Gloucestershire has seen a stunning drop in crime with figures plunging to a 20 year low. What lies behind this remarkable turnaround?
Is it new forensic advances? No.
Is it due to a change in police tactics? No.
Better intelligence and improved informant networks?
Improvements in technology? No.
What then?
The Johnson family was a ruthless gang of travellers who carried out countless crimes over two decades, from cash machine raids to sheet metal thefts.
Yep - the tactic is locking up do-as-you-likeys.
It was down to the arrest and imprisonment of one - just one - group of "travellers" .Now these are not to be confused with proper gypsies who are both rare and actually inclined to travel around the country rather than set up long term "camps" - a euphemism for semi-permanent home sites and building structures erected without permission often on land which is owned by someone else.
No, these travellers are what we used to call tinkers or - before it became politically incorrect to do so - pikeys. When I was a lad they well known as trouble-makers and the police were well aware and not adverse to telling you that when the pikeys were around crime would shoot up.
But thanks to decades of political correctness and "diversity" awareness indoctrination we have been forced to accept that these "travellers" are just exercising their right to live an alternate lifestyle which is just as valid and desirable as any other.
The fact that they live beyond the law, pay no taxes, dump their filth where ever they want and show absolutely no respect for authority or the rights of you and I while making full use of the "rights" afforded them by the very laws they ignore means nothing to the stupid liberal do-gooders who force us to accept pikeys into our communities - where they are then free to launch their crime sprees with little from the law to deter them.
Still, there is some benefit to having these travellers stay - if you're a car dealer who specialises in expensive 4x4 vehicles, a commercial vehicle dealer or a luxury caravan salesman - because their "camps" seem to have a proliferation of relatively new items of these types.
Showing posts with label Wankers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wankers. Show all posts
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Truly, the world has gone mad
Popeye to be X rated.
NHS managers at Liverpool's Primary Care Trust says its plan to ban the promotion of smoking in films, including cartoons, could mean problems for the spinach-loving sailor if he ever makes a return to the screen.
And who put the NHS Nazis of Liverpool's Primary Care Trust in government? I don't remember voting for them or even seeing their name on the ballot papers - do you?
It is truly a mad world we live in when films aimed at children as young as 12 feature graphic scenes of extreme violence and even sex without censure, but a cartoon caricature of a sailor puffing on a pipe is considered too extreme for the eyes of people under 18.
NHS managers at Liverpool's Primary Care Trust says its plan to ban the promotion of smoking in films, including cartoons, could mean problems for the spinach-loving sailor if he ever makes a return to the screen.
And who put the NHS Nazis of Liverpool's Primary Care Trust in government? I don't remember voting for them or even seeing their name on the ballot papers - do you?
It is truly a mad world we live in when films aimed at children as young as 12 feature graphic scenes of extreme violence and even sex without censure, but a cartoon caricature of a sailor puffing on a pipe is considered too extreme for the eyes of people under 18.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Implied acceptance
I'm no expert on law - as you've probably worked out by now! - but I think that there ought to be a degree of common sense applied to law or, to be more precise, how the law is applied.
As usual this summer as with every summer, the RMT and their obnoxious leader, Bob Crow, have a grievance. I'm not entirely sure what this grievance is nor do I care - as I understand it they've been offered an decent pay rise while most of us in the private sector are making do with nothing or an actual cut, but Crow and his cronies want guaranteed jobs for life - which is ridiculous.
What I do know, though, is that unions have adopted this tactic over the last decade of having short disruptive strikes rather than indefinite strikes until the grievance is addressed. It's obvious why they do this - it means minimal disruptance to the lives of the union members while maximising disruptance to the employers and, in the case of the tube, the general public.
Now I'm all for the right to withdraw you labour if you feel you have a genuine grievance, but my argument would be that should you decide to return to work for any reason then that implies acceptance of the conditions offered. Otherwise why would you return to work?
I don't know what the best way of encoding that in law would be - I would suggest that it should be made illegal to strike more than once over any issue thereby making it impossible for anyone to have a number of strikes of fixed length.
What is certain is that these tactics of short disruptive strikes repeated over weeks or months have become more common in the public sector. It's time they were stopped. They can strike until some agreement is reached or they can go back to work and accept the conditions offered - they should not be allowed to have their cake and eat it.
As usual this summer as with every summer, the RMT and their obnoxious leader, Bob Crow, have a grievance. I'm not entirely sure what this grievance is nor do I care - as I understand it they've been offered an decent pay rise while most of us in the private sector are making do with nothing or an actual cut, but Crow and his cronies want guaranteed jobs for life - which is ridiculous.
What I do know, though, is that unions have adopted this tactic over the last decade of having short disruptive strikes rather than indefinite strikes until the grievance is addressed. It's obvious why they do this - it means minimal disruptance to the lives of the union members while maximising disruptance to the employers and, in the case of the tube, the general public.
