that he doesn't understand why being unbiased is so vital for our democracy. Even sadder is how this supposed adult has surrendered his own long held views to appease his domineering wife.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

What Baby bottoms and mothers faces have in common

I admit women are a mystery to me ....and men, children, dogs, cats, DVD players.....actually it's rather a long list. In short the world is a mystery to me and I am in a state of constant bemusement.

Any road up the Daily Mail has a story of how the must have beauty product for women is a product developed for babies.

OK a bit boring but several things strike me.

This wonder product is called "Baby Bottom Butter". What type of name is that? Why do babies need new special bottom stuff when there are well proven and well established products to prevent nappy rash.

In what way is it butter? It won't be made out of milk or any other dairy product so how, by any stretch of the imagination, is it butter?

Finally why would any intelligent women look at a product they bought for their nipper, one called bottom butter, and think " You know what I'll whap it on my face and then tell the press".

It may indeed work but I wouldn't have thought to try.

Like I said, women are a mystery.




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Sean Hannity: an eager would-be war criminal

I shouldn't watch Fox News, really I shouldn't. With exceptions the people on this station can be monumentally ignorant. This isn't good for my blood pressure.


Sean Hannity is a university drop out who has found a home, after being sacked form other media outlets for anti-gay rants, at Fox News. The below video shows shows how eager Hannity is for the US to commit crimes against humanity.





In this video Hannity, and his equally stupid guests, say some ridiculous things.

HANNITY: There’s two things I said. I say why isn’t Iraq paying us back with oil, and paying every American family and their soldiers that lost loved ones or have injured soldiers — and why didn’t they pay for their own liberation? For the Kuwait oil minister — how short his memory is. You know, we have every right to go in there and frankly take all their oil and make them pay for the liberation, as these sheiks, etcetera etcetera, you know were living in hotels in London and New York, as Trump pointed out, and now they’re gouging us and saying ‘oh of course we can withstand [these prices].’” See here.

Two things:

Firstly that Iraqi oil isn't the US's property. Why should Iraq should pay the US for their liberation? The legality of this war is a matter of debate. Most people could see how terrible Saddam Hussein was, his brutal history was despicable. However the people of Iraq didn't ask to be 'liberated'. More than that, the invasion destroyed Iraq, its infrastructure was destroyed. The Iraqi people need all the money their natural resources can bring. They need money to rebuilt their and develop their country.

More than that, Iraqi oil isn't American oil.They can use it as they want.

It is wrong for the US to demand payment. The Iraq war is controversial. Some say it was a ploy for the US to take control of their oil. This has damaged the US's reputation worldwide. And this is without the US taking over the Iraqi oil fields.

Can you imagine what would happen if the US did take over the oil and take the umpteen billions the Iraqi people need and funnel it into American coffers?

Well I think we can safely say that it wont do the US reputation any good amongst their allies.

Secondly is the war crimes Hannity wants the US to commit.

Kuwait was liberated by the US coalition from Iraqi invasion. This was a legal war with all the appropriate permissions from the UN. A vicious dictator invaded another country and military force expelled them.

This is a good thing.

You could argue about how good the Kuwaiti rulers are, but you have to say they have improved over the years with more rights being given to the people and women. Not enough by a long way, but it's start.

But now Hannity wants the US to INVADE Kuwait and confiscate their oil. Now Hannity ignorantly claims that Kuwait somehow owes the US for their liberation. But Kuwait and its allies paid the US $52 billion to the US for their liberation. The total cost to the US for the whole operation was $61.1.

Kuwait then spent billions more on US military equipment, including $5.5 billion in the last ten years alone.

The US isn't out of pocket for their invasion.

No other allies has been paid for their part in the liberation of Kuwait.

So Hannity is simply wrong about the debt Kuwait owes America.

Much worse than that it would be crime against humanity for the US to invade another sovereign state simply to steal their natural resources.

The worst thing is how this cheapens the liberation of Kuwait. Iraq illegally invaded Kuwait to steal their oil. They were universally condemned. The US freed Kuwait to praise. Hannity is cheapening the bravery of the US forces, and their allies. It demeans the deaths of American troops, and insults the injured.

