Joan Pertoldi killed with incompetence or neglect

I am a supporter of the NHS but that's never blinded me to the bad things that can happen there. Most staff are very professional, some are superb, others are lazy, uncaring, or dangerous. Being a supporter of the NHS shouldn't make us ignore its failings.

 

So it is with horror that I read that a healthy 76 year old lady, Joan Pertoldi, died under NHS care because they denied her food and drink for a week. Denied her for no medical reason.

 

That's obscene.

 

It shows such a level of incompetence, and disregard for a women who was otherwise healthy, that the people responsible should be prosecuted for corporate manslaughter.

 

It is an atrocity to kill anyone this way.

 

Four years ago my father was in hospital. As part of the tests he had to have no food nor water until the tests were complete. The tests were done but they refused him drink or food for another twelve hours. There was no medical reason for this, rather the doctor either forgot to tell the staff it was ok to give my father drink, or the nursing staff couldn't read his records.

 

Either way it wasn't good.

 

At the time my Father was in a very vulnerable state slipping in and out of consciousness. If it wasn't for the fact that the rest of the family were there 24/7 fighting for answers and help I don't know what would have happened. It doesn't take long for a person in a weakened state to die without water.

 

As it was he made a full recovery. This itself was a miracle as the consultants told us there was no hope and that he had suffered a major brain bleed. what actually happened is that he was transferred into the ICU and put on life support when we left at three thirty in the morning and there was talk of turning the machines off and letting him die. We got a phone call at seven in the morning telling us he was sitting up having breakfast (which was unheard of in a ICU apparently) and asking where his glasses and book were.

 

My Father came through the turmoil brain undamaged and humour intact. He didn't in fact have a brain bleed or anything that impaired his mental ability of personality.

 

My point is this though, what would have happened without a family being there and being interested, supportive, and firm?

 

I don't mean being horrible or rude to the staff, it would be utterly wrong to treat the staff who were doing their best in a abusive manner. Rightly such acts are prosecuted. I mean making sure your loved one is being fed and watered, or that the doctors tell you what's going on.

 

It's terrifying to think if you were vulnerable and bereft of the awkward squad.

 

My deepest sympathies to the family and friends of Joan. They deserve justice and systems need to change to avoid such inhuman things happening.

Posted with Blogsy

On Danny Boyle's opening of the London Olympics

I suppose I'm a bit of a cynic really. I'm sad about this as being a cynic means you miss of a lot of the good things in life. So I was surprised watching the opening ceremony of the London Olympics as masterminded by the film director Danny Boyle. I was surprised to be actually watching it. More than that I was pleasantly surprised how good it was.

 

Many have commented on the politically correct nature of the event. It was politically correct. It had to be. By this I mean that as a global showcase every element had to be judged politically to ensure it wasn't offensive to anyone. This is a different form of political correctness than the usual dictatorial mind control we too often see.

 

Put it this way having cast members blacked up and dancing some godawful 'savage' African cliched dance would be unacceptable. It would, rightly, have been political untenable to have such a tableau included. So artistic vision is curtailed by political sensitivity. Not that I'm suggesting for a second that Boyle would have wanted such a racist spectacle included.

 

Saying that it did manage to sneak in a lesbian kiss to a Muslim world audience and some gay pop songs. It's amazing what you can sneak in if you're clever.

 

I do find it shocking that some US broadcasters didn't show the very moving tribute to the victims of terrorism. I'd have hoped the US would have been more sympathetic to the murdered and the bereaved after their own attrocities.

 

As an event it wasn't perfect. Then again no event is. Lot of this is down to personal preference. I thought the way it reflected the changing nature of Britain from a agrarian world to the industrial was brilliantly done. I did find it off that this powerful motif wasn't carried on after the industrial revolution as I would have thought the post industrial present was worthy of note. It was strange the idea petered out.

 

As a vision it was a very metropolitan one. I thought this was a little sad as it excluded most of the different cultures that make Britain so rich a culture.