Now I'm all for the right to withdraw you labour if you feel you have a genuine grievance, but my argument would be that should you decide to return to work for any reason then that implies acceptance of the conditions offered. Otherwise why would you return to work?
I don't know what the best way of encoding that in law would be - I would suggest that it should be made illegal to strike more than once over any issue thereby making it impossible for anyone to have a number of strikes of fixed length.
What is certain is that these tactics of short disruptive strikes repeated over weeks or months have become more common in the public sector. It's time they were stopped. They can strike until some agreement is reached or they can go back to work and accept the conditions offered - they should not be allowed to have their cake and eat it.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
How to reform MPs allowances
OK - we all agree that MPs who have a constituency outside of London need somewhere to stay when parliament is sitting and a reasonable living allowance - but we also agree that they are out of touch with reality. So here's a way to solve two problems in one go.
First, buy up a number of flats in the worst sink estates dotted around London and plonk them in there. The flats will be owned by the local council and maintained in the usual local authority way.
Second, give them a weekly allowance which they consider reasonable - equivalent to a single person's pension. If it's enough for a pensioner's total income it's more than enough for an MP's expenses.
Third, tax them exactly the same as they tax us. No exemptions.
That should bring them back down to earth.
First, buy up a number of flats in the worst sink estates dotted around London and plonk them in there. The flats will be owned by the local council and maintained in the usual local authority way.
Second, give them a weekly allowance which they consider reasonable - equivalent to a single person's pension. If it's enough for a pensioner's total income it's more than enough for an MP's expenses.
Third, tax them exactly the same as they tax us. No exemptions.
That should bring them back down to earth.
Friday, May 08, 2009
Major's lament
Over on The Telegraph comment section there is an article by ex-PM, John Major, with the tagline (in quotes) that "Britain must be put first".
John Major on Gordon Brown: 'Britain must be put first'
I've read and re-read the article several times - even run a "find" on it - and can't find that phrase anywhere in the entire piece. Not only that, I can't even find a mention of "Britain"!
What I did find were a series of comments by Major seeking to defend his record and that of his government. My personal view of Major is that he was quite probably the worst Prime Minister we have ever had - until Tony Blair .... and Gordon Brown.
As I think he was the worst Conservative PM, it's hardly surprising that I also think he was the worst leader of the Conservative Party we've ever had. Indeed, it was under Major that the slow decline of the Tory party into social liberalism gathered pace. If you want a clue as to why this happened, then this line might help .....
Indeed, on the morrow of the 1992 election victory, Chris Patten and I speculated on the unlikelihood of a fifth win.
Jesus Christ - his party had just secured a fourth consecutive term and he'd already given up any hope of winning the next election! Could you imagine Thatcher being so defeatist?
I actually opened the article looking forward to hearing someone say (at last) that the British government ought to put the interests of the British nation and British people before any others. I was, admittedly, surprised that it should be Major who was to say it, but I didn't really care who it was as long as someone prominent said it.
What a let down. Get back to the cricket, Major - it's all you were ever really cut out for.
John Major on Gordon Brown: 'Britain must be put first'
I've read and re-read the article several times - even run a "find" on it - and can't find that phrase anywhere in the entire piece. Not only that, I can't even find a mention of "Britain"!
What I did find were a series of comments by Major seeking to defend his record and that of his government. My personal view of Major is that he was quite probably the worst Prime Minister we have ever had - until Tony Blair .... and Gordon Brown.
As I think he was the worst Conservative PM, it's hardly surprising that I also think he was the worst leader of the Conservative Party we've ever had. Indeed, it was under Major that the slow decline of the Tory party into social liberalism gathered pace. If you want a clue as to why this happened, then this line might help .....
Indeed, on the morrow of the 1992 election victory, Chris Patten and I speculated on the unlikelihood of a fifth win.
Jesus Christ - his party had just secured a fourth consecutive term and he'd already given up any hope of winning the next election! Could you imagine Thatcher being so defeatist?
I actually opened the article looking forward to hearing someone say (at last) that the British government ought to put the interests of the British nation and British people before any others. I was, admittedly, surprised that it should be Major who was to say it, but I didn't really care who it was as long as someone prominent said it.
What a let down. Get back to the cricket, Major - it's all you were ever really cut out for.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
When did we lose our hard-fought liberties?
Asks a Lib-Dem MP?
I had five hours inside the kettle as pressure built to think about how things could have been handled; but also to question when our hard-fought liberties were lost.
About fifty years ago, mate - when we started letting twats like you dictate the political agenda.
I had five hours inside the kettle as pressure built to think about how things could have been handled; but also to question when our hard-fought liberties were lost.
About fifty years ago, mate - when we started letting twats like you dictate the political agenda.
Sunday, April 05, 2009
Just as you thought this country couldn't get any sicker ....
.... it does.
The liberals will call people like me "reactionary" because I consider this indicative of a seriously sick society. The irony of that is liberals will try to pass this off as an aberration and seek to "understand" how this aberration could have happened in the utopia they've created - at the same time they'll be mad with reactionary rage and indignant fury at, for example, a mother who doesn't want her child to be adopted by a couple of gay men.
Eleven year olds killing each other? Nothing to worry about say the libs.
Mothers who worry about who is adopting their kids. A filthy disgrace they yell!
I've had enough of these slime sucking scumbags running my country into the ground - and these people infest ALL our major political parties. Don't think the Tories are any different - they are just the same. Get rid of the lot of them.
The liberals will call people like me "reactionary" because I consider this indicative of a seriously sick society. The irony of that is liberals will try to pass this off as an aberration and seek to "understand" how this aberration could have happened in the utopia they've created - at the same time they'll be mad with reactionary rage and indignant fury at, for example, a mother who doesn't want her child to be adopted by a couple of gay men.
Eleven year olds killing each other? Nothing to worry about say the libs.
Mothers who worry about who is adopting their kids. A filthy disgrace they yell!
I've had enough of these slime sucking scumbags running my country into the ground - and these people infest ALL our major political parties. Don't think the Tories are any different - they are just the same. Get rid of the lot of them.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Joke of the day
Comes from the Telegraph.
Gordon Brown is under pressure to demote Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, amid claims that her authority has been critically undermined by the pornography on expenses row.
Ha ha ha ha - Jacqui Smith - authority!!! - ooooh, good one. Side-splitting stuff. Honestly, I've seen more authority from a Peach Melba.
Gordon Brown is under pressure to demote Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, amid claims that her authority has been critically undermined by the pornography on expenses row.
Ha ha ha ha - Jacqui Smith - authority!!! - ooooh, good one. Side-splitting stuff. Honestly, I've seen more authority from a Peach Melba.
Living within your means
If there is one thing which is apparent from the row over MP's expenses, it is that most of them appear to spend considerably more than they earn.
The salary for an MP is around £60,000, but we're supposed to believe that somehow these people spend more than twice that amount in "expenses". You can bet your bottom dollar that if I made expense claims that amounted to more than twice my salary my company would be asking a few awkward questions, but we're supposed to think nothing of MP's doing this?
One thing is certain - either MP's are absolutely crap at managing their budgets, in which case why on earth should we consider them fit people to manage the national economy - or they are money-grubbing bastards ripping off the taxpayer for all the cash they can, in which case they are defrauding the nation.
So - which is it? Useless at their job or corrupt fraudsters?
Either way they need to be sacked - every single one of them.
The salary for an MP is around £60,000, but we're supposed to believe that somehow these people spend more than twice that amount in "expenses". You can bet your bottom dollar that if I made expense claims that amounted to more than twice my salary my company would be asking a few awkward questions, but we're supposed to think nothing of MP's doing this?
One thing is certain - either MP's are absolutely crap at managing their budgets, in which case why on earth should we consider them fit people to manage the national economy - or they are money-grubbing bastards ripping off the taxpayer for all the cash they can, in which case they are defrauding the nation.
So - which is it? Useless at their job or corrupt fraudsters?
Either way they need to be sacked - every single one of them.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Criminals
Do you think politicians actually understand what they are elected for?
It seems to me that most of them don't - or rather they think it is different to what it actually is. Maybe, I've got it wrong - but my understanding of their job is to enact legislation which is designed to 1) protect the nation and the people from attack by foreign agencies; 2) make decisions and regulation designed to improve our economy and standard of living and 3) enact laws to protect the law-abiding majority from various nefarious criminals and criminal gangs.
It's apparent that they really can't be arsed with number 1, preferring - as they do - to let plenty of foreign bastards intent on doing harm to us into this country. It's increasing clear that rather than bother with number 2 and ensuring our economy is strong and self-sufficient they are determined to leave what remains of our economy to be picked over by the vultures of globalisation until we're a total basket case.
But perhaps worse than either of those is the fact that those we elect to enact legislation our clearly a bunch of degenerate criminals themselves. It's not just the pathetic Home Secretary and her dreadful money-grubbing antics over her "second home" or even her porn-addict husband getting off with the five-fingered widow at taxpayers expense - it's the fact that they are all doing it and seem to consider virtually a "right" to rip whatever cash they can out of the taxpayer pocket.
How can we trust them to protect us from criminals when they behave as criminals themselves? Why should we trust them to be moral guardians when they clearly lack any concept of morality?
Our ruling class is utterly corrupted - morally, emotionally, financially and politically. Not just one or two of them, but the whole damn lot of them. They've got to go.
It seems to me that most of them don't - or rather they think it is different to what it actually is. Maybe, I've got it wrong - but my understanding of their job is to enact legislation which is designed to 1) protect the nation and the people from attack by foreign agencies; 2) make decisions and regulation designed to improve our economy and standard of living and 3) enact laws to protect the law-abiding majority from various nefarious criminals and criminal gangs.
It's apparent that they really can't be arsed with number 1, preferring - as they do - to let plenty of foreign bastards intent on doing harm to us into this country. It's increasing clear that rather than bother with number 2 and ensuring our economy is strong and self-sufficient they are determined to leave what remains of our economy to be picked over by the vultures of globalisation until we're a total basket case.
But perhaps worse than either of those is the fact that those we elect to enact legislation our clearly a bunch of degenerate criminals themselves. It's not just the pathetic Home Secretary and her dreadful money-grubbing antics over her "second home" or even her porn-addict husband getting off with the five-fingered widow at taxpayers expense - it's the fact that they are all doing it and seem to consider virtually a "right" to rip whatever cash they can out of the taxpayer pocket.
How can we trust them to protect us from criminals when they behave as criminals themselves? Why should we trust them to be moral guardians when they clearly lack any concept of morality?
Our ruling class is utterly corrupted - morally, emotionally, financially and politically. Not just one or two of them, but the whole damn lot of them. They've got to go.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Them and us
The public sector can look forward to "inflation busting" pay increases while the private sector struggles.
NHS staff, police officers and teachers were all told yesterday that their awards will be met in full - on the day the Retail Prices Index, which is used to set pay rises, fell to zero for the first time in 49 years.
Nice for them - not so nice for those of us in the private sector whose pockets are being picked to service these arrangements. Still, no one minds teachers, coppers and nurses getting more money, do they?
Meanwhile, senior civil servants earning up to £200,000 a year are pressing for a 3 per cent increase in the pay pot used to boost their salaries.
Officials from their union, the First Division Association, claim the boost is needed for around 4,000 Whitehall staff on at least £60,000 because their pay lags behind equivalent posts in the private sector.
Fine - go and get a job in the private sector, then. Oh, there aren't any. Nor do you get the security, fat pension and the opportunity to retire at 60 either.
John Philpott, chief economist at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, said: 'The public sector is at present an entirely recession-free zone.
Recession free? Hey, it's still boom time at the public sector trough - it's just a question of how many more people can stuff their snouts in it before the private sector is sucked completely dry.
Last week, official figures showed that 30,000 jobs were created in the public sector last year, while 105,000 were lost in the private sector.
Not too long at that rate. Enjoy it while you can, public sector piggies - the revolution is coming.
NHS staff, police officers and teachers were all told yesterday that their awards will be met in full - on the day the Retail Prices Index, which is used to set pay rises, fell to zero for the first time in 49 years.
Nice for them - not so nice for those of us in the private sector whose pockets are being picked to service these arrangements. Still, no one minds teachers, coppers and nurses getting more money, do they?
Meanwhile, senior civil servants earning up to £200,000 a year are pressing for a 3 per cent increase in the pay pot used to boost their salaries.
Officials from their union, the First Division Association, claim the boost is needed for around 4,000 Whitehall staff on at least £60,000 because their pay lags behind equivalent posts in the private sector.
Fine - go and get a job in the private sector, then. Oh, there aren't any. Nor do you get the security, fat pension and the opportunity to retire at 60 either.
John Philpott, chief economist at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, said: 'The public sector is at present an entirely recession-free zone.
Recession free? Hey, it's still boom time at the public sector trough - it's just a question of how many more people can stuff their snouts in it before the private sector is sucked completely dry.
Last week, official figures showed that 30,000 jobs were created in the public sector last year, while 105,000 were lost in the private sector.
Not too long at that rate. Enjoy it while you can, public sector piggies - the revolution is coming.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
From hippy to hypocrite
The Met are warning that the upcoming G20 summit will stretch them to the limit as anti-globalists line up to vent their anger at world leaders.
Given that I'm always banging on about globalisation being a bad thing you may be forgiven for thinking I'm on their side - I'm not.
For starters, they are not just anti-globalist - they are usually anti-capitalist as well. I'm not and never have been. For me the capitalist economic model is still the simplest and the best - but within a national context so that you, as a nation, can manage that capitalism for the benefit of your nation. Not that I think it requires that much management - I'm in favour of keeping regulation to a minimum, but I do accept that regulation is necessary and also that capitalism has a natural cycle which includes booms followed by regular, if small, downturns. The management capitalism requires is restricting imports that can distort the local markets and lead to the inevitable spending boom which leads to the inevitable credit boom, followed by the inevitable huge market crash.
Most of the people who will be protesting at the G20 summit will be radical socialists and new age hippys, though. They all moan about "globalisation", but you can bet your ass that there will be plenty of protesters dressed in cheap t-shirts made by 8 year olds in Indonesia, expensive trainers that cost £5 to make in China and bellies filled with booze from Germany and burgers from Brazil. A good number of them will be smoking spliffs which they believe to be filled with the best Thailand has to offer, but was actually grown in a maisonette in Catford. A delicious irony.
I don't like their attitude. I believe the best way to protest against globalisation is to do as much as you can to avoid having anything to do with it. Buy local goods from local producers in local shops. I know that the vast majority of people who go to these demonstrations don't do that - they voice their anger at these events and chuck bricks through the windows of McDonald's then go back to their own little hovels filled with cheap junk from all over the world to binge on a Big Mac, fries and chocolate shake.
They want to be seen as "radical" - but when they get home they're as globalist as the next person - and stinking hypocrites.
Given that I'm always banging on about globalisation being a bad thing you may be forgiven for thinking I'm on their side - I'm not.
For starters, they are not just anti-globalist - they are usually anti-capitalist as well. I'm not and never have been. For me the capitalist economic model is still the simplest and the best - but within a national context so that you, as a nation, can manage that capitalism for the benefit of your nation. Not that I think it requires that much management - I'm in favour of keeping regulation to a minimum, but I do accept that regulation is necessary and also that capitalism has a natural cycle which includes booms followed by regular, if small, downturns. The management capitalism requires is restricting imports that can distort the local markets and lead to the inevitable spending boom which leads to the inevitable credit boom, followed by the inevitable huge market crash.
Most of the people who will be protesting at the G20 summit will be radical socialists and new age hippys, though. They all moan about "globalisation", but you can bet your ass that there will be plenty of protesters dressed in cheap t-shirts made by 8 year olds in Indonesia, expensive trainers that cost £5 to make in China and bellies filled with booze from Germany and burgers from Brazil. A good number of them will be smoking spliffs which they believe to be filled with the best Thailand has to offer, but was actually grown in a maisonette in Catford. A delicious irony.
I don't like their attitude. I believe the best way to protest against globalisation is to do as much as you can to avoid having anything to do with it. Buy local goods from local producers in local shops. I know that the vast majority of people who go to these demonstrations don't do that - they voice their anger at these events and chuck bricks through the windows of McDonald's then go back to their own little hovels filled with cheap junk from all over the world to binge on a Big Mac, fries and chocolate shake.
They want to be seen as "radical" - but when they get home they're as globalist as the next person - and stinking hypocrites.
Friday, March 20, 2009
File under s for stupid
Melanie McDonagh hits on one of those laws which brings unintended consequences.
[Tom Nicholson] is the former environmental policy officer who is claiming – under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003 – that he was dismissed from his job because of his "philosophical belief in climate change".
Those who drew up the wording of that particular law, which outlawed discrimination on the grounds of faith, didn't leave much scope for misunderstanding about what it meant. "Religion and belief," it explained, means "any religion, religious belief or similar philosophical belief". And that, you would have thought, was that. What nobody took into account was that "philosophical belief" would cover convictions about carbon emissions.
No - or indeed countless other "philosophical beliefs" such as a belief in Nazism or a philosophical belief that child pornography is "art". As a result of this stupid law, drawn up by stupid people we can expect to see all sorts of claims and counter claims - all in the name of equality.
For instance, if someone, a guest house proprietor perhaps, has a philosophical belief that homosexuality is a disgusting and depraved practice and refuses to permit homosexuals to stay in his guest house he could be prosecuted for discriminating against homosexuals. He can, of course, then claim that he is being discriminated against because of his "philosophical beliefs".
As a result we'll find out who trumps who in the "equality" battle. Personally, I wouldn't hold out much hope for the guest house owner - unless he is black, Asian or Moslem - but I wouldn't blame him for trying.
Similarly the BNP can point to their "philosophical beliefs" as justification for any number of policies which others might deem "racist" or "bigoted" - but it's their beliefs and, according to this law, it must be illegal to discriminate against them for having those beliefs.
Like most "equality" laws and "human rights" laws it is a stupid and pointless law which will benefit nobody in the long run except the lawyers who thrive on this sort of thing. Stan's first law of equality states that the more you try to legislate against discrimination the more discrimination you will create - an offshoot of the law of unintended consequences.
[Tom Nicholson] is the former environmental policy officer who is claiming – under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003 – that he was dismissed from his job because of his "philosophical belief in climate change".
Those who drew up the wording of that particular law, which outlawed discrimination on the grounds of faith, didn't leave much scope for misunderstanding about what it meant. "Religion and belief," it explained, means "any religion, religious belief or similar philosophical belief". And that, you would have thought, was that. What nobody took into account was that "philosophical belief" would cover convictions about carbon emissions.
No - or indeed countless other "philosophical beliefs" such as a belief in Nazism or a philosophical belief that child pornography is "art". As a result of this stupid law, drawn up by stupid people we can expect to see all sorts of claims and counter claims - all in the name of equality.
For instance, if someone, a guest house proprietor perhaps, has a philosophical belief that homosexuality is a disgusting and depraved practice and refuses to permit homosexuals to stay in his guest house he could be prosecuted for discriminating against homosexuals. He can, of course, then claim that he is being discriminated against because of his "philosophical beliefs".
As a result we'll find out who trumps who in the "equality" battle. Personally, I wouldn't hold out much hope for the guest house owner - unless he is black, Asian or Moslem - but I wouldn't blame him for trying.
Similarly the BNP can point to their "philosophical beliefs" as justification for any number of policies which others might deem "racist" or "bigoted" - but it's their beliefs and, according to this law, it must be illegal to discriminate against them for having those beliefs.
Like most "equality" laws and "human rights" laws it is a stupid and pointless law which will benefit nobody in the long run except the lawyers who thrive on this sort of thing. Stan's first law of equality states that the more you try to legislate against discrimination the more discrimination you will create - an offshoot of the law of unintended consequences.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Makes me sick
RBS announce a British record loss of £24 billion, 20,000 employees will lose their jobs and yet the boss who led them into this monumental disaster walks away with a knighthood and a £650,000 A YEAR pension for life - and he's only 50!
How can that be right?
How can that be right?
Thursday, February 12, 2009
The anti-protectionist liars
In yesterday's Daily Mail, Peter Oborne cottoned on to something I've been banging on about for some time now - the similarities between the Great Depression and our current economic crisis.
The Great Depression arrived in precisely the same way. Here is the account given by the great historian AJP Taylor in his classic history of Britain between the wars.
'The great economic depression broke over the world in October 1929. The causes of this lay outside Great Britain, principally in the general reliance on American loans and American prosperity.
On October 24, 1929, the speculative bubble burst in the United States, and American money ceased to flow.'
I completely agree with that. American prosperity and money was the motivation behind the "globalisation" that took place in the first decades of the 20th century aided, as was this crisis, by the development of new communications technologies - principally the telephone and wireless.
I'm delighted that Oborne has seen the light and is now acknowledging that we are indeed facing a very serious economic disaster, but it infuriates me that he not only refuses to put the blame where it lies - corporatism and globalisation - but then seeks to criticise the one thing that turned the Great Depression around.
In the United States Barack Obama has already signalled that he is ready to support protectionism - the disastrous strategy that had such calamitous consequences around the world 70 years ago.
Indeed it is worth remembering that industrial production in the United States halved in the three years which followed the Wall Street collapse of 1929.
Indeed it is worth remembering - and it is also worth remembering that it wasn't until 1933 that the USA turned to protectionism - four years after the depression hit and the year which most historians agree was the turning point of the Great Depression. It was only when the USA applied the "disastrous strategy" of protectionism that they started to recover and it was only when the rest of the world joined in that we started to catch up.
And it is also worth remembering that by the time we had turned to protectionism Hitler was already in power, Japan - which had remained protectionist before the global downturn struck - had escaped the depression and was now a major regional power and the world was on course for a war the scale of which we had never witnessed before and I hope never witness again.
The thing is, Oborne must know this. He knows as well as I do that the Great Depression began in 1929. He knows as well as I do that it was preceded by a period of globalisation and he knows as well as I do that the worst of the depression happened in the years before the USA resorted to protectionism.
Either he is deluding himself or he is lying.
The Great Depression arrived in precisely the same way. Here is the account given by the great historian AJP Taylor in his classic history of Britain between the wars.
'The great economic depression broke over the world in October 1929. The causes of this lay outside Great Britain, principally in the general reliance on American loans and American prosperity.
On October 24, 1929, the speculative bubble burst in the United States, and American money ceased to flow.'
I completely agree with that. American prosperity and money was the motivation behind the "globalisation" that took place in the first decades of the 20th century aided, as was this crisis, by the development of new communications technologies - principally the telephone and wireless.
I'm delighted that Oborne has seen the light and is now acknowledging that we are indeed facing a very serious economic disaster, but it infuriates me that he not only refuses to put the blame where it lies - corporatism and globalisation - but then seeks to criticise the one thing that turned the Great Depression around.
In the United States Barack Obama has already signalled that he is ready to support protectionism - the disastrous strategy that had such calamitous consequences around the world 70 years ago.
Indeed it is worth remembering that industrial production in the United States halved in the three years which followed the Wall Street collapse of 1929.
Indeed it is worth remembering - and it is also worth remembering that it wasn't until 1933 that the USA turned to protectionism - four years after the depression hit and the year which most historians agree was the turning point of the Great Depression. It was only when the USA applied the "disastrous strategy" of protectionism that they started to recover and it was only when the rest of the world joined in that we started to catch up.
And it is also worth remembering that by the time we had turned to protectionism Hitler was already in power, Japan - which had remained protectionist before the global downturn struck - had escaped the depression and was now a major regional power and the world was on course for a war the scale of which we had never witnessed before and I hope never witness again.
The thing is, Oborne must know this. He knows as well as I do that the Great Depression began in 1929. He knows as well as I do that it was preceded by a period of globalisation and he knows as well as I do that the worst of the depression happened in the years before the USA resorted to protectionism.
Either he is deluding himself or he is lying.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Kings of comedy
I like the Lib-Dems - because they always make me laugh.
Honestly, there are more guffaws in a Lib-Dem policy statement than a whole series of Little Britain (not that that is saying much). Celebrating his year of success as leader of the most left wing of our three left wing mainstream parties, Cleggy thinks he's tapped into the things that really matter to people with hard times forecast.
On the first anniversary of his election as leader, Mr Clegg said his party had taken the lead on the economy and other key issues affecting the UK.
Yay! Good old Cleggy. And what are these "key issues"?
He told the BBC that his party was focused on practical help for people most at need rather than squabbling over questions such as how much the government should borrow to support the economy.
Good! Good! Practical help is exactly what people are looking for - and what practical help are you offering?
The Lib Dem proposals would include a five-year plan to insulate every school and hospital, subsidies for home energy efficiency, 40,000 new zero-carbon homes, improvements to rail lines and 700 new train carriages.
See - I told you it was funny! I'm sure there are millions of people looking at the dire state of their bank balance, worrying whether they'll still have a job in the new year and wondering "if only we could insulate our schools and hospitals we'd be OK".
I'm sure there are hundreds of small business owners struggling with cash flow as customers hold on to their cash as long as possible who are thinking "if only the government would build more zero-carbon homes our cash flow problems would be solved".
And I'm sure there are thousands of people on the brink of repossession just wishing that we had some shiny new train carriages to solve their problems.
It's a travesty that the Lib-Dems don't get the recognition they deserve. So I'm nominating them for next years "Comedy Awards".
Honestly, there are more guffaws in a Lib-Dem policy statement than a whole series of Little Britain (not that that is saying much). Celebrating his year of success as leader of the most left wing of our three left wing mainstream parties, Cleggy thinks he's tapped into the things that really matter to people with hard times forecast.
On the first anniversary of his election as leader, Mr Clegg said his party had taken the lead on the economy and other key issues affecting the UK.
Yay! Good old Cleggy. And what are these "key issues"?
He told the BBC that his party was focused on practical help for people most at need rather than squabbling over questions such as how much the government should borrow to support the economy.
Good! Good! Practical help is exactly what people are looking for - and what practical help are you offering?
The Lib Dem proposals would include a five-year plan to insulate every school and hospital, subsidies for home energy efficiency, 40,000 new zero-carbon homes, improvements to rail lines and 700 new train carriages.
See - I told you it was funny! I'm sure there are millions of people looking at the dire state of their bank balance, worrying whether they'll still have a job in the new year and wondering "if only we could insulate our schools and hospitals we'd be OK".
I'm sure there are hundreds of small business owners struggling with cash flow as customers hold on to their cash as long as possible who are thinking "if only the government would build more zero-carbon homes our cash flow problems would be solved".
And I'm sure there are thousands of people on the brink of repossession just wishing that we had some shiny new train carriages to solve their problems.
It's a travesty that the Lib-Dems don't get the recognition they deserve. So I'm nominating them for next years "Comedy Awards".
Friends like these ....
...... animals could do without!
Seven animals rights activists have been convicted of a "violent and relentless" campaign of blackmail against a laboratory's suppliers in which they branded directors "paedophiles" and attacked their families.
I've never had a problem with people protesting peacefully and legally about any issue, but animal "rights" groups have been using the tactic of "direct action" for years without the courts doing anything about it. The result of that laxity is this bunch of foul scum subjecting decent ordinary people to horrendous abuse and fear.
So I hope that the courts make an example of them all and sentence them to very long prison sentences - as they carried out their campaign of hate over six years I would think that the minimum they should be expected to serve would be six years as well (which would require a sentence of between 12 and 15 years thanks to our ludicrous early release system). They won't of course, but it's the only thing that might work.
In my opinion far too many people are over-sentimental about animals and their "rights". I know it's not a popular viewpoint, but I believe animals rights are defined by the laws of nature (i.e. - none), but the humanisation of animals over the last 60-80 years has created this sickly sentimentality.
The irony of all this is that these people who supposedly support animals "rights" are the ones causing more problems for animals. Once upon a time we had a decent and comparatively humane fur industry in this country, but "direct action" closed that down and drove the industry to foreign countries where they are far less concerned about animal rights and considerably less worried about their welfare.
Seven animals rights activists have been convicted of a "violent and relentless" campaign of blackmail against a laboratory's suppliers in which they branded directors "paedophiles" and attacked their families.
I've never had a problem with people protesting peacefully and legally about any issue, but animal "rights" groups have been using the tactic of "direct action" for years without the courts doing anything about it. The result of that laxity is this bunch of foul scum subjecting decent ordinary people to horrendous abuse and fear.
So I hope that the courts make an example of them all and sentence them to very long prison sentences - as they carried out their campaign of hate over six years I would think that the minimum they should be expected to serve would be six years as well (which would require a sentence of between 12 and 15 years thanks to our ludicrous early release system). They won't of course, but it's the only thing that might work.
In my opinion far too many people are over-sentimental about animals and their "rights". I know it's not a popular viewpoint, but I believe animals rights are defined by the laws of nature (i.e. - none), but the humanisation of animals over the last 60-80 years has created this sickly sentimentality.
The irony of all this is that these people who supposedly support animals "rights" are the ones causing more problems for animals. Once upon a time we had a decent and comparatively humane fur industry in this country, but "direct action" closed that down and drove the industry to foreign countries where they are far less concerned about animal rights and considerably less worried about their welfare.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Snouts in the troughs
I'm sure I'm not the only conservative disgusted by this.
BANKERS at four City firms have collected bonuses of more than £6.4billion this year, despite the worst financial crisis since 1929, it emerged yesterday.
While the rest of the country struggles under the ravages of the recession, London-based traders at Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch and Dresdner Kleinwort have been notified of their bumper payouts.
As someone who supports a capitalist economy I recognise that it is right to reward employees who perform well, but this smacks of greed and ignorance of the worst kind. I suspect that at the heart of it is a culture of "making hay while the sun shines".
In other words, rather than moderate the outrageous behaviour of the last ten years which has seen the banking system pushed to the brink of collapse, those at the top of the industry are getting themselves one last good snort around the trough before the regulators come in to spoil their fun.
Millions of people are going to suffer appalling hardship over the coming months and years primarily because of the appalling mismanagement of the banking industry and this government, but the really annoying thing is that none of those who are actually responsible for getting us into this mess will be among them.
BANKERS at four City firms have collected bonuses of more than £6.4billion this year, despite the worst financial crisis since 1929, it emerged yesterday.
While the rest of the country struggles under the ravages of the recession, London-based traders at Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch and Dresdner Kleinwort have been notified of their bumper payouts.
As someone who supports a capitalist economy I recognise that it is right to reward employees who perform well, but this smacks of greed and ignorance of the worst kind. I suspect that at the heart of it is a culture of "making hay while the sun shines".
In other words, rather than moderate the outrageous behaviour of the last ten years which has seen the banking system pushed to the brink of collapse, those at the top of the industry are getting themselves one last good snort around the trough before the regulators come in to spoil their fun.
Millions of people are going to suffer appalling hardship over the coming months and years primarily because of the appalling mismanagement of the banking industry and this government, but the really annoying thing is that none of those who are actually responsible for getting us into this mess will be among them.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Christmas is "evil" claims a prominent Moslem
From The Telegraph.
Muslim preacher Anjem Choudary has branded Christmas "evil" in a sermon posted on the internet.
The lawyer, who recently praised the Mumbai terror attacks, urged all Muslims to reject traditional Christmas celebrations, claiming that they are forbidden by Allah.
You see - this is what the idiots who run this country fail to understand about Islam. Through the Koran and the words of its leader, it explicitly supports and encourages things like the murderous rampage by Moslems in Bombay and explicitly forbids and condemns as evil anything outside of Islam.
But what is truly evil? Gunning down unarmed people as they go about their daily business or eating turkey?
When are we going to wise up to the so called "religion of peace"? When are we going to stop allowing them to spread this disgusting and perverse ideology across our lands? Why do we tolerate their intolerance of us, our customs and our traditions? When are we going to realise that we either confront this genuinely evil doctrine or be consumed by it?
Muslim preacher Anjem Choudary has branded Christmas "evil" in a sermon posted on the internet.
The lawyer, who recently praised the Mumbai terror attacks, urged all Muslims to reject traditional Christmas celebrations, claiming that they are forbidden by Allah.
You see - this is what the idiots who run this country fail to understand about Islam. Through the Koran and the words of its leader, it explicitly supports and encourages things like the murderous rampage by Moslems in Bombay and explicitly forbids and condemns as evil anything outside of Islam.
But what is truly evil? Gunning down unarmed people as they go about their daily business or eating turkey?
When are we going to wise up to the so called "religion of peace"? When are we going to stop allowing them to spread this disgusting and perverse ideology across our lands? Why do we tolerate their intolerance of us, our customs and our traditions? When are we going to realise that we either confront this genuinely evil doctrine or be consumed by it?
Timing is everything
Having had the best part of a decade of relatively affluent times in which they could have introduced "welfare reforms" with relatively painlessly and with relatively little opposition our blessed government decide that the best time to do that is just as we are about to enter the deepest recession for 50 years.
The time to have encouraged people to "get back to work" was when there was plenty of work available. Instead they decided to import millions of foreigners to fill the jobs that were going.
I also seem to recall a certain Anthony Blair promising before he was elected that he was going to introduce radical welfare reforms. I recall him encouraging his ministers to think outside the box and even appointing the excellent Frank Field to implement those reforms.
And I seem to recall Blair going sacking Field the moment they were in power for daring to do what his party leader actually asked him to do.
And they wonder why the public don't believe a word they say.
The time to have encouraged people to "get back to work" was when there was plenty of work available. Instead they decided to import millions of foreigners to fill the jobs that were going.
I also seem to recall a certain Anthony Blair promising before he was elected that he was going to introduce radical welfare reforms. I recall him encouraging his ministers to think outside the box and even appointing the excellent Frank Field to implement those reforms.
And I seem to recall Blair going sacking Field the moment they were in power for daring to do what his party leader actually asked him to do.
And they wonder why the public don't believe a word they say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)