Hannity seeks to reduce the US to the level of the most brutal of dictators. The brave military didn't risk their lives, and lose them in some cases, for money. The US military isn't, or shouldn't be, mercenaries.

And this ignorant, violent, talk was broadcast on Fox! It is incidents like this which demeans the US in the eyes of the world.

I am only grateful that there are adults in the US administration that understands why Hannity and his ilk are fools.

Hannity really is a twonk!!!!!

Sally Bercow makes her husband look weak

The formidable woman, and ex-Speaker, Betty Boothroyd criticised the current Speaker and how his choice of dress has reduced the respect in which he is held, see previous post.

Now I am guessing that the current incumbent, John, Bercow, does not agree with Betty. He is free to do so.

He has two viable option. The first is to make a statement that he doesn't agree with her and that he was trying to modernise the Speakership. The second option is to say nothing and remain aloof and dignified.

Personally I think the second option would be the best one.

But these are the two options Bercow has.

Well...... he does have a third. This option is to get his shrill wife, Sally, to defend him and attack Betty. Doing so is a mistake. To get a vacuous rich women who has never had any real job, has never been elected to anything after university to attack a working-class woman repeatedly elected both by the public and by the MPs themselves, and is universally respected, is stupid.

Much, much, worse than that for John Bercow to get his wife to defend himself whilst remaining hidden would do serious damage to him. It would make him look weak, subservient to a dominant women. It would make his look a coward.

In short it would be a monumentally stupid for John Bercow to cower and send Sally to defend himself.

It would be silly.

In other news Sally Bercow attacks Betty Boothroyd and sticks up for the John "squeaker" Bercow.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Betty Boothroyd tells John Bercow to smarten up

Betty Boothroyd, for those who don't know, was a labour MP. Before that she was a dancing girl, not a stripper or anything seedy, just a dancer.

She was a normal person with a real life before politics. A life which gave her the experience to understand how real people live. In short she wasn't a rich professional politician who found a safe seat due to nepotism.

She also became one of the most respected Speakers the House of Commons ever had. She was independent of mind and totally unbiased. She was respected in the House and the Country. She was respected because she deserved respect.

She is a formidable woman.

She is not a fan of the current Speaker, John Bercow. She makes a very interesting point. Bercow seems to love the prestige and deference he thinks his position demands. He definitely loves the expenses. But he got rid of the traditional Speakers garb preferring to dress in a suit.

Boothroyd makes a point that if Bercow wants to be treated with respect he needs to ditch the suit and return to the ceremonial dress of old.

She feels that getting rid of the traditional dress has cost Bercow respect from politicians and the public alike.

I would suggest that Bercow's lack of respect also derives from the contempt in which he is held personally.

Her comments are actually interesting and fits well into anthropological studies of ceremony. Archaic dress the Speakers used to wear, like the gowns and wigs of judges and barristers, are the outward expression of difference and of a position of power.

The Speaker is different from other MP's. Their role is different. Their duties are different. Dressing differently symbolises the difference.

It's like with the army. An officer is respected because of his pips and his commission. He may be despised by his troops but his role is respected. Role and person are different. When a solider salutes an officer they are saluting the uniform, not the individual.

Uniforms are important. The Speaker's ceremonial dress is important and getting rid if it was a mistake.

Boothroyd is a wise woman and Bercow would be wise to heed her advice.

But he won't because he isn't wise.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Peter King terrorist lover

One does not expect consistency in politicians but even so Peter King is a total hypocrite. This is a man who has an important position in the US as chairman of their Homeland Security Committee which is concerned with terrorism. This is a man who wants Julian Assange, Wikileaks, and people who support them, or buy a book, classed as terrorists.

None of these people killed anyone.

And yet King is a supporter of terrorism himself.

He spent years meeting IRA terrorists, providing political and vocal support to terrorists.

King supported terrorists who murdered thousands of innocent people and wounded countless more.

King's actions supported the murder of children and the torture of the innocent.

And King has the front to call others terrorists?

