HUMAN RIGHTS - WHERE’S THE LINE?

Is Justice Truly Blind?

So, Abu Qatada is still with us. If I can get my head around this, the Judiciary here are concerned that should he be deported back to Jordan to face trial, that trial would be unfair on the grounds that evidence against him was probably obtained under torture.

The three Judges were afraid that he, Qatada, could face a flagrant denial of justice if sent back.

This is where I have a problem with the Human Rights Act; it seems to me that the judiciary in the UK take it to extremes. 

Stay with me on this; If the case against a person in his own country is open and shut with the result being a foregone conclusion and the only sentence is death; do you deport them to die or do you say that, no matter what their wrongdoings in this country, it would be against their Human Rights to send them back to die?

Qatada was convicted by the Jordanian courts on terror charges, in his absence, in 1999. If, as I have always believed, the Law in this country is about proof and not hearsay; why then is the judgement about his deportation based on a probability?  To quote the three Judges in the Court of Appeal, 

“Siac, (Special Immigration Appeals Commission) was entitled to conclude, (in their ruling of November 2012) that there is a real risk that impugned statements will be admitted in evidence at a retrial and that, in consequence, there is a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice.”

Master of the Rolls Lord Dyson added that whilst he accepted Qatada is regarded as a very dangerous person that was not a relevant consideration under Human Rights Laws.

Ever since Blair adopted the Human Rights Act into British Law there have been problems. Critics of it often point out that it appears to favour the criminal over the victim(s). Given the society which ‘New Labour’ fostered, that is an argument I am not prepared to take up in this post.

Suffice to say, apart from the many lawyers who seem to make a good living off the back of the Human Rights Act, there are many in the judiciary who wish that it would simply go away. I can probably get away with saying that it has done more to undermine confidence in the British legal system and the police than any other loony act or decision taken by loony New Labour when they were in Office.

I am not going to jump on the bandwagon and say, ‘scrap it’ because I actually believe there is some good in it. In my opinion it is a typical piece of Socialist legislation and therein lies the problem. It was drawn up to protect “the masses” but, invariably, protects those who sin against “the masses”! It needed a bit more thought and a lot less clauses.

Martin Luther King wrote; ‘Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.’

King’s quote, I believe, demonstrates all that is wrong with the Human Rights Act in its present form. We, the British Public, want rid of Qatada because he poses a very real threat to our safety through his hate sermons and high level of extremist support. He was even described as Osama bin Laden’s  right hand man in Europe. However, we have an extradition treaty with Jordan and they, quite rightly, expect us to honour that treaty, as we would expect them to reciprocate should the need arise. 

It is not just the EU and their dreaded European Court of Human Rights that is throwing a metaphorical spanner in the works as far as Qatada is concerned. The United Nations also plays a part in this debacle. We have the UN Convention Against Torture, to which the UK is a signatory. 

This says; ‘States are obliged to refrain even from complicity in torture, and thus are forbidden from deporting people to places where a real risk of torture exists.’

It is known that torture is rife in Jordan and Human Rights Watch has documented allegations of severe abuse. There does seem to be an irony of sorts here. Dare I mention the “dirty” word OIL? I say this because the prospect of torture did not stop the UK from deporting people to Gaddafi’s Libya!

Where does this leave the UK Government? Abu Qatada al-Filistini, born Omar Mahmoud Othman, in 1959/60, is a Palestinian Muslim of Jordanian citizenship. He came to the UK in 1993 on a forged UAE passport with his wife and five children. He requested asylum on grounds of religious persecution. He claimed he had been tortured in Jordan.

He was granted asylum in 1994.

In 1999 he was sentenced in absentia by a court in Jordan for conspiracy to carry out terror attacks and given life imprisonment with hard labour, subsequently in 2000 a further 15 years was added to his sentence for his involvement in a plot to bomb tourists attending Millennium celebrations in Jordan.

He was arrested in 2001on suspicion of being connected to a German terrorist cell. However, all charges were dropped. Then, in 2002 he was arrested under the Anti Terrorism Act and put in Belmarsh Prison. This is where his ten year plus battle against extradition began.

Back to the question, ‘where does this leave the UK Government?’ 

In limbo I’m afraid. Theresa May says she will carry on fighting to get this odious man off our island but, I fear, unless we, Great Britain, get out of the EU Qatada will forever flaunt the Law. Bear in mind it is not just Qatada. There are several Muslim extremists languishing at Her Majesty’s pleasure of whom the UK are equally impotent to do anything about and who will be free to walk our streets in a few months time.

Don’t be under any illusion that Mrs May can do anything about the situation. The UK cannot alter the ECHR nor can it do anything about the wordy, all encompassing UN Convention Against Torture. Cameron is too soft to go anywhere near them, all she is likely to get from him is rhetoric. Clegg believes in the EU with his heart and soul and Miliband is a Europhile through and through.

So, is Justice Blind?

Let’s just say that until the UK Government sees sense and gets us out of the EU, Justice will be heavily blindfolded!

The Big Speech for The Big Society

Excuse Dave Whilst He Talks Himself Into a Corner.

So, yesterday we had The Big Speech on The Big Issue - Immigration, for the Big Society! Delivered with stage managed passion by the thin-lipped wonder himself, ‘Call Me Dave’. More of that later.

