Ed Miliband's unpopularity: it's our fault not his!

Politics can be very superficial. The spin merchants are firmly in charge. The spin is the only thing that matters rather than substance. 

Take the labour leader Ed Miliband. He is doing unbelievably badly. Even before the EU veto boost he was trailing David Cameron. At a time when people are terrified of losing their jobs and the economy in general it's shocking. 

Now it's not really a surprise as Ed has never been popular. He lost the vote for leadership from his fellow MPs and MEPs, and the general membership of the party. These people, including those who know him best, didn't want him as leader. They knew he wouldn't chime with the people. 

And so it has proved. 

Ed is only labour leader because he is the unions creature and they used their undemocratic block vote to foist him on a reluctant party. 

Apparently it's our fault we see him as a weird, tongue tied, unimpressive, loser. It seems we are so stupid that we need more spin rather than being able to see how much of a loser Ed is. 

Rather than it being the politicians fault it needs more spin and propaganda. 

Not only are too many politicians vacuous they think the rest of us are even worse. 

The simple fact is that we see Ed as a weird loser because that's what he is. Spin won't fix this. 

Prince Philip's health: a right to press restraint

I have a soft spot for Prince Philip. He's funny and smart. I do find the way in which the press or the professional complainers damn him for anything the press say he has said and demand he shuts up whilst demanding that they have the right to say anything, even if they call for someone's death odd, though symptomatic of an inherent hypocrisy. 

Any way Prince Philip is in hospital after undoing a heart operation. I hope he makes a full and easy recovery as I wish all those in hospital or ill health. 

Now the press are in hot water because of their illegal use of private records, including medical ones. The worst of the press let us not forget, under Piers Morgan, published photographs of a mentally ill woman in hospital. Others published what a famous person said under therapy. The press hounded a dying Freddie Mercury out of the country because of the way they treated him. 

So with such a background is it a good idea for the press to publish private details of Prince Philip in hospital?

Quotes such as "Philip: Just let me go home!" are wrong. 

Now if we assume that the Daily Mail haven't made the quote up, and the press do make stuff up, how dare they trample over the right to privacy Philip or anyone has just for a story? Philip being ill is newsworthy but there is no right to hound a ill person in hospital. Medical records, or what is said to medical professionals are private. If people worry what they say will be splashed over the press then they'll think twice about saying anything embarrasing. That'll kill people. 

There is no justification for the press to hound an ill person. 

How can any paper be as stupid as the Mail today?

Christmas Day

Another year passes and another Christmas. 

For all the anger and distrust that surrounds us every day let this be the perfect day of peace and love, warmth and good cheer. 

A perfect day for believers and unbelievers alike. 

It won't be, but I hope that just for once we get what we long for. 

Days like today show how things should be. That politics and fighting aren't as important as family and friends. 

So at the risk of being seen as silly I wish all a Merry Christmas. 

On Chris Huhne's lack of perverting the course of justice change

Chris Huhne is by all accounts guilty of perverting the course of justice. Though he is alleged to have made his then wife commit purjury to take penalty points he deserved he is said to have made a carrier out of making underlings take penalty points on his behalf. 

Now the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions have been studying the facts behind the latest Huhne incident with shall we say, unusual vigour and have taken more time to decide to prosecute than they do in the most serious cases of murder. 

For an open and shut case with such a huge amount of seemingly damning evidence agianst Huhne it's ..... Odd. 

And in light of this delay the frontage of today's Times newspaper, see the Sun for details,  makes interesting reading. It has a story from the police wondering why the DPP has taken so long to prosecute Huhne. 

The police want Huhne prosecuted for his blatant crimes. 

Now we all now why the delay and special treatment meted out to Huhne: he's a important man and politican. 

And that type of thinking is what allows our politicians to get away with fiddling, lying, and worse. It allows peers to kill people and return to the Lords. 

This pathetic subservient attitude has given us the terrible bunch of fith rate professional polticians that infect out body politic. 

By not prosecuting Huhne for such a blatant crime the DPP is bringing the justice system into disrepute. 

Prosecute Huhne and hand him the same jail sentence that any other perverter of justice would receive. 

Politicians should not be shielded by the legal system for the consequences of their crimes. 

It's wrong. 

Huhne deserves jail, just the same as if you or I did the exact same thing. 

Nick Clegg is going to set the agenda at the next EU summit!

Politicians are a strange breed. Take Nick Clegg (please...anybody!). He made an idiot of himself and his party over David Cameron's EU veto. First he agreed with it, then 48 hours later after some on his party whined about it decided he was against it. Them it emerges that over half of his party supported Cameron's decision. 

The whole palaver made Clegg look childish and utterly out of touch with his party and the people. 

And now Clegg has decided, with what can only spectacular derangement, that he is going to set the agenda for the next EU summit and he will be representing the UK along with Cameron. 