King has blood on his hands.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Peter King's buying a book is terrorism move fails

After all the moves from the US politicion Peter King to get Wikileaks and Assange classed as terrorists and thus making the buying of Julain Assange's tome an act of terrorism it is good that sense as prevailed. The US Treasury Department has made the sensible decision that they cannot classify Assange or Wikileaks as terrorists for the simple reason that they do not meet the criteria for being classed as terrrorists. See here.

This may have something to do with the fact that Assange and Wikileaks are not in fact terrorists.

I'm glad that for all the froth there are some parts of the US state who are adults.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

US Politician says you're a terrorist if you buy Julian Assange's autobiography!

Some in the US hate Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Some of the hate borders on the deranged. I had hoped that politicians would be sensible and more reasoned in their views.

It is in light of this I'm saddened that an important Republican politicion Peter King who is the chairman of the important Committee on Homeland Security has written the below letter,

January 12, 2011

Secretary Timothy F. Geithner
U.S. Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20220

Dear Secretary Geithner:

I write to urge you to add Julian Assange and his Wikileaks enterprise to the Specially Designated National and Blocked Persons List (the SDN List) maintained by the

U.S. Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC), and thus prohibit any company or person subject to U.S. jurisdiction from conducting any business with Assange and Wikileaks.

As you know, several prominent officials from the Obama Administration, including Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Department of State Secretary Hilary Clinton, have warned of the threat that Wikileaks and Assange pose to U.S. national security interests. On January 7th, the New York Times reported that Wikileaks’ unauthorized disclosures have forced the State Department to warn “hundreds of human rights activists, foreign government officials and business people identified in leaked diplomatic cables of potential threats to their safety and has moved a handful of them to safer locations.” It is undeniable that Wikileaks poses a clear and present threat to U.S. national interests.

The U.S. government simply cannot continue its ineffective piecemeal approach of responding in the aftermath of Wikileaks’ damage. The Administration must act to disrupt the Wikileaks enterprise. The U.S. government should be making every effort to strangle the viability of Assange’s organization.

According to the Department of Treasury, OFAC “administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and national security goals against ... threats to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States.” There have been repeated instances of U.S. companies entering into transactions with Assange, regardless of the consequences. Earlier this year, Amazon, PayPal, and Visa were conducting business with Wikileaks. Fortunately, those companies have withdrawn from their relationships with Assange. However, in late December, U.S. publishing company Alfred A. Knopf announced that it had entered into a publishing deal that would pay Assange approximately $1 million. Mr. Assange commented that he needed those funds to “keep Wikileaks afloat.” Assange seems more emboldened than ever in Wikileaks’ continued viability, as he announced yesterday that Wikileaks is “stepping up our publishing for matters related to [classified U.S. diplomatic cables] and other materials.”

The U.S. government should be doing all it can to sink Wikileaks. By adding Assange and Wikileaks to the SDN List, the United States can finally take action to dismantle his organization.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my request. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

PETER T. KING
Chairman
Committee on Homeland Security

See here.

King is trying to make the buying of a autobiography an act of terrorism. It isn't: it is buying a book.

King isn't demanding that racist books, books about how to kill, make drugs, make silences, or Coldplay be banned. He's talking only about a the story of a man's life.

It's pathetic.

What strikes me is now King wants to use his book burning move as part of the US move to "dismantle" Wikileaks. This is either monumental ignorance or a deranged view of the world. The US cannot dismantle Wikileaks. Wikileaks isn't a US company. It's servers aren't in the US. It's staff aren't based in the US. The US cannot ban them. They can perhaps try to pressurise other governments into banning Wikileaks from their territory but that wouldn't work. Firstly Wikileaks would simply move to another jurisdiction. Secondly it would be hard, especially in Europe to ban Wikileaks due to public and political support.

Worse than that, from the US perspective, King's public demand makes it a lot less likely that any European state can act against them. Governments don't want to be seen as a US poodle.

Even if Wikileaks disappeared there are thousands of other sites to take its place. The world has changed. King doesn't understand this simple fact.

I have no interest in buying Assange's book. I've never had any interest in his book. However with King's ignorant move I am now tempted to buy it out of spite.