Immigration is a contentious issue and not one to be taken lightly. So it was unfortunate that Labour approved the appointment of Mrs Linda, (Lin) Margaret Homer as the first Chief Executive of the UK Border Agency in 2008. She headed the Immigration and Nationality Directorate at the Home Office shortly after joining the Civil Service in 2005. After some reorganisation by the Labour Party, the UK Border Agency was formed in 2008.

Proof, if proof were needed, that Labour looks after its own, Homer had been in charge of Birmingham City Council from 2002 - 2005. She left there under a cloud, having presided over the postal vote rigging scandal, involving Labour candidates, in her position as Returning Officer during the  2004 Elections. 

The Election Commission criticised her failings in her role as the Returning Officer, describing her actions as ones that would disgrace a Banana Republic. Whereupon she defended herself by saying she had been in strategic, not operational control and had confined herself to motivational management and fire fighting.

Make of that what you will. I believe that she along with her cohorts in the local Labour Party were caught out she decided to jump ship. The statement meant nothing to the local Electorate who, by now, were used to political Labour spin and, like the Commission, took it with a pinch of salt.

Not surprisingly then an organisation that was declared to be ‘unfit for purpose’ in 2005 has hardly improved by one iota under her leadership. Reviewing her period in office as leader of UKBA, the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee concluded that because of her the organisation suffered a catastrophic leadership failure. It was further stated that the Committee had been repeatedly mislead by the Agency. Typically for a Whitehall Mandarin, Mrs Homer says, in reply to her critics; “It is wholly inaccurate to seek to ascribe responsibility to me for matters of concern that occurred long after I left the agency.”

Sorry love, but you were in charge from its inception and, you followed Labour’s policy of mass, unchecked immigration to the letter. It is pure hypocrisy to say that it is nothing to do with you! It must be another Labour Party, “Nuremberg Moment.” 

As a reward for her failure at the Border Agency, in 2010 she was given the post of Permanent Secretary of the Department for Transport. Cast your minds back to the debacle that was the letting of the West Coast Mainline Rail Network Franchise. Guess who was amongst the officials accused of ignoring concerns about the letting process? That failure cost an estimated £100 million.

The following year, she was promoted again and succeeded Lesley Strathie as Chief Executive of HMRC. This year, March 2013, in a damming indictment of her abilities, MP’s have said that they have little confidence in her ability to lead HMRC.

Her legacy so far is; failure at Birmingham City Council, a backlog of a third of a million cases at UKBA, the loss of £100 million at the Department of Transport and 1 million letters unanswered at HMRC. 

It does make you wonder, if one were to dig deeper would more Lin Homers be found within Labour’s recruitment folders?

Back to the “Big Speech”, because of the Labour Party, Lin Homer and the EU it was a wasted twenty minutes of Call Me Dave’s time. 

• New Immigrants will be stripped of benefits after six months if they have not found work. 

Won’t / can’t happen. I am willing to bet that the European Court of Human Rights is already going through their Law Books to earmark the relevant pages of legislation which say that this is illegal under EU Law! It is already illegal under EU Law to ban EU immigrants from claiming benefits in their first year in this country. 

• Restrict Access to Social Housing and Healthcare.

As before and, for the same reasons. More posturing from Call Me Dave because he is running scared of UKIP.

• End Health Tourism.

This costs an estimated £200 million a year and begs the question; given the enormity of this cost, why is / has the Government allowed it to continue?

The enormity of the immigration problem goes way beyond Dave’s Big Speech. The incompetence of the UKBA rivals that of the Labour Party’s handling of the UK economy. There are, apparently, 321,726 outstanding cases involving immigrants, including the following. There is an estimated 4000 foreign criminals roaming our streets. 28500 asylum seekers. There is at least  182000 people in a “Migration Refusal Pool”, this comprises people who arrived in this country legally but cannot now be found. Some were students whose study visas expired, other whose work visas expired. The point is, there are a third of a million foreign immigrants in limbo in this country, that is if official figures can be believed.

What I find most frightening is the fact that the Border Agency has given up trying to find the vast majority of illegal immigrants, giving them, in effect, an amnesty. So far, only 1% of the one third of a million backlog has been cleared. The Home Affairs Select Committee is scathing about the lack of progress in clearing this backlog. Something which I find ironic as nearly all of the current MP’s in the House of Commons have been telling us for years that we need all of the immigrants that we can get. From “One Nation Labour, Miliband” and his merry men to Call Me Dave’s “Big Society”. Not forgetting, of course, “Clammy Clegg” and his “Amnesty Brigade”.

Don’t forget that whilst all this is going on, more and more EU immigrants are flooding in, either legally or illegally. While we are members of the EU there is nothing that we, Call Me Dave, Ed Miliband or Clueless Clegg can do about it. So, the Tories can spout rhetoric until the cows come home because believe me, it means nothing. The only way a difference can be made is to come out of the despicable, money grabbing, self serving EU. Once we do that it will not be just our borders that we regain control of but also our pride, our self respect and our ability to govern ourselves as a Sovereign Nation.