Now I'm sorry but this is either the rambling of a fool, or more likely those of a man who takes the rest of us as fools. Clegg will not be setting the next EU meetings agenda. He won't be co-leader of the UK. He is an utterly minor poltician from a utterly insignificant party. Leaders of other countries are not going to allow the Number 10 tea boy to have a say. He might I suppose wheedle himself into a trip to be fobbed off looking at a local school, or whatever the wives of leaders do in such events, but he won't be allowed to speak. He won't set the agenda of the big boys chat. 

The very idea that the leaders of Germany, France, Greece, or any state are going to take orders from such a powerless, minor politician is laughable. 

How can Clegg spin such a ludicrous line to the voters or even his own party? He must think them very stupid indeed. 

Is there no situation that Clegg cannot make much worse for himself?

 

Piers 'moron' Morgan unites the nation: all hate him!

Piers Morgan us a smug, oily, nasty piece of work. His appearance at the Leveson Inquiry on the press showed him to be untrustworthy, with lapses of memory that would worry someone with brain damage. His trying to make people believe that he knew nothing of phone hacking as editor of one of the worst offending papers was idiotic. 

However the worst thing was his wriggling when asked about the article he wrote which described how he listened to the private phone message from Paul McCartney to he soon to be ex-wife. Leveson told him that only Heather Mills could have given permission to hear such painfully private recordings. Morgan refused to reveal his sources. 

Today Heather has announced that she didn't leak the recordings. 

The only way Morgan could have listened to the message was illegally obtained hacking. 

What I find interesting is that the sheer hatred and contempt Morgan is held by most people. The left and the right are united by contempt for the sleazy Morgan. 

I do hope Morgan faces justice for his actions. 

How can the Sun sponsor the national military awards?

The National Military Awards are a nice way in which our military can get a fraction of the recognition and respect they deserve. In a just world they should be a proper government run event. However our government, this and the last, don't like paying for such justified things, they just love getting the credit for their bravery. 

But....

How can these awards still be sponsored by the Sun newspaper? 

This is a newspaper which hacked the telephones of the families of soldiers killed on active duty and those injured. 

How can the military stomach mixing with such tabloid scum?

It's not right. 

On the death of North Korea's Kim Jong-Il

The oddball leader of North Korea Kim Jong-Ilhas died aged 69. I am probably wrong about this but this must have been one of the very few times a head of state has died on a train. Seems as odd an occurrence as he was for some reason. 

It is easy to regard the late Kim as an eccentric amusement on the world stage with his penchant for purple jogging suits and bad films. You could be tempted to see him as a amusing contrast to our own identikit politicians. 

He wasn't a joke. Nor was his dictator father, nor his dictator son. 

Behind the questionable dress sense and quirkiness lies a wicked man. He loved movies, which is good, but he kidnapped directors and artists and forced them to make them for him under pain of death. This is evil. 

He kidnapped countless people and forced them to work for him. This isn't a joke. 

Worse of all he and his family have killed millions of their own people in pointless war and starvation. 

The Kim's are people who the world would have been better if they had not lived. They bring nothing to their people, or the world, but death, torture, and misery. 

And in the tradition of many communists unearned, unelected, dictatorship is passed from bloodthirsty father to bloodthirsty son. Strange how too often the communist and socialist hatred of inherited position and wealth does not apply to them and their offspring. 

For all the funny clothes and jokes about Kim remember that he was a monster. God help the poor people of North Korea. 

Shouldn't 'Nazi' Balls be sacked too?

A minor Tory MP has been sacked for being in the same room as people who dressed in Nazi uniform for a party. They themselves weren't dressed as  a Nazi, but he's been finished anyway. 

As it happens I have no problems with people dressing in Nazi uniform per se. In my book people can dress as nurses, soldiers, witches, the other gender: they can dress up as anything they want. The only thing that matters is the context of such dressing up. If you dress as a SS Stormtrooper at a neo-Nazi rally you deserve to be arrested. Dressing as a nurse in a party is fine, but if you try to be a nurse when you're not you deserve arrest. 

Dressing up in any uniform for a party is fine: it's a party. It's a joke. The clothes are not illegal. We should have freedom to dress any way we like. It's called freedom. 

However I am surprised that any politican could be so stupid not to realise that their presence at a party with people in Nazi uniform will give your poltical enemies a stick to finish your career. 

The thing is this if being in the same room as people in Nazi fancy dress can destroy your career does this not mean that any poltican who is photographed dressed in Nazi uniform is finished. That their leader would have no option to sack them, that they should be kicked out of thier party for mocking the Holocaust. 

So why is the labour Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls who dressed up as a Nazi and was photographed smiling in the dread uniform still in position? Not only was he in a room of people dressed as Nazis he donned the Nazi garb himself. 

In our new world of Puritan disgust at people having a bit of a laugh at parties dressing in clothes that are perfectly legal shouldn't Balls be thrown out of labour and parliament in disgrace?

The IMF and the Euro: why?

The IMF is a major international body created to help the developing world and bringing the most disadvantaged and poorest people in the world out of poverty. It is there to help the starving feed themselves, go stop the poorest people on the planet being poisoned by beat up polluting industry. 

The IMF was created to help improve the Third World. 

OK it may not be very good at this but that is its laudable aim. 

In light of this how is it possible that the IMF is funnelling tens of billions of $'s away from the Third World and squandering it on the untenable mission of supporting the failing Euro?  Three of the Euro states are in the top seven most advanced and richest countries in the world. How can these same affluent states be allowed to take money away from the starving?

Politics and power really is obscene sometimes. 

Implications if the UK isn't isolated in the EU?

The powers that be tell us that with the deployment of the British veto David Cameron has condemned the UK to the darkness by committing the greatest diplomatic blunder in sixty years. Labour and the Lib-Dems went into to full attack mode labelling Cameron out of touch and isolated. He as supposed to be an idiot who has condemned millions to the dole.  

However things aren't working out like that. Cameron's decision is overwhelmingly supported by the British people. Indeed if anything the labour and Lib-Dem attacks show it is they who are out of touch with both the British people and their own members.  

However it goes beyond that. Far from being isolated in the EU it is those who supported the new treaty and attacked Britain who are in trouble. 

Several countries have decided that their premier has overstepped the mark and didn't have the power to sign away their rights to an unelected EU. Many are having to call referenda's before they can sign. Even the French are in trouble with the party who is probably going to win the next election early next year coming out against the treaty. 

So what happens if far from being an isolated fool Cameron has the support of many EU political parties, and much more importantly, the people? 

If this is the case political disaster would be transformed into a political triumph. By becoming the figurehead for opposition to the undemocratic treaty Cameron could build an alliance which would wield serious power in the new EU. 

If this happens the damage to labour, the Lib-Dems, and the current EU elite could be immense. 

I don't trust or like Cameron however if he plays his cards well and does what the people want this veto adventure could make him. 

It also shows the current incestuous, cowed, EU elite to be a busted flush. 

We are living in strange days indeed!

With friends like these why are we in the EU?

The UK is one of the rarest if things: a EU state which pays much more into the EU than it takes out. It is probably unique in applying all the petty laws the EU decree no matter how damaging it is to Britain. We've handed over our lucrative fishing grounds to the EU fleets at the cost of tens of thousands of British jobs, tens of billions of lost revenue, and to the devastation of our fish stocks. 

So why is it that the other EU states seem to hate us?

Just because our PM decided to exercise his right under the EU law to veto a agreement which would have destroyed a vital British industry we have been under sustained attack by MEPs and the French state. 

We are now beyond the pale. We must be made to pay for not towing their line. Germany demands that we pay countless billions more into the bottomless bucket that is the EU as a punishment for daring to not do what the Germans tell us to do. 

My question is this: why are we a member of a club which costs us much needed billions, which we pay extra tens of billions, up to fifty billion so far, in propping up other members, a club which destroys business and costs us jobs if they attack us so?

The EU is an important market but they need us much more than we need them. If we leave we would still have the same access to the EU, as do fifty odd countries from around the world. 

So why stay if instead of friendship and gratitude for our money we get hate and are made the fall guy for the mistakes of other governments?

The disconnect between political elites and the people: the EU veto

A very strange thing has happened. David Cameron has vetoed the EUs push for more power and to make the UK pay more taxes than any other EU state to pay for the incompetent, corrupt in some cases, and profligate, actions of these countries. 

The universal attitude of the political elites in the UK and the EU that this veto was a scandal and idiotic. They think that the UK is a weak little Pygmy who should just shut up and pay the bill for others mistakes. More than that the EU is seen by UK parties as a total non-issue. The public were simply not interested so Cameron could be attacked, and his followers smeared as little Englander bigots. 

However things aren't working out like that. Every poll since the veto has shown incredible support for Cameron's veto and a growing dislike of the undemocratic and corrupt way the EU works. This isn't a poll of Tory supporters either. Labour supporters are overwhelmingly in favour of Cameron's action. For gods sake over half of the visceral pro-EU Lib-Dems are in favour of the veto. 

Far from being a disaster politically for Cameron this veto has put the Tories in the lead, or on par, with labour. This is unheard of. With the continuing collapse of the Lib-Dem support this means that they may be able to win the next election outright, if they play their cards right, or form a Tory/UKIP government. 

What strikes me is the total disconnect this shows between the political elite and the voting public. If labour, like I've written here before, had positioned themselves as the anti-EU party months ago their support would have been immense and they would now be the government in waiting. Now the Tories have taken than crown. 

Our parties are so out of touch with the people that they didn't hear the disquiet and anger the EU has been causing the people of this country. So the parties are totally unprepared for the support of Cameron and simply had no idea that people outside the incestuous pro-EU elite don't share their views. 

This disconnect will boost the anti-EU UKIP and may change British politics. It may finish the Lib-Dems. 

All because the parties don't listen to real people. 

It isn't healthy for our politics that our parties are so out of touch and incestuous. When the public break their silence the elites are in trouble. 

And they simply don't understand why. 

Our politics parties are their to represent our views. We are not there to make them rich or to do what they tell us to do our think. They have forgotten this for too long. 

I hope this changes. 

How can Ed Miliband criticise David Cameron for not getting support?

First things first, I am not a fan of David Cameron. I also don't entirely buy the whole EU veto triumph malarkey. 

However I do find it rich that the labour leader Ed Miliband can dare criticise Cameron's lack of support in the EU. Ed couldn't even win the support of his own MPs, MEPs, of party in order to become labour leader. The only way he became labour leader is because of the unions block votes. 

Ed couldn't win the argument in his own party and we are supposed to buy the spin that This very unimpressive man would win the argument in the EU by his eloquence and charisma. 

I don't think so! 

Nick Clegg should leave the government: if he had any principles that is.

David Cameron deployed he veto which the Lib-Dem leader, and deputy PM! nick Clegg, was fine with. That is he was fine until the weirdos who pass for his party grandees decided they were not happy. When the started to get restless Clegg flipped, as he does with any principle or action (see student fees). 

Now Clegg says he is bitterly disappointed, that Cameron was wrong to veto, that things would have been different if there was any justice and he was handling the talks, and for good measure, that the UK was some kind of irrelevant 'pygmy' adrift from the EU. Apprarantly Britian is too weak and needy to survive outside the undemocratic control of the EU. 

So much for consistency, or the old mantra of collective responabilty , and not attacking your own government whilst in government. 

I really think Clegg should now leave government and bring down the coalition. 

I mean he and his party seem to dislike their partners and their government with visceral intensity so now can they continue?

So a fallen government and a new election should be held. 

The thing is Clegg has doe something incredibly stupid. He's made is, and his party's, continuation in government untenable. However Cameron has done something that chimes with a huge majority of the voters. Clegg's own party is in decline and its going to get much worse once their slavish EU mentailty filters through. 

They will be anhiliated at any electection. 

No power, not limos, no jobs. Only the dark days of scrabbling for jobs and impotent snipping. 

This isn't good for a party that needs time to become popular or raise the cash to fund an election. 

However any party of principle cannot continue in government now Clegg and his party have destroyed the trust, shared responabilty and relationships with their coalition members. 

So Clegg will bring down the government now. 

Won't he?

As a little hint the answer is no. That would mean no power. No limos. No glamour. And electoral disaster. 

It just shows how utterly unprincipled Clegg and his party is. It's not nice.  

Vince Cable resigning?

There are wild rumours swirling around that Vince  Cable is finally going to reign out of pique that a British PM would dare to to what his people wanted and protect their interests. Apparently that is beyond the pale for Cable. We don't matter only his love for the unelected EU. 

Any road up Cable is said to be resigning. 

Maybe......

Personally I doubt he'll go as the thrill of power is addictive and this minor ministerial position is the only sniff he'll get of any real power. 

However since Cable bragged to attractive women journalists that can trigger a nuclear option and bring the government down if he decides to leave what happens when no one notices?

And that's the thing. If you build your self image on your power to destroy a government and nothing happens when you trigger your bomb what do you do?

If Cable leaves, which I seriously doubt he will, the government isn't going to fall. The Lib-Dems would be slaughtered in the election such a move would cause. The Tories would do well out of an early election as their veto is popular. Labour would be thrown as anti-EU feeling may work against them. UKIP should do very well as they are overtaking the Lib-Dems in all the polls. 

The next government may even by Tory/UKIP. The Lib-Dems would be the bloody corpse still twitching in the wreckage. 

So the Lib-Dems won't collapse the government. More than that their weakness may reduce their influence in government. Cable cannot undermine his own party as destroying the Lib-Dems by splits wouldn't make him popular with his own party. 

What happens if Cable triggers his much vaunted nuclear option to destroy the government and no one notices and the government survives?

It'll be fun to see his Cable deals with being an irrelevance. 

Cable isn't that old but he has the mentality of a silly old fool. 

Boris Johnson's brilliant political strategy

The Mayor of London may look like a bumbling fool but it is all a cunning ruse. Behind the mask he is a political genius. He has come up with a sure fire way to win votes. 

In his case it's all down to buses!!!

When he stood for election he realised that the very long, very dangerous, and very fire prone, bendy buses the previous Mayor had introduced were unpopular. So Boris solemnly promised to scrap them before his first term in office was over. 

Opponents laughed at the idea. They told the world that bendy buses were the only option out there, that they were the only legal option now that, at the insistence of the German bendy bus makers, the traditional British double decker bus was illegal, that such long buses were the greenest option, and that it would be impossible to to replace within one term any way. 

Boris was attacked as being that most common of things; a politician who makes promises he knows he cannot keep. 

And here is where the Machiavellian genesis of Boris comes in: he has scrapped the dangerous bendy buses. He's done so within the first term in office. He's replaced it with a much safer and greener electric double decker. These buses have a small diesel motor to recharge the batteries but they get double the miles per gallon than any other bus. 

It comes to a pretty state of affairs when a poltician actually delivering on their promise is a surprise. A welcome and unexpected one which will do Boris a lot of good when he stands for reelection. 

If Boris knows the importance of doing what he's promised and does so even though it's a technically hard to do, why doesn't Cameron, or labour before him, do what they promise? From Medals for deserving Arctic veterans which a simple and cheap to deliver, to giving people their promised referendum, why don't polticans do what they promise? Not only would it boost their election prospects it stops all the cynicism and and anger of the people who put you in power when they find out you lied to them. 

If Boris understands this why not Cameron?

John Bercow for President:so says Tony Benn!

Tony Benn is widely seen by those in the media and beyond as a national treasure. A sort of pipe smoking loveable uncle. 

He never was. He's been wrong about most things his entire political life. In fact with the odd exceptions if Tony supports a cause it's wrong. 

What really boils my goat is the kudos he gets for giving up his peerage to become an MP. He kept the ninety odd million he inherited. I would have thought keeping the title and giving up the cash would be more impressive. More than that it's easy to spout far left rubbish if you're cushioned with vast, unearned, wealth. 

In what must be a pitiful attempt to have people listen to him Tone has come up with a spiffing wheeze. He want our constitutional monarch kicked to the kerb and the slimy John Bercow, and with talentless embarrassment of a wife, to be made President and wife. 

Certain things strike me. Firstly the idea that Bercow who is a divisive figure mired in the expenses scandal, and a man actively supporting MPs in the efforts to rip off the taxpayer by being able to continue to fiddle is the right person to be president shows a man utterly blind to the public mood. 

Secondly you will note that under Benn's scheme the public doesn't a have a say. Now I support the monarchy but the idea of a president is to make the system more democratic. However under Benn's plan the paying public get no say. Bercow becomes president because MPs made him Speaker. 

So under Benn's new system the people also have no choice. So we get no more democracy bit are lumbered with a sleazy, politically partisan, embarrassment as figurehead.  It does seem to reflect Benn's old style, none loveable, hard line lefty beliefs of old. He was a supporter of the Soviet Union. 

In a way it's sad that this is the best he can do in order to anyone to take notice. 

It takes a speical kind of stupid to want Bercow as president. It's bad enough to have as Speaker!

On David Cameron's promise in the new EU treaty: another promise after he has broken so many

The EU is in turmoil. Democratic governments are being replaced by unelected stooges. The EU treaties are about to be redrafted to to ever more power to unelected elite and the German and French governments. David Cameron was elected in part by being spun as being Euro-sceptic and promised us a referendum once elected. He changed his mind once in power but promised us he'd changed the law to guarantee us a referendum if the EU treaty is changed. Now we are faced with an unprecedented power grab by the EU and the creation of fiscal union and massive changes to how Britain is taxed and ruled but for some reason the people won't get their say even after all the promises and supposed law changes, we do however get a yet another of his solemn promises,

 

"Clearly, we will need to look at the right safeguards for Britain in the light of what is proposed. Our colleagues in the EU need to know that we will not agree to a treaty change that fails to protect our interests."He said: "My job is to defend and protect the British national interest. Britain is a member of the European Union; its institutions belong to all its members, Britain included. We benefit greatly from the single market, which we must both safeguard and extend."

I don't believe him. 

The Arctic Convoys & Andrew Robathan: heroes vrs dickhead

Image from Wikipedia

The Arctic Convoys of WWII were hell. The voyages to Russia were horrific voyages fighting German submarines, aircraft, and ships. The weather they had to face was insane. Anyone who fell in the water was dead. Inches of ice needed to be constantly chipped off the ship to stop it capsizing. This combination of atrocious weather and constant enemy action made the Convoy's one of the most dangerous and stressful theatres for any Navy, or Merchant Navy person, to find themselves. 

The drama and danger these very brave men overcame is truly heroic. The sheer drama has been immortalised in fiction with the brilliant HMS Ulysses by Alistair MacLean. 

The Allies lost 101 ships. Over three thousand sailors died in this battle. 

By any stretch of the imagination this was a major theatre of war on par with any military action in any war. 

And yet the men who fought such an incredible struggle have never received their proper governmental recognition. They have not been awarded the campaign medal they have so earned. 

In opposition David Cameron solemnly promised the brave survivors that he would rectify this injustice and award the veterans their medal. 

However like many of his promises Cameron has gone back on this simple, inexpensive, promise. 

However worse than that one of current crop of defence secretaries Andrew Robathan explains why Cameron won't be honouring their pre-election promise by saying

'We don't just dole out medals like Colonel Gaddafi'

The contempt for brave men is dripping off the lips of a Tory MP. 

How can any MP, much less a Tory who is supposed to be pro-military, be so sneeringly condescending and idiotic? 

Why insult veterans?

Medals aren't expensive. The surveys of the Convoys aren't many. These men earned the medals. They are not a gift or a treat. They are earned by danger, blood, and loss. 

By any criteria the veterans should have their bravery and sacrifice recognised. 

For the life of me I cannot see why all the governments since the war, labour and Tory, have felt fit to insult the Convoy veterans. 

Why not give them their due?

And as for Robathan, he is a ignorant dickhead undeserving of being an MP. His presence on Tory benches diminishes the Tory party and their spin of patriotism. What I find utterly shocking is that Robathan was once a professional solider in the guards and the SAS (though he didn't recieve any bravery medal). He actually volunteers to return to the army in Gulf War 1 where he was a prison warden. Why would such a veteran insult other veterans who fought a much more dangerous and costly battle?

If Cameron didn't want to give brave men their medal then he shouldn't have used the promise for electoral advantage before the election. To give a promise of a medal than renague on it shows him to be a liar, shallow, ignorant and fundamentally untrustworthy. 

Zac Goldsmith MP compares the press to Auschwitz: fucking moron

Image from Wikipedia

I have been steadfast in my disgust at the illegal actions of some in the press. Time and again I have called for the guilty and those who put them up to it to face justice. 

I still hold to this view. 

However the actions of some who are angry with agendas toward the press makes you despair. 

For example the ultra-rich Tory MP Zac Goldsmith has made an idiot of himself during his testimony to the Leveson Inquiry. Now I've nothing against rich people being politicians, though it has to be said that Zac didn't make his money rather was given it by his dad who did make the billions, and changed British politics. The only thing I know Zac actually has done is to transform a magazine his dad bought him as a hobby into an ex-magazine. This is not the finest example of business acumen. 

Anyway Zac is cross with the press, rightly, for allegedly leaking private emails showing his adultery. 

Again all well and good.......

Right up to the point he brought up a Auschwitz analogy,

"If the only way a business can stay afloat is by engaging in immoral or unethical behaviour, then that business should either change its model or go out of business," he said. "No-one said that Auschwitz should have been kept open because it created jobs."

There is a truism that all arguments on the Internet descend to the point where someone calls another a Nazi, after that the argument is over as nothing more can be achieved. 

Expanding this truth: the very instant someone compares their relatively minor problem, however justified their anger is, to the racist murder of millions of innocent men, women, and children during the Holocaust then they have lost whatever more high ground they may have had. 

The inability to see that your problems, however bad, pale compared to the genocide shows you to to be a shallow idiot. 

Zac is not a stupid man, allegedly, having the finest education his unbelievably rich father could afford, though his Dad's riches couldn't get him to university. In spite of this Zachary's idiocy shows him to be vacuous. He has no sense of perspective. He gives the impression at he thinks the press printing details of how he was screwing around and betraying his wife and small children, however illegally obtained, is the greater crime because the Holocaust didn't happen to him. His vast inherited wealth and the sycophancy it brings seems to give the impression that he is the centre of the universe. 

He isn't. 

Zac stupidity actively hurts his argument. 

Worst of all it shows he is a fucking moron.      

Trevor Kavanagh strikes back at Alistair Campbell

Last week at the Leveson Inquiry into the press the war criminal and perjurer that is Alistair Campbell was very sanctimonious about the press, and singled out the Sun's Trevor Kavanagh for specific attack as the example of what is wrong with the press. Strangely this disgust hasn't stopped Campbell from working for the same boss as Kavanagh, who also owned the News of the World. 

He must have forgot his outrage!

For monumental cheek the hypocrite Campbell takes some beating.    

Alas for Campbell his power to instil fear in the press is waning. Once the victims of Campbell would keep silent to his bullying, or kill themselves. The world would continue to pretend that Campbell was a decent, honest, sane person. 

Not Kavanagh though who has the following in his column today,

ALASTAIR CAMPBELL, who once played the media like a fiddle, has the nerve to accuse the Press of being "putrid".

He is fortunate lobby journalists never reveal their sources.

