A tabloid attempt to use a tragedy to curb our freedom

I've written here before about the horrific, senseless, murder of Jo Yeates. This is a tragedy who will haunt her family and friends. I am glad her murderer has been convicted and I truly hope he serves his full sentence.

My sympathies go out to Jo's family and friends.

Though I think it is obvious where my sympathies lie I find the use of this horrid crime by the Church of England, and the Daily Mail to threaten ISP's with pulling millions of pounds if investment if they don't agree to censor the web in a way the Church demands, in the case of the Church, or demand that all websites need to be vetted and those the Daily Mail don't like to be banned and the readers punished.

The Mail, which let us not forget had to pay out a fortune to an innocent man they told the world murdered Jo and was investigated for contempt of court which would have led to the murderer going free, crudely uses the death of Jo to whip up public support for their censorship crusade with an editorial entitled

In Joanna’s name, close these vile sites

Column after column in the DM is about demands that the Internet should be censored or others will die.

The thing is this isn't about right or wrong: it's about a failing tabloid exploiting the tragic death of a beautiful and talented young woman to sell newspapers. And that it.

The second time I was threatened with death was when I wrote elsewhere about the horror of violent pornography. It's vile. However they are also perfectly legal in the US where most is made and hosted. My personal disgust at such vile stuff is personal and based in my sense if what is moral. I don't call for it to be banned or the sites taken down.

Just because you don't like or agree with something doesn't mean they should be censored or made illegal. That's the point of freedom of expression. We don't have the right not to be offended.

The tabloids and the church say Jo's killer killed because of him having watched some legal porn. The judge ruled otherwise.

I do find it strange that the DM is excusing the inexcusable actions of a murderer. By launching a campaign against images and videos they don't like they are saying that Jo's murderer is a victim and was not responsible for his murder.

The deflection of responsibility is wrong. Vincent Tabak is solely responsible for his actions.

The vast majority of viewers of porn don't kill or rape. Such images don't make people killers: people do. Blaming the Internet is like how the tabloids blamed videos, or photographs, or novels for all the world's problems. It's simplistic nonsense.

All this talk about controlling and censoring the Internet is part of the concerted political effort to limit what we say or can see. It's about giving vested interests in politics and media control. You see it in China and the Middle East which censors and controls the Internet to keep the public in the dark and you see it here where politicians seek to stop us knowing about their sleaze and corruption.

It is easy to fall into the trap of letting our freedoms be curbed because of a horrific crime but rest assured that once we have governmental, church, or media censorship of what we see or can say it'll not be limited to vile porn but will spread to non-politically correct, or politically embarrassing views.

We will be less free.

That is the real danger here and the reason politicians are pushing for their control of a free Internet.

For a tabloid so mired in allegations of their own crimes to launch a moral crusade is laughable.

For the Church or England to try to blackmail anyone to do what they say when this church has hundreds of millions invested in weapons manufacturers who provide the means to kill and have helped kill umpteen thousands of innocent children is a sick joke.

Sympathy for Jo, her family and friends, and disgust at her sick murder isn't reason to jump on a tabloid bandwagon to makes all less free.

On the passing of Sir Jimmy Savile

Image from Wikipedia

It is sad to record that Sir Jimmy Savile has passed away at the grand old age of 84. Jimmy was a man for whom the word eccentric was made. His, shall we say, distinctive, dress sense, phrases, looks, and cigar made him unique.

Jimmy was a disk jockey, and one of the faces of Top of the Pops in its prime. However it was his role as a children's tv presenter that made him an icon. Presenting a programme that allowed children to fulfil their dreams was simple but wonderful. The thing that impressed me most is his refusal to go with the kids when they fulfilled their dream. Not for laziness but because he didn't want to overshadow the child and take anything away from their day. That's a nice, considerate, thing to do. Not many media types would do that.

Many people seem to get honours for nothing, especially in the entertainment field. It seems that posh, rich, and connected people get knighthoods when those who deserve them get ignored.

But not with Jimmy. You see you could like his style or eccentricity or not but you cannot deny he deserved all his honours.

This is a man who came from poverty whose Christmas present was to look in a shop window and that alone, who had TB as a child (though the doctors never bothered to diagnose it because as he said,

"in those days if you were poor you just died".

And left a death certificate rather than find out what was wrong. This is a man who broke his back when conscripted to work down the mines and to,d he'd never walk properly again.

Such a life is unheard of now. It truly is a different world.

It's the measure of the man that through sheer grit he did walk and built a media career.

More than that this is a "cripple" who ran well over 200 marathons for charity raising over £40 million. A man who came from abject poverty but who gave away 90% of his income to charity. A man who raised the funds to build a spinal injury unit at Stoke Mandeville Hospital to help those who like himself had spine injuries. A man who worked as a volunteer porter at his local hospital in Leeds. A man who worked as a volunteer at Broadmoor Hospital for the criminally insane. This unglamorous role helping the most dangerous and vulnerable isn't something you do if you are doing something for publicity. He spent so much time there helping they even gave him his own room.

Often famous people lend their name to a charity for publicity but don't actually do anything. Jimmy did something. He gave away fortunes and more importantly gave his time. Time running, in committees, but more importantly time doing the boring menial tasks that need to be done.

That's impressive.

The fact that Jimmy didn't move to London but remained in Leeds shows a down to earth man whose feet remained firmly in the ground.

All of these things show a remarkable man. This is a man who came from nothing but spent his time, money, and fame helping others.

Jimmy is one of the few people you can say deserved all his honours and praise. It has become fashionable to mock his eccentricity and style of broadcasting. We should relish it. His eccentricity was wonderful and his charitable works awe inspiring.

So today our world is a little more grey.

My sympathies go out to his family and many friends.

Ireland rejects a man of violence in favour of a man of peace

At times there seems little to feel good about in this world in turmoil. So it is with a glad heart that Ireland has overwhelming rejected the blood soaked Martin McGuinness and have chosen the man of peace Michael D. Higgins to be their next President.

None of us, regardless of our country, need violent, vile, unapologetic, monsters to be our figurehead. The fact that Ireland has the maturity and wisdom to reject the divisive and choose the constructive is great news.

The political resignation of the Rev Giles Fraser

The leftwing Cannon Giles Fraser is the brother of a wealthy banker who has made a bit of a name for himself spouting lefty causes. From gay marriage to criticising people for spending their own money on things they want, like their marriage, to the Tory party he's there on the BBC preaching to the leftwing converted.

Not converted to religion you understand but to leftwing politics.

This right on reverend made a major mistake when he ordered the police off the steps of St Paul's Cathedral when they tried to move protesters, and supported the protest camp which were there. This stupid decision has both undermined the Church by being blatantly political, worse the camp is still there and is costing the Cathedral £20,000 a day in lost revenue as the site is closed to visitors because of the camp. For a old building that needs this money to pay for its upkeep and pay the wages of the expert staff needed to repair and care for this vast building this is a disaster that shows no sign of ending.

Faced with the consequences of this monumentally stupid decision Giles has resigned spinning the line that he could not stand the thought of police violence when they are called in to clear the tented camp. He forgets that it is his stupidity that caused the problem in the first place and that any violence, which would be deplorable, is down to him.

Thus isn't a left/right issue. The camp is wrong regardless of if you support the cause or not. Freedom of protest doesn't trump the freedom to practice one's religion or for businesses or organisations with nothing to do with the protest, or innocent residents to be penalised, bankrupted, or threatened.