Need I add that there is only one Party which guarantees all of that, one Party which will put Britain before the Party, one Party which is passionate about Britain but, above all, one Party which believes in the welfare and wellbeing of the British people. UKIP believes in you, believe in UKIP.

SAME,SAME,SAME.

What Decade?

So, Call Me Dave is going to get tough on social housing for immigrants. Excuse me whilst I laugh; ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha. I wonder, has a certain Mr Nigel Farage got him worried? Last week it was his best buddy, Clegg, who had an epiphany and decided to abandon the LiDems ‘Earned Citizenship’ policy. If you can remember, this looney policy would allow illegal immigrants to stay in this country once they had been here for ten years or more. Apparently he is now of the opinion that the amnesty would undermine public confidence. You don’t say, Cleggy!

Then we have, ‘The Amnesiac’, I’m talking about Ed Miliband or, Ed Milibland, as my wife refers to him. He gave a speech in Birmingham in which he constantly banged on about, what he called, The Lost Decade. I’m not really sure as to which “decade” he was referring.  He said in his speech that the financial crisis began  2008, so I presume we are to believe that he means the ten years to 2018.

But, does he? I think we need a bit of perspective here, Labour left this country in more debt than at any time in modern history. Over one trillion pounds. The scale of borrowing by these socialist morons was totally off the scale. They (Labour) are very adept at blaming the banks for all of our woes and, to some extent, they are absolutely correct. However, it was against all advice that Gordon Brown de- regulated the banks in this country and then, to rub salt into the wound, sold the majority of our gold reserves at tidy loss.

With no proper regulation, the banks were free to do as they wanted with our money and, they did. Huge profits could be made by speculating on the international money markets, buying and selling phantom shares, selling debt, the fanciful list goes on and on. It is estimated that just before the crash the banks were borrowing anything from £10 to £30 for every £1 they earned. Is it any wonder they crashed?

To refresh Mr Miliband’s tiny mind, the Labour Government had to enter a new phase of multi million pound bail-outs to the banks in 2008. Bear in mind that they had been in office for ten years and were now entering their eleventh year. (Ten years? I believe that is a decade Mr Miliband!) 

• February 2008: Northern Rock is nationalised, this after the Bank of England had bailed it out to the tune of millions of pounds in 2007!
• September 2008: Lloyds TSB is allowed to buy HBOS, facilitated by Labour of course.
• September 2008: eleven days after the Lloyds HBOS merger, the government nationalises Bradford & Bingley. The Treasury takes over the £50 billion mortgage portfolio and then sells its deposits and branches to Spanish bank Santander.
• October 13 2008: the government pumps £37billion of our money (taxpayers) into RBS, Lloyds TSB and HBOS. All the while, the banks continue to pay inflated annual bonuses, obviously with borrowed money - yours and mine!
• November 2008: in an attempt to buy the next General Election for themselves, the Labour government says it will put £20billion into the economy in 2010, this will include tax cuts and £3billion of capital spending.
• November 2008: the government is forced to buy a 58% stake in RBS which amounts to a sum of £15 billion.

That was just 2008 Mr Miliband and, let’s not forget, from 1997 to 2002 you were special advisor to Gordon Brown in the Treasury Office. Far be it for me to ask, but do you think some of the fiscal disasters of the ‘decade’ 1997 to 2007 could have been caused by any advice you gave to Mr Brown? You can posture and crow all that you want as to how ineffectual Osborne’s financial policies are and how they are dragging the country further into recession instead of taking us out of it. The problem is, you have no real answers either; sorry, your answer is to borrow our way out of recession. Good thinking but, isn’t that how we got in this mess?

By the way, message to all three of you, Clegg, Cameron and Miliband; the people of this country are fed up to the back teeth with your lame apologies. They mean nothing, they are always too late and they are usually sandwiched between soundbites. e.g. The Big Society or One Nation Labour. Pathetic! Another thing, how can we be One Nation when your Party and the Coalition have flooded the country with foreign nationals? DIVIDED NATION  maybe, but One Nation, never!

Your social experiment has failed and so has “One Party Politics”. Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrats; you are all socialists. We get the same words but, not necessarily in the same order. We get the same policies but, not necessarily worded as such. Same, same, same. You should form a coalition - The Same Party - you might do well in the marginals.

I have devoted the majority of this blog to Miliband but, it is because his and, his Parties hypocrisy is so easy to see through and rip apart. The Coalition is much the same. Miliband is quite right when he says that the Coalition should have done more and that we should have seen better results by now. This is my point, none of them have any new ideas about anything. Perhaps Gove is the only beacon in a dismal political landscape at the moment but, even he will toe the Party line when told to. 

We need a fresh approach and that is why the good people of this country are turning to UKIP. No longer the protest vote but the peoples vote! 

People are beginning to realise that we are not racist, not homophobic, not anti Europe but against the EU. We are safe and the country would be safe in our hands and people up and down the UK are seeing this. Cameron and Clegg’s U-turns are because they are frightened of us, Miliband’s, “Lost Decade” speech was written because Labour are frightened of UKIP too. 

UKIP stands for common sense and realism, the three main Parties in this country have not been realistic for Decades. They are blinkered, idealistic, self serving and subservient to the EU.

OH, WOE IS ME!

