The UK needs a 'fiscal cliff'

There is much talk about the 'fiscal cliff' that is facing the USA.  This refers to the tax increases and spending cuts which come into effect on January 1, 2013 unless some action is taken to repeal or amend the relevant legislation.  The aim of the original legislation was to require the US Congress and Administration to address the ever increasing budget deficit and US debt.

As one would expect, politics has intervened and a game of fiscal chicken is now underway.   The Democrats, buoyed by the results of the presidential election think they have a mandate to tax more and not cut expenditure.  The Republicans seem to be trying to reach a compromise which reduces the level of tax increases but still has some expenditure cuts.  As so often with Obama, though, there is a lot of talk and no real action.

However, I was thinking that the UK needs its own 'fiscal cliff'.  So, for that matter does Europe but let's stay with the UK.

As a nation, we need to face-up to our situation.  Forget all the rhetoric about 'responsibly' cutting public expenditure from the Tories or 'swingeing' cuts from Labour.  The reality is that public expenditure is not being reduced by any meaningful level.  There will be all the usual suspects lining-up to defend the 'steady as she goes' approach and saying too much has already been cut etc., but the plain and simple truth is that the UK, as a nation continues to live way beyond its means.

It won't happen, but here is what I think we need.

First, a Chancellor that is focused on the UK economy not one who always has his eye on the electoral impact.  I hesitate to say this but someone like Ken Clarke was, after 1992.  Someone that builds the economy for the economy's sake and damn the electoral consequences - hence the Labour landslide of  1997!!  My belief is that Clarke's insistence on something approaching fiscal rectitude, gave Labour a 'golden legacy' and the Tories defeat!

Second, honesty as to the course of action that is to be undertaken.  Tell it like it is.  I know that sounds incredibly naive but some Britons are actually grown-ups.  They are having to deal with their own fiscal cliff and managing and struggling to do so.

Third, demonstrable cuts across the board.  Yes that includes the 'sacred NHS' .  Demonstrable?  How about a 15% cut in expenditure for ALL departments.  Zero based budgeting.  What did we spend in the last 12 months?  That number less 15% is what we spend in the next 12 months.

Fourth, cease payments, within 60 days, to the EU.  Simply stop.  Make no further payments until, CAP is abolished, until the books are audited and approved, until the EU bureaucracy is reduced by at least 50%.  Until.............  the whole damn place is under control and that means democratic control - not political appointees.  No more money until all of the above is achieved.

Fifth, cut overseas aid.  Make all overseas aid actually only 'in kind' and only is UK manufactured products.  Any 'on the ground' costs must be met by the recipient nation.  End all overseas aid to India, China and Brazil, immediately.  I read today that the average age of retirement, in Brazil, for private sector workers, is 53 years of age.  Makes Greece look miserly!

Sixth, instruct the NHS and other public institutions to initiate immediate discussions with their Private Finance Initiative  (PFI) providers and the starting point is a dramatic reduction in the payments that are to be made under these agreements.    If not, the NHS Trusts to declare bankruptcy.  Who exactly do we think holds the whip hand?  The NHS, who can make use (or sometimes misuse) of the relevant facilities or the financing companies?  What will the latter do with bankrupt hospitals?

Seventh, and we are back to # 3 make the cuts even more demonstrable - abolish a complete government department.  The Department for Energy and Climate Change would get my vote for abolition, along with the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office - I know that's three and I am in danger of fuzzy maths but.....   All of the displaced personnel to receive redundancy pay in line with the statutory limits - so not the usual 'golden parachutes'.

Eighth, Cut support for local government by 25%  - This will lead to a decline in employment opportunities for 'diversity officers' and LGBT empowerment posts but we will just have to get by.

Nine, 'means test'all benefits,  Welfare should be a 'safety net' not the lap of luxury.  And yes, 'means test' including those for pensioners.  Why should a pensioner get free bus pass?  Or a winter fuel allowance, if they don't really need it? 

Ten, abolish the so called 'green taxes' that have been imposed upon all energy users and go 'hell for leather' to promote shale gas exploitation.  This will require ignoring the lies from the BBC and Greenpeace but at least, if # 7 is followed, there won't be anyone at the Cabinet table pushing these lies and distortions.

As I said at the outset, it won't happen but it was nice to get this off of my chest.  Instead the UK will slide towards IMF bailouts and austerity much like the above but it will be administered by 'foreigners'.  And we will have the usual bogeyman of bankers to blame, so that's all right then!!