Perhaps the most ridiculous aspect about King's letter is his inability to understand capitalism. A book publisher made a decision that publishing a book by a man not charged with any crime anywhere, and a man not wanted for any crime in the US, will make money. This is a totally legal business transaction. One which both parties think they'll make money. A deal which will bring or secure American jobs in the publishing or retail sectors.

I thought that the Republican party were pro-business and pro-US jobs?

King really is a thick joke.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

The Guardian blames Wikileaks for putting Morgan Tsvangirai's life in danger

Morgan Tsvangirai is a hero in my book. No doubt he has his faults, like all of us, but as the opposition leader, and as a man with a democratic mandate to lead Zimbabwe, he is a hero. He has spent years being threatened and in some cases tortured by the horrific rulers of that poor country.

He's a good egg.

In light of this I'm shocked by the actions of the Guardian newspaper as it concerns Tsvangirai and Wikileaks.

In this disgraceful article their columnist wrote that Wikileaks had published documents which will lead to Tsvangirai being tried for treason in Zimbabwe. As such, like the title of the article makes explicit, this is Wikileaks own "collateral damage" (this being a reference to the first major Wikileak revaluation by the same name which showed US military killing civilians). The inference is clear. Wikileaks has blood on it's hands and are the same, or worse, than the US. An enemy of all.

Now this is shocking. This is the golden prize for the US government. This is proof that Wikileaks place people's lives in danger or even kill good people. This is the one thing the US lack proof that any Wikileak revelation resulted in anyone's death.

This would be massively damaging to Wikileaks.

Except it isn't true.

As Glenn Greenwald proves Wikileaks didn't publish any diplomatic cables which could be used by the despotic Zimbabwe government to prosecute Tsvangirai for treason.

The Guardian did.

It goes without saying that no documents should have been published which would endanger anyone, especially someone who is the hope of an oppressed people.

If it was Wikileaks I would be the first to condemn them.

But the fact remains it was the Guardian who have placed Tsvangirai in mortal danger.

The fact that the Guardian published such a attack on Wikileaks when they must have known that they themselves were the guilty party is shocking to me. They accused Wikileaks of placing someone in danger, of earning the gratitude of Robert Mugabe, a vile dictator, and probably killing someone. this is a serious accusation to make against anyone. It is not one to take lightly.

This is music to the US government. It would be the smoking gun they need to go after Assange and Wikileaks.

And it is all a lie. The guilty party is the Guradian. It is they who should be roundly condemned and despised.

But they aren't.

They have made some mealy mouthed adjustments to the article but the title and the inference remains.

The Guardian attack is a disgrace. They should make it clear that Wikileaks is not to blame. The article should make it perfectly clear that they themselves are to blame.

They should also not allow Republican stooges to use their pages to attack anyone based on a lie.

This is a shameful incident for the Guardian.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Ofcom on the Sky takeover

As a person who despises Rupert Murdoch and all his works I'm inordinately pleased that people want to stop him taking full control of Sky TV. So you might think I'd be pleased that the media regulator, Ofcom, wants his bid to takeover Sky TV referred to the Competition Commission. See here.

However I have my doubts.

I make no bones about it, I really don't think it healthy that Rupert Murdoch, as non-British person who is also not a Commonwealth Citizen, should be allowed to own any UK media. This is a man who gave up his Australian citizenship in order to buy US TV stations. I think if we aren't able to buy US TV then they shouldn't be allowed to take over ours.

It seems only fair.

The fact that his empire doesn't pay any tax in the UK, or anywhere else really, should also stop him.

However.....

I'm not really sure if referring him for a judgement about competition is justified. Sky News controls 22% of the UK's media. This includes TV,radio, and of course, newspapers. This position has been reached by them providing a product that people voluntarily pay for. You aren't forced to buy any of their products.

But using the same calculation the BBC, who we are forced to pay for or risk prison, have 39.3% of the total UK media market.

See the Guardian.

By the Ofcom reasoning if Murdoch needs investigation then the BBC should face a similar one.

If there is a referral under competition rules then the Murdoch press will attack the BBC using this inconsistency. Such attacks may be in court.

I sincerely hope that Murdoch fails in his bid to takeover all of Sky. But I do feel using competition rules is opening a can of worms which will hit the BBC more than Murdoch.

Julian Assange sued for treason!!!

And so it's finally happened, Julian Assange is been sued in a US court for treason, as well as causing fear, hypertension, and a little matter of $150 million.

Now I know it is a stupid stereotype and utterly untrue but the plaintiff lives in a trailer park.

Any way he's claiming that Assange and Wikileaks have caused him serious distress. So serious that he thought he was going to die in a nuclear holocaust. Have a heart attack, and stroke, ingrowing toenails, piles.... The last two aren't true though.

He accuses Assange and Wikileaks of:

terorism [sic], espionage and treason

I suppose it all helps in the claim for $150 million.

I don't understand how any court could accept any legal documents that are not only badly spelt, indeed it cannot even spell 'citizen' spelling it "citezen", journalism is spelt "jourlism"' but worse than that they accuse any non-US citizen of treason. How can they accuse any non-US citizens of treason. They are not traitors to the US, they cannot be they are not American. Nor are they terrorists by any stretch of the imagination. And as for espionage well they are a legal media outlet.

The plaintiff, one David Pitchford, doesn't seem very bright, though hoes seem to have made a habit of sueing people, firms, unions, councils, etc. It seems it is his job/hobby See here.

It doesn't show the US legal system in a good light either I'm afraid.



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

John Bercow a man treated with respect.....or not as the case may be

PoliticsHome has a truly wonderful story of that jumped up little pipsqueak and Speaker John Bercow. I hope they will forgive me for quoting at length but I feel it's well worth it:-

Tory MP Mark Pritchard is not one to swear. In fact he's ribbed by colleagues in the Tea Room for saying "Schmidt" instead of sh*t.

But today, he exploded when the Commons Speaker confronted him over an alleged breach of the courtesies of the House.

It all started when Pritchard got to his feet towards the end of Business Questions. As he rose, the Tory backbencher was told by John Bercow that as he was not present for the beginning of Sir George Young's business statement, he could not ask a question.

Pritchard was furious because he actually had been present for the start of the session at 11.30am and had been seated between Des Swaine and Peter Bone. However, he left the chamber for five minutes to go to the loo between noon and 12.05, before returning.

To register his anger at not being allowed to ask a question, Pritchard immediately wrote a letter of complaint, explaining why the Speaker was wrong (including the toilet break). He went to the Speaker's office to submit the letter.

But, several minutes later, on walking back along the corridor behind the Speaker's chair, the Tory MP then encountered Mr Bercow walking towards him with his usual formal entourage.

The Speaker then stopped and pointed at Pritchard and said: "The courtesy of the House is that Honourable Members should stand aside when the Speaker passes by".

Pritchard was so outraged at this further slight that he replied: "Mr Speaker, don't point at me. I am not here to be abused by you."

Bercow countered: "You will obey the courtesies of the House!"

To which Pritchard replied with the immortal line: "You are not fucking royalty, Mr Speaker!"

Pritchard then walked off.

it goes without saying that this killer putdown will now go down in history.

More importantly it shows that Bercow is a berk who suffers from the stereotypical affliction of short men, a Nepolian complex. It also shows he has a farcical view of his own importance.

However the worst thing about this very amusing incident is the sheer lack of respect he demands from other MP's. And that's a killer. You see the Speaker is an important position. One that should go to a a person who has earned, and earns, respect due to their experience in the House, and their scrupulous independence as Speaker. Previous Speakers from all parties were respected by all sides. Respect leads to being treated with respect.

Bercow fails on both counts.

He is a labour stooge. Though he was a Tory he has been swayed by his wife who is labour, albeit unelected to anything. His bias is known to all.

So the Tories despise him. This is understandable. But so do labour. They see that he is their creature. This doesn't bring respect. It brings contempt.

He is a joke which grows daily.

We deserve better than this odious little lickspittle.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Eric Illsley to resign: but not yet

The good news is that the crooked MP Eric Illsley has finally bowed to the pressure and announced that he'll resign as an MP....but not yet!

For some reason the self-confessed crook will wait until he goes to prison in a month to step down as an MP. See here.