Another year, another Budget and, ironically, another Budget for “the people”.  In some ways I feel for Osborne, he has to juggle figures with one hand because the useless LibDems have got his other in a wrist lock. 

Cameron must take the blame for this sorry state of affairs, if only he had the gonads to tell Clegg that he and his “Party of Few” were there to make up the numbers and not make policy. Perhaps then the country could start to get back on its feet. Don’t get me wrong, I am no great believer in Conservative policy, let’s face it, it is much the same as Labour’s which probably explains why Miliband could only babble when replying to Osborne’s Budget speech. The two parties; and I include the LibDems in this because they will side with anyone if it means sitting at the top table; when they get into power just undo whatever the previous incumbents have done. This explains why the Public Sector burgeons under Labour and shrinks under the Conservatives. No real policies, just a gang war across the floor of The House of Commons. 

In my lifetime I cannot remember there being a Chancellor with any real vision for the economic future of this country. Maybe because none of them have been trained in fiscal responsibility and I’m pretty sure that not one of them had a degree in accountancy before coming into Parliament.

However, that detracts from the point I am trying to make. 

All of them have toyed with what has been put in front of them. Add a penny here, take a penny there. Put one percent on this, take one percent off that. Schoolboy mathematics and its about time it stopped. Going back to the theme of ‘a Budget For The People’, It isn’t “The People”,  who cause the fiscal dilemmas that we find ourselves in from time to time. Certainly not this latest, ever ongoing, one. It is Government, or should I say “bad” Government. 

Decisions taken in Parliament by the elected few effect the majority. So by allowing a run on the banks and then sanctioning the banks to ride roughshod over everyone as a result, the few who made the bad decisions suddenly declare that we are all, collectively, in it together. 

The Exchequer is not paying one penny towards the deficit, the ordinary people are. There is no Rainy Day Money, Labour took care of that. There are no, Gold Reserves, to fall back on, Labour took care of that as well. Osborne may not be for turning, as the popular press are saying but, he is turning this country into a nation of paupers. It is all very well using the crisis in Cyprus as a cautionary tale, the trouble is he cannot see that severe austerity policies are the reason why the Cypriots are in that position. It is a cautionary tale that he should be heeding and not us.

He needs to be bold, what would get the economy in this country moving? More houses, scream the left, more infrastructure, scream the left, more manufacturing, you’ve guessed it, scream the left. Since the banks are not lending on the scale needed then surely a radical move has to come from Osborne. How about dropping VAT by a mind boggling five percent (5%), backing it up with legislation which ensures that companies and retailers pass the full 5% on to the public? Too radical?

Ok, what about scrapping NI contributions for SME’s, say for twelve months from April 2013?

Too radical?

Cut foreign aid altogether. Too radical for the LibDems that’s for sure, as would dropping all the crazy Green schemes that they are so proud of.

I think a drastic cut in VAT would send a strong message to industry, the banks, the High Street, to the people of this country and, more importantly, to the International money markets, that the UK Government means business. 

Stop immigration for the remaining term of this Government, we don’t need any more people, we cannot afford any more people and the housing stock we have barely covers the needs of our own population. 

Break up the banking monopoly by breaking up the banks.

The money currently going to foreign aid could be given to Local Authorities and used to repair our badly scarred road network.

We can build houses - sufficient for our own needs, I don’t see any need to use Green Belt sites. Of the immigrants in this country, unskilled immigrants would have to be repatriated. Let’s face it we have enough unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled people out of work without adding more.

The Public Sector needs to be drastically trimmed and the unnecessary quangos that are associated with them can also go. I would also like to see Public Sector pensions capped, it seems to me that the General Public are paying extra in taxes just to support people in non jobs.

All radical thoughts, all draconian and, I can here the socialists screaming, ‘all typically racist UKIP  proposals.’ Not so. The economy, everyone agrees, needs a kick up the pants. Toying with the fringes of the economy has not, is not working. Bringing people in from abroad, housing them and paying for them, all on the State is ridiculous, especially when the majority fall into the unskilled bracket. The argument that they are good for the country is wearing very thin indeed. Where is the gain for the UK economy?

Raising taxes year in year out not only depresses the economy it depresses the market. I would say to Mr Osborne, you’ve tried one end of the spectrum George and after four Budgets it obviously isn’t working. Time to go to the opposite end of the spectrum and try again. Failing that come over to UKIP and we’ll retrain you.

WAS DAVE SIDESWIPED?

Dave’s Dilema

“I was let down by Letwin”.

Said Dave over breakfast with Sam.

“He let Miliband run all over him,

The stupid little Man!”

“You could have gone to the meeting”

Said Sam, in an admonishing tone.

“Instead you wanted a night in,

with me and your mobile phone.”

“I know Sam and, I enjoyed it

But I think you are missing the point

I shouldn’t have tried to avoid it

Now Hacked Off are ruling the joint.”

“Dave, what are you saying

I thought Grant was off to the States

Crawling through alleys and paying

For sex with his female mates.”

“I don’t know where he is crawling,

Anyway, his presence was not required.

Clegg, Miliband and Hacked Off

Against me, all conspired!”

“Hacked Off were not invited

Of that I was quite, quite sure

With them the meeting was blighted

An ambush behind closed door!”

