Harry Potter puts in for EU Presidency

Harry Potter as the new President of Europe? Well not exactly. It's not the fantastical character of cinematic and book fame but the lookalike Dutch prime minister. Jan Peter Balkenende is a man who knows about deals in smoke-filled rooms (actually smoke-free now due to the smoking ban). Each Dutch election is followed by a Jan'll Fixit arrangement. Seems the EU chief bottlewashers are dead against Tony Blair knocking on the door. At least they have some sense in that direction. So they've given Jan Peter the nod and the wink.

According to this Dutch website, the majority of the Dutch people want Balkenende to go to Brussels if he gets the chance so they are rid of him. That's the most-heard opinion apparently. Various polls indicate a majority of the electorate also want general elections if 'their' premier is picked.

Now that kind of rings a few bells. I hear the sound of Tony Blair's name being mentioned in likeminded tones. One has to wonder what it is about the political infections our national leaders pick up in Brussels. Old Biffo Cowan was implicated in undemocratic stuff in Ireland. Sarkozy is up to his tricks again, in cohoots with Frau Merkel (Tippytoes and the Hausfrau - what a combination!), trying to stitch up a deal over this EU Presidency thing. And Baldenende dismissed the Dutch NEI! as a temporary blip.

None of them is remotely democratic when it comes to keeping the EU Gravy train on its tracks. Chief among the democratic dissemblers are Blair and Brown. Both are cheats when it comes to giving the people a say. So it comes as no surprise that the Dutch want to give Harry Potter a good kicking. A pair of the finest clogs will do. To unclog the democratic deficit!

Wal-Mart starts selling coffins

Wal-Mart doesn't miss a trick. They've reckoned that, as everybody eventually dies, selling coffins is not a bad idea. Even if they got a tiny fraction of the deceased people's purchasing power, that would produce a tidy sum.

I've had a look at these coffins. Actually, they're not coffins but the far more grandiose caskets that Americans have come to cherish. These are the satin-lined plush interiored things that open halfway so you can get a peek of the dead relative or friend as you pay your last respects. These weighty things make for better profits but they are hellish for pallbearers. If fact in most cases they give up trying to lift them. No, these things are usually wheeled in on a folding trolley, many times looking as if trolley and casket are going to come to grief in some way.

I favour coffins over caskets. But Wal-Mart won't be selling coffins. Far too deathlike for their liking. The casket seems to be a more sanitised way of coping with death. I was told once of a good Anglo-Catholic church in America that wanted a funeral with pallbearers carrying the coffin shoulder high into the church. The priest was being fobbed off with a fancy casket. He wanted this parishioner to have a nice oak coffin. Nothing doing. So he went on the internet and found a Jewish coffin maker in California, many miles away, who had just the right thing. With a bit of redecoration the wooden coffin did the job and he was able to escort the deceased into church, shoulder high with pallbearers in attendance.

Wal-Mart may well sell quite a few. On the other hand, if you don't buy your casket from a fancy funeral director, are you expected to arrange your own Wal-Mart funeral? Maybe, but don't be late for it!

Different planets and parallel universes

The BBC reports that a man of 112 has "married" a girl of 17 in Somalia. In itself it must send shock waves throught the western world. However, all is not as it may seem, I think.

The old codger might be up to some tricks. So might the girl and her family. He says, "I didn't force her, but used my experience to convince her of my love; and then we agreed to marry". At his age he needs to be careful over affairs of the heart. He could just conk out any minute if he overexerted himself.

My guess is that he has a bit put away on the money front. He'll have a Cecil Colby moment, fade away gracefully, and she becomes queen bee of the village. Probably works out fine for all concerned.

In the scheme of things, Somalia is definitely a law unto itself!

Has Tony McNulty any honour?

It seems that MPs are split into two camps. Those that do an honourable job in an honourable way and are seemingly honourable people. Then there are the fiddlers, the backsliders and the muckrakers. Was it any different? Thankfully the honourable members are in the significant majority.

Tony McNulty has been huffing and puffing that he "played by the rules" but when it comes to the Fees Office and the House of Commons, for some this was no better organised than the tuck shop at Greyfriars School. "Crickey! It's old Quelch. Better hide these receipts jolly fast!" McNulty was investigated by the Parliamentary standards watchdog for claiming the second home allowance for a property in which his parents lived. This house was only nine miles from his own home! Any honourable person would have thought, wouldn't they, that a quick train or tube ride would have worked most evenings. But not Tony, oh no. He decided to pocket the maximum he could get his hands on.

It's because of his apparent greed that he has been given the parliamentary equivalent of six of the best. Plus the humiliation (well, maybe not in his case!) of handing back £13,837. And he has, along with others, given Parliament a bad name and allowed the public to think that every MP is just like him. No wonder Suzy Gale is upset by it all. She works hard for her husband and his constituents. But fellow MP Derek Conway abused the system. So his abuse is an assumed systemic cancer that every MP's spouse is capable of contracting, including Suzy? It's nonsense, of course. But it is the sad times we live in.

Common sense has left the minds of most people currently. Nobody takes responsibility. Blame the other guy. Don't admit to anything in case you get sued or arrested or whatever. It's fast becoming a polecats' paridise. Instead of allowing the dodgy characters to continue, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards John Lyon should have been allowed to recommend that certain MPs just left the House. So what if we had a load of by-elections. Far better that then letting the matter drift on.

Tony Blair for EU President? Stuff of nightmares!

Give me strength. Gordon Brown is said to be actively lobbying for Tony Blair to be the new-fangled president of the EU monolith. Why on earth would the good people of Europe deserve this?

Can you imagine it? Tony Blair knocking on the EU door. "Anything I can do for you Europeans?". He's been knocking on doors and cheesily moving into position since his weaning days. I very much hope there will be those who see this as not in our best interests, I really do.

He is a dissembler par excellence, his Iraq war history an example of low politics. His ambition outsmarts his convictions. His convictions appear to be at odds with his conscience. His general message is one of opaqueness rather than transparency. There must be other candidates, surely?

BNP do better in the Bahamas!

The BNP is trumpeting the fact that they are the most visited political website in the UK. As my mother would say, bully for them! I visited Alexa, the web tracking service, to find that the BNP is warmly received in the Bahamas. 230th most popular site. In India it ranks at 89, 566 but that is curiously interesting given the number of sites emanating from that country.

So the BBC has helped to unleash something. Are we capable of debating the points that arise or are we not? Given Jack Straw's lamentable performance last week, I think a new drawing board is required!

'Hate crime' grandmother considers suing

Free speech in Britain is becoming one-side. Or should I say lopsided? A 67-year old grandmother, Pauline Howe, has been investigated by Norfolk police for 'hate crime' after she wrote a letter to her council objecting to a gay pride march. Now she is considering suing the authorities.

It's a funny old world. It is perfectly acceptable for some people to say all manner of things about the Pope, to castigate the Bishop of Rochester as an evil this and that, but it is not acceptable to say that one is, at least, uncomfortable about overt displays in public of a homosexual nature.

Bridget Buttinger is Norwich City Council's deputy chief executive. She wrote back warning that the grandmother could face criminal charges. She wrote, "The content of your letter has been assessed as potentially being hate related because of the views you expressed towards people of a certain sexual orientation." So basically Ms Buttinger is saying that anyone minded to express a traditional Christian opinion is deemed a hateful person. Ms Buttinger probably hoped Mrs. Howe would be jailed!

I know that certain homosexuals would rather spit blood than let Mrs. Howe express her views, but views they are. Many people share them. Norfolk Constabulary has defended its action as "proportionate". I wonder what a disproportiate action would be in the chief constable's mind?

'Younger wife' for marital bliss

According to the BBC reports, the secret to a happy marriage is choosing a wife who is smarter and at least five years younger than you. This is what UK "experts" say. Couples are more likely to go the distance (presumably unto death), particularly if neither has been divorced in the past, according to the Bath University team.

Well, I fit the bill on both counts. My wife is at least five years younger that me and is a lot smarter. And neither of us has been divorced.

So thank you Bath University experts. You've made my day!

Lord Carey takes on the BNP

Lord Carey has come out to denounce the BNP and to pronounce an unsettled view of the Pope's invitation to Catholic Anglicans. The two topics are not related, but have been scrambled together as a soundbite piece. The former Archbishop came onto the Today programme yesterday to say he didn't say this and he didn't say that about the Pope's announcement.

So what did he say about the BNP. Apparently that their views are 'irredeemably evil'. I'm glad he said views and not the people themselves, because the Christian gospel tells us that nobody is beyond redemption. The archbishop should have clarified this point. In the heat of the moment all kinds of things can be misinterpreted.

Lord Carey spoke of views, plural. I have an overriding problem with the BNP's policy on promoting racially based policies likely to cause favouritism for white people (DNA tested, no doubt!) above others. However, on paper, this is the only detestable policy. All their other policies seem fairly anodine and stand up to scrutiny. I have an issue with the emphasis on "command and control" but that's about it.

What we have now is not a debate, because that would allow the BNP to become "equals". No, we have a crazed demonisation which allows Nick Griffin to sell himself as a political martyr. If all the media has in their arsenal is likening Griffin to Hitler and telling us what a bigot he is, then that won't change a thing. Tell us something we don't know.

So, my question is this. Can the mainstream politicians debate the policies of the BNP other than turning Griffin's personal bigotry into the main discussion topic? If they can't, then the BNP gets to go under the political radar and into pastures new!

Man arrested for making coffee in own home while naked

An American man who made coffee in his own home while nude is facing charges of indecent exposure. This is a bizarre case indeed. The police who arrested him, Fairfax County Police Virginia, said they believed he wanted to be seen naked by the public. He faces up to a year in jail and a $2,000 fine if he is convicted. He is fighting the charge and seeking damages from police. Quite right too.

If police officers can arrest people because they think someone is going to do something or wants to do something, it's definitely turning into a police state world. This is not the same as a conspiracy to commit a crime. That is when there is evidence of pre-planning but without commission of a crime.

Police officers could arrest someone sitting in a car because they believed they might drive off at an illegal speed. Or they could arrest someone entering a store because they thought the person wanted to shoplift. It could go on.

We live in a society now, or at least the so-called western world, where any innocent occurrence immediately has impure connotations placed on it. This man claims he did nothing abnormal in his own home. Just got out of bed, naked, and went to make a cup of coffee. Unfortunately he now faces the prospect of a court case with people mulling over whether he is a sick pervert or just a naked man making coffee.

Some people get their lives turned upside down in a day. It just goes to show that we do not know what tomorrow will bring.

Lies, deception and press claptrap!

I'm not in favour of dealing with political opponents in the way that the liberal elite and chattering classes have with regard to the BNP. All they do is conveniently cover up their own political crap and try to rubbish the far right with juvenile epithets and illogical soundbites.

The BBC is now being exposed as having entered into some kind of conspiracy to debunk Nick Griffin. All they have done is succeed in looking mightily dodgy as far as "a duty to impartiality" is concerned. In fact, the Deputy Director General of the BBC, Mark Byford, might as well have said the reason they wanted him on was to have a kind of "man in the stocks" reality show.

The audience was partially selected. Dimbleby is said to have encouraged booing. With what result. The BNP goes up in the polls because the programme was seen as a martyr's slaying. What a stupid lot they are.

Now for some real fibbing and deception. In the Daily Mail, a paper known for its epistolic abuse of asylum seekers and people of an economic migrancy tendency, Edward Heathcote-Amory says this of the BNP -

RHETORIC: 'Our immigration policy is supported by 84 per cent of the British people at present.'

REALITY: The BNP's immigration policy is voluntary repatriation of 'immigrants' (ie non-whites) regardless of whether they were born here. There is no evidence that any but a tiny minority of British people support such a plan. Mr Griffin himself recently suggested that if there was a problem working out where to send immigrants back to, he would 'drop them out of a plane somewhere over Africa'.

The inference is that the BNP is the only party to have a policy of voluntary repatriation. Edward is being partial with the truth. Ever since the Immigration Act of 1971 came into force, the government has a policy of voluntary repatriation.

The BNP’s policy is to:
- Deport all the two million plus who are here illegally;
- Deport all those who commit crimes and whose original nationality was not British;
- Review all recent grants of residence or citizenship to ensure they are still appropriate;
- Offer generous grants to those of foreign descent resident here who wish to leave permanently;
- Stop all new immigration except for exceptional cases;
- Reject all asylum seekers who passed safe countries on their way to Britain.

The New Labour government is trying to deport people, they are trying to reduce immigration and they have a voluntary repatriation scheme in place (not rescinded!).

If we are to have a debate let's cut out the lies and deceit. I do not favour or support the BNP because they do not give me the feeling that they will treat all Britons with equal fairness. Neither do I think their draconian policies will help. But we have to find a way to argue on the facts.

It seems those in positions of authority have abondoned arguing on facts in favour of demonising and deceiving. Question Time has come up to give the BBC a kick up the backside. Those who manipulate the truth will be found out. By all means attack Griffin on his ideas to 'drop people out of planes' but do not add untruths into the bargain!

Balloon family Heene "admit" hoaxing the world!

The Heene family of Colorado are just a product of our age. An intelligent father is seemingly seduced by the charms and apparant riches of reality television. He thought that, by staging this stunt and getting half the Colorado law enforcement officials up from behind their desks to go chasing a saucer-shaped balloon, he would get a better chance of being picked. Instead, he entered the largest reality show by default.

Most of the world knows of this family now. The children think it is all great fun. The sheriff is hopping mad and threatening jail time. And the world carries on.

I hope the lessons learned from all this is that irresponsible parents have an influence on their children. The sins of the fathers, etc. No good will come of jailing the parents. Possibly a hefty fine. But as in all things American, the fine is a crazily high amount for the particular crime. In this case a maximum of $500,000!! If it ever came to court and that was whacked onto the couple, the children would be the sufferers.

It's a salutary lesson in greed and ambition getting ahead of proper reality. So-called reality television is nothing of the sort. It is just another form of humiliation dressed up as entertainment.

One in five "considering" voting BNP!

Would you Adam 'n Eve it! The BBC has done the BNP proud. Not just by putting Nick Griffin on Question Time, but by allowing a dodgily selected audience (enticed to boo at appropriate moments like a 19th century music hall crowd) and by the fellow guests ganging up on him, thereby making him look "got at".

As Griffin himself says, this parody hardly touched the BNP policies. Now we have, according to Sky News, an opinion poll suggesting that 22% of the British people have allowed their minds to loosen overnight and for them to consider voting BNP. With a crowded field in many constituencies, that could see MPs elected. Now that would turn the House of Commons into a bear pit.

Remember, New Labour, who trumpet the fact that they "won" three general elections in a row, only managed to get 20% of the total electorate's support last time. Put's it into perspective a bit!

The BNP needs to be quizzed not on immigration or race - we know what they stand for there. Let's confront their command and control economic policies and their quick fix law and order solutions. But above all, please, please let the mainstream parties just stop the spinning, deceipt and cronyism. It's just helping to bolster the 22% as they mull over the benefits of a BNP government!

The hype was better than the show

So Nick Griffin has done his Question Time. I can't say I was impressed, by him or the BBC. In fact, the hype was more exciting than the actual programme. The only person to come out of it well was Bonnie Greer. She did her best to chivvy Griffin along and I think she succeeded. At one time I thought they had the making of a double act.

David Dimbleby seemed to have come with a type of Twenty Questions format, all ready to grill Griffin. The audience, which appeared anything but a cross-section of British society (more the BBC's insurance policy against being labelled a patsy for the BNP), were there to lob pot shots at "Nick". Chris Huhne did OK and Baroness Warsi was able to stick a few damp squibs on Jack Straw. I thought Straw was his usual evasive self when the questioning got tough on immigration.

But truth to tell, I don't think this will harm the BNP or do it many favours. My wife, who is anything but a BNP sympathiser thought Griffin enhanced his situation. That surprised me. I thought he looked like a controlled but shifty character, his bottom lip quivering as one insult too many struck home.

On tonight's showing Jack Straw won't cut the mustard nationally with the BNP. He might stir it up a bit in Blackburn, but he's got too many dodgy skeletons in his political cupboard. I'm surprised Griffin didn't use any (apart from his father's war effort). So the end result for me is that the BBC came off best with regard to the ratings and Bonnie Greer came off best with regard to the best way to treat your foes - with a grand mixture of humour, dignity and slight chiding!

The Borrowers

As human beans, we are being slowly put into the bean counter to maximise our worth to a profligate government that sees borrowing as a means to an end. Paying back is someone else's business. Gordon Brown may as well be a tiny person living under my floor boards. He appears to have tiny minds living under loads of floor boards, all over the country, popping out to borrow stuff from us human beans.

We now live in a country where most of the top corporations are crazed in their devotion to "driving down costs" and "reducing prices". We have banks that are so big that they have the government to ranson. They have become like an emboldened Oliver Twist, completely assured that they will get some more. Mr. Bumble the Beadle has buzzed off! Angela Knight, ex-Tory minister and persuasive moral blackmailer of the British Banking Association - she continously stresses that if banks don't get what they want, they will buzz off to Switzerland or the Cayman Islands or somewhere - is unperturbed by criticism. And we have a workforce wondering if their jobs are safe.

So on the one hand we have a situation where the tax take is diminishing and on the other where the borrowing is being stratispherically increased. Is there an accountant out there who knows how to join the dots up?

BNP given succour by Labour's failures

This quote from BBC Newsnight on the BNP in Stoke-on-Trent -

"Dave Gore is a 40-year-old tradesman. He has just been made redundant. He says there is work out there but immigrant workers have pushed wages so low, he refuses to do it. He has voted Labour all his life. Now he is getting ready to vote BNP for the first time. "Labour took us for granted," he says. "They've done nothing for us. Now I'm going to give the BNP a chance."

Give the BNP a chance! That's what New Labour has given us. Because of their poncy behaviour with the banks, sucking up to dodgy corporatists and generally paving the way for self-engrandisement (Blair's multi-million pound financial caravan is a good example!), we have been left with an underclass that is bitter and resentful, together with an artisan class that is fearful and demotivated.

Perhaps Gordon Brown might do the decent thing and hand the keys of No 10 back in the morning! Oh, and Darling's borrowing bonananza. It won't be an extra 7% on income tax at payback time. It will be Denis Healey's squeaking of the pips for all of us. OUCH!

Brown and Cameron both aim shots at traditional thinking!

Gordon Brown says gay MPs and peers should to be allowed to hold civil partnership inside Parliament. Parliamentarians and their children can marry in the Palace of Westminster but civil partnerships are not allowed, which Mr. Brown thinks is wrong. He said politicians had to do more to "take on prejudice".

David Cameron says MPs have to "push" to change people's attitudes.

Sounds like a couple of mindbenders at the fair. It is one thing to be rude and threatening about a person's lifestyle, to upset someone or to be downright unpleasant. It is quite another to believe that certain lifestyles are wrong.

The Pope is vilified by the likes of Peter Tatchell. I see loads of contemptuous remarks about Christian orthodoxy. If Gordon Brown thinks that traditional Christian teaching is a prejudice that needs to be taken on then he has left the manse behind in a big way. He is speaking in a simpleton's soundbite manner.

As for David Cameron's remark I find it rather odd. Conservatives don't push people around to change their attitudes. I hope my Conservative candidate doesn't adopt a hectoring tone so that the voters of Solihull get their attitudes pushed into shape!

New Labour fright regime carries on the vetting

New Labour is a preposterous outfit. All keen to vet everyone and anyone except their wretched selves. It is perfectly OK to have morally questionable ministers in the government, but woe betide a decent citizen wanting to help other peoples' children.

The Great Nosepoker Balls is so keen to vet every person in the land that he has come up with a new category of potential paedophilic monsters. These are the exchange student parents. "Don't worry Pierre! Daddy is very nice and has been completely checked over by Mr. Balls". What on earth is Pierre and all the other young students to make of it.

Balls keeps up the mantra of wanting to safeguard children. Instead he is like a carcrash heading towards a time when every parent will be devoid of any desire to pass on experience of their life for fear of being "labelled". It will be a society without love and compassion. Each will have been vetted, each will be recorded, to little or no avail. None of this actually stops paedophilia. It all runs on a one strike and you're out routine. Each time a paedophile is convicted, the police remark, "He was under the radar, you know!" as if to confirm what a ridiculous situation it all is.

Paeodophilia is a matter that needs addressing. New Labour is clueless on the subject. One day I suppose a scientist will explain whether it is a mental condition, a pyscho-sexual condition or just something that prison will fix. At the moment the latter appears the favoured option, although I think a few in authority think otherwise. Their fears lie in the fact that if paedophilia was unravelled, then other sexual proclivities could also be. Now that would be something.

No man wants to be a primary school teacher it seems. I certainly wouldn't if I were younger. It's bad enough in Sunday School. The vetting issue creeps over us like a frightful character from George Orwell's 1984. In fact, Ed Balls and his parrot chatting wife would make a good 1984 couple.

Balls better open a few more lunatic asylums. By the time the vetting of the whole country is over we will all be nervous wrecks.

For once I agree with Melanie Phillips

Melanie Phillips is often too acerbic, too censorious for my catholic Anglican mind. However, I find that I am in agreement on occasions with many that I mostly disagree with.

This is one occasion. She says this, in her Daily Mail column, about the BNP and Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time.

"Alas, despite all the uproar, his opponents have settled upon the wrong strategy. And the reason they have got it wrong is precisely why Griffin has made the headway that he has. In a democracy, politicians from distasteful but lawfully constituted political parties - and the BNP is a legal organisation, with two MEPs - should not have their views suppressed but taken on and defeated in argument. But to do so, the positions they take and the source of their appeal have to be honestly acknowledged."

It is precisely because Peter Hain and his ilk have no clue about acknowledging how the BNP got nearly a million votes in June that the BNP succeeds. If Hain is so politically closet-ridden that he cannot "take on and defeat the BNP in argument" he should SHUT UP and let those that are going to do it DO IT!

'Popped in the oven with no hope of resurrection': It's your funeral, Vicar!

From Ruth Gledhill's Times blog comes this gem. Death is certainly a different thing these days.

BNP debate 'illegal', warns Peter Hain

Peter Hain is scrabbling around in the gutter trying to curry favour with every anti-democratic faction going. He's got apoplexy because the BBC has invited Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP and now an MEP, onto Question Time.

Hain's trumpeting the "fact" that the BNP is illegal. No more illegal than half the stuff he's been involved in. The man is a veritable plonker!!

The BBC has a duty to be impartial. It is absolutely right that the BNP is involved if a level of British people see fit to go out and vote in their dodgy candidates. Democracy throws up the rough with the smooth. All that the salivating Hain is doing is helping the BNP cause. So he's threatening to take the BBC to court!

The BNP is not illegal as far as the courts are concerned, or as far as the government is, or the Electoral Commission. Let this pompous prat waste his time in court on a frivolous legal challenge. My advice to all democrats is to debate with the BNP and take on the arguments.

Rabbi removed for daring to speak up!

A rabbi is a religious leader in the Jewish faith community. It was often a title given to Jesus by anxious followers seeking help and succour. "Rabbi, what is the meaning of this?" could well be the cry that went up.

The oldest synagogue in London, the Bevis Marks, has just removed its rabbi for daring to allow a march to start from outside the synagogue. The march was a demonstration against the role of banks in the financial crisis. Apparently it upset "important figures" with "links to the financial industry". Rabbi Nathan Asmoucha is considered a good rabbi with abilities to create a good community spirit. Just the sort we need.

Instead, several characters with a desire to keep the bonus binge going and a general cowboy character to banking and financial dealings alive, rounded on the rabbi and have now succeeded in having him removed. Just for daring to speak up about the financial crisis and let others march to have their say.

The scoundrels here are those who removed the rabbi. They have left a bewildred congregation, which is bad enough, but it also gives the impression that usury and money lending of a Dickensian type are prevalent.

These men have done a disservice to democracy and to the ministry of an apparently upstanding rabbi.

Geert Wilders sends Islamic extremists wildly wild

The presence of far-right maverick Dutchman on the shores of the UK has sent certain Muslim fantatics into vituperate overdrive. 20-odd pyjama-clad bearded wonders came onto the streets to wave placards displaying such choice slogans as "Islam will dominate the world" and "Freedom can go to hell" which I take as a pun on the Freedom Party's name.

We are told by the high and mighty New Labour Regime that they are appalled at Wilders being here. Personally I don't find his views attractive, but I do believe in free speech, the right of personal viewpoints. The sort of right that allows hotheads to salivate about Taliban-inspired Shariah law.

New Labour huffs and puffs about Wilders but remains sanctimoniously silent about the incitement offered by these 20 bawlers. More hypocrisy, more double standards. New Labour to a tee!

New Labour's healthy hypocrisy

New Labour is a political creed devoid of political fibre or philosophy. The only thing that holds it together is spin, subterfuge and a social climbing desire. Mostly it has an obnoxious self-righteousness about it.

David Cameron was recently lambasted by Alan Johnson because the Conservative leader dared to suggest that the NHS was being strangled by bureaucracy. Johnson sounded like a maiden aunt had been raped. He talks of 'deceit' and enters an arena for tittle-tattle and innuendo. Also, that sleazy minister Ben Bradshaw, the one who thinks Anglican prayers should have a decent element of buggery as a subject matter, came out all prissy about the Conservatives approach to health care.

Both these ministers are so wrapped up in big government that they can't see the little problems growing into much bigger ones. Now they've got a new report on their hands. The Care Quality Commission (another quango) has said that one in eight NHS trusts has been told it must urgently improve the care it provides. We're back to hygiene and safety again. Mike O'Brien, a health minister, blithely comments that the report states good things.