Giles, who is yet another posh boy playing leftwing revolutionary, is part of a long, inglorious, line of Church people using a cause to further their career. Many years ago I knew a Cannon who got a massive career boost by getting government money to get underlings to hire unemployed people to teach others. It made his career but it wasn't a good scheme. He set up offices all over the place but there was no money there for any of them to operate properly. Whole departments had to operate on a budget of £1:45 a week.

It was pointless. Now it could have been a great thing but he expanded far to much to gain him maximum press and do him the most good. He didn't actually do any work, but he got all the praise. Anytime any of the staff taken on for a pittance wanted him to sign a form in order for them to get extra help he refused as he was worried it would reflect badly on him.

He, like Giles, weren't really concerned about the unemployed or the poor. They were using their spin to give their ego and career prospects a boost.

It's not nice.

What gets me is the hypocrisy of Giles. If he is so against the capitalists and all for the poor why doesn't he voluntarily pay tax on his wage? Why does he not criticise his own Church's billions invested in the stock market? Why doesn't he criticise the way in which the Church is the biggest landowners in the UK? Or the way his Church is forcing small businesses into bankruptcy by their massive rent increases? Why doesn't he demand that all the Church assets be sold and all the money given to the poor both in the UK and the third world?

Until he does any of these things Giles is rich play radical who wouldn't survive in the real world.

Giles' resignation, in twitter which is so pathetically wanting to be young and hip it's embarrassing, is spin to deflect criticism of his actions and turn himself into some leftwing hero.

He isn't. He's a shallow idiot who made a decision which is costing his Church and the taxpayer a fortune and may lead to people being hurt.

Giles is why the Church of England is what it is today: a minor irrelevance.

Lord Prescott and the taxpayer funded casino splurge

I have met John Prescott and even on so short a meeting you can tell what he is. His hypocrisy is rank. I mean this is a man who whipped up class hatred with his attacks on the unelected peers and called for the abolition of lords and unelected peers who, like a lot of labour types, snapped up their peerage and fills their boots, to use the phrase of one of his ex-colleague's currently in prison, at our expense.

I'm sorry this isn't an attractive trait.

And now it emerges that Prescott used his government credit card to pay for his trip to an Australian casino, aquarium, and restaurant.

Image from Wikipedia

Why should we pay nearly £500 for Prescott's casino jolly?

But it's worse than that. These three luxury trips weren't claimed in expenses, which would have been bad, but we're paid directly using a credit card supplied by the government and paid for by the taxpayer.

Now having a government credit card is a useful thing. If you need to buy a computer for your job when you're abroad, or pay for plane tickets on the hoof then it's useful to have such a card rather than not have enough money to buy whatever is vital to your job.

But it isn't there to be abused.

Paying for Prescott's casino jaunt or his ogling of fish is an abuse. There is no national benefit to the British taxpayer for these frivolous trips.

Prescott, like many of his ilk, have such a sense of entitlement that they think titles, expenses, luxury, and special treatment is their divine right. They have made a system that panders to their every whim and grants them privilege after privilege.

They are what is wrong with the system. His casino splurge is symptomatic of what is wrong with the system and too many of the politicians who created the system.

His luxury lifestyle shouldn't be paid for by us. He's rich enough through his gold plated pension to be able to pay for his own trips. The taxpayer shouldn't be there to pay for greedy lords to live like feudal barons of yore for free.

Prescott isn't a nice man. Hypocrisy and greed make the man.

Not nice.

Vince Cable the scourge of tax dodgers: a tax dodger

Vince Cable is the ex-Lib-Dem leader and current business secretary. He may look like a doddery grandad but Cable is ruthlessly ambitious and will tell any story that makes him look good. So he tells us he is an economic sage who has predicted the last two crisis and forgets the other twelve predictions he got wrong or the way he stumbled around changing his mind eighteen times a day.

When someone keeps bragging about their economic greatness it really should send up warning flags.

As part of his spin Cable has made great store about how he is leading the battle, in the face of Tory opposition, against tax dodgers and those who don't pay tax. This spin is to play on the public's anger at rich people who pay a pittance.

He 'forgets' that as leader of the Lib-Dems he accepted millions that were stolen and tax avoided and how he and his party refuse to give the stolen cash back.

image from Wikipedia

Spin is always more important to Cable than reality.

Anyway Cable tells us he is the scourge of those scum who don't pay their tax.

So it's a bit embarrassing that Cable has been fined £500 for not paying the taxman £25,000 he owed in VAT.

It's typical that the scourge of those who don't pay their tax is a person who didn't pay his tax.

It strikes me that this tax bill for Cable's media work is wrong. Not that he has to pay tax on his media earnings you understand but the fact that a full time minister, MP, and member of government of a country in dire straights has the time to take any media work when we pay him handsomely and when he should be busy.

More than that it shows there is something seriously wrong with our tax system when a self-professed economic expert who has a phd in economics and taxpayer funded helpers cannot understand the tax system so that he is caught out.

No one like paying tax and tax should be lowered but regardless of ones views the tax system shouldn't be this complicated and expressive to run.

Cable really is the joke who believes his own hype.

Is he a tax dodger or just incompetent?

The list of those MPs who backed the people against their leaders

The behaviour of the main party leaders over the call for a referendum on the EU has showed an incestuous elite who forget they are supposed to be our servants and it is the public who have the power and should have a say if the demand it.

However some MPs put principles and the public demand before their party and voted for a referendum. These are,