 

The music used was a mixture of the sublime and the transitory. I found it strange that the Kinks say, who were incredibly influential and exhibited a unique British mentality was left out, or the way in which heavy metal, which was born in Britain in the heavy industrial heartland, or the electronic music that emerged out of the crumbling industrial towns of the north and reflected a uniquely British vision of the world was ignored.

 

Like them or hate them these forms of music changed the world.

 

It seemed that a bit of light dance music, especially urban music was all that happened. When you consider how massive the other types of music are, and how Britain conquered the world with the music it was strange. Dance music may be popular but is nothing compared to the all conquering nature of British music in the '80's.

 

I loved the lights and even the fireworks. Seriously well done.

 

The fact that Tim Berners-Lee was a focal point of the celebration was a master stroke. As was the inclusion of Rowan Atkinson. Having the Queen do a sketch was brilliant.

 

The way in which the ceremony was done with style and without vainglorious pomposity was brilliant. .

 

I did find it funny that the NHS children were rescued from the monsters by private nannies.

 

All in all it was a truly wonderful event, one which Boyle, the cast, and the thousands of volunteers should be rightly pleased with.

 

It even warmed my cynical heart.

 

Which was a surprise.

Posted with Blogsy

Shouldn't we all be equal under one law: the ruling against Sharia Law

Dr Zaid Al-Saffar is a NHS consultant who refused to pay his ex-wife alimony. He said that under Sharia Law his ex-wife wasn't entitled to such cash. In court a judge has told him that he must follow English Law and pay his ex-wife her due.

 

The good doctor has not taken his loss well claiming that the legal system is biased against Muslims.

 

It's bollocks.

 

How could it be anything but wrong to allow anyone in this, or any, country to opt out of their national laws because of what religion their are, where they are from, their culture, philosophical bent, poltics, or anything else.

 

The law must apply equally to everyone regardless of thier religion, culture, or beliefs.

 

Applying the law equally isn't bias, or bigotry. It's fairness. No country can exist with different laws and punishments for different sections of their community.

 

Everyone should be equal under the same law.

 

Sharia, or any other religious based law, should not stop men paying maintanence, or disenfranchise anyone, or condone discrimination.

 

One law for one country. It really is the simple.

Posted with Blogsy

It's the political ineptitude that galls: morality of cash in hand

A unknown government minister has launched an attack on those who pay for goods and services in cash. According to David Gauke it's taking bread out of the mouths of sick, blind children, who will need to be culled to teach us a lesson.

 

Or some such.

 

Reducing one's tax burdon is Immoral, apparently. When politicans resort to morality rather than law and rules we're in dangerous waters and shows a government losing its way and usually on its way out.


 

OK plumbers not paying their full tax may be a problem, but it's a minor one. This government is pissing away hundreds of billions on foreign aid which is stolen, the EU, idiotic projects which always go over budget and never work, they, and more especially the last labour government, also let powerful companies off hundreds of billions in their taxes. You'd have think that these major problems, and the way in which the current and previous government have screwed up the economy to be of more pressing concern.

 

The fact that it's not is terrifying.

 

How our of touch, bereft of ideas, or powerless are they of this is all they can come up with.

 

What really pricks my gherkin though is the sheer hypocritical incompetence exhibited here.

 

Gaucke used his taxpayer expenses to reduce his tax bill when we bought him his house. His wife is a very well paid expert in helping the very rich reduce their tax bill. And he himself is an award winning expert.

 

In what I hear you ask?

 

In advising the very rich how to avoid paying as much tax as humanly possible.

 

How out of touch can a government be, and how convinced of their own divine right to rule, that the person they send put to attack the poor and the working class has made his fortune, and enjoys his wife's wealth derived from allowing the super rich pay less tax.

 

A man who is firmly entrenched in the expenses trough.

 

Out of all the very expensive and cosseted political types why pick Gaucke?

 

Either they are idiots or they think we are.

 

The thing is this will probably destroy Gaucke. Any little fiddle or tax avoidance ruse he's done, and dodgy advice, or advice which is perfectly legal though immoral (to use the idiotic words of Gaucke), will bite him the the butt.

 

The press smell blood and will stir up their readers and will go through his history with a fine toothed comb, rightly, it will damage him and the government.

 

And it's all self inflicted.

 

Idiots.

Posted with Blogsy

Why get a knighthood for doing your job?

It is wonderful that Bradley Wiggins has become the first British person to win the Tour De France. For a professional cyclist it must be an amazing feeling to achieve your life's ambition.
This multi-Olympic gold medal winner must be on cloud nine.
Rightly.
There is talk of rewarding him with a knighthood. The precedent been made when Gordon Brown gave his neighbour a knighthood for riding a bike well, Sir Chris Hoy.
It all leaves me uneasy. Firstly why are women athletes ignored? Amy Williams became the first British person, male or female, in over thirty years to get a winter Olympic gold, politicians didn't make her a Dame.
More than that my concern is twofold:
Firstly why should a professional sportsperson get a gong whilst still being a sportsperson. Why don't they get an award only after they retire?
Amy is retired and remains unrecognised.
My biggest concern though is why should an professional sportsperson who is paid a fortune and live lives of glamour get any award for doing their very well paid job?
Most people to to work. They work hard and put up with crap and angst. We are all underpaid. And yet we who contribute to our society and pay out taxes don't get recognition or awards.
So why should rich sportspeople?
OK they get it because politicians do favours for friends or to divert public attention by trying to attach themselves, leech like, to winners.
But should well paid sports stars get baubles for doing their work, however great they, like Wiggins, are?
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Policemen with a history of violence gets away with killing an innocent man: how are the police above the law?

I am pro-police. They do a hard job and have always been great when I've dealt with them. So I'm not a anti-police hater.

 

However it is with bewilderment that I hear that PC Simon Harwood was found innocent of killing the innocent bystander Ian Tomlinson. That fact that Harwood killed Ian, that he was filmed killing him apparently didn't matter.

 

Nearly fifteen hundred people have died at the hands of the police over the last ten years. So how many police have been found guilty for killing them?

 

Zero.

 

I'm sorry I'm pro-police but am aware of bad apples and nasty pieces of work in the police who should be punished for their crimes. They aren't. Too often this respect we mostly have for the police allows crimes to be ignored and the guilty protected. Even if they involve the death of innocent people.

 

Harwood shows what is wrong with the current system. He was found not guilty but the jurors were not told about his propensity to violence, roughing up people, and abusing his authority. He's been investigated ten times for abuse and violence against innocent people.

 

Worse than this he actually retired on health grounds, with a full pension no doubt (and I'm not attacking those who recieve pensions for their disability or ill health) coincidentally stopping the investigation into his violent attack and false arrest of a innocent person. Like is often the case retirement derailed the prosecution of a police officer. He got off eith his violent crime. In case you feel sorry for the violent copper and his ill health due to police serivce, as soon as he left for a miracle to occured and he regained perfect health (I wonder if he retained his pension) and saw him to join another police force, after working at the Met as a civilian.

 

Then unbelievably the Met police allowed him, a man with a a history of violence and who had to retire from them due to ill health, to return as a police officer.

 

This shows how the system, run by and for the police, can protect their own. Harwood is a thug abusing his position. Before he killed Ian he was being investagted after been seen kneeing a handcuffed prisoner on the floor in the kidneys.

 

And the system both knew and ignored what a violent, abusive, thug Harwood is.

 

The system, and the blind eye turned to his violence resulted in Ian's death.

 

It is obscene.

 

Too often civil action is taken for the wrong reasons. Not in this case. I hope Ian's family take the Met and Harwood to court and make them pay for their killing.

 

Ian wasn't perfect, none of us are. But he didn't deserve to be killed. He was utterly innocent.

 

Harwood attacked and innocent man, harmless, man from behind and killed him.

 

It is a disgrace that this thug got off with it. It is an insult to the majority of decent officers that such scum is in their midst.

 

Simon Harwood is a killer.

Posted with Blogsy

How can a black person be accused of racism against black people?

Racism is a sad fact of life. That does not however stop us from condemning it wherever we find it and by our example try to expunge its stain.

 

However accusations of racism has for too long been used to close down debate on justifiable topics such as immigration, women's rights, and attacks on homosexuals. More than that the easy throwing around of "racist" has allowed criminal police commanders to get away with their crimes for years until they attacked another ethnic minority person.

 

The way in which political correctness is used to curb free speech and allow an unelected clique to wield power over us is as dangerous as it is offensive.

 

However even though I deplore all racism there is something a bit off about a black man being investigated by the police for race crime for calling another black man a "choc ice". In this context choc ice is nasty. It is calling a black person a sell out and not a 'real' member of the black community.

 

It's offensive. It's also a term I've only ever heard other ethinic minorities use.

 

This idea that ethnic minorites cannot think independently or are actually individual's with their own ideas and thought is wrong. It's so patronising and is akin to the PC use of racism to control people.

 

And that's even more offense.

 

But it shouldn't be a crime.

 

We have no right not to be offended. The reason for this is simple: if every one of the billions of people, including the fanatics, weirdos, the numerous, and the axe grinders, had the right not to be offended then we would have to remain mute and powerless.

 

Calling for someone to be killed is rightly a crime. Words and thoughts shouldn't be.

Posted with Blogsy

How can shops kill 1,000 a week and to unpunished and the staff be seen as angels?......sorry I mean the NHS

I'm a fan of the NHS but I'm not a blinkered fanatic who thinks it is perfect and that the staff, some of whom are incredibly well paid, are angels made flesh.

 

I have never understood this blind reverence to the bureaucratic institution and all the staff no matter how nasty or useless.

 

Imagine a well known national shop chain killed 1,000 of its customers every week. Imagine they have been doing so for decades. A minuscule amount may be murder but most are the result of incompetence, or mistake. A large percentage is the shops staff killing through neglect or simply not caring when someone needs help not to die.

 

1,000 dead this week, next week, last week....for decades.

 

Now in such a case they'd be rightful uproar. The staff responsible would be charged with manslaughter at least, and the management would be jailed and the company bankrupted. Politicians would line up to scream of the crimes and seek to destroy the killing shop.

 

Rightly.

 

So how is it that the NHS can kill 1,000 a week for decades and politicians and press line up to praise it and protect the killers, who are a aberrant minority? Why is no one charged with manslaughter? Why is the management allowed to remain un-prosecuted?

 

This isn't a anti-NHS rant, but I cannot understand why people are being allowed to die of starvation, dehydration, neglect, or incompetency and nothing is done to stop the deaths and to hold those responsible to account.

 

Manslaughter and cruelty are just as abhorrent and illegal regardless of if those responsible work in the public or private sector.

 

The sad thing is it won't change. Politicians are powerful and rich enough that they won't suffer neglect or incompetence. They or theirs won't die in such a degrading way so they put their political ambition and make a fetish of the NHS rather than helping the majority of the NHS staff who are good and skilled stamp out the killers, incompetent, and the cruel.

 

It's a sad thing when vested interests kill 1,000 a week and no one cares. Then again it's only the powerless little people who die.

Posted with Blogsy

I'm sorry but if you rape a child you shouldn't have British protection

We have a legal duty to protect those who are justifiably seeking asylum. We also have a legal duty not to torture or abuse people. It's the law. It's also the moral thing to do.

 

However how the Human Rights Act is being interpreted is wrong.

 

Case in a point: a Sudanese man who was granted asylum in the UK. He, Sani Adil Ali, raped a 12 year old child within weeks of being granted asylum and a judge, one Jonathan Perkins, decides that even though he is child rapist and judged to be a threat to children, that it would be against Ali's human rights to remove him from the UK. This is the same judge who decided that a Taliban soldier should remain in the UK as it was agiant his human rights to remove this self confessed killer.

This is insane. No law should work this way.