Otherwise a queue of hacks could reveal how Alastair routinely dripped poison into their ears about everyone – then swore them to secrecy.

Luckily, some of us kept a diary.

 Now there's a threat! Apparently the rumour is that Kavanagh not only has a diary, he's got the recordings to back it up!

If a supine press aren't scared of you and feel under threat because of the lies Campbell says they'll rip him to shreds. Not by lies or insinuation as they usually do, but by spilling the beans on how he and labour operate and how most of the most egregious political attacks are down to him. That'll scupper political control of the press and may finish him at least allow him to be sued by the papers for his lies. 

I honestly think that Campbell is so used to being feared and being able to bully he forgot his powerless reality and how the papers and journalists will defend themselves against his lies. 

 

Supporting the Daily Mail's stance on Gary McKinnon but worry about there motives

I've been a supporter of Gary McKinnon and his fight against extradition to the US from the start as I am a supporter of all those who face unjust extradition under the European Arrest Warrent. It is simply wrong that people, especially one as vulnerable as Gary, can be extradited for crimes committed in the UK, with the evidence not being checked here to see if it merits extradition, or even for actions which aren't crimes here. 

All this is wrong and an abuse of the rights and freedoms we should expect. 

It's a nightmare that needs fixing. 

The Daily Mail has an editorial today supporting Gary and demanding our polticians get their finger out and scrap the unjust extradition process. 

All well and good but is it wrong of me to think that self interest plays its part in these fine words? Now a campaign is a good way for paper's to gain publicity and readers, but how much of it is to stop DM types being extradited to the UK if it discovered they hacking people in the US? I mean to say who can now doubt they could have acted illegally in the US for a story if they wanted?

Anyway regardless of the reasons I totally support Gary and hope this unjust poltical mess is fixed so that we British enjoy the rights and protections our forefathers fought for. 

On the false media outrage on Jeremy Clarkson's views in suicide.

Jeremy Clarkson is very good at what he does. You simply don't create the biggest tv programme in the world or win writing awards and international prizes if you're not good at what you do. 

For this he is very well paid. They say he is being paid around £1 million a year from the BBC. This is a lot of money. However when even BBC radio presenters with dozens of listens are paid the same it isn't. Clarkson is one of the few who could actually make more money in the independent sector but chooses to remain in public broadcasting. He's turned down vats of cash to move to the US to work but wants to remain in the UK. 

So he worth it as he brings the BBC vastly more money than he or his programmes cost. 

He is not popular with some because he's blunt, and because he dares present a programme about cars which they think is evil personified. 

There has been a lot a false outrage about his remarks that those who commit suicide by throwing themselves under trains are being selfish as it is traumatic for the driver, unpleasant for those who have to clean up the aftermath, and causes incredible delays for the passengers. 

Cue outrage from journalists and the left jealous of his talent, wealth, and popularity. Page after page is filled with personal attacks on Clarkson and how he insults suicide victims. 

It all fills pages on slow days, may allow them to bring down the object of their jealousy and allows the worst type of tabloid mentality to emerge with demands that we cannot say, think, or do what these tabloids hacks, currently having their crimes studied, disagree with. 

Two this need to be understood. 

The first is that Clarkson, like all of us, has the right to say anything we want. Once we go down the route of censorship, prosecution, or people losing their jobs because of their views we are in dangerous territory. For a discredited press fighting government control of their views this is nonsensical. It's the type of reasoning which will be used to censor and control the press. 

The second is that Clarkson in right. 

This isn't an attack on suicide victims, or those who battle depression. Their hell isn't something anyone can doubt, or be anything but sympathetic to. As I've written before people need to seek help and support without embarrassment or stigma to help them cope and hopefully overcome the black dogs who hound them. 

In the end people are free to do what they will with their own bodies, regardless of if anyone else thinks its good or bad. Control of our destinies is the most fundamental part of our uniqueness. Choosing to live of die is the most fundemtnal part of our being. 

However suicide is a selfish thing. 

Therapists and suicide prevention organisations make great play on this fact. It goes along the lines of "if you kill yourself what will your kids, partner, family, friends do? How will they cope? How will they feel? What will they do? Don't you owe it to them to get help and stick around?"

Such a reality check helps some people decide to seek help and support rather than ending it. It reminds people that people love and need them, that they are not alone. That there remains hope. 

Clarkson is also right about the sheer selfishness of doing so much damage to the poor innocent train driver. For a driver to see a person standing on the line when you're doing a hundred plus and knowing that you cannot stop and having to decide if you should try to slow down or speed up to ensure that their death is as quick as possible is devastating. To kill someone and having your widescreen splattered in blood and gore is the stuff of nightmares. 

We are not talking about someone taking an overdose and the trauma of the person who finds the body. Though this is bad enough. We are talking about making someone kill you. 