Stuart Andrew, Conservative
Steven Baker, Conservative
John Baron, Conservative
Andrew Bingham, Conservative
Brian Binley, Conservative
Peter Bone, Conservative
Bob Blackman, Conservative
Graham Brady, Conservative
Andrew Bridgen, Conservative
Steve Brine, Conservative
Fiona Bruce, Conservative
Dan Byles, Conservative
Douglas Carswell, Conservative
Bill Cash, Conservative
Christopher Chope, Conservative
James Clappison, Conservative
Tracey Crouch, Conservative
David Davies, Conservative
Philip Davies, Conservative
David Davis, Conservative
Nick de Bois, Conservative
Caroline Dinenage, Conservative
Nadine Dorries, Conservative
Richard Drax, Conservative
Mark Field, Conservative
Lorraine Fullbrook, Conservative
Zac Goldsmith, Conservative
James Gray, Conservative
Chris Heaton-Harris, Conservative
Gordon Henderson, Conservative
George Hollingbery, Conservative
Philip Hollobone, Conservative
Adam Holloway, Conservative
Stewart Jackson, Conservative
Bernard Jenkin, Conservative
Marcus Jones, Conservative
Chris Kelly, Conservative
Andrea Leadsom, Conservative
Jeremy LeFroy, Conservative
Edward Leigh, Conservative
Julian Lewis, Conservative
Karen Lumley, Conservative
Jason McCartney, Conservative
Karl McCartney, Conservative
Stephen McPartland, Conservative
Anne Main, Conservative
Patrick Mercer, Conservative
Nigel Mills, Conservative
Anne-Marie Morris, Conservative
James Morris, Conservative
Stephen Mosley, Conservative
Sheryll Murray, Conservative
Caroline Nokes, Conservative
David Nuttall, Conservative
Matthew Offord, Conservative
Neil Parish, Conservative
Priti Patel, Conservative
Andrew Percy, Conservative
Mark Pritchard, Conservative
Mark Reckless, Conservative
John Redwood, Conservative
Jacob Rees-Mogg, Conservative
Simon Reevell, Conservative
Laurence Robertson, Conservative
Andrew Rosindell, Conservative
Richard Shepherd, Conservative
Henry Smith,Conservative
John Stevenson, Conservative
Bob Stewart, Conservative
Iain Stewart, Conservative
Gary Streeter, Conservative
Julian Sturdy, Conservative
Sir Peter Tapsell, Conservative
Justin Tomlinson, Conservative
Andrew Turner, Conservative
Martin Vickers, Conservative
Charles Walker, Conservative
Robin Walker, Conservative
Heather Wheeler, Conservative
Craig Whittaker, Conservative
John Whittingdale, Conservative
Dr Sarah Wollaston, Conservative
Ronnie Campbell, Labour
Rosie Cooper, Labour
Jeremy Corbyn, Labour
Jon Cruddas, Labour
John Cryer, Labour
Ian Davidson, Labour
Natascha Engel, Labour
Frank Field, Labour
Roger Godsiff, Labour
Kate Hoey, Labour
Kelvin Hopkins, Labour
Steve McCabe, Labour
John McDonnell, Labour
Austin Mitchell, Labour
Dennis Skinner, Labour
Andrew Smith, Labour
Graham Stringer, Labour
Gisela Stuart, Labour
Mike Wood, Labour
Adrian Sanders, Liberal Democrat
Caroline Lucas, Green
Gregory Campbell, Democrat Unionist
Nigel Dodds, Democrat Unionist
Jeffrey Donaldson, Democrat Unionist
Rev William McCrea, Democrat Unionist
Ian Paisley Junior, Democrat Unionist
Jim Shannon, Democrat Unionist
David Simpson, Democrat Unionist
Sammy Wilson, Democrat Unionist
Lady Sylvia Hermon, Independent

And so I'm in a strange position of praising these MPs who voted with their conscience and supported the oft expressed public will. Regardless of party or my criticisms of some in the past, all deserve brownie points.

Sadly my MP put party before the will of the people. Then again she's a infamous party stooge and sycophant.

Good work by the above MPs.

Cameron's EU referendum battle: has Milliband made a mistake?

As was always going to happen David Cameron won his battle to stop the people having a referendum on our relationship with the EU. This was an insane battle for Cameron to fight. Having nearly half of all Tory MPs who aren't actually in the government openly rebel against you despite the three line whip isn't good. More than that I cannot for the life of me understand why Cameron would inflict such a needless wound on himself.

Even in the unlikely event of parliament agreeing with the public and asking for a referendum about something to do with the EU, and the proposal allowed for other options rather than a straight in/out question, it isn't binding on the government.

Even if Cameron lost the vote he still didn't have to hold a referendum.

So why cause himself needless harm and ruin his relationship with an already distrustful public, party members, and a sizeable chunk of his MPs?

This is a wound which will continue to damage Cameron and could destroy his chances of reelection and may lead to his ousting.

This is bad for the Tory leader. However the thing I really don't understand is the action of Ed Milliband. He is a unpopular figure with the country and needs to be seen as a a good leader and not some weirdo. Cameron presented him with an open goal. Poll after poll have shown that a majority of the people want a referendum on our relationship with the EU. So why didn't Milliband go after this massive and growing public demand and back a referendum? As I say the vote isn't binding and we all knew the political elite would never allow us to have our say, so why didn't Milliband play politics and go after this massive voting block?

If he had he could have ensured labour won the next election.

One would think, if you were a conspiracy fan, that our cozy, wealthy elite, did what their EU masters wanted in order to secure a huge payoff from the EU when they lost political power.

It's a very strange day for both main parties with needless damage done to all and a public betrayed.

Anonymous takes down child porn site

The sexual abuse of children is obscene. In a world with so much abuse, violence, and evil the abuse of children is the worst. I simply cannot understand the sick depraved mentality of the monsters, male and female, who abuse children.

In light of this natural revulsion I am a little conflicted by the news that the Anonymous group of hackers have taken down websites they say contained images of peadophile abuse.

On the one hand I am glad that such horrific images have been removed.

However I worry that the hackers have let their political and activist beliefs blind them to the proper action such sick images should have resulted in.

If they found such sick images of abused children why didn't they report the site to the authorities?

We have no proof that the images were illegal because the images weren't judged in court. There have been arguments that needed to be settled in court about what constitutes illegal imagery so just because someone says they are criminal doesn't necessarily mean they are. This ties in with the whole art and freedom of expression debate.

And that's the problem. These images, and I am assuming they are obscene images of child rape, we're destroyed rather than reported to the police or have their legality judged in court.

This isn't about the vagaries of artistic expression versus child abuse. It's about the fact that Anonymous found images of child rape and destroyed the evidence. This means that the guilty scum who took such images, rape children, or downloaded such evil images go unpunished.

Being antiestablishment is one thing but not reporting child abuse images to the police because of this is wrong.

Some things are simply more important than being against the "man". This is one such case. To destroy evidence and issue a press release bragging about the fact seems to miss the reality of what the rape of children is. To me it seems a tad shallow.

If you find images of abuse tell the police and help bring the guilty to justice and save he abused from their hell.

Nothing else matters.

Another day another Mail attack on the disabled

With sad inevitability the Mail on Sunday has returned to its envy filled attack on the disabled.

Apparently the politicians, who let us remember are well over 50% proven expense fiddlers, are going to stop the disabled getting expensive cars.

This is gutter attacks on the disabled from the corrupt and the tabloid based on lies and spin.

Firstly the number of disabled who has cars in the 35,000 bracket are minuscule. Some may have nice cars but most pay for them themselves out of their wages.

Secondly the price cutoff is ridiculous. 35 k can get you a nice sporty car, but if you are severely disabled and need a large vehicle with massive conversions it will, on occasions, not be enough. There are two issues here, one is the freedom of choice. Why shouldn't people have the freedom to chose how they spend their own money? The Mail, and ignorant seriously want the disabled to be confined to blue disabled tricycles even though they are illegal as they were death traps. The calls for the disabled to have to drive cheap, dangerous, unsuitable vehicles emblazoned with disabled logos is unpleasant ghettoisation of the worst type. The second is that it cannot be right to change the system so the people who need their vehicles the most are the very people who cannot use them.

It's idiocy driven by tabloid fuelled jealousy.

I've written before how Motabilty vehicles aren't free. Like the recipients of child benefit and the like people spend the money they are entitled to. With Motabilty they are actually spending the money on what the money was given to them for: transport, which is more than the case with child allowance.

It doesn't matter what vehicle the disabled person leases. They could get a Micra or a Rolls Royce it still costs the taxpayer the same. If you want a expensive vehicle the disabled person has to pay thousands, in some cases tens of thousands, of pounds. They don't get this money back after three years. In fact Motabilty actually gets a better deal if the disabled person leases a more expensive car as it doesn't cost them more to acquire and they get much more for the vehicle when they sell it.

The ignorant way the tabloids are stirring up hatred is reflected by the growing numbers of disabled people being physically attacked. For a tabloid owned by a tax dodger with a pro-nazi background which is been investigated for endemic illegality to attack the vulnerable is repellent.

And so yet a agian the Mail returns to its nazi past and attacks the vulnerable. It's not nice is it?