It is this simple: if you rape a child your asylum should automatically be void. You should be on the next plane out of the country. Once you violate our kindness and destroy a child's life this way you don't deserve our protection. The rights of children and the wider community shouldn't be subservient to those of a foreign born criminal, especially one who rapes little girls.

It's is that simple.

The danger is that these ridiculous rulings be unelected judges brings the law into contempt and plays into the hands of the loathsome BNP. The law needs to be changed, and judges need to act within the spirit of the law and what the wider public wants.

It is our law not the personal property of unaccountable judges. They need to remember that.

 

 

 

Posted with Blogsy

The government says the vulnerable are greedy for benefits. It should go to those in real need: politicians

The government is doing an assessment into the awful way this country deals with the elderly.....well the England bit as Scotland gets free OAP care paid for by the English taxpayer.

 

Apparently the English retired have to sell up and take benefit cuts because of our dire, politician led, ecnomic problems.

 

So the vulnerable suffer at the hands of a poltical class grown fat off money they award themselves from the very same taxpayer. It seems wrong that the corpulent iffy politicians mock the vulnerable and the poor. They impose cuts on the poor and demand more expenses for themselves.

It's sick.


 

Posted with Blogsy

The iffy hounding of Jeremy Clarkson's underage daughter by the Daily Mail

I don't smoke. I never have. It's dangerous and really expensive. I would advise all not to smoke....but it is a free country and you can do what you like. There cannot be anyone who does not know how dangerous and expensive smoking is so its up to them if they smoke or not.

 

However much I dislike smoking there is something worse in the sanctimony some exhibit toward smokers, or meat eaters, people who enjoy a drink. This joyless, holier-than-thou attitude really grates my corn.

 

Adults should be able to make their own choices about their own lives and health even if it the wrong ones.

 

The worst thing of all is the way the tabloids attack other's behaviour to sell papers and settle scores. They studiously ignore their own drink, drug, and criminal activity to attack others.

 

The case in point is the Daily Mails vendetta against Jeremy Clarkson, the tv giant who presents the most popular show in the world and writes for a rival paper. For the DM every joke he makes is a crime, which is a tad tedious and strange for a paper so dependent on free speech to seek to curtail what others say.

 

However today marks a new low with the DM publishing paparazzi photos of Clarkson and his seventeen year old daughter having a drive, sitting together and having a smoke. All of which are perfectly legal. Forget the solemn promise the DM made not to use such invasive and repugnant methods when they were caught bang to rights making people's lives hell and hounding Princess Diana to her death, there is something off about going after the family of people they don't like and seeking to profit from them doing nothing illegal. Where is the right to privacy? Where is the news story? More than that how can it be right to publish the photograph of a minor taken without permission without getting permission from their parent or guardian?

 

You'd have thought with the with press illegality and their assaults of people's private live's the DM would be careful in invading the lives of children in this nasty manner.

 

This vendetta really reflects badly on the DM and shows how much in the gutter it's stooped.

Posted with Blogsy

Bob Diamond should keep his golden goodbye

I am neither a banker nor am I rich. More than that my relationship with Barclays Bank ended in acrimony: simply put I found a better bank elsewhere.

 

So I'm not a fan of bankers or Barclays.

 

However I feel that their ex-leader of Barclays should keep every penny of his payout from Barclays in spite of the media and political pressure to surrender the multimillions he will receive.

 

I have no idea is he was a good bank boss, though it has to be said he did keep his bank unbankrupt and ensured it didn't need billions from the taxpayer, which is good. He also innocent of any crime. This last bit is key. Diamond may not be popular, or people may be jealous of his wealth, but he isn't a criminal.

 

Being innocent of any crime means he shouldn't have to give up what is his by right of a legal contract. Indeed even if he was a wrong 'un it would unacceptable to force him to give up what is legally his without a court ruling.

 

It doesn't matter how unpopular he is, it doesn't matter how rich, it wouldn't even matter if he was a nasty creep if he succumbs to the pressure it is a dangerous precident for tabloids (who are nastier, more unscrupulous, and just a iffy, and in many cases criminal), and vote hungry politicians (who are nastier, more corrupt, bloodstained, and in many cases war criminals) to impose their will regardless of what the law says. Forget the controversial Diamond, it's simply not fair that bullies, especially those as sullied as the tabloids can force us to dance to their tune.