When it comes to the NHS this New Labour shower are a mixture of ostriches in a sand pit and Croesus on speed. Now there's a mind-boggling thought!

Nick Clegg misses the point!

I'm getting a bit miffed with the party leaders and their approach to the expense scandal. They are, all three, excercising some kind of mammoth bolting procedure of a rickety stable door when the old nag itself is no longer chomping on the hay.

The truth is the Additional Costs Allowance was an unstainstable, unsupportable and totally mistaken idea in the first place. It rather vaguely said that second-home expenses may only be claimed for spending "necessarily incurred in staying overnight away from their main home for the purpose of performing their parliamentary duties". It seems all sorts were allowed, including gardening expenses. Nick Clegg and the other two leaders happily availed themselves of the system. They didn't squeak when they turned up at the Fees Office. "Gardening expenses, Mr.Clegg?" "Yeah, got a bigger mower and a smaller groundsman, er, I mean, gardener, er, or, handyman." "Right, OK, sign there then and the cash is yours. Not feeling a tad uncomfortable that you've got the most expensive gardener in Sheffield? I could always find a lad who'd do it for a quid? No, not interested? Oh, well!"

That conversation never took place. Neither did much else regarding the Allowance Scheme. However, it was what MPs were expected to be involved in. Now it's become a farce. It's one thing going after a person who has extorted cash or fiddled the system, but Nick Clegg is going after MPs who have "played by the rules". As with David Cameron, he is falling into a holier-than-thou position. This is not morally right. It is also totally undemocratic. It is not up to them to decide if a person who has not broken any rules should be de-selected. It is up to the voters to decide the merits of electing a candidate.

We are getting a kind of witch-hunt going on because the "authorities" feel uncomfortable. The truth is that legally and morally MPs who did not abuse the system should not pay anything back. The system was crazy, but then loads of businesses have crazy systems. Gordon Brown keeps telling us that continued bank bonuses are not illegal. However, it may be politically prudent for MPs to pay back unnecessary expenses.

Nick Clegg has paid back some of his gardening expenses but not all of them. Sir Thomas Legg thinks that a £1000 maximum for mowing your lawn and sweeping up the trash is OK. If he thinks that, then his time has been a waste. His first question should have been as to why an MP felt he needed to have his lawnmowing paid for in the first place.

The whole thing will not be sorted by Sir Thomas Legg and his pen-pushing exercise. No, it will be sorted at the Great Clearance Election next year!

We've been Carter Rucked big time!

This is the man trying to subvert British Democracy with a shedload of injunctions - a man called Eric de Turckheim. Just watch him squirm and wriggle in this interview with Jeremy Paxman. What a man!

I never promised you a rose garden!

I saw Ann Widdecombe on Sky News this morning. She's got a point. This review by Sir Thomas Legg is a kind of overlap with the Kelly review. Legg has changed the rules retrospectively. As she says, no employer who agreed an expenses formula and then changed it to suit the circumstances and demanded a proportion to be repaid would be allowed to get away with it. The employer would be up before an employment tribunal.

Added to this David Cameron is now saying that if his MPs do not pay back money at the end of the expenses review they will not be able to stand again for the Conservatives. Sorry David, this is MORAL BLACKMAIL!!!! You should be ashamed of yourself. It is one thing to be found out abusing a system, but it is quite another to rebuke a member for conscientiously abiding by the rules and then, when a figure of authority makes up revised rules, force them to "repay".

I get the sense that David Cameron is desperately trying to set himself up on the moral high ground so that nothing will impede his pursuit of power. I'd rather have a Conservative party in government that got there by fair means rather than by foul ones.

Legg has changed the rules to suit the perceived circumstances. It's rather like a football referee disallowing a goal because he's reading the latest tips from Wisden. Sir Thomas is on about gardening expenses. I don't know the cost of lawn mowing as I do it myself, but if it was in the rules, how come £1,000 is now the arbitrary limit?

He might have ended his letter with "I never promised you a rose garden" because what we have here is a situation which now stinks like it has had a truckload of manure dumped on it.

Gary McKinnon extradition appeal failure

The new Supreme Court, Jack Straw's legal invention, is certainly in hock to the New Labour Regime it seems. In the appeal of Gary McKinnon against extradition to the USA, their lordships (or should it be their supremeships?) rattled on about it not being against his human rights and that his case did not raise exceptional points of law meriting a hearing at the higher court. Such as public interest.

I wonder where the judges have been lately? Public interest is exceptionally high on this, including the Daily Mail's campaign. Only the government is fitfully crazed enough to try to stop any delay in McKinnon being stuffed in a chicken-type cage masquerading as a jail cell in some US correctional centre. 60 years tops, he'll get. The US criminal justice system, when in cahoots with Uncle Sam's right hand man, can be like a madman on a mission. Many have fallen a cropper to the knee-jerk responses or the retributive approach of the courts. Dr Samuel Mudd was a fine example and it was only the hoo-ha that his wife created that finally made everyone see sense.

Dr.Mudd didn't have the benefit of internet campaigns. Gary McKinnon does. And this case is made even more nasty by Gordon Brown's slavish desire to keep in with the US over the Afghan debacle. We need to be like owls on a tree branch. One eye open ready to hoot! With New Labour hypocrisy a lot of hooting is required. Currently, a businessman trying to avoid extradition to the USA has had his human rights respected. If you're perceived as a cyber geek forget it. If you're a businessman with possibilities, New Labour will save you. Just look at the bankers. It's a twisted world this New Labour fantasy land.

MPs' expensive expenses

Today sees the publication of Sir Thomas Legg's investigation into the rights and wrongs of MPs expenses. Or rather the letters he's sending to every MP.

This sorry saga has been a mess from the start. It started with limp-wristed government (both parties are to blame!) whereby the pay of MPs was camouflaged by an interesting expenses system and a convuluted pensions arrangement. Actual salaries looked rather meagre compared with other jobs and careers. This Alice in Wonderland approach to financial settlements was aided and abetted by the chief whips and the Speaker. A form of cahoots and cover-up all mixed up with the old school tuck shop way of dishing out the goodies.

Two things come to mind. First, the MPs were clowns indeed if they thought that the system was sustainable. It never was going to be. It was open to blackmail, exposure or criticism. Possibly all three at once. Second, it was a formal arrangement, so any MP exploiting this system was only doing so because he/she was encouraged to do so. It may be morally reprehensible to claim for duck islands and wisteria cleaning, but it was not illegal. It was up to the Fees Office to say yeah or nay. The only alleged illegality is outright mortgage fraud, and that about covers every citizen.

The problem MPs find themselves in is that immorality cannot be dealt with by due legal process in this case. It is absolutely right what Sir Stuart Bell says. "I think many MPs, if they read the newspapers, may feel (Sir Thomas) is not staying within that remit, he's not respecting the decisions that were made by the fees office in accordance with the rules at the time." Absolutely. The only reason we are seing money being paid back is because MPs feel bad about it.

Gordon Brown felt bad about his Sky Sports subscription being funded from expenses. David Cameron felt bad about his wisteria being removed as a constituency expense. Both have effected a mixture of memory loss, accounting failure and "I was too busy to know" in an effort to explain themselves. If they'd both said they thought they could get away with it, I'd be more than satisfied. But we've had a show of ridiculous hand-wringing and the imposition of kangaroo courts. Hardly a moral approach.

Now it has come to some MPs wondering why they should pay back when they did nothing legally wrong. Good question. They may feel aggrieved. They may be under consituency pressure to pay back, but they don't have a legal requirement to do so. Only if it fell outside the agreement and outside the law.

Gordon Brown is begging them to "get it sorted out and let's get it back to a system that people have confidence in" but his moral compass is so in need of repair that he is the last person to be preaching.

What they should have done is drawn a line in the sand, got a simplified pay and expenses system (one side of A4 stuff!) and moved on. Now all they've got is a canker that they can't stop scratching!

Blair, the bloody-handed one!

When a young Tony Blair knocked on his housemaster's study door and enquired - "Anything I can do for you, sir?" - it's a crying shame that the teacher couldn't show him the future. But maybe if he had been able to it would have made no difference. Blair has a stubborn streak of arrogant self-certainty about him. He was certain that Gordon Brown was not the face of New Labour for the general election of 1997.

He was also certain he had to twist and spin in order to come up with a reason for the Iraq War. Yesterday he got a verbal smacking in the face from an angry father of a deceased soldier. The father told Blair he had blood on his hands. 59 year-old Peter Brierly said, "As far as I am concerned that man is a war criminal. I can’t bear to be in the same room as him. I cannot believe he’s been allowed to come to this reception. I sat through that service listening to people preaching to me about tolerance but I don’t think anyone should be forced to tolerate being in the same room as him. He has made £14million on the back of taking us to war and they are now talking about making him president of the EU. But I believe I believe he’s got the blood of my son – and all of the other men and women who died in that war – on his hands."

That's three diabolical things in one remark. Blair fiddled the war, he's making dosh by the bucketload now, and he's cheesily knocking on the EU door asking "Anything I can do for you?" I know the answer to that one, but I don't run a rude-worded blog!

Blair is some character. Any vestige of socialism went with the pixies. Now it's hard to fathom out how much he's absorbed of catholicism. He's basically keen to milk the system which is a red flag to me that the man is driven by a desire not to be a failure and to be liked. The problem is that he has driven himself into exactly the opposite camp - distrusted and despised, dare I say.

However, the cheesiest thing Blair did was signing autographs on the programmes of yesterday's event. What a man!

Internet woes!

I'm beginning to realise the internet is a mixed blessing, or rather a curate's egg. On Wednesday it was all down and out for me. Virgin Media were operating on the cables or something. I really think the system is overloaded. Some nights it's virtually impossible to get on. Traffic is the problem apparently. It's a bit like gridlock on a motorway. The M25 comes to mind.

I had a nice chat with Sanjay in India. He thought my wireless problems were down to the kind of weather we get in England. I'm not so convinced. Maybe it's the moon. I'll ask Lunar Jim to fix it. I'm off the wireless now, partly because I'm told my little office has a big radiator in it and this can affect the router. Are routers any better than transistor radios? I remember sticking a coathanger aerial into my transistor and attaching it to a radiator in order to hear Radio Caroline loud and clear. I got that tip from a know-it-all. I need a know-it-all now!

Is Sanjay right? Is the radiator reasoning right? Or is the system just not keeping up with demand? It seems OK now as I'm typing away, but what about tomorrow? Another day, I suppose.

Du Beke Update

It seems the PC Brigade are not so keen to let this rest. Du Beke has been contrite and his dancing companion has been offered a profuse apology which she has accepted. But anti-racism campaign group Hope Not Hate has called for the dancer to be axed. It's hardly hate. I wonder if Giglamps Rentamouth is in this group.

The Indian sub-continent is awash with Indian remarks containing derogatory sayings about Pakistanis. If "Hope Not Hate" wants to calm anywhere down, it will be in India. But then they might be seen as nosey-parker ex-colonialist libertine-minded namby-pamby whities. And I wouldn't blame the Indians one minute for thinking so!

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=82433&d=19&m=5&y=2006

The Paki media was going gaga about the orange armband which they claimed were signs of these gunmen being Hindus.

http://www.languageinindia.com/sep2004/sindhiethnicslur1.html

Strictly Come Dancing star not a racist

There has been a row brewing over a remark that Anton Du Beke (or Anthony Beke to his memory) made about his Strictly Come Dancing partner Laila Rouass. He used the term "Paki" in a rehearsal period. Anton is a man given to banter. He likes to prod and probe with words, some of which are inappropriate or meaningless or downright mysterious. However, he gives off no vibes whatsoever of being a racist.

Laila is actually not a Pakistani. She has an Indian mother and a Moroccan father, hence her surname. She was born in London and is English. She is reported to have accepted his apology. She enjoys dancing with Anton.

Now I don't think he should have made the remark. However, the people who seem most upset by all this are not the two people themselves but the politically correct types who have come out of the woodwork to create a stir. They have deemed this word offensive. It may be and probably is. But I think there is a far greater issue here. The promoters of political correctness have a kind of self-righteous guardianship of other people's feelings. They also have a guilt complex gene in their bodies about empire and presumed white supremacy. So they crawl and creep and feign cupboard love to make sure no "ethnic minority person" jumps to the wrong conclusion. It's a kind of pre-emptive strike.

So we all now know this remark was used. No doubt revealed by a BBC insider keen to parrot that the "organisation does not condone offensive language in the workplace". I'd rather people learnt not to use offensive words or swear so much or generally act in a boorish manner. I prefer self-control to self-righteous indignation.

Pope and Queen to have beano at Buck House!

The Queen has invited the Pope to stay at Buckingham Palace when he comes to visit next year. She will be able to tell him how "appalled" she is with the state of the Church of England. The Daily Telegraph reports that the Catholic Herald thinks she also has "an affinity with the Holy Father, who is of her generation". They will have a lot to discuss. As Supreme Governor and Defender of the Faith it must be particularly galling when you have to sit back and watch some of the antics and complete disregard for the doctrines traditionally held.

In fact, her role now is more akin to the previous chief executives of Woolworths mulling over the Pick 'N Mix counters. If it carries on much longer she will have a state funeral carried out by a transgendered cleric clutching at straws and rabbits' feet!

Now she has dispensed with the likely lads and ladies of the synod, she can move gently across the tea and cakes and whisper, "More tea, Pope?".

Ahmadinejad is a Jewish cloth weaver!

Well, well, old Dinner Jacket isn't what he claims to be. He portrays himself (other than as a scruffy tax driver) as the leader of the Iranian people, safeguarder of Islamic truth and comfort. However, all is not as it seems. According to the Daily Telegraph, his real name is Sabourjian – a Jewish name meaning cloth weaver. Ali Nourizadeh, of the Centre for Arab and Iranian Studies, says it reveals a lot. "This aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad's background explains a lot about him. Every family that converts into a different religion takes a new identity by condemning their old faith." In Dinner Jacket's case this is done with liberal doses of fantasy and fiction.

No wonder the electorate felt he stole the election. Not because he's Jewish, but because he's an inveterate liar. Porky pies comes to mind, but they're not kosher or halal. But I'll stick with porky pies as the guy is good at lies.

Irish give Blair the green light

Tony Blair is still cheesily promoting himself as a possible President of Europe. Now that the Irish have done the right thing by the Brussels Regime by saying "YES" to the second referendum, it only leaves the Poles and Czechs to ratify this so-called constitution for Europe.
In a European Union world you're lucky to get a vote on how the monolith should be run. If you do get a vote, you won't be able to say "NO" because that's not an answer you can give. It's, YES,YES,YES all the way home. We won't get a vote on Blair's coronation. The edifice is made up of undemocratic types who genuflect most casually at the altar of democracy.

I'm wondering if Napoleon was the last continental person able to say "NO" and get away with it. The Empress Joséphine was not treated too well by this impirical poseur. In fact he let it be known that "power is my mistress". The European Union wants us to know that power is its mistress. I get the distinct impression that the "citizens of Europe" are just vassals of this overbearing, interfering and intrisically undemocratic organisation. It has been set up rather like a beehive. The drones (us ordinary voters) just get to vote for emasculated national governments. In turn, the leaders of these governments get to buzz around the queen (Tony Blair!) and formulate all manner of ideas and legalistic programmes of which the drones are permitted, at best, to rubber stamp with a "YES" vote.

And we exported democracy to Afghanistan? I think we didn't do a bad job considering how well the last election there went!