I heard that Environment Minister Ben Bradshaw has had a meeting with supermarkets about waste packaging. You can read a brief report from the BBC here.
The supermarkets have been making noises about this quite a lot. That however seems to about cover it. Noises.
Some environmental groups seem to think that only regulation will bring big business to heal. The problem with this is that you get cumbersome regulations that cost money and are frequently not up to date.
We as consumers vote every time we open our wallets. Big business is in this to make money, and if we alter our "voting" patterns they will notice.
Take this one example. Cauliflowers. I saw Sainsbury's selling small extra trimmed cauliflowers in clear plastic boxes. Bizarre. They seem to have removed natures packaging in favour of some plastic. The same is true of cabbages. They grow prepacked. No need for more.
Paper bags are easier to recycle and whats more are better for the veg.
So when we see dopey behaviour, lets act.
We can refuse to buy over packed products, we can call management over every time we see something that stupid and complain. Maybe even make a scene. Write letters. Bring back excess packaging next time you visit, and leave it in the foyer.
Concerted consumer action can make a difference and get things moving quicker. If business is hit in the pocket it will change, and fast.
Monday, November 13, 2006
ASBO, ASBO little law,
I heard this on this mornings Today program, on Radio 4, and thought I would share it.
Anti-social Behaviour Orders
(to the tune of Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star)
This is from Felix Denis's book, When Jack Sued Jill: Nursery Rhymes For Modern Times.
See his website here.
Update 14:07:
I got the above from Maxim magazine's webiste, via this link.
I did not realise at the time that Felix owns maxim, and Dennis publishing.
Anti-social Behaviour Orders
(to the tune of Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star)
ASBO, ASBO little law,
How we wonder what you're for,
Chavs and yobs who love to fight
Terrorise us every night.
Toothless, useless little law,
How we wonder what you're for.
On the streets with hoods and knives,
How they terrorise our lives.
Though they all should be in bed,
All you do is boost their cred.
ASBO, ASBO can't you see
You are an accessory.
ASBO, ASBO, little law,
How we wonder what you're for,
Words will never rule the street,
We need coppers on the beat.
Toothless, useless, little law,
How we wonder what you're for.
This is from Felix Denis's book, When Jack Sued Jill: Nursery Rhymes For Modern Times.
See his website here.
Update 14:07:
I got the above from Maxim magazine's webiste, via this link.
I did not realise at the time that Felix owns maxim, and Dennis publishing.
I don't often agree with Ehud Olmert but...
According to a report I heard on BBC news 24, Israel wants to open talks with Syria to achieve peace, and thereby cleave Syria from Iran.
I have heard similar rumblings before.
The downside is that the report also indicated that the American government is against this policy because the think Syria has not done enough to guard the border with Iraq. I think at this point it is worth pointing out that America has trouble policing it's border with Mexico, but is far more wealthy than Syria, so that complaint is a bit rich.
What with the potential for trouble in the Lebanon, Israels mover here could be useful. I hope George Bush's fit of arrogance does not scupper it.
I have written on Iraq's border issues and general mess there here.
I have heard similar rumblings before.
The downside is that the report also indicated that the American government is against this policy because the think Syria has not done enough to guard the border with Iraq. I think at this point it is worth pointing out that America has trouble policing it's border with Mexico, but is far more wealthy than Syria, so that complaint is a bit rich.
What with the potential for trouble in the Lebanon, Israels mover here could be useful. I hope George Bush's fit of arrogance does not scupper it.
I have written on Iraq's border issues and general mess there here.
Hugging Hoodies! Part III, Tough love and the Mendacity of John Reid
On November the 2nd, David Cameron gave a speech to the Annual Convention of the Youth Justice Board in Cardiff. His speech is here.
John Reid wrote a comment piece in yesterdays Sunday Telegraph. It reminded me of why I wanted to throw metaphorical bricks at the TV during the 2005 general election. He just misrepresents everyone elses policies and statements. That garbage article is here.
In David Cameron's speech he talked of tough love rather than sentimental love and laid out some very startling facts. On the other hand Comrade Reid said things like:
Who was supposed to have said anything of the sort? has this man read any of Cameron's speeches on the subject? He is all in favour of banging people up when they have committed a crime. He has said so many times, including in the above speech.
Reid then concludes:
Hmm..
What did Cameron say about love?
So there is Reid again mendaciously misrepresenting David Cameron's position.
However, here are some stats lifted from David Cameron's speech which ought to make you think and indeed concern you.
Of the criminals in young offender institutions:
You can read other articles from this blog on hugging hoodies, or youth crime at this link.
John Reid wrote a comment piece in yesterdays Sunday Telegraph. It reminded me of why I wanted to throw metaphorical bricks at the TV during the 2005 general election. He just misrepresents everyone elses policies and statements. That garbage article is here.