“Calm down Dave,” Said Sammy

Putting an arm around her man

“Your forehead is quite clammy

Just stick to the original plan”. 

“The people will not like it! 

There’ll be rioting in the street!

I can’t really go and fight it

Their victory is complete!”

Sammy just smiled sweetly

She knew her Eton man

She knew that he had discreetly

Come up with that cunning plan!

THE “LUVVIES” ARE LOVING IT!

Leveson has done us all a disservice. Contentious as that statement may read, it is my opinion that the conclusions arrived at by Leveson are disingenuous to the Press and give the impression that all newspapers be tarred with the same brush. It is my opinion that it will be, if legislation is wrapped around the suggestions, nothing more than a “Luvvies Charter”. 

Below, I have listed the “Key”points of the enquiry and, after some explanatory notes, I will give my views on these points.

The key points are as follows:

1. New self-regulatory body recommended
2. Independent of serving editors, government and business
3. No widespread corruption of police by the press found
4. Politicians and press have been too close
5. Press behaviour, at times, has been ‘outrageous’.

Even though points 1 & 2 are contradictory it would seem that an independent regulatory body for the press is the main thrust of the conclusion.

In summary, this regulatory body would; 

• Take an active role in promoting high standards, including having the power to investigate serious breaches and sanction newspapers;
• It should be backed by legislation; 
• Take an active role in promoting high standards; 
• Legislation would enshrine on government a legal duty to protect the freedom of the press; 
• An arbitration system should be created which would allow ‘victims’ of the press to seek redress without going through the courts;
• The body should be independent of current journalists, the government and commercial concerns and not include any serving editors, government members or MPs;
• The body should consider encouraging the press to be as transparent as possible in relation to sources for its stories, if the information is in the public domain;
• A whistle-blowing hotline should be established for journalists who feel under pressure to do unethical things;
• Newspapers that refuse to join the new body could face direct regulation by media watchdog Ofcom.

 “take an active role in promoting high standards,...... sanction newspapers” 

Does this mean that yellow journalism newspapers like the Sunday Sport would be sanctioned? Lets face it, the standard of story and journalism in that rag is very low. I think we all know that nothing would be done there. 

In general, our National newspapers, and so to, regional newspapers, are of a very high standard and the majority of journalists on those newspapers are true professionals. 

The next two bullet points confuse me, if the ‘regulatory body’ is backed by legislation designed to assess whether it is doing its job properly. i.e. regulating the press. How can you then impose a legal duty on the government to protect the freedom of the press? Surely a regulated press is not a free press. 

I know that the Max Mosley’s and Hugh Grants of this world would love the press to be shackled, if only to give them another fifteen minutes in the media limelight patting each other on the back for allegedly  blackmailing the weak Ed Miliband and the equally weak and odious Nick Clegg into complying with their wishes. 

Yes, there have been some shocking cases of unlawful intrusion into peoples lives, hence this enquiry. Non-the-less, you can’t help but wonder if some people bought a lot of unwanted attention upon themselves. The entertainment business relies on the press to boost careers and, lets face it, a lot of these “celebrities” need an awful lot of boosting. 

I find it quite hypocritical when these people then rail against the press when something derogatory is printed about them. For example, Hugh Grant; caught in an alley with his flies undone enjoying the attention of a prostitute. Similarly, Mr Mosley. Caught out leaving a - shall we say -  punishing meeting. Then we have the McCann’s. It was truly tragic that their daughter Madeleine was abducted whilst they were on holiday in Portugal. They, quite rightly, used the full extent of the press and media services to try to get her back. However, as soon as questions were asked in the press as to why they were out at dinner when the abduction took place, how much money they had raised through their charity and how was that money being used? They suddenly proclaim themselves to be victims.

The only true ‘victims’ in any of this sordid mess was the Dowler family. They neither sought nor wanted media attention. When I stated earlier that the majority of journalist were true professionals, here we had an example of those who were not.

The arbitration system to allow victims of the press to seek redress without going through the courts is a diabolical suggestion. People will argue against me here but I see this as just another “cash cow” for people who have a grudge against the press. It is totally ludicrous and, I would think, unconstitutional for a regulatory body to be allowed to impose any form of redress against a newspaper or its journalists. We would soon reach the point, (much to the joy of Grant and Mosley) where newspaper editors would be afraid to put stories into print in case they brought the newspaper into disrepute.

The body should be independent of, current journalists, the government and commercial concerns and not include any serving editors, government members or MPs;

On the face of it a reasonable and sensible suggestion. However, the two words, “current & serving”, worry me. Also, who appoints people to this body. Will they be independent of current journalists, the government and commercial concerns, and not be serving editors, MPs or government members? 

We know from past experience, especially if Labour or LibDems have their sticky fingers anywhere near, that these “bodies” are usually filled with failed politicians, a Lord or a Lady and supplemented by professional quango panelists. I fear that this will turn out to be another crock of the dirty stuff.

Transparent as far as sources for information are concerned. Kiss goodbye to sources of information then. It has long been the LibDem contention that sources of information be put in the public domain. A very dangerous thing to want and, if I may say, a very sinister and populist attitude to take where the gathering of information is concerned. We all know how good the police are at protecting the public, except if your name is Abu Hamza al-Masri or Abu Qatada, then you are protected to the full extent of the law.

I believe this to be a very dangerous path to go down.

The last two bullet points are, I believe, nothing more than a sop to appease the very journalists that this report has slapped in the face.

Key Point 3, “No widespread corruption of police by the press was found.”

It is very interesting as to how this point is worded; “of the police by the press”. I can only assume that Lord Leveson was on a tea break during this part of the hearing because I was sure that many instances of collusion between police and the press were discussed. Yes, the former Met Police Assistant Commissioner, John Yates was criticised because he had friends at The News of the World. 

If their was no “widespread” evidence of police corruption does this not lead one to assume that there was some evidence of some corruption? That wording would imply that John Yates was not the only one in the Met involved. The law protecting the law?

Key Point 4; Politicians and press have been too close. 

As a statement, I would say very true, none more so than in the ‘New Labour years” under Tony Blair. He and his team of press officers manipulated the press at every twist and turn. We, as a gullible public, loved it. Not only that, it sold newspapers. 

Leveson states that the “relationship between politicians and press over the last three decades has damaged the perception of public affairs.” 

I don’t aspire to that view at all. What is the average person’s perception of public affairs? If Leveson had said “Manipulated” the view of public affairs, I would have agreed with him. Here though, we have a double edged sword. Politicians need the press and the press need politicians and this is where I find the good Lord showing some bias. David Cameron, who we all know is a close friend of Rebecca Brookes was cleared of being too close to the Murdoch media empire. How?

It’s like stating that Blair didn’t want to go to war with Iraq.

Finally, Key point 5, Press behaviour, at times, has been outrageous.

I can’t argue that this is not true. Given the facts which came out concerning phone hacking at the News of the World. I would argue however, that the precedent was set by the police and secret services who, through the Blair and Brown governments, were allowed to ride roughshod over every citizen in this country. Albeit all in the name of counter-terrorism. 

Leveson states that ‘when chasing stories, journalists have caused real hardship and, on occasion, wreaked havoc with the lives of innocent people.’ This happened to both famous and members of the public.

I refer back to the, so called, celebrities of the entertainment industry who rely on the press for their fame because, in a lot of cases, their talent is so limited they need the press to boost their public profile. Fame is a dangerous game and its no good crying foul if you find yourself on the losing side.

I will admit that whilst I have no time at all for the pathetic bleatings of the likes of Grant, Mosley and the other ‘C’ - listers out there I do draw the line when the press unfairly intrudes into the private lives of real victims. Where there is a genuine lack of respect for individual privacy and dignity then the press should quite rightly be pulled up. 

If the Government is forced to adopt into legislation the recommendations of this report I think it will be very wrong. It will be another freedom being stripped from the Establishment, one that will suit the socialist left and the “do as I say not as I do” brigade far more than the people it purports to to be helping. If passed into law it will most definitely be a Charter for the Luvvies and the media manipulators.

EMPIRES WITHIN EMPIRES

THE SCANDAL THAT IS THE NHS!

We once had, arguably, the best Health Service in the World. One that was free at point of entry and one that put patients first. The Health Service in this country is now ranked, according to Business Insider International, a lowly 18th. Their figures taken from the WHO Report of 2000.

One ranking below the Netherlands and, surprisingly, four below Greece. On expenditure per capita the UK is ranked 26

(The rankings are based on an index of five factors — health, health equality, responsiveness, responsiveness equality, and fair financial contribution.)

Top of the league is France and they are ranked 4th in expenditure per capita. The French system combines private and public sectors to provide universal health coverage to all. Most citizens receive their insurance through their employer and almost everyone has supplemental private insurance. The majority of medical bills are paid for by the government (funds from payroll and income taxes) and the remainder is footed by individual's supplemental private insurance.    

First, let me state here and now that I am a great believer in the National Health Service in this country. However, I don’t believe that many people would disagree when I say that the NHS is unaffordable. It probably was from the day of its inception. However, once it was formed it was up to Government, through the various hospital boards to make it as affordable, in terms of Government expenditure, and as accessible as possible. 

Not one administration since Aneurin Bevan launched the NHS on the 5th July 1948 has managed to come to terms with the behemoth that was created, albeit, created out of good intention. 

It is my contention that ‘modern career politicians’ have given up on the NHS and would see it in the Private Sector, run by insurance companies and foreign investment. In other words, care for the shareholder not for the patient.

There is a ‘Timeline for NHS Reform’ which I am going to refer to in order to try to make my point.

http://nhstimeline.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/

• Sir William Beveridge (1942)
  Sir William Beveridge’s report,Social Insurance and Allied Services, proposes major changes to create the foundations for a welfare system and, in its support, a national health service (the details are left for later)

• Anuerin Bevan is made Minster for Health following the 1945 General Election.
  The National Health Service Act 1946 is published. Bevan stated that, “this is the biggest single experiment in social service that the world has ever seen undertaken.”
• The National Health Service (NHS) is created 5th July 1948.
• 1949 December, The NHS is given the power to levy a charge for prescriptions.
• 1949 It is the policy of the Government to relieve nurses of all work not requiring nursing skill.
• Baron Shepherd, House of Lords Chief Whip (1949)
  The Nurses Act 1949 establishes a modern framework for the role of nursing within the NHS. Rising costs give cause for concern.

Collings JS (1950)
JS Collings’ survey of English general practice, funded by the Nuffield Trust, is published in The Lancet.
It concludes:- the overall state of general practice [in England] is bad and still deteriorating.

So, on this timeline we see that the NHS has been running for a little under two years and already cracks were starting to appear. It would seem to me that this was the time when Government should have sat back to have a good look at the direction in which the Health Service was going. I may be naive in my thinking here but in my opinion the practice of running this service by committee based on reports and analysis from independent bodies should have been nipped in the bud there and then. A department should have been set up in Whitehall staffed by health and financial professionals with the sole purpose of overseeing the NHS so that it would at all times be fit to operate in the modern World. 

Politicians have not changed much, if at all, in the past sixty five years. Their penchant for meddling was the same then as it is now. So too was their complete lack of interest in history. I have heard it argued that at the time when the Welfare State was set up the general public were not expected to live beyond seventy years of age. The taxes and levies to pay for the Welfare State were  based on this assumption and were thought adequate to fund it. As I stated earlier they, obviously, were not because Baron Shepherd had already voiced concern at the rising cost of the service. Government had three choices, pump more money into the NHS from the Exchequer, offer a mix of Private and Public Health Care, Increase NI contributions.  They took the fourth choice.

I think that by then (two years) Parliament had forgotten the words of Anuerin Bevan when he said that “this is the biggest single experiment in social service, etc, etc.” The operative word in his statement being, “Experiment”. Both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party saw the NHS as a banner to wave at the World. A beacon of achievement borne out of post war loss. Great Britain leading the rest of the World in social reform. Well, it is all very well having a beacon but at some point you have to light it! In my opinion, this was the time or, should have been.  An experiment examines the validity of a hypothesis or, determines the efficacy of something previously untried. Anyone who has conducted an experiment will tell you that it is carried out in order to learn from the results. Unfortunately, scant regard was given to the results of this ongoing “experiment” and therefore, no real lessons were learned and no beacon was lit.

• 1951 April 21 The new Chancellor of the Exchequer, Hugh Gaitskell, proposes a one shilling (5p) prescription charge and new charges for dental treatments (chiefly dentures) and spectacles.
• 1953 The report, The work of nurses in hospital wards: Report of a job analysis, is published by the Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust.
• 1954 A wide-ranging review of the role of general practice encourages the formation of independent GP group practices.
• 1954 The Bradbeer Committee publishes a report on the internal administration of hospitals for the Central Health Services Council.

In 1950, a committee headed by Alderman Bradbeer is appointed by the Central Health Services Council (advisors to the Ministry of Health) to examine hospital administration arrangements in the English NHS [pdf].

The resulting guidance is supportive of the system typical in voluntary hospitals (which avoids the hierarchy of local authority hospitals). It draws on the former’s concept of a ‘tripartite administration’ of medical, nursing and lay elements, but with the lay element (in the person of the group secretary) given overall responsibility for implementing policy and coordinating the activities of the group. 

Was this the start of the decline?

• 1956  December, What is most needed at the present time is the prospect of a period of stability.RH Turton, Minister of Health (1956)
• The report of the Guillebaud Committee’s inquiry into the cost of the NHS is published. The report lays to rest many fears that the service is extravagant or cannot be afforded.

The report  showed NHS spending had fallen between 1948 and 1954, from 3.75 per cent to 3.25 per cent of Gross National Product; that capital spending was running at only 33 per cent of pre-war levels; and that additional costs implied by an ageing population could be financed easily by economic growth.

Unfortunately this ‘economic growth’ was based on the solid manufacturing base that the UK enjoyed then. The Civil Service at that time saw no reason why Great Britain should not continue to grow economically, as it had before the War. It was this arrogance and the mirrored arrogance of many business leaders that led to the gradual decline in British industry. This decline would also change Government attitude to the NHS.

I won’t list any more of the timeline, click on the link to see what changes have been made year to year since 1948.

Earlier I said that politicians have a penchant for meddling. In 1971 The Conservatives revised Crossman’s plan for reform following their election in 1970, with major management consultant involvement, coterminosity and consensus management being introduced.
This was the beginning of the downfall for the NHS in my opinion. Having failed to see the cracks, let alone fix them in 1950, the Government decide to employ the tactics of “Big Business” to run the NHS. Before any of you Labour supporters out there start bellowing about ‘useless Tories’ destroying the Health Service. I would remind you that it was, more or less a cross party decision to employ these management tactics.

During the period 1979 - 1997 there were 7 Conservative Secretary’s of State for Health under two Prime Ministers. Did they make the Health Service more efficient? Yes in some areas although I would put this down to new technology rather than good management. They created an internal market whereby the different departments within the Health Service had to compete for financing. Good for the number crunchers but not so good for the patients.

During the period 1997 - 210 we had 6 Labour Secretary’s of State for Health. We also had more of the same plus a vast increase in hospital management. Front line services declined in the wake of Government targets. Doctors and nurses became bogged down with paperwork which took them away from their primary job of patient care.

Has this changed since 2010? No! If anything it has got worse. Mortality rates are at an all time high whilst patient care is at an all time low. We have a leader of the NHS who presided over one of the worse scandals ever to effect a hospital in this country. In the Mid Staffs Hospital 1200 patients died needlessly. The man in charge was Sir David Nicholson and he now enjoys the Prime Minister’s, David Cameron, full support in his position as head of the NHS. Calls for his resignation fall on deaf ears. It is not without reason that he is known as “The Man With No Shame”.

To force through Government policy he gagged staff, threatening them with loss of job and no prospect of re-employment within the NHS. He paid off potential whistleblowers and generally ran roughshod over his staff.

In his defence, senior Whitehall sources say that he is ‘driving up standards for example, waiting lists, he has a real grip on NHS hospitals. Tell that to the eighty year old war veteran who was dumped in a wheelchair by ambulance staff with blood streaming from a cut to his head. He waited for five hours, desperate to go to the toilet, cold and confused. His family eventually gave up and took him home without treatment.

No, I believe that Sir David’s remit is to make the NHS an attractive proposition for the Private Sector to buy into. We, the Public will be given the usual rhetoric by today’s career politicians about affordability and patient care and an ageing population etc, etc, blah, blah, blah. In my opinion, the Health Service was set up with all good intention but with little thought to the future. An experiment gone wrong but with no one reading the results. The lessons were there in 1950, alas, it seems, school was out. Subsequent Governments have toyed with it, tweaked it, thrown money at it but, mainly stood back and watched as it fell into politically made decline. 

People are afraid to use it because of the lack of front line care. They are afraid of being put on a pathway to death where no one is blamed. They are afraid to have an operation because of post operative diseases. People have been manipulated into a position whereby they no longer trust the NHS. Well done Sir David, Job complete!

The political elite should be ashamed, we had a chance to shine, a chance to show the World Britain at its best but we failed. Like all good politicians, today’s breed do not accept failure, it is not good PR. So they bring in a ‘hatchet man’ such as Nicholson to trim it, wrap it and put a ribbon around it, readying it for sale.

THE AMBASSADOR OF GOD

Lessons From The Borgia's

A purely fictional and, I hope, satirical, view of might come to pass.

If you are Catholic, don't give up hope,
I hear Tony Blair has applied to be Pope.
Not so far-fetched given his ambition
Alleged hiding of paedo's and faux contrition!
Credentials well suited to his new chosen post
Putting him closer to the Holy Ghost.
What about marriage? I hear you say.
A few well greased palms will put that away.
Already there's talk of Priests getting married
Which should stop housekeepers being harried.
Cardinal Campbell - fast tracked last week
There to give  Papal laws a quick tweak
Already ensconced in the Cardinal College
Taking names and gaining knowledge.
All the better for an internal campaign
Which will see the start of the Tony Blair reign.

The facially challenged wife or our Tone
Has an agenda all of her own
By day she patrols the Vatican streets
Greeting everyone whom she meets
Mentally mapping the streets as she goes
For inclusion into her port folios
Of property owned by Company Blair
She'd love to see Vatican City in there.
By night she plots with Brother Campbell
'Neath the light of a giant, Vatican, candle.
Vetting each Cardinal in the conclave
Some are rejected, some they do save.
They toil until disturbed by the light
Which signals the passing of the night
Their aim is that the white smoke will bring
To Tony's finger, The Fisherman's Ring.

WHAT ED MEANT!

Ed Says Sorry (Sort of)

Gather round people, my name is Ed

I’m here to apologise, you’ve all been mislead.

Tony, my leader, my mentor, my God

Was a sneaky, accomplished lying sod.

He said immigration would benefit all,

He said it would see unemployment fall. 

He said Saddam was a threat to the West,

He said trust in Labour cos we know best.

His lapdog, Prescott, became his new fag

And he rewarded him with a extra pool Jag.

Then along came Gordon, the Man o’ The Manse,

Who ousted Tony when he saw his chance.

Nothing changed, in fact it got worse

As Gordon emptied the Public Purse

The writing was there, high on the wall

Difficult to see with one eyeball

Even those around ignored the signs

In denial about their fiscal crimes

Then the crash, the Banker’s scandal

Too complex for Gordon the Gopher to handle

Still they flocked in from the East

Encouraged by tales of a Welfare feast

Gordon huffed and borrowed some more

Whilst keeping open the immigrant door.

But now we’re rebuilding, I’m in charge

My message to you will be writ large

One Nation Labour, here for you

From John o’ Groats to Brighton to Crewe

We’ll control immigration, close the door

Diversity at our very core

Migrant numbers will begin to tumble

My team and I are all feeling humble

Although, in truth, we feel no guilt

For immigration or the debt we built

The EU awaits and we’ll integrate

A referendum will be too late

So to offer one would be a mistake

The decision will be for me to make 

So, yes I’m sorry for Labour’s past errors

For the Banking scandal and all the terrors

That resulted from Social engineering

Close to my heart and quite endearing.

Would I do it all again?

Would I get on that gravy train?

My answer is, you can trust in me

I’m as Labour as Labour can be

I’ll lead you through the Strasbourg gate

And help you fully integrate

The British people will be ‘old hat’

Our “Diversity” policies saw to that.