To do that to a innocent person is horrible. I do appreciate that the suicide victim is mentally ill and not in their right mind but it is a horrible thing to do to anyone. 

The trauma of such events can destroy the lives of drivers. 

The horror of those who have to clean up the carnage is intense. It isn't a nice thing to do to clean still warm bits of human off a track. 

A friend of mine lives in a isolated university facility below a tree covered hill topped with a hidden roman fort. Early one morning several years ago a young eighteen year old student came banging on his door hysterical babbling about finding a body on the top of the hill hanging from a tree whilst jogging. 

Entrusting the devastated girl to his wife he grabbed his phone and climbed the mist shrouded hill alone. On the top by the hidden fort he found the man strung up from an ancient tree. He phoned the police, then his wife, and waited on his own by the body. He was there what seemed hours, he and the hung man. 

This was a suicide but even now the image of the body effects my friend. How it effects the poor student who found him all alone in the semidarkness I don't know. It would scar me for life. 

The suicide victim was in unbearable pain and needed help and support. One's sympathies remain with him and those he left behind. However the selfishness of his action by killing himself in the manner they did has hurt and devastated people who did him no harm. 

That's selfish. 

Returning to the train drivers. They don't deserve to be the weapon of death for a suicide driven person. Clarkson is totally right about that. Don't let the vacuous muckraking of the tabloids and the left blind us to the fact. 

We need to provide help for those in need and encourage people to seek it without shame. Our natural sympathies for those in pain shouldn't blind us to how their actions hurt others. 

Will David Cameron fulfil his promise and give us our referendum on the forthcoming EU treaty change?

No. 

Cameron, like his predecessors, lied when he said we could have our say last treaty change. When this proved less than popular with his own side and the public he promised that we could have a say next time there were treaty changes...oh and by the way these treaty changes aren't 'real' treaty changes so he didn't have to give our say anyway. 

Lies aren't good. Worse than that it was politically idiotic as most of the people who voted for him, and most of the people of the country, wanted a say. The only thing it did was boost UKIP's popularity. 

Now fast forward to today: the Euro is dead and only being kept breathing by German power. In an attempt to use any crisis as an opportunity Germany and France are demanding fiscal union which will remove any pretence of statehood from the Euro states and make them pay homage to Germany, and France (so France hopes). 

Such major treaty changes effect all EU members, Euro states or not. It will also cost the UK more, and transfer more power to the EU. 

By any measure the people of the UK should have their referendum. Denying that the treaty changes are treaty changes is untenable as these will be major changes and the Germans and French ignored Cameron's begging and insist on calling them treaty changes. 

And yet Cameron is still vague about giving us a referendum. 

We won't get one unless the Tories and a chunk of labour rebel. 

Cameron won't give us our say for three reasons. 

Firstly he wants to keep the Lib-Dems sweet, though personally I think he shares their views anyway. 

Secondly he knows he'd lose the vote. 

Thirdly he likes being PM and knows the last EU PM who demanded his people had a referendum was replaced in a EU coup by an unelected stooge, and that when the Italian premier kicked off he, and his whole democratically elected government, was replaced in a EU coup by unelected EU rulers. 

And that's why we won't be allowed to have our say. We are too stupid to be trusted to give the right decision.  We are here to do what our betters tell us, suffer their cuts, and pay for everything. 

Indian boy murdered for sharing a name: haven't we got beyond this insanity?

I am a deep admirer of Indian culture and history. It is truly a remarkable and advanced culture. Even though I have been studying Indian crime I am still stuck by how vibrant and amazing the culture is. I'm not talking of the wealth or power it has but the ordinary people. 

I'm a fan. 

And yet sometimes something happens which saddens the soul. 

Neeraj Kumar was fourteen and of the Dalit Caste, the so-called 'untouchable" caste. His father, Ram Sumer, was ordered to change his sons names when a member of a higher caste called Jasahar Chaudhary after he found out that their sons shared the same names. Both have sons named Neeraj and Dheeraj. 

The simple fact that a untouchable had sons with the same name as his own was apparently in matter of tension for Chaudhary. 

Long tragedy short two friends of Chaudhary has been arrested for strangling Neeraj Kumar, his sons a strangely absent. 

Chaudhary denies involvement and blames the police for framing him.  

For all the great things in this world how is it possible that a young boy can be murdered for his name?

At times there seems little hope for humanity. 

I truly hope that justice is done and that the killers, and those who ordered the murder face the proper punishement for thier crimes. 

My worry is that with the discrimination the Dalit's still face and the tortuous and laboured rigmarole involved in gaining justice is that he won't. 

Such murderers as this insult India and its people. In a modern world, which India is of growing importance, we should have moved on from this. To discriminate agiant 166 million of your population from birth because of thier caste is inhuman. 

Who can order the murder of a child for daring to have the same name as your son?