In David Cameron's speech he talked of tough love rather than sentimental love and laid out some very startling facts. On the other hand Comrade Reid said things like:
"Tackling crime is a priority for any government. Of course we need to understand why crime occurs, and tackle the causes. But anyone who thinks that tackling crime, including youth crime, can be delivered by more love and hugs alone is wide of the mark."
Who was supposed to have said anything of the sort? has this man read any of Cameron's speeches on the subject? He is all in favour of banging people up when they have committed a crime. He has said so many times, including in the above speech.
Reid then concludes:
"The dividing line between David Cameron and me now seems clear. Tough love with Labour or "just love" with the Tories: an important dividing line for the coming year in parliament. With respect to David's Notting Hill Set, I think I know who is more in tune with the vast majority of the British people."
Hmm..
What did Cameron say about love?
"But I also said that to build a safe and civilised society for the long-term, we have to look at what goes on inside the boundaries, within the pale.
We have to show a lot more love.
By that I don't mean sentimental, childish love which sees no wrong in anyone.
I mean tough love - love that values people, and therefore demands high standards from them.
Love that respects people - and so expects a lot from them.
And that's the job of society."
So there is Reid again mendaciously misrepresenting David Cameron's position.
However, here are some stats lifted from David Cameron's speech which ought to make you think and indeed concern you.
Of the criminals in young offender institutions:
- 85 per cent of them have mental health issues.
- Half of them spent time in care or under social service supervision as a child.
- Over half of them are addicted to drugs or alcohol.
- 40 per cent of boys suffered violence at home.
- A third of girls suffered sexual abuse.
- 110 of its provisions are not in force.
- 39 have been, or are being, repealed altogether.
- 17 were repealed before they ever came into force.
You can read other articles from this blog on hugging hoodies, or youth crime at this link.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Cash for Peerages, Sunday morning update.
Yawn?
The Sunday Torygraph Telegraph seems to have caught up with the Yates of the Yard letters to Ministers here, but it's angle or rather headline is "Yates offers ministers a way to clear their names" whilst the story seems a bit of rehash of this article on my blog, inspired by Channel 4 news. That is to say, Yates is making very sure no one has any last minute recollections during a trial.
However the article does seem to confirm that speculation, but also adds to the thinking on the loan issue. The report does say Tony Blair will be interviewed under caution but not arrested.
On the loans issue, Tony is to claim that the party needed the loans from private individuals because it could not get them from banks. The Sunday Times claims otherwise here. Guido has many articles on why Labour can't get money from banks, and in and of itself that excuse is fair enough, until you remember that many people who made the loans were prepared to offer donations not loans. Guido has also covered that before, but in this article by the Sunday Times, the drift is that Tony Blair told the NEC that the loans were needed because there was no cash. Spot the lie error?
The Sunday Times article also seems to try to draw Gordon Brown into the scandal a bit as well. Mind you there has been speculation in the blogosphere that Gordon can't deny all knowledge as he ended up being election supremo. Alan Milburn can't be that happy either.
The LibDemograph Independent on Sunday appears to have no news here, essentially rehashing how or why loans to Labour in the 2005 accounts were not declared in the 2004 accounts. It claims to have "experts" who say that it should have been mentioned. I remain to be convinced. It is also claimed that this story is an exclusive despite the fact that this stuff has been out for ages, in some parts of the MSM but also all over the blogosphere. Yates is also apparently now considers Tony Blair to be pivotal in the investigation. Between you and me I think Yates thought that last week, or possibly the week before , but I may be wrong.
The Fascist Mail on Sunday on the other hand goes with Downing Streets fury over how long the investigation is taking, and Police leaks, as well as how Yates of the Yard seems to be looking for bodies. Bizarre surely?
Firstly the government has been leaking left right and center on this, so it is more than a bit rich to moan about leaks, secondly this sort of investigation, if done properly will always take a bit of time, and thirdly the evidence seems to be leading to Tony Blair, so what do you think the police should do? They can't very well look at the usual suspects can they? There are not any for this sort of offence. Its not shoplifting after all.
The Sunday Torygraph Telegraph seems to have caught up with the Yates of the Yard letters to Ministers here, but it's angle or rather headline is "Yates offers ministers a way to clear their names" whilst the story seems a bit of rehash of this article on my blog, inspired by Channel 4 news. That is to say, Yates is making very sure no one has any last minute recollections during a trial.
However the article does seem to confirm that speculation, but also adds to the thinking on the loan issue. The report does say Tony Blair will be interviewed under caution but not arrested.
On the loans issue, Tony is to claim that the party needed the loans from private individuals because it could not get them from banks. The Sunday Times claims otherwise here. Guido has many articles on why Labour can't get money from banks, and in and of itself that excuse is fair enough, until you remember that many people who made the loans were prepared to offer donations not loans. Guido has also covered that before, but in this article by the Sunday Times, the drift is that Tony Blair told the NEC that the loans were needed because there was no cash. Spot the lie error?
The Sunday Times article also seems to try to draw Gordon Brown into the scandal a bit as well. Mind you there has been speculation in the blogosphere that Gordon can't deny all knowledge as he ended up being election supremo. Alan Milburn can't be that happy either.
The LibDemograph Independent on Sunday appears to have no news here, essentially rehashing how or why loans to Labour in the 2005 accounts were not declared in the 2004 accounts. It claims to have "experts" who say that it should have been mentioned. I remain to be convinced. It is also claimed that this story is an exclusive despite the fact that this stuff has been out for ages, in some parts of the MSM but also all over the blogosphere. Yates is also apparently now considers Tony Blair to be pivotal in the investigation. Between you and me I think Yates thought that last week, or possibly the week before , but I may be wrong.
The Fascist Mail on Sunday on the other hand goes with Downing Streets fury over how long the investigation is taking, and Police leaks, as well as how Yates of the Yard seems to be looking for bodies. Bizarre surely?
Firstly the government has been leaking left right and center on this, so it is more than a bit rich to moan about leaks, secondly this sort of investigation, if done properly will always take a bit of time, and thirdly the evidence seems to be leading to Tony Blair, so what do you think the police should do? They can't very well look at the usual suspects can they? There are not any for this sort of offence. Its not shoplifting after all.
Sir Ian Blair, The Metropolitan Police Chief needs to go
Sir Ian Blair, The Metropolitan Police Chief has been getting involved in politics again. The BBC's report is here.
Members of the Police service are not allowed to be involved in political activity, yet this pratt just does not know when to shut up.
He gave a speech in Germany yesterday, in which he called for various things, including a review of the 28 day detention period without charge for terror suspects.
Some of what he said does have merit, however you either want to live in a state where the Police can take to the airwaves to side with on party in a political debate or you don't.
I do not want to live in a police state, do you?
The gibbering idiot Metropolitan Police Chief said in an interview with the BBC after the speech that in the case of the plane bombing plot that they just made it with 24 suspects, they might not have with 48. Doh! They made it within the deadline because the deadline was there. If it was longer, they would have taken longer.
We need this sort of political intervention from the Police like we need a hole in the head. He must go!
Update 02:10
I forgot to mention that Sir pratt Ian mentioned how German prosecutors could hold people for up to a year without charge, obviously he has no idea of why we lay poppies at this time of year.
Members of the Police service are not allowed to be involved in political activity, yet this pratt just does not know when to shut up.
He gave a speech in Germany yesterday, in which he called for various things, including a review of the 28 day detention period without charge for terror suspects.
Some of what he said does have merit, however you either want to live in a state where the Police can take to the airwaves to side with on party in a political debate or you don't.
I do not want to live in a police state, do you?
The gibbering idiot Metropolitan Police Chief said in an interview with the BBC after the speech that in the case of the plane bombing plot that they just made it with 24 suspects, they might not have with 48. Doh! They made it within the deadline because the deadline was there. If it was longer, they would have taken longer.
We need this sort of political intervention from the Police like we need a hole in the head. He must go!
Update 02:10
I forgot to mention that Sir pratt Ian mentioned how German prosecutors could hold people for up to a year without charge, obviously he has no idea of why we lay poppies at this time of year.
Saturday, November 11, 2006
We apologise for the strong language!
I was watching The Somme on Channel 4. At the end the announcer said:
Unbelievable.
"We apologise for the strong language in that broadcast"
Unbelievable.
For the fallen
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old;
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.
For the Fallen, by Laurence Binyon
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.
For the Fallen, by Laurence Binyon
Remember Armistice day, and the millions who have given their lives to keep us free, from this country and throughout the Common Wealth.
Please also support the Royal British Legions appeal to mark Armistice day.
Please also support the Royal British Legions appeal to mark Armistice day.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Cash for peerages - On sale on Ebay!
Out of interest, and a bit of vanity I did this search on google which got me this result.
Note the circled sponsored ad!
Makes you laugh doesn't it! I wonder if anyone has told Yates of the Yard!
Cash for peerages It's all our fault - Official!
I was just going to provide a little bit of commentary and link to the various stories on the Internet when I came across this master piece in the Daily Torygraph Telegraph.
Apparently Lord Cashpoint Levy blames us Conservatives for giving him the idea of loans! He is said to now wish he had never heard of these things!
Cheeky git!
However the story does also say:
Make of that what you will.
Meanwhile Mike Smithson of polliticalbetting.com dug up these two gems from the Libdemograph Independent, here and here. The second is a comment article you have to pay to read. Hmm.. When you can get lots of informed comment on the internet why pay?
The first article alleges that only Tony Blair and Ian McCartney new of the loans scandal as it was happening. rather more amusingly Labour are worried that Tony Blair may become the main focus of the inquiry.
What did they think was going to happen?
Also apparently some Downing street staff are being very helpful. Good!
From what I can see of the comment article Matthew Norman thinks Tony is quaking in No 10. I suspect he is right there.
Apparently in unrelated news (yeah right!) Lord Sainsbury, Labours biggest donor has resigned as Minister for Science. Guido got to the news first, here, followed by the MSM later. This is being spun as going for personal reasons. Does he want to be able to flee the country with out his police minders?
You can read the Telegraphs article here, BBC here, and Evening Standard here.
Apparently Lord Cashpoint Levy blames us Conservatives for giving him the idea of loans! He is said to now wish he had never heard of these things!
Cheeky git!
However the story does also say:
"It was Labour's decision to deliberately withhold details of its £14 million from the election authorities in contrast to the Tories that has put the party at the centre of the current investigation."
Make of that what you will.
Meanwhile Mike Smithson of polliticalbetting.com dug up these two gems from the Libdemograph Independent, here and here. The second is a comment article you have to pay to read. Hmm.. When you can get lots of informed comment on the internet why pay?
The first article alleges that only Tony Blair and Ian McCartney new of the loans scandal as it was happening. rather more amusingly Labour are worried that Tony Blair may become the main focus of the inquiry.
What did they think was going to happen?
Also apparently some Downing street staff are being very helpful. Good!
From what I can see of the comment article Matthew Norman thinks Tony is quaking in No 10. I suspect he is right there.
Apparently in unrelated news (yeah right!) Lord Sainsbury, Labours biggest donor has resigned as Minister for Science. Guido got to the news first, here, followed by the MSM later. This is being spun as going for personal reasons. Does he want to be able to flee the country with out his police minders?
You can read the Telegraphs article here, BBC here, and Evening Standard here.
The Mess in Iraq, It's all our fault - Official!
Yesterday watching Channel 4's 7 O'clock news I happened across an interview with former Assistant Secretary of Defence Ken Adelman. You know the one, the fella who kept popping up saying how well it was going, and how right it was.
Well tonight he blamed us for the mess. I have written about why we are in this mess in Iraq here.
Ken's says we should have known that L. Paul Bremer was making mistakes and should have done something about it.
We should have resisted the various mistakes made. Like making 500,000 armed men unemployed.
What a cheeky yank!
But he is right. We have experience in these things the Americans lack, and we should have said do it our way or we pull the plug. End of.
Meanwhile in other news Donald Rumsfeld the former incompetent pratt Secretary of State for endangering America Defence has said the problem is the USA has not got the historic experience of dealing with occupation and insurgency. Two things I'd like to say.
Bit cheeky to blame it on us though.
Lastly I have heard several interviews over the last few days explaining away the mess in Iraq and they all seem to refer to the points I raised in this article, which are listed below:
Well tonight he blamed us for the mess. I have written about why we are in this mess in Iraq here.
Ken's says we should have known that L. Paul Bremer was making mistakes and should have done something about it.
We should have resisted the various mistakes made. Like making 500,000 armed men unemployed.
What a cheeky yank!
But he is right. We have experience in these things the Americans lack, and we should have said do it our way or we pull the plug. End of.
Meanwhile in other news Donald Rumsfeld the former incompetent pratt Secretary of State for endangering America Defence has said the problem is the USA has not got the historic experience of dealing with occupation and insurgency. Two things I'd like to say.
- Why not listen to the State Department's 900 page plan instead of tossing it in the bin.
- Ask the worlds authority on occupying land, the British Government.
Bit cheeky to blame it on us though.
Lastly I have heard several interviews over the last few days explaining away the mess in Iraq and they all seem to refer to the points I raised in this article, which are listed below:
- The coalition forces failed to impose martial law when they captured areas, because they just did not have the men or the will.
- They failed to plan to have a working police force.
- They made 500,000 armed men unemployed.
- They failed to guard the ammunition dumps.
- They failed to guard the borders.
- They failed to understand who the losers would be in the liberation of Iraq.
- They made political blunders of epic proportions.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Evening Standard gets it wrong in Cash for Peerages scandal!
In today's online edition of the Evening Standard (The article is dated the 8th though) there is an article with the head line:
It is an interesting article rehashing quite a lot of what we already knew. the body of the article indicates that the Police will not hand over the file to the CPS until 2007, and it will take the CPS several months to decide whether to charge or not. They contend (Possibly wrongly) that Blair will go in May. He might, but all he has actually promised is not to be leader by the time of the next party conference. That is all fair enough, but it seems to me that the Police WILL quiz Tony Blair before they hand over the file to the CPS, which then seems to be early 2007, in other words before May.
Would be nice if journalists read what they write. Us bloggers don't get paid they do.
There is of course more news on Guido's blog here.
UPDATE 16.13
I have just checked, and that was in yesterdays paper edition. Today's paper edition would like to correct the idea that TB is consulting lawyers. Apparently he isn't. It would also like to say that Tony may be the first PM since Lloyd George to be quizzed by the police, except that's wrong too. The law was passed after Lloyd George ceased to be PM. Nice to know they are trying hard to be accurate.
Blair to escape indignity of first PM to be quizzed by police
It is an interesting article rehashing quite a lot of what we already knew. the body of the article indicates that the Police will not hand over the file to the CPS until 2007, and it will take the CPS several months to decide whether to charge or not. They contend (Possibly wrongly) that Blair will go in May. He might, but all he has actually promised is not to be leader by the time of the next party conference. That is all fair enough, but it seems to me that the Police WILL quiz Tony Blair before they hand over the file to the CPS, which then seems to be early 2007, in other words before May.
Would be nice if journalists read what they write. Us bloggers don't get paid they do.
There is of course more news on Guido's blog here.
UPDATE 16.13
I have just checked, and that was in yesterdays paper edition. Today's paper edition would like to correct the idea that TB is consulting lawyers. Apparently he isn't. It would also like to say that Tony may be the first PM since Lloyd George to be quizzed by the police, except that's wrong too. The law was passed after Lloyd George ceased to be PM. Nice to know they are trying hard to be accurate.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Cash for Peerages, another update.
Well, bringing all the stories of today together so far...
Guido has seen Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General's letter to Dominic Grieve, the Conservative shadow Attorney General and has it published here.
The long and the short of it is that Lord Goldsmith intends to be involved where in the prosecution process where the law requires that his consent is required. He does however say that he will seek independent legal advice from senior council. If he veto's a prosecution he will say why. How nice.
Meanwhile there have been reports that all cabinet members during the 2005 election have been written to by the police asking them to state their position on the cash for peerages scandal. You can read the BBC's report here.
Chanel 4's 7 o'clock news speculated as to why Yates of the Yard would want to ask everyone in the cabinet about the scandal, and indeed 5 have been interviewed including Alan Milburn and Patricia Hewitt. Alan Milburn said he had been interviewed as a witness not a suspect.
Channel 4 news pointed out that Yates of the Yard has been involved in some very high profile cases before, including the Paul Burrell theft case which collapsed in 2002 when the Queen suddenly remembered something just before Paul Burrell was going to take the stand. The speculation is that Yates does not want a repeat of this, so his aim is to make sure that no one recalls having recommended someone for an honour once charges have been laid, as they will have been questioned first. Good thinking Inspector Yates. Cover your bases these are Liars politicians we are talking about.
You can read about the Burrell trial here and hear. You can read the BBC's profile of Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Yates here.
Guido has seen Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General's letter to Dominic Grieve, the Conservative shadow Attorney General and has it published here.
The long and the short of it is that Lord Goldsmith intends to be involved where in the prosecution process where the law requires that his consent is required. He does however say that he will seek independent legal advice from senior council. If he veto's a prosecution he will say why. How nice.
Meanwhile there have been reports that all cabinet members during the 2005 election have been written to by the police asking them to state their position on the cash for peerages scandal. You can read the BBC's report here.
Chanel 4's 7 o'clock news speculated as to why Yates of the Yard would want to ask everyone in the cabinet about the scandal, and indeed 5 have been interviewed including Alan Milburn and Patricia Hewitt. Alan Milburn said he had been interviewed as a witness not a suspect.
Channel 4 news pointed out that Yates of the Yard has been involved in some very high profile cases before, including the Paul Burrell theft case which collapsed in 2002 when the Queen suddenly remembered something just before Paul Burrell was going to take the stand. The speculation is that Yates does not want a repeat of this, so his aim is to make sure that no one recalls having recommended someone for an honour once charges have been laid, as they will have been questioned first. Good thinking Inspector Yates. Cover your bases these are Liars politicians we are talking about.
You can read about the Burrell trial here and hear. You can read the BBC's profile of Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Yates here.
Donald Rumsfeld resigns!
Hooray!
Donald Rumsfeld the incompetent pratt Secretary for Defence of the United States has resigned. Good. You can read the BBC's article here.
Donald is a very clever man. He calculated very well the exact amount of troops and equipment to defeat the Iraqi army of Saddam Husein. Unfortunately he was just to stupid to realise that winning the war was only the minutest part of the task, and that winning the peace is what counts.
He was advised about the recklessness of his proposed course by experienced generals. He did not like what they said so retired them. It is without doubt that the mess in Iraq is largely his fault. However George W Bush's judgement has to be questioned. Rumsfeld should have been sent packing long ago.