 

The thing is this tabloid and poltical witchhunt is simply the press and iffy poltical types diverting attention from their own sleaze and actual criminal activities.

 

So let a Diamond keep his payoff and deal with actual criminal activity.

Posted with Blogsy

Eric Sykes

 

It is a sad day. The great British comedy legend Eric Sykes has passed away at 89. With his passing we've lost one of the few remaining links to the golden age of British comedy. Though I have always felt that he didn't receive his just praise he was at the heart of the burgeoning of British comedy after the war. Starting out as a script writer he was the unsung hero of the revolutionary Goons. When his close friend Spike Milligan was unable to write the show due to mental health problems, Eric wrote the scripts but didn't recieve the credit he was due. His contribution to the alternative comedy revolution which led to Monty Python, and stand up has long been ignored.

 

It's a shame.

 

As a performer he was wonderful. His sitcom 'Sykes' was lovely and gave that icon Hattie Jacques a well deserved role. It was funny and overlooked.

 

His later dramatic roles in the theatre on on screen showed what a seriously good dramatic actor he was. I do however have a strong affection to his short film 'The Plank'. It a classic gem which brought together some brilliant comedians and had no words. This love song to the silent era is a gem. It's timeless and perfect. An utterly unpretentious film, cheaply made. It is truly one of the best films ever made. it's timeless and hilarious. It's precious and rare.

 

Personally I feel it is sad that Eric didn't receive a knighthood for his work. He deserved it both for his work, his charity endeavours, and for the way he overcome serious disability to brighten our lives. Perhaps his modesty left him unknighted when the talentless, brash, and connected become Sirs.

Perhaps the best accolade you can give Eric is the fact that there was never a hint of scandal attached to him. He was a nice and decent man. He was the man who spent decades sharing an office with the mercurial and mentally ill Spike Milligan. His patience and kindness is a example for what a good person would be.

 

So I mourn the passing of a great, decent man and send my condolences to his family and many friends. I don't think we will see his like again.

 

It's a sad day.

 

Posted with Blogsy

Julian Assange: his life sentence

I've written here before about Wikileaks and Julian Assange. Specifically about the allegations of sexual misconduct and rape and the wider implications of the charges. Personally I feel the way Sweden has dealt with the case to be worrying. The political interference has been, for a lover of Sweden, disturbing. Now my view has been if he is guilty then he should face justice. Like I seem to keep saying, if a person is guilty of any crime, especially one as heinous as rape (though the Swedish definition of rape used here is odd and not what any other country would define as rape), they should face justice and prison. It doesn't matter who, what, or where they are. Fame, wealth, or power don't matter. If guilty they should be jailed.

 

To just that I don't think Assange is guilty. He's arrogant, and no doubt a pain, but it really does seem that the powers that be are out to get him.

 

The way the press, including the BBC with their multi-billion pound budget keep saying that Assange has been charged with rape, is a sex criminal, etc., has been shocking. Assange hasn't been charged with any crime at all. All he is wanted for is for questioning. He hasn't been arrested.

 

Anyway Assange has run to the Ecuadorian Embassy and is claiming asalium before the UK extradited him to Sweden.

 

The question is what I'd do in his position. If I were innocent then I would fight to clear my name.

 

But....

 

What would I do if I thought the whole system was rigged to convict you and to extradite me to the US where prison, and torture and death (if the more extreme poltical opinion in the US is followed). Would I offer myself up to the vindictive beast?

 

I don't know.

 

What I do know is that this is a life sentence for Assange. Even if the US don't take advantage of his move, if he's granted Ecuadorean asylum, to a less powerful country to assassinate or abduct him, he will spend the rest of his life imprisoned on a South American country unable to travel, unable to go home. He will spend the rest of his life praying that his poltical backers in Ecuador are not replaced for those eager to please the Americans.

 

That's an awful way to life your life.

 

Julian Assange has a life sentence.

Posted with Blogsy

Libor scandal: Ed's ball-less

It all seemed so simple: the largest, non-bankrupt, bank fiddling the Libor rate being fined hundreds of millions. Cue outrage and calls by the politicians and media to imprison people who haven't been proved to have committed any criminal acts. (now I'm not a fan of bankers, they are greedy, incompetent, and nasty, but you need to remember that the fines where not imposed after a criminal court case and that the standard of proof needed to prove criminal wrongdoing is much higher).

 

However things have started to unravel from this anti-capitalist narrative.

 

At least one public owned bank is guilty of the very same iffy acts. They haven't been fined as they didn't tell the authorities that they had been doing it.

 

Worse is the allegations that Barclays got permission from the BoE to run its unscrupulous ruse. If after all the attacks on Barclays by the BoE head honcho Mervyn King it emerges that he and his staff, as banking regulators, gave Barclays permission to do what they did he's finished. Worse than that if Barclays have proof of the BoE giving them permission they, and the taxpayer are liable. Put it this way, if I was a bank (I'm not a bank), who have been traduced and called worse than rapists, and this undermines my stock price, I'd go after the people who gave me permission to do the thing they now attack me for. Banking is the preserve of the incestuous clique who tend to close ranks and do each other favours. I'd forget these niceties and attack the attackers. But that's just me and I was brought up on the rough streets of reality.

 

Worse from the labour perspective if the danger if unintended consequences. They call for public inquires to attack the banks. This is fine, but like Cameron has discovered its easy to call inquires, but the consequences can do you much more damage.

 

The improtant thing to see is the total disappearance of the posh boy Ed Balls since this scandal broke. He's gone. Not a sight nor sound of him is to be seen. Nader. Nought.

 

The reason is simple. he was the government minister responsable for the City and banks for the whole period where these wrongdoings occurred. He was in charge of bank regulation. He screwed up the bank regulation which led to this scandal, and Northern Rock, and the devastation of the economony.

 

And that's why he's running like a scared bitch. Any proper inquiry, under oath, will call Balls as a key figure. Any competent judge or lawyer will make mincemeat of him. In the run up to the election, and the labour leadership election so soon to follow, it will not do his chances of becoming PM any good. Worse than that, in the light of calls for people to be imprisoned and the introduction of retrospective legislation to get revenge who knows what'll happen.

 

In this case it might be a case of being careful what you wish for.

 

It's a tad ironic that Balls lacks balls.

Posted with Blogsy

David Cameron says we may have our say on the EU: at some unspecified time, and question

After all the public anger about the EU and how we have been denied our say by our political elite David Cameron has told the great unwashed that he'll give us our say on the EU.

 

And we are supposed to believe him?

 

Really?

 

I don't.

 

I don't believe he, or labour, or any other non-UKIP party will give us our say in a un-rigged vote. Note he doesn't say when we would have our say. Or what the question is. That's important.

 

Of course they all promise we'll have our say. They promise this when two things happen. The first is when they are really unpopular. The second when they think the other parties are going to offer the stupid voters their say and reap poltical benefits.

 

In these two cases our mainstream politicans will promise us a referendum on our relationship with the EU. They never say when or what the question is, we're not supposed to worry our lumpen dullard heads about such things; they, who are our betters, will decide what's best. Of course they'll not mean it and any promise is done with their fingers crossed. All that matters is that the idiot voters believe them.

 

Once elected solemn promises or forgotten and the politicians jockey and scheme to get their foot on the EU gravy train which will bring them unearned wealth and baubles.

 

All is forgotten until they find themseves unpopular and seek to gain brownie points by attacking the even more unpopular EU.

 

But they don't believe it.

 

The promise will be forgotten or the vote will be rigged.

 

Are we really so gullible as to fall for the same broken promise time after time?

 

The worst thing is our poltical elite think we are all so stupid that we will.

 

Posted with Blogsy