The USA has a chance to turn back from the financial abyss but politicians being what they are, the problems are as likely to be kicked down the road over there, as they are in the UK.

US - Please don't deport Piers Morgan

I would like some democracy-loving American to start a petition to keep Piers Morgan in the USA.

The grounds would be the what I believe are his comments being protected under the  First Amendment to the US Constitution.  The framers maybe didn't anticipate the abuse of the rights nor the mindless mutterings that would be protected under the amendment but they were good people acting in a good way and they would, I believe, have accepted that sometimes the greater good is served.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I do have another motive.  I don't want this over-rated ass, back in the UK.  The USA is a big country and you have absorbed the witterings of many fools, in the past, so please, do the UK this favour.

A major concern, for me, is that people might look at Morgan's journalistic record and conclude that his First Amendments privileges are forfeit because of his prior mendacity or rather the lying that occurred on his watch.  He was the editor of the UK tabloid, the Daily Mirror, when they published expose photos that purported to show British troops torturing Iraqi prisoners.  Thing was, the photos were speedily exposed as being frauds.  I can't remember the exact details but I seem to recall something of the apology which said that 'yes, these were made up but they depict real events'  Or words to that effect.

Please though put this to one side and consider the service you are doing for an old ally. 

Of course his ravings about gun-control, coming as they do, from someone raised in the super-controlled (some would say, over-controlled) European environment, take no account of how the US has come about and stayed together as a union.  How could they?  In Europe, the concept of protecting your own home or life is something that is 'farmed out' to the police.  In the UK this is particularly worrying when there are regular exposes of police lies, cover-ups and evidence fabrication, such that, today, many question who it is the police actually protect.  

The US Constitution and its Amendments are not to blame for the horrific massacre in Newtown.

Neither are the gun manufacturers.  We don't blame car manufacturers when the product they produce is involved in the deaths of three times more people than die of gun related deaths.

The one to blame, seems to be universally accepted as being Adam Lanza.  You might, just might look at apportioning some responsibility to a state that didn't offer better medical treatment for people with mental health issues but fundamentally, it was a person, Adam Lanza, that did the killing.

Morgan and his gun control zealots can take all of the guns away from all of the people but that won't, I am sorry to say, stop mad people killing innocents.

On the same day as the Newtown massacre, a madman ran amok in China and stabbed 20 children.  So, ban knives?

2012 Books read

In this I include Kindle versions.  I love the 'feel' of real books but Kindle is just so practical when I have to travel so much in connection with my job.

Here are some of the books I have read in 2012, and comments.

Watermelons - James Delingpole - Excellent expose of the scare-mongering and downright lies at the heart of the  so called Global Warming industry.  Delingpole delves into the organizations that are milking this manufactured 'scare' and exposes the hidden agenda of control and the inherent socialist 'principles' behind this scam.  He does this with a light touch and manages to convey complex information and facts in a not too serious and never dull manner.  Hopefully he will stick with the mission and maybe look at Fracking next?

The Hunger Games triology - Suzanne Collins - Read these and skip the very poor movie adaptation of the first book.  These books really do 'grip' and one gets the sense of despair and isolation - something that is so missing in the movie.

Jack Reacher series - Lee Child.  Not meaning to be disrespectful but these are good 'airport' books (even if read on Kindle!)  They are not deeply challenging intellectual books but a good yarn about someone with a strong moral compass who seems to attract trouble and who knows how to deal with it! Oh!  I have just heard there is a Jack Reacher movie!  Tom Cruise in the title role - why oh why would you make a parody?  Because the lightweight and vertically challenged Cruise could never seriously be cast as Reacher.  Does Hollywood ever read books?  Or are they too busy making caring ads seeking to control other peoples' lives?

Jerusalem - Simon Sebag Montefiore  This is a 'biography' of a city.  For me it sounds an unusual concept but this works and one does get a sense of the character of the city and how it has developed, over such a long time.  My only complaint is that the most recent history seemed to be the least explored.  I found myself at the end of the book before I realized I was close!  The % counter on the Kindle misled because of all of the notes and, a Kindle drawback, one doesn't get that visual check that one does, from a real book.

Our Culture - What's left of it - Theodore Dalrymple - Always enjoyed his columns for The Spectator and this books carries on the tradition of observations on a world that most of us don't see - the under-belly of British (or maybe that's just English) society.  The writing is clear and precise.  This really should be required reading for all of the 'ology' students at universities.  All those who aspire to rule us should understand what exists out there in the real world rather than what they believe exists in their welfare- dependent Utopia.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo series  - Stieg Larsson - Again, better than the film version.  Gripping and the way that this history unfolds?  Brilliant.

Eye of the Needle and others - Ken Follett -  Good yarns, well written and researched and well worth re-visiting.

Blood Hunt and Doors Open - Ian Rankin.  There really isn't much to say - Rankin, as always, is simply superb.

Shibumi, Satori and The Loo Sanction - Trevanian - I first read Shibumi and the Loo Sanction something like 30 years ago.  The return to this much under-rated author was well-rewarded.  I urge you to find out the quality, for yourself.

2012 blogging

I have just passed the 12 month anniversary of my first blog and, since we are approaching the year-end thought I would look back over the past year.  Don't worry, there will be no slow-motion clips, a la BBC Sports Personality of the Year!

First though a thank you to the more than 12,000 people who took the time to look through this.  Even if you didn't agree with what you read I appreciate your participation in the dialogue!

So...

Scotland and the independence vote was a much-written about topic for me and for those that comment on my musings/rants.  As Hogmanay looms, the people of Scotland know that they will have a vote and it will be a yes or no type of vote and in late 2014 but that's about it.  They have stories and counter-stories about whether they will remain in the EU or not and thus use the Euro or £ Sterling.  They have still heard little to nothing about how Scotland's economy and public spending will manage without the UK subsidy (making the EU membership question that much more important).  Hopefully, 2013 will bring some reasoned arguments to the debate.  I am encouraged by Alistair Darling leading the anti-independence side of the discussion.  I get the sense that he will also pick-up sympathy votes for having had to live and work with Gordon Brown for so long!

The topic that brought the most comments was the Government's plans for so called 'gay marriage'.  Many of the comments accused me of being homophobic.  I don't believe I am but I do recognize that that is the way that debate gets stifled.  Mention immigration and you are suddenly a racist BNP supporter, for example.  The Government conducted a sham public consultation exercise, where their view was already made-up and they will now push ahead with legislation and it will include certain safeguards including not allowing such 'marriages' to be conducted in Anglican churches  This is a meaningless sop to try and buy-off disgruntled and bemused Tory MPs and voters.  The government know that that part of the legislation will be challenged by homosexuals under Human Rights legislation.  Commenting on pro-homosexual  legislation that was passed in California, back in the 1970's, the comedian Bob Hope, said that he would soon have to leave that state, before they made homosexuality, compulsory.  I often wonder if that is the goal of the so called charity  Stonewall and the whole host of media that champion 'gay rights' to the detriment of the non-homosexuals in society?   The question I repeatedly posed - what does this legislation give homosexuals that they do not already have under the Civil Union act - remains unanswered.

Europe and the Euro were popular.  Time to confess that my predictions of  Greek exit from the Euro have been premature though I do believe that the whole project is still very precariously balanced and in jeopardy.  The big question though, is will David Cameron recognize the need for getting off of the fence and offering the electorate a clear In/Out vote on continued membership of the EU?  If he doesn't and Labour beats him to the punch then those people who have defected to UKIP can be counted on staying away from the Tories in 2015.

Then there is the UK political scene and particularly the pussy-footing way that the Tories deal with their supposedly junior coalition partner.  From dithering on Europe to pandering on 'gay marriage' to sparing the knife on public spending cuts, the Tories have bowed and scraped to the Lib Dems , time after time.   Taxes still remain high - Income, VAT, National Insurance and the phoney Green Taxes - and so does Public Spending - welfare payments still make low paid work uneconomic to take-up and many middle class receive tax credits and other stipends back from the State,  that they have just paid over in taxes!  And then there is the poor management of news!  The March Budget became focused on pasties and grannies just at a time when we needed the hard questions to be addressed.  It seems that can-kicking is not only done by the Left!

If you ignore rank hypocrisy and pure political opportunism (just for the sake of politicking) then Labour has had not too bad a year.  They were aided by the ineptitude of the Tories (see budget above) but Ed Miliband has come into his own this year.  He still grates when he talks and then there is what he says but, he has done better than I expected.  Fortunately, the other Ed, Balls that is, has had a bad year.  One senses that his heart isn't in it anymore.

I don't want to get on to Leveson as that comes back to Tory stupidity - we have a problem with the press, let's appoint a judge and commission a report for some time in the future!  Why would we expect anything less than a restrictive response from a British judge?  At the end of the day, judges, like politicians, think they know better than us, what is best for us!  Think not?  Think of how many times you have heard of a ruling and thought - No way, that's just crazy (Abu Qatada ring any bells??)

So to close out - I wish you and yours a blessed Christmas and hope that 2013 brings health and happiness to you. 

Newtown, CT

What to say? 

Words to describe the evil that was visited upon this small town will always seem inadequate.  As you will have seen though, that doesn't stop the 'talking heads' jumping to all sorts of conclusions and such.  I guess that includes me!

Also included among these is President Obama who has rushed in to say that 'meaningful action' must be taken.  He is referring to trying to push through some kind of gun control laws in the wake of the Newtown horror.  Don't be surprised!  Like all socialists, Obama looks at all events through a political prism - how can I use this to push 'the agenda' forward?  In this case, how can I put forward a plan for greater state control?  He is aided by the usual suspects such as Diane Feinstein of California.  Surprisingly, there is no rush to say that treatment for mental health should be improved, though one must believe that the killer cannot have been anything but insane!

For Europeans, gun control is 'accepted'  - as in, 'the powers that be' impose it and that's it.  No democracy, no popular vote, just 'we know best'. 

Britain had its own horrific event at Dunblane and then rushed through legislation which had the effect of removing legally registered guns from most law-abiding citizens but not affecting the criminals nor the mentally unbalanced that commit such acts and can always seem to find weapons, when they need them.

Does anyone see the LA gangs giving up their hardware?  Or will it just be the law-abiding people in small, isolated communities, who are then exposed to the gun-toting criminals, who don't give-up theirs?

Now though, is not the time for politics. 

Now we should really reserve our thoughts and prayers for the families that found themselves, with holes in their lives, suddenly appearing last Friday.  I am truly amazed when I hear these people speak.   Their love for the children is obviously apparent but their compassion towards the surviving members of the Lanza family is truly Christian.

Many of the teachers are being hailed as heroes and rightly so, but I also think these suffering parents deserve this accolade for the dignified and spiritual way that they are facing this tragedy.

Keep them and the departed in your prayers.

Politicians - please resist the temptation to intervene!  

Starbucks, Hodges and Tax

Before we all get carried away on a victory-tide of people power and a generally euphoric feeling of goodwill and such, consider this.

How much will the 'voluntary' tax that Starbucks is paying, actually cost it?  I suggest that the answer is zero. Why?  Well firstly the taxes that they pay in say the UK, get deducted against the taxes that they must pay in their home base, the USA.  Secondly, once all of the fuss has died down, I suspect that Starbucks will, offset this payment of taxes against future UK Corporate tax bills - so this payment acts as a kind of pre-payment.

In the first instance above, this deductability gets a little convoluted because of the complex corporate structures that companies like Starbucks put in place but fundamentally, when they eventually send these low-taxed profits back to the USA, to, for example pay shareholder dividends, then they get the deduction.

Remember though that Starbucks have done nothing wrong or illegal.  They have simply managed their tax affairs, efficiently.  There are some, that talk of morality and such.  These include politicians, particularly from the left of the spectrum.  Okay, so hold the indignation at those that have themselves so far into the public trough that their snouts can barely be seen.  Think of this.  Where is the morality in taking more than 50% of what someone earns as a tax?  Where is the morality in tax earnings multiple times - once through PAYE, then what's left gets taxed as VAT or fuel duty or idiotic Green taxes or a TV tax?

Consider also that Margaret Hodges the chair-person of the UK Parliament's Public Affairs Committee, has a family firm, in which she is said to have a financial interest, that paid just £163,000 of corporate tax, in 2011, on sales of £2.1 Billion.  To put that into perspective, Starbucks sales in that year were approximately £377 million or 1/6th and they paid 5 times the corporation tax that Stemcor, the company with which Hodges has links, paid.

Again, Stemcor have likely done  nothing wrong or illegal.   Equally, corporate taxes are not levied on sales but on profits but since Ms Hodges feels obliged to regularly and very publicly castigate large corporations on their tax payments, using what can only be described as inflammatory but essentially ignorant language that is designed to feed the mob with soundbites we must put Stemcor out there as a potential 'villain' as well.  Then perhaps we must question the suitability of Ms Hodges to be leading this crusade against business.  Would anyone suggest that the, much-maligned, Fred Goodwin, is a suitable person to lead the attack on excessive pay for bankers?   

So once again, from the 'mother of parliaments' we hear the hypocritical screeching and snorting of politicians complaining because the insatiable beast that they have created needs feeding with ever more taxes.   In one of the great ironies, the Department of Health (lavishly funded by the UK taxpayer) tells the British public that as a nation we need to lose weight and get healthier, all the while itself, feasting and getting fatter on UK tax money!

Don't knock Starbucks, Google and Amazon for being smart.  Remember that they employ thousands of people, in the UK, (far, far more than Stemcor) and all of these employees pay UK taxes and National Insurance and spend their money, in the UK.  Remember also that Starbucks et al also pay employer National Insurance contributions, which is a tax by any other name but one that the lefties chose to ignore.

BBC waste

Here are some numbers:

Brazil 1
Russia 2
India 3
China 8

OK so you guessed these are the so called BRIC countries.  The ones with the fastest emerging economies.  The ones where the UK really needs to focus its efforts on selling and understanding these markets, so that we can export our way out of the economic crisis.


Here are some more numbers:

USA & Canada 26
of which Washington, 14
Europe 22
of which Paris, 6 and Rome, Moscow  and Madrid 2 each

Latin America 10

Asia Pacific 32

So the US, Canada and Europe gets a combined 48 - these, to remind you are the old economies.

The numbers?  They are the BBC correspondents assigned to those countries.

14 correspondents in Washington and 5 in Paris - I know the relationship is special and the entente is cordiale but really?

Only 1 in Brazil?  Only 1 to report on what is happening in a country of almost 200 million people with a booming economy?  Only 1 to help us Britons gain a better understanding of the culture of this country?

India and China fare no better - populations of 1.3 and 1.4 billion respectively and booming and complex economies and the BBC can hardly be bothered to turn up.

If David Cameron, William Hague and Vince Cable are serious about promoting trade and getting GB out there, then they really need to speak to the Culture Secretary, Maria Miller, and tell her to get the BBC to be more focused on where the UK needs to be rather than on the cosy and highly remunerative posts in the old world.

And Mr Hague, I would be very surprised if the distribution of Foreign Office overseas staff didn't closely correlate to that of the BBC.

Why the title?  Think about those 5 correspondents in Paris or the 14 in Washington - does anyone think they are free?  That they do not have BBC paid for accommodation, high and tax protected salaries and frankly a good lifestyle?  It's waste because we are not getting value for the money we pay in TV Tax.  

Those of us that suspect the BBC is pro-EU will look at those 5 in Paris and the other correspondents in Europe and will understand why, for the BBC, they really can't see outside of this continent.  They will look at the number for Washington and see why the BBC was so pro-Obama - what better way of exporting the failed social policies of Europe?

Don't expect this to appear on the Saville-denying BBC but other media might follow-up, unless of course they too, have a cosy, easy posting focus rather than one that is forward-looking.

More Greenpeace lies and BBC complicity

The BBC is reporting a story from The Independent that up to 60% of the UK could be subjected to fracking operations for shale gas.

The BBC quotes:

The Energy department  spokesman said: "There is a big difference between the amount of shale gas that might exist and what can be technically and commercially extracted.
"It is too early to assess the potential for shale gas but the suggestion more than 60% of the UK countryside could be exploited is nonsense.

John Sauven of Greenpeace is quoted as follows:

"We have commissioned the British Geological Survey to do an assessment of the UK's shale gas resources, which will report its findings next year."

The government is currently considering a report by an independent panel of experts published in April on the future of fracking in the UK.
The report recommended fracking should continue, but under stricter regulations.
Environmental campaign group Greenpeace has said its own analysis shows the extent of potential shale sites is widespread.
Greenpeace Executive director John Sauven said: "Two thirds of England, including large swathes of countryside, is now under active consideration for a risky, polluting, expensive form of fossil fuel extraction.

"The potential for shale gas to bring down bills is overhyped, while experts agree local opposition is a serious threat to the industry's viability. (my italics)

Overhyped?

The only meaningful study of the economic effects of fracking and shale gas production requires a review of what is occurring in the World's largest energy user, the USA.  

Consider these statistics from the US Department of Energy - Energy Information Administration (which boasts of providing Independent Statistics and Analysis).

Price per Thousand Cubic Feet of Natural Gas

February 2003   $7.98

July 2008    $ 15.64

September 2012  $8.17

I don't know about you but a reduction of more than 47% doesn't look like 'overhyped' to me.

Between January 2010 and September 2012, the US increased its daily production of Shale gas from 11 billion cubic feet to around 26 billion feet.  This dramatic increase is only made possible by fracking - be very clear on this - and it is leading the US to lower energy prices and greater energy independence.

These facts are very easily available on the US Department of Energy site.  We can expect that Greenpeace won't check things out and they certainly have no interest or requirement to present a balanced story.  The BBC though, does.

Simple thing is, Greenpeace are not being truthful about the positive economic consequences of shale gas because they are obsessed with a renewables- only policy.   They also don't care that the UK energy users are suffering more and more fuel poverty because of these ridiculous and excessive 'green taxes'.

Votes and Leveson

Another week and more messages from the public for the main party leaders.

For David Cameron, the recurring theme is UKIP.  The easiest solution (and yes this really is easy) is for Cameron to state,  unequivocally, unambiguously or any other way that clearly demonstrates that, within 90 days of the next election, a Conservative led government would hold a referendum on the UK's continued membership of the EU.  A simple In or Out poll.

For Ed Miliband the message may, at first sight be a good one - three resounding victories out of three - but consider.  These are stronghold seats for Labour and yet in these so called times of austerity with an allegedly 'Tory toffs' led government, the Labour voters could barely be bothered to vote and register their 'disgust' at the government's policies.  Voter turnout at Rotherham was just under 34%  and Midllesborough and Croydon, just 26%.  So hardly a ringing endorsement of Miliband's leadership or policies.  If Labour can't get them off of their couches now, when can they?

So take the messages a stage further and consider the results of the Leveson enquiry.  While you do so, consider that if this judge has his way, there will come  time, in the no too distant future, when blogs like this and comments on Twitter, will also be subject to control (or as he puts it regulation).

Labour have instinctively jumped in and demanded that Leveson's recommendations be implemented in full.  Those who accuse them of rank hypocrisy, given their earlier very close ties to the media, miss the point.  Labour is all about winning and like all 'left' parties down the years, see control of the free press as an ideal way to make sure that the right' message is the only one that people get.  Also, a free press is a danger to all politicians and those that rule us because it can ,and sometimes does,  shine a light into the dark areas where these people steal from us.  I cannot believe, for one minute, that the MPs expenses scandal would have been exposed under Leveson.

I think that the Conservatives have almost got it right, in taking a more considered view and opposing a statutory regulator approach.

My own view has hardened around there not being any need for more legislation.  Remember what sparked this?  Phone hacking.  Particularly when it was alleged that the phone of murdered schoolgirl, Milly Dowler, was hacked.

Leave aside, for a moment the morality of such a thing and just know that this was a violation of the law.  How would a press regulator be any more able to enforce the law than the lack of enforcement that already existed?  That surely is the fundamental question.  We don't need more laws, especially one that puts power over the press in the hands of politicians, we do need enforcement of the laws we have.

Rightly or wrongly, I would suggest that most people put the victims of hacking into two categories.  The first is what I would call 'true victims'.  The Dowler family for example.  The hacking that is said to have occurred was a gross violation of decency and should be punished to the full extent of the law.  The second category are what I would call 'celebrities'  People in the public eye and those who want to remain in the public eye.  These people use the print media to promote themselves and their personal agendas but then don't like it when their own craving for public adulation leads them into areas which they then wouldn't like to see publicized.

I have much sympathy for the people like the Dowlers.  The intrusion that they endured was and is, unspeakable.

I have no sympathy for the celebrities that seek to control what it is they show and don't show.  Now they are rushing forward to jump on the 'shackle the free press' bandwagon and so to push their ' we know best because we are famous' routine.  What makes a book writer more qualified to be widely quoted as supporting restrictive laws than other members of the public?  Has the UK really come to the state that we will be lectured on morality by people that get caught in flagrante paying for  and having oral sex performed by a prostitute or those who think that the drug laws don't apply to them?

And what of the BBC?  They have pushed and pushed the Leveson story.  Think though, under Leveson, does anyone think that we would now be talking about Jimmy Saville and his odious crimes?  

Leveson should not be implemented, just pulped.  The laws that we have should be enforced.