I wrote an article on why we are in this mess in Iraq here. Below is a summary from that article of what coalition forces failed to do.
Lastly a Conservative government should be competent, fiscally prudent and pragmatic. The current US administration is none of these things. I look forward to a proper conservative government in the US in 2008.
Donald Rumsfeld the incompetent pratt Secretary for Defence of the United States has resigned. Good. You can read the BBC's article here.
Donald is a very clever man. He calculated very well the exact amount of troops and equipment to defeat the Iraqi army of Saddam Husein. Unfortunately he was just to stupid to realise that winning the war was only the minutest part of the task, and that winning the peace is what counts.
He was advised about the recklessness of his proposed course by experienced generals. He did not like what they said so retired them. It is without doubt that the mess in Iraq is largely his fault. However George W Bush's judgement has to be questioned. Rumsfeld should have been sent packing long ago.
I wrote an article on why we are in this mess in Iraq here. Below is a summary from that article of what coalition forces failed to do.
- The coalition forces failed to impose martial law when they captured areas, because they just did not have the men or the will.
- They failed to plan to have a working police force.
- They made 500,000 armed men unemployed.
- They failed to guard the ammunition dumps.
- They failed to guard the borders.
- They failed to understand who the losers would be in the liberation of Iraq.
- They made political blunders of epic proportions.
Lastly a Conservative government should be competent, fiscally prudent and pragmatic. The current US administration is none of these things. I look forward to a proper conservative government in the US in 2008.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Cash for peerages - A clarification?
On the way home from work I heard that Lord Goldsmith the Attorney General had yet again insisted that he will not stand aside in the decision making process as he thinks his consent is needed for a prosecution under the Honours, Prevention of Abuses Act 1925.
However when I got home I read this on the BBC news website, according to which Lord Goldsmith has written to his shadow Dominic Grieve to say that he need not be involved in those decisions but his consent may be needed as a matter of law in some corruption cases.
Meanwhile Guido appears to have unearthed Lord "Cheerful Charlie" Falconer saying that Lord Goldsmith would stand aside in evidence to a select committee back in April. You can read his article here.
Well, it's so very unlike Lord Goldsmith to change his legal tune when pressed isn't it? He's never done that before.
However when I got home I read this on the BBC news website, according to which Lord Goldsmith has written to his shadow Dominic Grieve to say that he need not be involved in those decisions but his consent may be needed as a matter of law in some corruption cases.
Meanwhile Guido appears to have unearthed Lord "Cheerful Charlie" Falconer saying that Lord Goldsmith would stand aside in evidence to a select committee back in April. You can read his article here.
Well, it's so very unlike Lord Goldsmith to change his legal tune when pressed isn't it? He's never done that before.
Cash for peerages - late breaking news
Well, according to the LibDemograph Independent, Lord Goldsmith the Attorney general has now bowed to pressure to stand aside from any decision over prosecuting Tony Blair in the cash for peerages row. You can read the article here.
Bizarrely according to some reports, The Honours, prevention of Abuses Act 1925 does require the Attorney General to approve of ANY prosecution under the act.
This bit of legal information is of course acquired from journalists, who in the public mind are a shade less reliable than an estate agent, but there you go. I can't comment as the act is not online, nor have I had reason to seek legal advice on the issue as I have never been in a position to buy or sell an honour.
What is interesting though is that the report as far as it goes does leave the Attorney General in a position to quash all other potential charges. If the above reports are correct then clearly parliament in 1925 either had no idea of just how low the publics opinion of politicians would sink, or were merely outlawing the opposition selling honours.
Bizarrely according to some reports, The Honours, prevention of Abuses Act 1925 does require the Attorney General to approve of ANY prosecution under the act.
This bit of legal information is of course acquired from journalists, who in the public mind are a shade less reliable than an estate agent, but there you go. I can't comment as the act is not online, nor have I had reason to seek legal advice on the issue as I have never been in a position to buy or sell an honour.
What is interesting though is that the report as far as it goes does leave the Attorney General in a position to quash all other potential charges. If the above reports are correct then clearly parliament in 1925 either had no idea of just how low the publics opinion of politicians would sink, or were merely outlawing the opposition selling honours.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Reid wins battle with Brown over Queens speech
According to Martha Kearney on BBC2's Newsnight, Dr John "Comrade" Reid has got the Queens speech focusing on security.
The Queens speech deals with the Governments legislation program for the coming year.
What new laws do we need? Killing people has been against the law since Babylonian times. Conspiracy to Murder since the 1861 Offences against the people act (Also murder is in there too).
Security is a matter of executive action not parliamentary action. There are plenty of laws out there to deal with the threats we face. The only issue there may be is changing the rules of evidence in court so that we can use our own wire tap evidence rather than having to use Belgian stuff.
You therefor have to assume that what is going to be in the Queen's speech is a mindless pointless attack on civil liberties which will further alienate disaffected Muslims, whilst executive inaction keeps us unsafe in our beds at night.
Fantastic! You could not make it up.
In further news, ID cards to save the world before breakfast. Sounds fantastic I know, but it is substantially more plausible than the claims the Government makes for them.
The Queens speech deals with the Governments legislation program for the coming year.
What new laws do we need? Killing people has been against the law since Babylonian times. Conspiracy to Murder since the 1861 Offences against the people act (Also murder is in there too).
Security is a matter of executive action not parliamentary action. There are plenty of laws out there to deal with the threats we face. The only issue there may be is changing the rules of evidence in court so that we can use our own wire tap evidence rather than having to use Belgian stuff.
You therefor have to assume that what is going to be in the Queen's speech is a mindless pointless attack on civil liberties which will further alienate disaffected Muslims, whilst executive inaction keeps us unsafe in our beds at night.
Fantastic! You could not make it up.
In further news, ID cards to save the world before breakfast. Sounds fantastic I know, but it is substantially more plausible than the claims the Government makes for them.
Cash for peerages update.
For those who are not up to speed on the issue, don't read Guido or the Evening standard, here are today's developments.
Firstly The Director of Public Prosecutions (head of the CPS) Ken MacDonald has stepped aside from any consideration of the case because he had a professional relationship with Cheri Blair. Quite right too. Shows the man has integrity. However apparently according to the Evening Standard he is also threatening to resign if a prosecution is blocked. You can read the article here.
Secondly despite the close relationship Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General has to Tony Blair, he is insisting he will not stand aside from the decision making process leading to much gnashing of teeth. Bizarre. You can read the article in the Evening Standard here.
I would also check Guido out here.
Update 19:50
Firstly I just wanted to say that whilst the reported threat that the DPP Kevin McDonald would resign if the CPS decision to prosecute is over ruled is serious stuff, it could also be the result of badgering and clever question asking by a journalist who may for example have asked "If Lord Goldsmith over ruled the CPS in a decision to prosecute Tony Blair would you resign?" rather than an active statement on his part.
Secondly the most important part of the news above for me is Lord Goldsmiths failure to clearly step aside. No Judge or prosecutor could act where such a conflict of interest arose. If they did then there actions would have to be revisited, but also they would face serious disciplinary action.
Lastly I have heard that there is an incriminating email floating about putting Lord Levy in it up to his neck. If any one has any good links or info I would be grateful.
Here is what has been seen on Comment is Free.
Firstly The Director of Public Prosecutions (head of the CPS) Ken MacDonald has stepped aside from any consideration of the case because he had a professional relationship with Cheri Blair. Quite right too. Shows the man has integrity. However apparently according to the Evening Standard he is also threatening to resign if a prosecution is blocked. You can read the article here.
Secondly despite the close relationship Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General has to Tony Blair, he is insisting he will not stand aside from the decision making process leading to much gnashing of teeth. Bizarre. You can read the article in the Evening Standard here.
I would also check Guido out here.
Update 19:50
Firstly I just wanted to say that whilst the reported threat that the DPP Kevin McDonald would resign if the CPS decision to prosecute is over ruled is serious stuff, it could also be the result of badgering and clever question asking by a journalist who may for example have asked "If Lord Goldsmith over ruled the CPS in a decision to prosecute Tony Blair would you resign?" rather than an active statement on his part.
Secondly the most important part of the news above for me is Lord Goldsmiths failure to clearly step aside. No Judge or prosecutor could act where such a conflict of interest arose. If they did then there actions would have to be revisited, but also they would face serious disciplinary action.
Lastly I have heard that there is an incriminating email floating about putting Lord Levy in it up to his neck. If any one has any good links or info I would be grateful.
Here is what has been seen on Comment is Free.
Fisking Ruth Sunderland in the Observer.
I have never been found of the Grauniad or it's sister papers except they do provide some good laughs when quoted in Private eye.
However this article caught my eye as some one on politicalbetting.com linked to it.
Lets work through the air headedness of it.
I see. Would this be the Enterprise Act 2002 which in part amended the Insolvency Act 1986? It seems this rather silly statement assumes that people borrow lots of money in full knowledge of the new insolvency rules. Some how I doubt that very much as they are not that kind for people who like like they have run up massive debts prior to pulling the plug. Besides which most people live in total ignorance of the law. I suspect the problem might be that people can get what ever credit they like on things like credit cards as long as they are prepared to pay silly interest rates which they are not fully informed about.
I wrote an article on this subject on the 2nd of October which you can read here. I detailed the steps banks could take to protect themselves. They choose not to. I list them below:
However this article caught my eye as some one on politicalbetting.com linked to it.
Lets work through the air headedness of it.
How good of you to notice.
"The latest crop of insolvency figures is horrific."
"Loan addiction, as any debt counsellor will tell you, is as destructive to individuals and families as alcoholism or gambling, and we have become a nation of binge borrowers."I'm not going to ask either what this means of what evidence backs this up as I doubt there is any. However people being in debt over there heads is an obvious problem and causes all sorts of problems. People can get used to living beyond there means because their credit rating has just given them lots of cash. So they spend up to their limits and pay the minimum payment or a bit more until the banks either increase their credit limit or they apply for another card.
"One major culprit is lenient insolvency legislation, which came into effect in 2004 and has encouraged people to walk away from their responsibilities."
I see. Would this be the Enterprise Act 2002 which in part amended the Insolvency Act 1986? It seems this rather silly statement assumes that people borrow lots of money in full knowledge of the new insolvency rules. Some how I doubt that very much as they are not that kind for people who like like they have run up massive debts prior to pulling the plug. Besides which most people live in total ignorance of the law. I suspect the problem might be that people can get what ever credit they like on things like credit cards as long as they are prepared to pay silly interest rates which they are not fully informed about.
"This was the brainchild of Gordon Brown, who wanted our system to be modelled on that of the US. The idea was that a more forgiving regime would encourage entrepreneurship."Seems like a good idea to me. That said I think in the US credit card debt may not be provable in bankruptcy. That said in some states you get to keep the family home no matter how big it is.
"Yet company liquidations have fallen slightly, showing that the legislation has misfired. It is individual consumers who are behind the surge."And? banks are more careful about lending to companies. Besides which if a company goes bust, it may well be the case that this causes personal insolvency for the owner or directors so we would need more information about where the debt came from to be sure.
"Bankruptcy-lite is not pain-free, as a borrower's credit rating will be flattened. But much of the stigma attached to insolvency has been removed - with predictable results."Well in that case Gordon has achieved exactly what he set out to achieve. Therefore entrepreneurs will not be bothered about sailing close to the wind and will be more willing to take risks. Good. That said it does cause problems for borrowing more money.
"The only winners are firms such as Debt Free Direct and Accuma, which are cashing in by advising on IVAs."Really? What about the people who have been the victims of irresponsible lending? Don't they win to some extent as well?
"The banks are seeing a tidal wave of bad debts, which prudent customers will end up funding."Well, presumably prudent customers will decide not to deal with irresponsible banks. That is the free market after all.
"According to one industry executive, at least 2 million Britons are irretrievably indebted and will only clear their loans if they win the lottery. That is a major social problem."I see. And just which bunch of shysters lent them this money? Did they not ask how much these people were earning or indeed what other debts they had? No. Why? Because they would rather lend the money, make a killing, and then get airheads to plead poverty for them in the press.
I wrote an article on this subject on the 2nd of October which you can read here. I detailed the steps banks could take to protect themselves. They choose not to. I list them below:
However the banks could also try responsible lending. They could when issuing new credit cards, ask:It should of course be noted that Insolvency law comes under the remit of the DTI not the Treasury so i wonder how much this was Gordon's brainchild. Also the issue was and is unsustainable consumer debt rather than what insolvency law is. That clearly is a Treasury issue.
* Have you got any other credit cards?
* If so what is the limit and balance?
* Can we see some statements please?
* Have you just been making the minimum payments?
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Bonfire safety tip
I was very saddened to hear that last night a man died at a bonfire because something inside it exploded, and launched itself at the man.
You can read the sad story here.
For as long as I can remember I have always followed the following practice.
If I am going to light a fire , I may gather everything together in advance but once I start building the fire I never leave it until it is alight. Not for one minute.
Occasionally I have bonfires on my allotment to get rid of garden waste and the sort of weeds you get in West Sussex (You get dandelions, we get those too, but we also get trees all over the place).
One time a friend has some stuff to burn, so he set up his bit before I got there. When I did get there with my stuff I realised that the fire had been left unattended and took it apart. There was an empty aerosol can in there which would have gone off like a bomb, causing injury.
So never ever leave a fire and then light it. By all means get everything ready, but when it is time to get it going build it from scratch. Please.
You can read the sad story here.
For as long as I can remember I have always followed the following practice.
If I am going to light a fire , I may gather everything together in advance but once I start building the fire I never leave it until it is alight. Not for one minute.
Occasionally I have bonfires on my allotment to get rid of garden waste and the sort of weeds you get in West Sussex (You get dandelions, we get those too, but we also get trees all over the place).
One time a friend has some stuff to burn, so he set up his bit before I got there. When I did get there with my stuff I realised that the fire had been left unattended and took it apart. There was an empty aerosol can in there which would have gone off like a bomb, causing injury.
So never ever leave a fire and then light it. By all means get everything ready, but when it is time to get it going build it from scratch. Please.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