On the unique treatment of the BNP by political opponents

As any reader of this site will know I despise the BNP. They are one of the few things I break my own little rule and insult. Vocally and often.

However I find it worrying and counterproductive that a labour council in Sussex has demanded that a small community centre ban the BNP leader Nick Griffin from speaking there or hand back it's council grant.

However much you despise the BNP this is wrong. I have no problem if all political meetings were banned from community centres but they aren't. Indeed my local centre has been used to hold my local MP's surgery for years. But this isn't about using public buildings for political ends.

This is about singling out a political party you don't agree with and using the power that comes from our tax to stop debate. This is about the attack on a single party whilst allowing others, including those who preach violence and hatred, to use community centres with impunity.

Hate the BNP if you like, I do, but the simple fact is they are a legal political party with a greater democratic mandate than most minor parties. Being legal should mean they cannot be silenced or persecuted just because you don't like what they say.

The loathsome Griffin is a democratically elected MEP with a legal mandate to speak.

Unless the BNP, or any party or individual, has broken the law and is made illegal they have every right to speak.

For labour to stifle debate is not only a disgrace it is playing into the hands of the BNP spinners. As I've said before the BNP make great play of being the voice of the majority oppressed by a politically correct state. This petty ban reinforces this view and will be used during the coming elections as proof that the BNP are the way forward.

I doubt this is what labour want.

If we can have sitting parties banning opposition parties from speaking would labour be happy if the Tory councils ban them from holding debates in their area?

Like it or not both labour and the BNP are legal parties. If you can ban one because you don't like what they say you can ban the other.

This isn't good for our democracy. It does reflect the dictatorial leanings of some labour types though, which is sad.

Cameron's EU referendum farce

I worry about modern political types. I simply find it odd that they seem hell bent on shooting themselves in the foot for no reason.

The case in point is the Cameron wheeze to hold e-petitions with the promise that if over 100,000 voted for a particular motion Parliament would chat about it, though can ignore what the public want. It is obvious that two things would top any such poll. The first is an EU referendum, and the second capital punishment. So it seems odd that Cameron seems totally unprepared for dealing with these two issues.

It seems the farcical way in which Cameron is handling the vote on Monday by imposing a three line whip, or a one line whip, or whatever fudge he finally decides on (he seems to be blowing in the wind about what he will do now he is faced with real Tory anger) is doing serious political damage to him. Most of the country want a say on Europe. Most of the people who voted Tory want a vote. Most of his MPs want a vote.

So the way in which he is ignoring the will of the majority, and his voters, after breaking his own solemn commitment to hold a referendum on the EU will lose him votes and cause party unrest.

This inept attempt to rig a non-binding debate destroys all the spin he put out about being pro-UK and against the undemocratic EU. It shows him to be an untrustworthy PR man.

By acting so against what the people wish he is ensuring he will not remain PM after the next election. The way he constantly ignores his MPs and appeases the Lib-Dems is weakening his position within the Tories.

The way in which Cameron is mishandling this easily foreseen event shows a shallow man surrounded by shallower advisers totally out of his depth when faced with political realities. The sad thing is that Ed Milliband and Nick Clegg are quality out of touch.

On Col Gadaffi's killing

And so the story of Colonel Gadaffi is ended. He was taken alive but injured and then executed by a mob.

Now I will shed no tears for his demise. For all his eccentric ways he was a blood soaked tyrant who deserves no sympathy. However I feel sad that he wasn't taken alive to face trial for his many crimes. The killing of Gaddfi allows apologists and conspiracy theorists to divert attention away from this monster by talk of him being killed for some vague reason. This is a pity. More than that by not allowing him to face a fair and open trial the wounds he caused to Libya remain unhealed and the people who helped and profited from his criminality escape justice and Libya will not be able to heal from his reign by having light shone on the darkness.

Murdering an injured man who was taken alive Isn't a very nice way for a country to behave. It shows a worrying lack of discipline which, I fear, may point to a worrying future for Libya. If the people of Libya can be killed without trial what hope can there be for a fairer, uncorrupted, democratic Libya they deserve?

Actions n the heat of turmoil usually show the nature of a leadership. I just hope in this case the new leadership aren't reflected in extrajudicial murder of people they don't like.

On the Dale Farm evictions

I've written here before about how I don't understand the controversy surrounding the illegal traveller camp at Dale Farm. To me it's not about ethnic groups but about protecting our environment by enforcing the laws that stop the destruction of our green belt. Our law needs to apply to all. It doesn't matter what the colour of your skin is, your religion, philosophic bent, or your politics, the law should apply to all equally. It shouldn't discriminate against one group or give another more protection.

Equality is all.

So I'm pleased that the illegal camp has been cleared without serious injury or death. In the past I have criticised some police officers for their use of inappropriate force, in some cases terminal force, however I have nothing but praise for the poor sods tasked with clearing the protesters at Dale Farm. To clear a dangerous site which was booby trapped, whilst having missiles thrown at you, and at the same time ensuring the idiots who chained their necks to rickety towers aren't hurt is a dangerous activity. For the police not to have injured anyone, or take injuries themselves, shows them in a good light.

In such complex environments it's easy for things to escalate and discipline breakdown leading to injury or death. That this didn't happen shows the police at their best.

And finally I simply cannot fathom why the Dale Farm travellers can get away with calling themselves an ethnic group. Politically and legally it is a good PR tool but they are not an ethnic group. You could argue they were a cultural subset but not a different race. If you haven't noticed they are a white group in a majority white country.

So I'm pleased that the illegal camp has been cleared and hope that all our green belt land is protected for future generations to enjoy.

Mike Hancock jumps before being pushed

Self confessed teen fondler, to use the rather accurate description given him by Guido Fawkes, Mick Hancock, the Lib-Dem MP, has finally left his very important position on the Defence Select Committee over his hiring and sleeping with a rather beautiful and young Russian woman called Katia Zatuliveter

It would have been nice to think he left out of shame because he was been used by this alleged spy to ask questions of very great interest to the Russians about British nuclear submarines and NATO matters. However this is not so. He's left because it became public knowledge that he was going to be sacked from this vital position today. He jumped before he was sacked.

Now I don't know if Katia is a Russian spy or not, but the fact that she's been sleeping with an old man on a key committee targeted by the Russians and that he was infamous for his liking of young women, some very young, would seem to point to the spy role for Katia. The fact that she seems to have made a career of targeting western diplomats and military officers strengthens this impression.

There is a danger to think of Hancock as a old harmless letch. He isn't. He has a history of abusing his position and pestering young women sexually. His closeness to Russia even as it killed people in London and moves every into anti democratic ways isn't nice.

It's wrong .

Hancock is one of lefties how betrayed our country to Stalin knowing of his crimes.

Sometimes you'd think that the Lib-Dems have a selection process which weeds out the normal and the rational and only leave the weird and odd. Hancock strengthens this impression.

On the Hillsbourough tragedy

It is undoubtedly a tragedy that so many innocent people died at the Hillsbourough stadium tragedy. To lose a loved one during a sporting event is horrific. Even after so many years my deepest sympathies remain with the bereaved.

There is a movement to have all the documents associated with this tragedy to be made public. The labour party have jumped on this bandwagon and demand that these records are made public.

I don't know why any records are still secret. There may be a good reason, or it may be to protect the incompetent. I suppose it depends on how cynical you are.