This is good news.....but

He is a crook. He admits he is a crook. Why the hell should a self-confessed crook remain an MP in or out of prison?

So for a month he'll be on full pay. For a month he'll be claiming expenses. For a month the people he represents will be ill served. I mean to say I cannot see him doing any work on their behalf in the next month can you?

So why did he do it?

This is total speculation on my part but it looks better if he is seen to do the "honourable" thing. OK the honourable thing would have been not to steal from us, but you get the spin.

This is important because Illsley is unemployable. He's a convicted thief talentless, and thick. This doesn't make him an attractive employment prospect. He'll have his pension and whatever grants he'll get for stepping down as an MP, but that's it. He'll not starve, in fact he'll have a enough income to live very well indeed.

But if he wants to earn some serious dosh he'll have to be seen to be rehabilitated. Stepping down as an MP is a powerful weapon to spin his change.

Once out think of all the prisoner charities who'll snap him up to talk about prison reform and prisoner rights, and to be their director, spokesman, etc.

Kerching!

This could be, with the book, and talks, a serious money maker.

Double kerching!!

So it's a good career move to go of your own accord. If he's lucky he'll be first of the politicians to be freed and snap up all the good jobs. Him being seen as a reformed character and all.

If I was going to really cynical I would think that someone in labour had a chat with him and told him if he went now and stopped damaging labour they'd make sure he was all right getting a well paid job in some lefty charity.

But that would be cynical.




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Bercow supports Illsley: shock horror!

John Bercow should never have been made Speaker of the House of Commons. He is weak, biased, but above all tainted with sleaze. He has enjoyed his expenses very much since being made Speaker. With him as Speaker we'll never eradicate sleaze.

A perfect example is provided today where he supported the labour thief, and MP Eric Illsley. See here.

You see the labour head of the standards committee asked in parliament about moves to oust Illsley. Bercow cut him off and supported Illsely. He's made sure that the thief Illsely will remain an MP for at least a month. This guarantees he'll get at least £5,000 on his expenses, plus his wages

With Bercow's help Illsley will remain an MP.

And that's Bercow to a tee. He'll always support the sleazy. He doesn't understand why stealing from us is wrong.

The man is a disgrace to our politics.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Eric Illsley, thief refuses to quit

And so the labour MP (until after the election) Eric "thief" Illsley is refusing to stand down as an MP. See here.

You have to understand what this means: unless he voluntarily steps down, or gets more than one year in prison, he will remain an MP.

He'll be one in clink. And when he is released, probably with an electronic tag, he'll be a MP with all the perks and privileges that brings. He'll be able to lord it over parliament using special MP doors and privileges the normal, honest, person cannot use. He'll have have police officers saluting him, subsidised bars, and due deference lavished on him. He'll be awash with expenses and sycophants.

He'll not lose a single day of wages in prison or out.

He'll sit out the rest of this parliament. In the unlikely event that Barnsley people vote for him he'll remain an MP for life.

This thief will help decide on the laws that govern the honest. He'll sit on committees and spout forth as if he was not a thief.

And there is nothing the people can do about it. The MP's could change the rules, but for all the fine words from our leaders that won't happen. MP's are all about themselves. They fight tooth and nail to protect their own privileges. If this means a thief remains one of them it is a price they will pay.

Now Illsley's actions, unless he steps down, reflect the man. If he had one single ounce of shame or decency he'd step down and disappear into the dark. But he won't.

You see it is all about the money. Yes it is a large amount to give up but there are things worth more than money. The problem with Illsley is that he never say that. He only saw the cash. If fiddling got him more them he'd fiddle.

He is all about greed and the money. That is what we see now and it is what got him into trouble.

He's scum.

And there is nothing we can do about it.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Eric Illsley MP guilty!!

In what is a shaming incident the sitting labour MP Eric Illsley has pleaded guilty in court on three counts of fiddling his expenses. See here.

Strangely he denied stealing £25,000 but has admitted stealing £14,000. I assume this is because the lower figure will bring a lower sentence. He is also using the old trick of pleading special circumstances by telling the court that his wife is poorly, though not what with. That should be good for a reduced sentence.

What I find disgraceful is the fact that labour new at the last election that Illsley was facing arrest and didn't bother telling the people about it. That and the fact that the police played politics and held off arresting the thief until after the election.

Both these things are an insult to the public.

Just to add insult to injury Illsley is still an MP. As such in jail he will still be paid, still be an honourable member, and his constituents will still have him to represent them. Whilst he is in prison for his thievery. When he is freed he'll be back in parliament voting on laws and spouting forth. As if he wasn't a thief.

He may cease being an MP if he gets more than a year in prison, which is doubtful. So he's going to be paid in prison.

That is a disgrace. As things stand this piece of scum has four years plus on a hefty wage, massive expenses, and gold plated pension contributions to come. And there is nothing that the public can do about it.

That cannot be right.



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Edward Woollard the fire extinguisher thrower jailed

One of the most striking images of the student riots which attacked the Tory HQ was that of an idiot throwing a fire extinguisher from the roof. This heavy missile narrowly missed police and protesters alike. Regardless of your views on the protest this was criminally stupid. It's only through sheer luck that the idiot didn't kill anyone.

Now this fool, Edward Woollard, aged eighteen, has been found guilty and given two years eight months in prison. See here.

It may seem a long sentence but it could've been worse. He could have been facing life for murder. He should thank himself lucky that he's got such a sensible mother. If she hadn't persuaded him to give himself up his sentence would be much longer.

I still don't understand how anyone could think it is acceptable to throw a heavy object off a roof in the direction of anyone. It is wrong. Wrong for students to do so, just as much as it would be wrong for the BNP or anyone else to do so.

I hope that this sentence discourages others from such stupidity.




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Why some politicians love a spot of violence

One of the most despicable things about politicians is the way they love to use violence and death for their own political ends. It has always struck me that this is an inhuman attitude.

The case in point is the horrific attack on Gabrielle Gliffords which has left her along with twelve others seriously injured and six, including a beautiful child, dead.

The Democrats are eagerly rushing to pin the attack on Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. The whole affair shows how frightened they are of Palin and the Tea Party.

This seems unjustified and is diverting attention from the murderer. It is his fault and decisions which led to the loss of life. We must never lose sight if that.

The use of aggressive rhetoric and targets in political campaigns is a well worn tactic by the left and the right it doesn't mean they are promoting violence. Indeed a leading leftwing writer in the US has released a book explicitly calling for the use of violence against political opponents. He is not criticised.

What is happening now is just a way to use a tragedy to political advantage.

It's like the obscene way in which Tony Blair, that killer of tens of thousands of innocents, used the Dumblane massacre to garner votes. He even took a national tragedy and turned it into a partisan political event by dragging the bereaved onto a stage at the labour conference to attack the Tories.

This mentality that takes any tragedy, especially murdered children, and turns it into a vote winner is despicable. The lack of humanity and common decency is one of the reasons why many modern politicians are hated. That and their corruption.

The guilty need to be punished. But you don't use the shrouds of murdered children to attack political opponents, spin a message, or garner votes. That is obscene.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Gabrielle Gliffords shooter a left wing nut?

The Biased BBC blog has found an interesting line from a person who knew the alleged murder of six and wounder of twelve plus Gliffords. Caitie Parker describes the alleged murderer as a radical leftwing person when she knew him.

Seems strange and would tend to point to the non-political nature of this stupid act.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

On Gabrielle Giffords' shooting

It is terrible that the US politician Gabrielle Giffords was shot. Now I'm not a fan of most political types but violence against them is an anathema.

I do find it sad that Giffords is the only person talked about and not the six people, including a child, who were murdered or the other twelve injured. I've always found it deeply distasteful how the 'ordinary' people are forgotten when someone famous is involved.

It is an equal tragedy for anyone injured and a deeper one for the murdered, especially a child. Fame or political power don't matter in such tragedy.

I simply cannot understand the mentality behind such pointless act.

The alleged killer doesn't seem to be the standard rightwing nut. He's a junkie with mental health problems. Perhaps he is like the murderer of John Lennon a nobody who wanted to become famous.

If it is political it is a monumentally stupid act. Not only was the apparent target pro-gun in party not famed for this, the attack destroys any political cause the attackers may have had.

I don't know why this senseless act occurred. The perpetrators need to be brought to justice.

My deepest sympathies to the bereaved and to all the injured.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Twittergate? The US & Wikileaks

The US government are not fans of Wikileaks. Yup I think we can safely say that without the risk of contradiction. However their latest move seems a trifle strange.

Stupid even.

The Icelandic MP Biritta Jonsdottir once worked for Wikleaks. She doesn't any more as she is a MP. She does seem to be keen on the use of the Internet though. As such she uses Twitter. A lot of MPs from all over the world do. Most are rubbish, but some are interesting.

Politicians using Twitter is not news. It's old hat in fact. However the US Authorities have subpoenaed all her Twitter records, you know all her private details and what she has written, see here.

She has ten days to appeal the decision.

My first reaction was "what's the bloody point?"

Why would the US government bother with something so trivial? And it is trivial. Unless Jonsdottir is releasing secrets in bite sized 140 character chunks, and no one thinks she is, why go to all the trouble has subpoenaing her records?

There are three things here. The first is the sheer farce off the operation. She's not part of Wikileaks, she hasn't released any leaked files, nor is she accused of doing so. It is ridiculous to use the power of a state to go after anyone who has done nothing wrong.

The second thing is the sheer stupidity of alienating people from US companies. Twitter, and Blogger, are US companies. They, and Google, Facebook, et al, are huge global businesses which give the US a massive commercial advantage in the Internet. However if people begin to feel that their records, data, business, is vulnerable to a capricious, nay deranged, US government people will move their business to non-US companies. This will seriously damage the US and its interests.

It's stupid.

Finally how idiotic does the US have to be to pick on a democratically elected, mainstream politician? The US needs political friends in Europe, especially Scandinavia, to resolve the Wikileaks affair. Persecuting such a politician is not going to make it any easier to make friends and influence people in order to get the matter sorted in a manner acceptable to the US.

Put it this way, politics is a close-knit affair. Politicians from across the political spectrum know each other. None will take lightly one of their own being picked on. Forget principles or loyalty; this is personal. If the US can go after any mainstream politician they can go after them! That does tend to focus the mind of MPs.

This effects Iceland of course, but it effects every European state regardless of their EU membership. All European politician have ties and common memberships. What effects one effects hem all.

This is the exact opposite of what you need to do to get the outcome the US wants.

My lasting impression is bemusement. Twitter is open unless a person wished to keep their Tweets private Birgitta's are not private. Her Tweets are in the public domain. Why use the courts to get information already in the public domain?

Very odd. Sometimes one could think that there is a group of people in the US government hell-bent on undermining the US government position and strengthening Wikileaks. There isn't of course just a hell of a lot of stupidity.

Weird or what?

David Chaytor sent to jail

And so it happens that David "cheater" Chaytor was sentenced to jail for his systematic theft. He is the first MP of those facing trial to be sentenced, though hopefully not the last. He has been handed down an eighteen month sentence.

Like I predicted he's been treated very leniently.

You see he had a third of the sentence knocked off for changing his plea to guilty.

As it he could have faced over five years in jail even with this reduction. But the ex-labour MP was given a slight slap on wrist with 18 months.

Not a lot for years of fiddling and abuse of the system. But it gets worse. Due to the system he voted for he should be out by the end of May.

It seems he will be eligible for early release because his sentence was less than four years.

So instead of a potential seven years he gets six months.

And his full pension.

If you want to know how leniently MP's are treated, especially labour one, even if they are crooks, look at Chaytor. If the judge had given him a longer sentence he'd wouldn't be eligible for early release.

But he didn't and he is.

This isn't a coincidence. Its how the political elite are treated differently than the rest of us even when they are thieves like Chaytor.

Oh by the way the labour party have only just kicked out the Chaytor crook from the party.

About flipping time.

Politics won't be mended until all the corrupt thieves are jailed and receive severe sentences to deter the others. But in the sycophantic world we find ourselves in that'll never happen.

This is the system the political class have created and they'll never allow it to change.

The good news is that at least one thieving MP, Chaytor is in clink.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad