No one is for a minute saying this daft bint shouldn't be hoisted upon her own petard (a term historically related to the misfiring of seige munitions used to destroy rampart defences in revolutionary France, killing the ordinance man in the process), only that the banal, asinine assertions of her ilk are really starting to be shown for what they are: banal, asinine assertions, espoused by losers and maybe the rules designed to protect us all from incendiary calls to arms are a little overzealous.
I would rather have hate speach, racism and unsavoury types espousing all kinds of things in plain site so that we can easily tag and manage them, either through intelligence or through...intelligence. The number of losers on the web following this kind of idiot are VANISHINGLY small and mainly promoted by an echochamber of idiocy on social media designed to echo sentiments of such losers (I'm looking at you Twitter); we never see the very quick and powerful dispatch of their stupid ideas post-utterance but they are there, convincing the likes of joe-public to do the right thing, ditch their twitter ribbons and unfollow these cretins.
Having wrong-footed the entirety of the last election and the concomitant public opinion and with a little under 2 years to go he now goes on to claim that UKIP are planning on doing...."something, something, something...migrants are bad...we will wholeheartedly support...one of the candidate organisation to lead the #EUNo campaign" (or the "leave" campaign as it will now be known). Could he be more specific about who he wants to lead the leave campaign? "I haven't the foggiest"... I'm not convinced and I doubt anymore than the 1 in 10 will be too.
Now Master Kassam is now wrong-footing what needs to happen to "thwart" bad press with a BBC "watchdog" and a "bias hotline"; rather than address reasonable criticism yet again proving that the only thing worth reading on Not-so-Breitbart is Nero. His entire rhetoric is akin to my 6 year old daughter complaining that her cheeky 3 year old sister punched her then ran off; there is little that can be done to prevent a toddler being a sociopathic asshole and less so about thwarting it again in the future when there will inevitably be another ruckus; moaning at your enemies and the hand you are dealt won't solve anything and certainly not win you sympathy where you need it - the voting public. It just enforces the view of a bully picking on a whinging child, and by the time it is dealt with, if it ever is, the campaign will be long over,
As has been pointed out elsewhere, ad nauseum, the winning strategy will be to take the high ground; to appear less crazy than the opposition and laugh off their criticism and their overzealous focus on the minutiae of boring statistical and fiscal arguments; you aren't marching to New Jerusalem, you are marching to the door of a customs union and a place on stage of a wider global world. A strategy of whinging and voyeuristic obsession with bias in an organisation known for it's bias will help not one jot; laughing your ass off when the "stay" opponents for a seat at the kiddies table of Little Europe when you point out you want your rightful place with the adults as Global Britain is a winning strategy; looking conciliatory when they warm up the tired old 80s trope about "fax democracy" Britain and you point out that as one of the biggest economies in the world we would be doing the faxing, if we weren't already on email having thrown the fax machine along with all the spice girls CDs and global technicolor tshirts in the shed.
So can we please stop this?
The Department for Education has sought to ‘clarify’ its tweet which appears to brand school lessons in gay rights ‘nonsense’.
So my reading of this is:The bizarre tweet was posted on the DfE’s official account this afternoon and reads: ‘Nonsense to say schools “must teach gay rights”. We want schools to teach broad curric based on British values.’"
- Gay rights aren't a thing because...
- ...British Values (patent pending) enshrine tolerance of ones own proclivities as long as they don't infringe on another persons...
- And British Values (pp) are a required aspect of the curriculum.
"Ask the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner to investigate an MP’s pre-2010 expenses and here is the answer you get:The poor guy can't catch a break can he?
“All records relating to expenses claims before 2010 have now been destroyed. No unredacted information is now available here…”
A committee headed by the Bercow has authorised the shredding of all the evidence..."
I mean if only there were some way to keep copies of these documents in a non-corporeal form which would only take up a byte-sized (sorry I slipped - I mean "bitesized", stupid typing-me) amount of space in his office - you know, like an extremely portable document format (lets call it a "pdf" for short), which he could keep on a tiny filing cabinet, perhaps disk shaped that you just need to put some electricity through to open, or "drive" it to open (lets abbreviate that to a "hard disk drive" for short).
The worst of it is that this would almost certainly be illegal for a business to do:
Now HMRC are vague on how long they need businesses to keep the records for (or at least don't explicitly state it on the top shelf) which to me means you should keep it indefinitely, particularly with all the tough talk we keep seeing about tax dodging and fiddling. And how about the shareholders, i.e. us? When it became apparent the vast majority of mps' were on the fiddle were we not told this would be investigated? Who investigated it? If this were a business this would be done by an external audit service who wouldn't sign off on the accounts unless they were kosher.You must keep a record of all expenses and benefits you provide to your employees.Your records need to show that you’ve reported accurately and your end-of-year forms are correct.
We clearly never got that; and I think we should start seeing the accounts ourselves.
|Angel Eagle, yesterday|
I'm certain people will realise my position on this but here it goes for clarities sake; Lord Freud was clumsily making the point that wages are a *cost* to employers and that cost has to be met by the value of that persons production and, sad as it is, with productivity improvements brought about by innovation and an increasingly sophisticated workplace people who can't grasp this struggle, being severely disabled more so.
What Lord Freud was alluding to was making it easier for disabled people to get into work by making their hiring cheaper for employers; personally given the sheer scale of the problem with NEETs in this country and chronic unemployment we should abolish the minimum wage altogether and change welfare to a 2-tier negative income tax system: first tier to prevent anyone starving in the streets (say welfare risings to £13k in line with the cost of living calculations the Joseph Rowntree calculations) and the second working tier where guaranteed income rises to £16k depending on hours worked (say £16k window at 30 hours/week) before further income is taxable. You could make work more profitable and worklessness bearable and you could quickly give people the life skills they are(/were) so critically under prepared by schools for.
This actually underlines the different between the statist and liberal left here and which camp most of New Labourious' useful idiots are in; they are happy to mutter about what should happen ("employers should pay the minimum wage") rather than what could happen ("employers struggle to pay minimum wage, but the state could top it up and redistribute the cost"). I'm more in the could camp.
But how big a swing is this to UKIP? A cursory glance at the wiki page for Clacton as a parliamentary constituency shows that Dougy Carswells' victory in 2010 as a bory candidate on a turnout of 64.2% of the electorate meant that a little under 1 in 3 people actively wanted him in power: 34% to be exact with Labour trailing at over half that at 16%; almost certainly a decisive vote against the Brown Gorgon.
This by-election however, assuming turnout numbers are roughly comparative, saw only 52.6%, meaning his win of 59.7% of this number amounts to 31.4%, a drop in the numbers actively voting.
I don't think we are seeing a dramatic turning on the Bory's or ship jumping to UKIP; I think we are ultimately seeing a good man returned to Parliament in spite of his party and not because, as many UKIPpers and the MSM believe; on this I think I concur with the good Dr. North.
- Having had years to plan all this why have the elderly not been planning for retirement? I'm willing to believe this is down to innumerable socialist governments writing cheques with their mouth that the electorate refused to cash or that they simply felt they would be dead before they lived to need their arse wiping by someone else.
- Is this the last 2-fingered victory salute of the post-war babyboomers? Having picked the cupboard clean for future generations are they now trying to bloc-vote a government into sticking us for more cash? In which case I have little sympathy for their "plight".
Ed Miliband has rejected David Cameron’s call to prevent Scottish MPs voting on English-only issues in Parliament, despite appearing to accept that the current system is unfair.
It is extraordinary that after 300 years of successful constitutional political development during which the United Kingdom achieved unparallelled military, scientific, industrial, social and political progress (including the world's finest civil service), it has almost all been vandalised in a few decades of "progressive" politics and modernisation.
So the choice is made and the wife is back on her terms and the husband is left a hollow version of himself.
And the commentary is palpably vitriolic.
" Gordon Brown, who has never ceased to regard himself as the rightful Prime Minister of Britain, scribbled a revolution on the back of a fag packet and decreed its implementation. How many people voted No because of the seductive dog's dinner of half-baked pledges offered as "The Vow"? Perhaps 100,000? Be generous and suppose it was 200,000. Possibly it was hardly anyone."
None of which I can disagree with; sadly, none of this matters and I'll tell you why.
We are a country served by minority government, returned on a minority mandate in league with a foreign invasionary force from Brussels; it does not care about the electorates thoughts or concerns, only for whatever its focus groups and the media tells it, insulated in its own little bubble and protected against a defanged and divided public by an increasingly unresponsive but violent police state.
And noone you select at the next GE will do anything about this state of affairs.
The choice is between:
- A turd with a blue rosette,
- A turd with a red rosette,
- A turd with a yellow rosette,
- The narky teaboy farage who couldn't find his are with both hands and will be establishmentised before the end of his first week in power.
Any way you play it you are voting for the continuity party of the civil service; an EU Corp. Puppet organisation with a now transparently thin veneer of democracy covering it.
Come the general election the only logical choice on the ballot is to spoil it; we won't get real change by selecting the anachronistic bubble dwellers repeatedly.
Then, with any luck, we can push for real change for the better.
You've been married for a long time; you cannot remember a time before it, though you have books and photos telling you such a time existed, and you can't imagine the situation ever changing.
Then one day you arrive home and your wife says she wants a separation, "to find herself". You reluctantly concede, and she moves out.
Years pass with occasional hopeful meetings, longing glances from both parties and even occasional brushes of affection.
Then she tells you she is considering a divorce, to go her own way wholeheartedly.
You, stricken, tell her you don't want that, that whatever your problems, your history, we can work it out.
Again she says she is considering divorce but hasn't made up her mind.
In despair you ask her has there been someone else; she tells you she has had several flings but nothing lasting
In desperation you tell her you don't care about the others, that you love her and want things to work.
She says she can't go on on what you give her to live on.
You promise her more.
That she wants to be free to see other people.
You eagerly agree.
That she wants to have a say on who you see and what you spend money on.
Confused, but hysterical with grief and anxiety you agree.
You both return home to separate rooms.
She's home, but somewhere on that road back you lost something important.
Your self respect.
And you can barely look your children, your friends or your colleagues in the eye.