However what really boils my goat is the attitude of the labour party.

If labour really were concerned with the dead and the bereaved and truly believe that all the relevant documents should be made public they shouldn't whine about the current government or stamp their little feet and hold their breath until they can claim victory when the records are made public.

No if they cared about the many victims of Hillsbourough they would have released all the documents and perhaps have held an inquiry during the thirteen years they were in power. Labour had thirteen years to do something and did nothing. They didn't care about the dead or the widowed when they could have done something about it easily.

What really disgusts me is the base political spin and the use of the dead for political advantage by labour.

I may be a cynic but I all sweetness and light compared to labour.

This incident shows labour at its absolute worst. It's part of their habit of using the dead for political advantage. They always love waving the bloody shroud of the dead. They did it with murdered children, and they are doing it now.

Labour don't care about Hillsbourough or the dead. They only care about gaining votes.

Listening to someone else's conversation

One of the things about me is that I don't tend to listen to other people's conversations. I'd like to say its because I was brought up not to be nosy, but I fear a lot of the reason I am not that interested in what other people.

Often when they are talking to me.

As it happens I am overhearing a conversation between a group in a coffee bar. There a mixed lot, different ages, working/middle class.

Just normal people having a Sunday coffee.

I fear the conversation is a sad indication on the state of politics in the this country.

The women really dislike David Cameron because of his patronising of women. They think Ed Milliband is frankly unattractive and odd.

They really don't like the fact that all the politicians have never had a proper job and are utterly out of touch with real life and the pressures which effect normal people.

I say 'all' but it isn't totally accurate. They, especially the women like the resigned Doc Fox as he had a proper job. David Davies they like because he is a working class chap who did well. Eric Pickles they love as he was a successful self made businessman prior to his political career. He's also from Yorkshire which may impact their views. William Hague they absolutely adore because of his writing talent and they lament the fact he's not Tory leader.

No labour or lib-dem is mentioned which shows how low they are on the radar.

What it interesting is their professed hatred for corrupt politicians. More than that that how wrong it is for ex-ministers to cash in on their position be being hired by companies who sold stuff to the ministers whilst in power. Michael Portillo is held in low esteem because of this.

Dark mutterings are emerging with allegations that ex-ministers are receiving payback for funnelling work to their new employers.

They're not happy about this.

The real hatred is reserved for Tony Blair whom they, male and female, young and old, loath with a passion. Apparently not for his wars, or sucking up to the Americans but because of his visceral greed and how he's screwed every penny he could out of his time in office.

This whole conversation is indicative of the hatred the public has for politicians.

And it's the politicians own fault.

It is they who chose people with no experience of life, business, or the pressures which face people.

It is they who choose identikit rich bods with nothing in common with us but everything in common with other politicians regardless of party.

But most of all it's their greed and corruption who has done the most damage to their reputation.

It's their fault.

When people are talking about politicians like this after the fiddling scandal is supposed to have died down it shows the longterm damage the politicians have done to our country's political system.

It will take a long time to repair this damage. If it can be. I doubt it. It certainly wont whilst these politicians are allows to fiddle and the endemic corruption and greed remains.

And that's sad.

Overheard conversations can be interesting sometimes.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Is it sensible for to borrow money to give to a bankrupt country when you know it won't help?

The G20 big boys are meeting to talk about the untenable bankrupt state of many of the Euro nations. There is talk about making banks keep more cash reserves and about throwing more money at these poor bankrupt nations.

The UK is lucky enough not to have joined the Euro zone but is going to give billions more to this zone by giving ever more billions to the IMF to give to Greece, et al.

Two things strike me:

The first is the obvious fact that it won't work. Greece and some other nations will be forced out of the Euro. More than this it will be much better for the poor bloody Greeks not to be saddled with having to deal with the economic nightmare their politicians Euro dream has caused them.

Secondly the sheer insanity of the UK giving billions more to shore up the Euro. How is it remotely sensible for a country on the verge of recession, which owes mountains of cash, a country who has sacked and cut back at home thus depriving its own people of jobs and services, to negate such economising by borrowing billions more than the amount the cutbacks have saved in order to give it to some other country which has not made the cutbacks?

The talk here is of raising the pension age to 67 and above, and the dire pension received, and yet the Greeks retire at fifty on a hefty pension and we are giving billions to support them.

It simply seems idiotic.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Minister uses bin scandal! Is this the best the press can do?

There are major problems in our world. Real scandal and corruption abound. This is why a free press is so vital to a free country.

So it is rather sad that the Daily Mirror are trying to make the fact that the minister Oliver Letwin disposed of some official papers in a bin.

This isn't a scandal. Indeed it's quite nice that Letwin's not littering.

The Mirror don't seem to realise that there is a difference between official documents and secret documents. Just because you have letters on headed notepaper doesn't automatically mean its secret.

Letwin put some non secret rubbish in a bin. And that's that.

What this silly story does show is that the Mirror, like all tabloids, go through people's rubbish for a story. Luckily in this case it's a public bin.

This isn't a scandal. It's not even a story.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

The care of the elderly in the NHS 'alarming'

A official report has found that the way in which elderly people are treated in a significant number of NHS hospitals is 'alarming'.

The writers visited 100 hospitals and found problems in 55 cases.

As someone who has seen how some elderly and vulnerable people are treated in hospital, as I've written here before, I'm not surprised.

I'm not demonising the majority of NHS staff who do a brilliant job, but I'm not going to say all nurses and the like are earthbound angels either. I feel that there is a problem with how nursing is treated with the move away from practical nursing skills and to a more class bound approach.

Basic nursing can be lacking if you're old or vulnerable.

As I've written here before to be old, vulnerable and alone is a scary thing in some hospitals.

The discrimination against the elderly is killing people. Some die of neglect in hospitals but worse than that I've seen many elderly people being frightened into refusing expensive treatment. I've seen doctors question elderly and the whole session is to gage if they live alone or need help. I've seen the same doctor terrify and already scared old person into refusing lifesaving treatment.

Scaring the old so they refuse treatment saves the NHS money and keeps the doctors survival rates up.

Sitting in hospital you can predict who won't be on expensive treatment. It's not about health, it's about if they live alone and have no one to act on their behalf.

It's frightening to be old, alone, or vulnerable.

Discrimination is obscene. It's also illegal. I just hope it ends but I doubt the vested interests who run the NHS or represent the staff will allow it.

And that's a scandal.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Charges dropped against Dominique Strauss-Kahn

After all the delay, losing his job, and controversy the rape charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn in the US his French rape allegations have been dropped. The reason being that the alleged crimes happened so long ago that it fell outside the statute of limitations as the alleged crime was sexual assault rather than rape.

I have no idea of what happened as I wasn't there, and I do think his attitude to women is wrong, maybe criminal, but I am not surprised the charges were dropped. If one had a nasty turn of mind you could say it was bound to happen as he is a powerful politician who may become French president someday. Or it could be that the nearly nine year delay in bringing the allegations scuppered the case.

Yes DSK is a nasty man who I would despise if we met, but to destroy his career in the US, which he was very good at and actually helped the worlds poor, and put him in jail on the testimony of a proved liar with criminal links and a history of lying about rape is wrong.

However the French allegations seemed much more persuasive. The delay in reporting the incident could be excused by the way politicians are allowed to get away with terrible things and the fact that the French press won't investigate their politicians.

For a young woman not to complain about a powerful politician isn't not very surprising.

Or she could be a liar. I wasn't there.

Regardless of the truth DSK is a horrible man who seems to think that they can do anything. This arrogance infects professional political elites.

It's horrible.

Just because someone if horrible doesn't mean they should have their lives destroyed based on such a bad case as the American case undoubtably was.

But their power should not deny real victims justice.

Getting justice for rape victims shouldn't mean denying justice for innocent accused. We all deserve justice.

The question is who is the victim of the French case? Is it DSK or is it his accuser? We'll never know now.

The fact is though that DSK isn't a nice person.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Why don't lottery winners opt for anonymity?

It must be nice to win a fortune. Yes I can safely say that winning umpteen millions seems like a good thing to do. I appreciate that for many this leads to a decent into drink, drugs, wanton women but others have been known to waste their cash. With the world wracked with economic uncertainty the hope of winning a fortune gets evermore attractive.

I'm not concerned with the minuscule chances of winning a fortune, or even the fact that the lottery is a tax on the poor and desperate which billions are syphoned off be a rich elite to fund their interests. Put it this way children's hospices receive little lottery money, or ex-service charities, or even most working-class community projects, but billions goes to the art, opera, and ballet. I'm all for the arts but most people would want the lottery funds spent on things that effect most people.

But most people don't matter. An unelected clique dole out the cash and it goes to their interests and friends.

It doesn't seem fair.

The thing I never understood is why people who win a fortune, especially the recent ones who have won over £100 million, opt to have their details made public rather than remain anonymous.

If you have the option why would you willingly make your life hell?

I heard a radio interview years ago with a normal lady who won over £2 million and allowed her name to be made public. She was a happy person in a happy community....until it became known she had won a fortune.

In the end she had to move because the stress of begging letters, jealousy, and unpleasantness became too much.

Every person who wins a fortune and lets people know faces the same problems.

So what tell people?

If and when I win my fortune, which may be some time since I don't play the lottery, I am going to remain anonymous. I may squander the lot, I may give to charity, I may even have fun but I won't get the begging letters from the greedy, or have unknown relations pester, but most of all I won't have a tabloid press muckrake my past.

Who would anyone chose publicity?

It's very odd.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

The old trick of taking our freedoms by using children: on the unworkable curbing of Internet freedom

David Cameron has just announced an unworkable scheme that will curb Internet freedom. Like a numerous spiv political types he tells us that he is doing it to protect our children. The inference being that if we don't give up our freedom we will be harming children.

This is a version of the argument which massively curbed our freedoms, especially in the US, after terrorist attacks. Then it was if we didn't change our open societies and destroy the very freedoms the terrorists were attacking we are no better than terrorists.

It goes without saying that this is a vacuous argument that attacks straw men.

It works though which is depressing.

Cameron's latest wheeze is that Internet users will have to opt in to view porn. The idea is supposed to be that making adults, including those without children, go on a porn watchers list will stop children looking at porn.

But it's rubbish.

Not only will it only apply to new accounts it massively underestimates the abilities of children with computers, especially if nude women are at stake.

Once again this shows how out of touch politicians are. Internet is global, new sites emerge by the tens of thousand every day, dark nets and file sharing sites are unstoppable.

No body can regulate such a fast moving, international, and massive Market.

However this is about more than simple site blocking it's about what is banned. What is porn? Definitions and freedom of expression will dog this whole farcical endeavour.

Are all sites featuring nudity to be banned? Does that include art sites, reference sites, medical sites?

Who decides?

It'll be a nightmare.

Some of the child protection software famously stopped any access to sites that dealt with rape. This includes the most vile of sites, but it also included rape crisis centres, police sites, news sites, self-help sites. Victims are damaged by such censorship.

Sexual health and education sites are banned. Essex and Wessex are banned are they fall foul of the software.

Gay education and support sites, sexual health sites and the like will fall foul of this ban.

These are not good.

The thing is porn, which drives a hell of lot of Internet development, is the headline used to get tabloid support but it is only the tip of the iceberg. This is a ban on adult sites period. Adult sites deal with more than porn. Any site our politicians decide can be classed as adult an we will be banned from visiting them. This is dangerous.

We've already seen Cameron and all parties calling to take down twitter and Facebook if the government deems it is a good idea. The same controlling mentality will use this new law to ban any site it doesn't think we the great unwashed should look at.

This is what happens in China and it is attractive to shallow politicians everywhere. Censorship allows them to hide their scandals, affairs, and crimes. Censorship stops us mocking them.

You may think this is me being silly but it isn't. As it happens I use my iPad a lot. Indeed I use it a lot more then I thought when I bought it. For all it's faults it's handy to be able to use the Internet on the road without needing wifi access or lugging round a heavy laptop.

But when I use the 3G card I'm censored on what sites I can look at. This isn't porn, it isn't race hate sites, or pro violence sites I'm talking doubt here. Rather my carrier won't allow me to visit a perfectly normal blogger site which deals with media. There is no porn. No nudity. No swearing. No racism. Nothing.

This is a perfectly normal non-adult blogger site. This isn't even a site which blogger deems you need to click a button to say you're an adult in oder to see.

And yet my carrier for unknown reasons. Censors what I can see and stops me visiting this site.

For unknown reason some unknown person has decided I cannot visit this site. No appeal. No reason given.

This is happening now. It'll get worse if Cameron gets his way with his new censorship law.

This restriction of what we can see will be at the whim of our political masters and whatever body they set up to be our guardians of public decency.

Vested elites hate the freedom the Internet allows us. The seek to control and bully.

The Internet can be horrible. There are some horrific, vile, degrading, illegal, sickening things out there. But it is the freedom and the lack of governmental control which makes it so powerful.

By allowing people to express themselves, educate themselves, share, laugh, and come together outside the restrictions of the state it allows normal people to improve their lives, maybe earn some money, and overthrow dictatorships.

At it's best it's powerful and lifesaving. It truly is a remarkable thing.

This freedom is far too important to allow some fatuous political elite to take from us using children as an excuse.

What really saddens me is that when we are faced with war, social unrest, economic collapse, corruption, an undemocratic EU, and people living in fear of losing their jobs this is what Cameron is giving his full attention to.

What worries me is that he is out of his depth and powerless when faced with this big issues and is obsessing with the unimportant and self-serving to persuade us he is powerful and busy.

Pathetic and dangerous.

Don't allow our Internet freedoms to be stolen from us it's too precious to lose.



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Guilty MP's let off again

It is irritating how our elected politicians bang on so sanctimoniously about how the rest of us should live and condemn all disabled for the actions of 0.4% of them.

When you remember that well over 50% of these self-same politicians are proved to have fiddled their expenses it rage inducing.

And yet we have learned nothing. The MP's still fiddle and the system they created still lets them get away with such abuse.

For all the pious bleating of how they were innocent but are now going to be even more innocent now they were caught fiddling 21 of their lot were caught abusing the new system. 20 were caught fiddling, the then minister Alan Johnson was one of these abusers.

And yet even though it is hard to actually get the powers that be to investigate anyone these proved abusers and fiddlers have been let off and will not be brought to justice.

This is how our MPs got away with their corruption for decades. This trembling allowing of thieves and rogues to get away with their crimes by a supine oversight body led to the endemic corruption we've seen so recently.

This stinks.

Anyone who fiddles or abuses the system should be brought to justice.

For these selfsame thieves to condemn the poor, the vulnerable innocent is disgusting hypocrisy.

When the system allows our political to steal without punishment it will lead to a massive scandal down the line. It's happened before and it will happen again.

Why the witch hunt against the disabled?

As I've noted here several times there is a growing trend for the media and politicians to attack the disabled. They give the impression that the disabled are all scroungers who are ripping the taxpayer off. They call for the disabled to be dealt with firmly.

Both the current government and the previous labour one have been guilty of this targeting the vulnerable.

And yet they act all surprised when their political attacks become physical ones on the street. The number of assaults on the disabled has gone through the roof.

Why attack the disabled?

A lot of it is jealousy. People see some disabled driving Motabilty cars and the papers tell them they are free. Some don't like this. The press don't tell people that such cars are paid for by the disabled.

The simple fact is that Motabilty cars or whatever other pittance the disabled get, which is not a great deal, saves the country a fortune.

A case in point: I am related by marriage to a severely disabled man. He lives with his elderly parents in a disabled friendly bungalow. They have a Motabilty supplied car which they had to pay an extra £9,000 to have converted to take his wheelchair. They get some support but it's been cut back.

You may think they have it good but you'd be wrong. These elderly people have spent fifty years taking care of their son. The sheer hard work and unrelenting stress for decades, unthanked, and alone, must have been unbearable. I don't think I could have done what they have done for a lifetime.

Yes they receive financial support but they have saved this country millions.

If they did not care for their son the state would have to. This would cost over £10,000 a week.

To date these unfamous people have saved this country £26,000,000 by caring for their son full time for nothing.

The thing is they are not alone. Up and down the country most disabled people are loved and supported by unpaid carers. They get no credit or praise.

The disabled people themselves, if they are lucky to receive any help at all, save the state millions. By giving the disabled help whether help leasing a vehicle, or in other ways, it allows them to live independently. Without such help they'd need full time care and this would cost tens of billions more.

As a country we've exploited the carers and the disabled something rotten. And still politicians and the press attack the vulnerable.

Instead of praising the people who save us tens of billions a year the politicians and press smear them as scroungers and scum.

It's sickening.

Though strangely not all those who receive financial help are so demonised. David Cameron received Disabled Living Allowance for his late son. He was entitled to this small amount if money but no one criticises this multimillionaire earning a fortune as a politician with a millionaire wife earning even more receiving benefits.

And the thing is they shouldn't be criticised for receiving help, but they shouldn't demonise poorer people who receive the same support.

Now every system is open to abuse but look at the actual fugues. Motabilty abuse accounts for 0.4% of the total. This isn't a large figure. And yet the government want to cut 20% off the total disabled support system.

The vulnerable will suffer.

Any abuse is wrong but compare this to the well over 50% of these same politicians who are attacking the disabled were caught stealing from the taxpayer. They aren't penalised or attacked. They still receive more money and get all the honours going.

The way in which some are attacking the disabled you'd think they would like to have all the disabled rounded up and killed. Indeed there is growing minority who want this. It's sickening. As a country how we treat the vulnerable reflects what we are. By helping and supporting those in genuine need we save money.

For all the jealousy and bile some people heap on the disabled what strikes me is the short term outlook they take. It only takes one accident or one birth to find oneself either disabled or a carer. Now I hope this never happens but I'm sure they would welcome the support we are a civilised country can give.

Picking on the vulnerable is pathetic.

The press and the politicians should be ashamed of themselves.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

The Mail hates the disabled: another story attacking the vulnerable.

Another day and another Daily Mail story attacking the disabled for being disabled. To be totally accurate this latest attack is in the Mail on Sunday but its the same old bile.

The story is about how the parents of a child with severe ADHD was allowed to claim for a Motabilty car.

The Mail goes against medical opinion and judges that this is a scandal. It's part of their whole disabled are thieves story they are pushing.

It's bollocks. Another smearing attack on the disabled and the vulnerable by a newspaper owned by a tax dodger.

All you need to know about the bias in the story is the title,

Parent of a child with ADHD? Have a free car

The thing is it's wrong on every level.

No one gets a free car. A car is bought using benefits given for the specific reason to improve the recipients mobility. The disabled person gives up the money and usually has to pay a hefty deposit in order to lease their car.

Every disabled person has had to undergo strict medical examination which results in them being judged in need of help based on specific medical need. Often the disabled person has had to undergo a number of examinations by a number of independent medical experts. The whole system is geared to deny benefits to the disabled as the doctors are paid a bonus every time they deny such benefits.

For a disabled person to still receive such help in light of this means there is a real and severe medical need for such help.

This story is yet another which the Mail uses a photograph of a very posh BMW as the example of what type if car the disabled are conning us out of. This is yet another attack on the disabled as very few people on Motabilty has such expensive vehicles. Most have small cars or cars that can carry wheelchairs.

However putting a photo of a Micra or the like wouldn't whip up the Mail readers into a jealous rage.

To be fair the small print under the BMW photo does say that the dialled would need to pay a deposit of £9,000 in order to get such a nice car. It doesn't mention that the disabled person doesn't get this huge amount of cash back and after three years has to pay more to get a new car.

It is indicative of the Mail mindset with regards to the disabled that the car they seem to be encouraging is the AC/Thundersley Invacar




Image from Wikipedia.


This plastic three wheel car was the only car the disabled could get. Being a single seater it really isn't much good if you're a disabled child like the current focus of the Mail's bile.

And it's also illegal to drive this monstrosity. It has been since 2003 when it was banned for being suicidally dangerous.

The Mail wants the disabled to be third-class citizens driving death traps. They cannot imagine that they may be children or have families. This Neanderthal view of the disabled and the constant attacking of the vulnerable is pathetic.

I simply cannot understand why the Mail keeps attacking the disabled. To attack a disabled child for getting medically judged help is sick.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

The unpleasant press: the shameful treatment of Steve Jobs

One of the things I have always hated is the way in which the media wait until someone dies before they trash their reputation for a few quid safe in the knowledge the dead cannot sue.

In my own field I've seen some of the most influential and loved people having their reputations dragged through the gutter in a series of books and articles. Mostly these vicious pieces are rubbish but all do their damage.

It's not nice.

However the way in which the Daily Mail have dragged the reputation of Steve Jobs through the gutter before he's even buried distastefully unpleasant.

Jobs was human. He had his faults as we all do. He may have been single-minded in business but you don't create such a large and influential company without this.

He wasn't a criminal. He wasn't a monster.

He was a man.

He was respected by many and loved by those who knew him.

He doesn't deserve such pathetic articles.

These type of articles show the nasty side of the press. In this case it is about Steve Jobs but you see the same snide innuendo and smears time and again in the press.

It's not nice.

If there was any real crime to be uncovered, crime discovered after his death, then publish in a few weeks but don't muckrake to whip up a false scandal that isn't there the day after he died.

Our press can be unpleasant at times. This is the proof.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

On the passing of Steve Jobs

It is sad news that the maestro of Apple, Steve Jobs. has passed away following his long battle against cancer.

My deepest sympathy goes to his family for their loss.

To lose a loved family member at any time is awful but to lose someone at only 56 makes it worse.

It shows once more, as I've written here before, that vast wealth counts for nothing in the end if you are struck by cancer. It may allow you to buy expensive treatments or ensure prompt action but to doesn't bring immortality.

Now I'm a cynical so and so who isn't a Apple fanatic but I have to say I was moved by the simple way in which Steve's passing was marked by Apple





I think the sheer simplify of the statement makes it more moving somehow. I find it apt that these words are written on one of Steve's final products. I think he would have liked that.

I even like the way in which Google marked his passing,




Again simple and putting aside business.

My only disappointment is the absence of any statement by Jobs' longterm rival Microsoft.

One of my greatest bugbears is the way in which the deaths of the famous and rich are judged more tragic than those of the rest of us.

They're not.

Any death is a tragedy. To die young or leave dependent children is unspeakably tragic.

All deaths are tragic. Each marks a end of an individual story. Perhaps it's the start of another chapter or perhaps an unique voice is lost to the void. It all depends upon the truth behind our beliefs.

Too often the media and the rest of us lose this truth.

And yet with Steve's death I am sad. He was a fighter who battled the dread cancer with every fibre and breath. I respect that.

More than that he changed our world.

Terms such as genius have been bandied about. I don't think he was a genius but he was a brilliant businessman. The way in which he surrounded himself with brilliant people and brought an aesthetic consideration to his products was both much needed and frankly beautiful.

However the way in which he revolutionised the digital world with iTunes and Aps has changed our world. This is a remarkable achievement for any one.

And so our world is a little more grey and a tad less exciting than it was before. We will miss his singleminded vision of what he wanted.

In the end though it comes back to the race run and loved ones left devastated. All the wealth and praise from others are meaningless in the end. We all end alone and if we are lucky leave our loved ones in pain. This loss is the price we pay for loving and being loved.

That is what happened with Steve. It will be what happens with me. And it will be what happens with you.

All that matters is how we live our lives, the love we leave, and our stilled voice.

My sympathies go out to Steve's family and to all those who have lost lived ones yesterday.



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

What's the point of political conventions for the the big parties?

And so the end of the party conference season is drawing to an end for yet another year.

And the thought strikes me, as it does every year: what's the point?

The politicians have made it illegal for tv not to broadcast the main parties conferences, but who actually watches?

For the smaller parties their party shindig may have a purpose. It could allow the three members to meet each other and maybe have some real say in policy. However the people who attend the big parties events have no say. They are simply there to buy party tat in the shops and to be shown on tv clapping like brain dead seals.

They have no say on what their party does or who holds what position.

Worse than that, the party members who attend don't matter to the party machine. They are only concerned with courting the media and earning a few quid from being interviewed. They jockey for position and knife rivals as they seek to climb the slippery slope of the professional position.

There is an old truism that politics is show business for ugly people. Its also about gaining unfair political advantage for their spin. The way the major parties have made it illegal not to show their speechifying whilst rigging the system so that minor parties are excluded proves this. The only thing is there aren't many 'stars' amongst those who rule over us.

I have much better things to do than waste my time going to any major political party conference.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Meredith Kercher

With all the media frenzy of spin and money that has surrounded the Italian trial many have forgotten the real victim that is Meredith Kercher.

This young, beautiful, talented, and loved woman was brutally murdered.

She was utterly innocent.

Her murder was obscene.

It is an affront to us all that neither she or her family have achieved justice.

The murderers are free.

All the money and the pathetic xenophobia and shallowness that makes some think that one of their fellow nationals who is an attractive women cannot be a murderer shouldn't blind us to the horror of what happened to Meredith.

My deepest and most sincere sympathies go to the Kercher family. It's sickening that the media frenzy surrounding the freed killer means that she will make millions from her crime and be a constant knife in the side of the bereaved.

Remember Meredith Kercher.




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Why do untrustworthy politicians act shocked when we don't trust them?

Trust in politics, and in life in general, is a very fragile and incredibly precious thing. People will trust you if you are trustworthy but once you lose it it's practically impossible to regain.

And yet politicians act shocked if they lose our trust.

The case in point is David Cameron's plummeting trustworthiness.

I am not going to talk about policies but the fact that he got elected because he promised certain things (eg the repeal of the Human Rights Act, a referendum over the EU). However after gaining power he has betrayed these simple clearcut promises.

He has betrayed his voters by going back on simple promises.

Now that people have seen the reality rather than spin growing numbers of people don't trust him anymore.

It's really that simple. It's not rocket science. And yet Cameron comes over all shocked.

When politicians go back on promises it allows their opponents to attack them. Put it this way labour are going to exploit Cameron's EU betrayal and promise the voting public a vote on the EU. Now they'll break it too but the promise will gain labour a lot of votes.

In politics you have to deliver on things voluntarily promise. If you go back on your word or do not deliver for your core supporters you are damaged politically.

For Cameron to be unable to deliver one our two minor things because of the Lib-Dems is one thing but he's going back on a plethora of key promises, and he's going back on some of the most important promises.

I've noted before that Cameron doesn't seem to have the political touch to understand how his actions play out with the public.

He seems tone deaf to the fallout of what he does.

He may be enjoying power now but doesn't understand the long term damage he's doing to his chances of retaining power.

Alas he's not the only party leader out there who takes the voters for granted and are untrustworthy.

If any of our party leaders was any good the second rate leaders of the other parties would be in trouble.

But they they are all cut from the same second-rate cloth.

Sad really.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Why is the right on anti-sexist Guardian being sexist?

The Guardian newspaper sees itself as the bastion of political correctness. How many acres of paper have they used to decry those they judge un-PC?

So why are they being sexist towards a Tory MP Louise Mensch?

What type of PC paper speculates, with no evidence, that an attractive woman MP has had a face lift? I've no idea is she has or not, then again it's none of my business unless she claimed it on expenses. However I am certain that the Guardian, and the writer of this tabloid gutter lapping article Decca Aitkenhead wouldn't have mentioned facelifts, especially without any evidence whatsoever, if Mensch were a man.

I thought the Guardian was supposed to be all abut equality and not judging women by hoe they look.

I seemed to have been wrong.

I don't are what our MP's look like it's what they say and do that matter. If the Guardian are going to go all tabloid on us it's a sad day for women in politics or any other high profile role.

It is strange that Decca would want to drag up a person's looks as it opens her up to some not very flattering comments about her own looks and if she needs plastic surgery. We should be beyond that.

Is this type of garbage the very best our press can do post hacking?


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

How are photographs of Lynnie Hinnigan, a unimportant labour councillor, a scandal?

Lynnie Hinnigan is utterly unimportant. Most people, including those she represents, don't know who she is.

For the record she was a Lib Dem councillor who was elected as a Lib Dem but betrayed the people who voted for her and defected to labour.

She's not important in any way.

However I don't understand how the tabloids (see here and here for examples) can make a scandal of the fact that she wore fancy dress on holiday.

These photographs were posted on her Facebook page. And example of which follows.





How is this scandalous?

And this is worth printing in a national newspaper?

Seriously?

It's not even a nazi uniform like Ed Balls was photographed in. This is a French maid outfit nothing more. To the best of my knowledge such dress are not illegal nor are French maids tainted by war crimes.

These are simply Hinnigan having fun with friends on holiday. This was a normal party not an orgy or anything seedy. Just normal people having a bit of fun. Nothing more.

Hinnigan posted photos of herself having fun.

There is no scandal here.

I suppose you could criticise her for betraying her voters by going over to labour but that's about it.

If this is the best our tabloids can do without hacking they're in a sorry pickle.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad