Bad week for Blow Jobs

Well potentially, anyway.  Maybe a good week for short-term, let by the hour hotels, though!

Seems that most of the UK press have decided that they can do without the draconian and anti-free speech Leveson laws and won't participate or have anything to do with the so called Royal Charter establishments.

The Guardian and The Independent both accepted the gagging of free speech, that is inherent in this bad law.  Since they are losing readers (and money) faster than @Old_Holborn is losing followers in Liverpool, one needn't be too concerned about their kow-towing.

At the same time, it has been reported that the 'No to Page Three' has received a very poor response to it's campaign to ban photographs of topless women appearing on Page 3 of the top selling The Sun newspaper.

Maybe there is a connection?

Maybe people see such campaigns as a foretaste of what the Royal Charter will bring?  Minority interests pedaling and imposing their views on the majority and stifling any view that doesn't fit with their narrow perspective on life or current pet hate.

I am sure that the overwhelming majority of decent people, will have shared the revulsion felt by publisher/owner, Rupert Murdoch, at the allegations that his own The Sun or The News of the World, hacked the phone of the schoolgirl, Milly Dowler.   Sympathy for the parents of this young girl, who was brutally murdered, would naturally, and rightly, be high.  That the subsequent police investigation doesn't seem to have found evidence that this 'journalistic activity' was criminal, doesn't excuse it.

It is a hell of a leap from there to allowing criminal activity to go unreported, just because the criminal is a 'celebrity'.  When a famous actor is caught 'in flagrante' getting a blow job, from a known and previously convicted prostitute, in a public place, this has to be a reportable incident and within the public domain.

Equally, when a Daily Mail columnist (Jan Moir) questions the lifestyle of a 'celebrity' homosexual who dies at a very young age, and the death seems to be very much linked to such a hedonsitic way of life, why should such comment be stifled (it would be under the Royal Charter).  Again, with the Daily Mail, that paper's questioning surrounding the disappearance of Madeline McCann are legitimate areas for investigation.

Of course some journalists will step over the line and report erroneously or gather their information in an illegal way but there are laws already in place that can be applied.  New ones are not required.

So bravo for the majority of the press, national and local, who had the courage to oppose this bad legislation and to decide to have no part of it.  Now we will see if the enemies of a free press - the Labour Party, the Lib-Dems and their socialist and control-freak allies - will push for regulation rather than the so=called voluntary element that was included in this compromise law.  Just as importantly, we will see the true colour of David Cameron's Conservative party - libertarian and upholders of a free press or totalitarian and socialist by another name?

Oh! and the Hughs of the world?  While you now know that indulging in fellatio in a car, with a prostitute is very risky, consider that maybe those 'rent by the hour' hotel rooms might have CCTV installed.  Enjoy!
 

Are Americans rude or

is it just their President?

I ask, following the absence of President Obama from Baroness Thatcher's funeral.  Hillary Clinton also couldn't be bothered to attend nor her successor, John Kerry.  Instead the USA was represented by an embassy flunkey and the most recent former ambassador.

This was shabby behavior.  Unbecoming a country that positions itself as a super-power.  What a way to treat a country, which it is often said, is its greatest ally.   This was Obama at his typical worst. Prior to his election, in 2008, Europeans fawned over him (remember the Berlin rally?) and worshipped at his feet.  Once elected, and having accomplished nothing, he was then awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (more fawning) and yet, for Obama and his administration, Europe is a 'no go' area.

There will be some that try to excuse his absence by referring to the Boston Marathon bombing.  Yes that was a horrific incident and certainly merited Presidential attention but a President needs to think and act a bit more strategic than that.  I suspect that the real reason for his absence was that he wanted to continue to push the gun control agenda and 'twist arms' to do so and, because this very political President only wants to advance his vision of the USA, friends and allies, come a long way behind that goal.

Speaking of Boston, for a moment, I hope that this visitation of terror, in the heart of the city, causes some of its residents to pause and ponder.  Some of the people of Boston were a major source of funding for the IRA back in the 1970s and 1980s, with all of the collection jars in bars throughout the city.  These funds were then used to buy guns, ammunition and Semtex to wreak terror within the UK.  One such bomb, killed 12 year old Tim Parry and 3 year old Jonathan Ball, in Warrington, on March 20, 1993.

Back to President Obama.
We know that the US is 'pivoting' towards Asia Pacific but surely even common courtesy, to say nothing of basic diplomatic skills, would require an elevated level of attendance?  The US needs to pivot towards Asia because, frankly, it needs its money to finance the US debt mountain.  You will note that Europe and the Middle East, including Iran, get little attention from Obama.  Though, in a nod to its southern neighbors, it did send a high-level delegation to the funeral of Hugo Chavez.

Or would it maybe be that Obama was concerned that he wouldn't be the centre of attention?  And that he would have been compared, and very unfavourably, at that, to his predecessor, Ronald Reagan and the good lady, herself?  All I see and hear of Obama, suggests that is a plausible reason.

I sincerely hope that European leaders and Britain's in particular, take note of this highly political snub and file it away and take appropriate reciprocal action, when the occasion arises.

Obama and his administration, shamed America, this week and Europeans, who have a lot more history than the US, also have long memories!

Thatcher - the passing of a great

So farewell Baroness Thatcher.  She has passed on to glory and will deservedly rest in peace.

All the talk about how great a prime minister she was, has to be considered taking account of the particular commentator.  Those on the 'left' always talk of her as being divisive or opinionated and these qualities are seen to be naturally bad.  Here is my personal view of this great lady.

When Margaret Thatcher won her first General Election, as leader of the Conservative Party, in May 1979, I was an active member of the Labour Party, in London.  Not a member of the Militant group (remember them?) but we certainly had some members who followed their 'entryist' approach to politics.  I was actually Chairman of my local ward party and heavily involved in organising the getting out of the Labour vote.

Labour won the safe seat but I remember feeling dis-heartened that we hadn't won the election.  Looking back now, I really struggle to understand why, I was feeling so.  Britain had been racked by strike after strike for much of the previous decade; in 1978, 29 Million workdays were lost because of strike action (now it is less than 1 million a year!).  Talk today is of the so called 'winter of discontent' which saw dustmen on strike and rubbish uncollected.  Also gravediggers not burying bodies and hospital porters not moving them, and so on.  I too though recall, the earlier days of the 1970s when interspersed with regular strike action, we had 'three day weeks' and power outages, all brought about by unionised strikers and enforced by their 'flying pickets' who used mob tactics to intimidate non-striking businesses to achieve their aims.  Britain was on its knees.  I can only plead the ignorance or folly of youth for why I thought that 'more of the same' from Labour, was going to be better than the Conservative alternative.

And what an alternative!

Mrs Thatcher blew into No. 10 and started the transformation of the UK.  I left the country 9 months later and started working abroad.  Had I retained my 'leftist' leanings, I guess I could have claimed to have been 'a victim of persecution who couldn't bear to live under such a right-wing tyranny etc.' but the truth is, I was offered a better paying job and took it.

I returned to the UK in 1985 but had obviously kept in touch with goings on.  I started to move towards seeing the benefits of Mrs Thatcher as PM, following the robust, no-nonsense way that she had the Iranian Embassy siege handled.  It was probably the Falklands War that moved me firmly into the 'Maggie Camp'.  She had the moral conviction to recognize the rightness or correctness, call it what you will, of not allowing a military dictator to take-over a part of the UK and then the courage to follow through and eject him and his invading force.  That this then directly led to democracy taking over from a military dictatorship and democratic rights instead of 'disappearances' being the way of life in Argentina, seems to have been lost on latter-day leaders in that country.

I had viewed the 1984 miners strike through TV and other media and to me it was very apparent that this was a struggle, for the very control of a democratic country, between a democratically elected government and an extreme left and undemocratic National Union of Mineworkers (NUM).   This union was led by Arthur Scargill and during the strike, part-funded by the radical Muammar Gaddafi, then the leader of Libya, who was also funding and arming the terrorist IRA, at the same time.  This is something which the BBC, in its 'balanced' reporting usually omits to mention.

So, back in the UK and then I started to see the changes that had been wrought and just around the corner, was the Big Bang and its freeing-up of financial services from outdated practices.  A freeing-up that led to London becoming the pre-eminent financial centre for the World.

Many other writers have dissected the achievements of Baroness Thatcher and passed comment and you can judge yourself.  For me, council house sales and the bringing within the law of the unions are her outstanding domestic ones.  Her steadfast opposition to Communism, in partnership with Ronald Reagan and her fight against the federalizing direction of the EU, along with the Falklands War, were her outstanding foreign achievements.

People say that it was the Community Charge or 'poll tax' that brought her down.  My recollection was that the trigger was Europe and her opposition to the deluded plans of the ruling European elite.   This is what caused the likes of Michael Heseltine (was there ever a more vain politician?) and Geoffrey Howe (nothing needs to be said) to take her on.  Of course, Tory MPs were worried, or frit to use a famous Thatcher word, about their re-election prospects but personally, amongst those I spoke to at the time, there was great support for the Community Charge - much like there is today, for the changes to Welfare payments.  

Anyway, if you were to chose an epitaph for Mrs Thatcher, something along the lines of 'She made Britain, Great again but was brought down by pygmies'

I sincerely hope that the funeral that is planned for this great lady and great Briton, passes off without any incidents orchestrated by the radical left.  If it doesn't or if you hear any comments from anyone under 35 years of age, ask them what they know of Britain before Margaret Thatcher?  Ask them to specifically state how she negatively affected their life?  Ask them, if they think that had Scargill and his Communist allies succeeded, they would be allowed to protest in such a way?  Where would Britain be today, had Baroness Thatcher not ruled?  Where would Eastern Europe be, had she and Reagan not been at the forefront of opposition to Communist Soviet Russia?

Philpotts, Social Services and Welfare

The horror that is Mick and Mairead Philpott was a disaster waiting to happen. A disaster funded by the UK taxpayer and in many ways created by the UK taxpayer.

The UK taxpayer and the welfare system that is funded by tax money, didn't set the fire that killed six of Mick Philpott's children but it did give him the financial incentive to consider this as a way to improve his financial lot.

All of the so far published information, indicates that the principle motive for the 'manslaughter' of the six children was so that the Philpotts could get extra welfare payments and a bigger, state-provided house.

Think about that.  Welfare payments are so lucrative as to bring about the end and very existence of six children.

Just as the Labour Party is out castigating the Conservatives for  the anemic cuts that are being put in place, the 'poster boy' for welfare is found guilty of six counts of manslaughter. 

For the unaware, Mick Phillpot fathered 17 children with 5 different women.  He supported none of these - he required the state to support them.  Support them by paying him money and housing him and his brood.  And then, because he lost an income stream, when his live-in lover (living in at the same time and place as his legal wife!) moved out and took five little cash cows away with her, he plotted a way to frame her and get a bigger house plus the kids back and he might just have succeeded, had he not been over-enthusiastic or inept.

The socialists and Labour Party are keeping a low profile, this morning.  They can hardly be screaming about the benefits of welfare when their poster child puts on such a horrific display, can they?  This is a man who, while seemingly fit, has chosen as his work, the fathering of children to be funded by the state.

But look further.  The socialists and their 'fellow control freak travelers' always look to extend the boundaries of social work and social workers.  These social workers are seen as the guardians of the flame of social justice and 'nannydom' in the local community.  They have unfettered access to courts which are held in secret and at which they employ state-funded lawyers (a nice earner for the legal 'profession' now that the Conservatives don't seem so keen on Public Enquiries) to harass people.

How then, you might ask, did they miss out on Mick and Mairead Philpott?  This is a man that had sex with an underage girl - indeed actually lived with her.  This is a man who was sentenced to seven years in prison for the attempted murder of a former girlfriend.  This is a man who fathered child after child after child with no means to support or house them, whatsoever.  This is a man who boasted, on national TV about his deviant sex life (presuming you accept that living with two women and having sex with them on alternate nights is deviant).  All of this was known of him but the 'Left's' beloved Social Services did nothing.  In my view they consider none of his behaviour to be strange or a warning sign.

No, just like with Baby P and Victoria Climbie, they passed by and did nothing.

One outcome of this case must surely be a nationwide review of exactly what purpose the Social Services, actually serve.  If it doesn't happen, then don't be surprised at more Philpotts.  After all, how many Philpott-type people are out there who did what he did but were a little more successful and didn't kill their children? 

What kind of cuts are acceptable?

When you look at the newspaper headlines (by the way, that is still allowed, under the Royal Charter!), you may wonder what kind of a country the United Kingdom has become.

The Labour party and their left-wing media allies, led by the Guardian and the BBC, are railing against what they see as swingeing 'cuts' in welfare payments and so called tax cuts for the rich.  Let's consider these.

Labour has christened the removal of taxpayer housing subsidy for spare rooms in social housing as a 'bedroom tax'.  How, even in their twisted 'Orwellian' use of the English language, a removal of a subsidy somehow gets converted to a tax on something, is beyond most people's understanding.  But let's examine further.  The change will see those people that are in receipt of housing benefit, have a deduction made if that benefit covers a property that is in excess of what the family actually need.  So if you have a couple in a three bedroom apartment or house, there will be a reduction in the amount of money, paid by the state because this couple have either one or two spare rooms, depending on other circumstances.  What is wrong with that?  Why should welfare recipients enjoy benefits that are not available to the ordinary taxpayer?  Why should Johnny or Jane Taxpayer subsidize a playroom for someone on welfare, while their own child (ren) must use the living room as their playroom?

Benefits are now capped (albeit at a very generous level) and will only be increased by 1% instead of  CPI - No sane person can reasonably support paying housing benefit of £1,000+ a week - welfare recipients living in housing that they would otherwise have no reasonable expectation of residing in.  No sane person can support welfare payments that are greater than the average national wage.  How could such a system ever hope to wean people off of welfare dependency and make work pay?

 Labour and its socialist allies are juxtaposing these 'cuts' alongside the reduction in the top rate of tax from 50% to 45% as in 'millions suffer while millionaires get a tax cut' type of headlines.  Remember it was Labour that introduced the special 50% rate as a 'temporary' measure.  Their words not mine.  Now the Conservative-led coalition has timidly reduced the rate to 45%, Labour complain.  They don't complain that the temporary measure hasn't been abolished - no, they complain that the temporary measure, that they introduced, isn't being made permanent!

Labour's biggest problem with the welfare 'cuts' though, isn't about the size of the reductions.  Truth is that these are barely scratching the surface.  No the Labour Party's problem is that these 'cuts' are actually popular!  The average working person looks at these and sees that finally, someone is thinking of them and making them appear less like fools, for working for a living.  Couple that with the accelerated introduction which raises the tax-free threshold and takes more and more people out of tax altogether and you can see that Labour is in danger of losing its client state constituency.  That is the big problem for Labour.  How do you get people worked-up about a reduction in the top rate of tax when their own tax bill is falling?  How do you get them angry about people on welfare being faced with the realities of life that the average worker faces every single day?


 

England's schools

I append a link to a sad letter written by a new teacher.  http://t.co/rWQ94M6jeP

I challenge you to read this and not be both moved and scared by the content.

Moved, because this individual is patently not someone who has led a cossetted existence and now been thrown to the wolves.  She,  I believe its a woman, is from this environment but seems to have been absent from the 'front-line'.  During her absence the whole ethos of teaching has moved.  Now it is 'child-centric'.  That is 'Guardian speak' for everything revolving around the child - as if a child knows what or how it wants to learn by some kind of osmotic process that it picks-up from its environment.  Consider that in many cases, these children are from homes where the standard of their parent's education is already low and you can see the kind of downward spiral that looms.

Rant time - Is it any wonder that given, in many cases, the lack of personal discipline exercised by their parents, this isn't the cause of the unwillingness to exercise any discipline on themselves, by children/pupils/students/learners (or however these young people are called).  And yet, this 'child-centric' approach is based on the child being able to 'manage' its own interactions with society and to do so in some kind of 'adult way'.  What absolute tosh!  If a child doesn't know the difference between what is right or wrong and gets no pointers from the home environment, then from where will these values be developed?

Scared?  Well, I strongly suspect that the picture painted by the author, is all too typical of how teaching is practiced today, throughout England (maybe the rest of the UK, as well).  Teachers are not taught to teach but to act as some kind of 'baby-sitter' service.  They are members of a trade union, who having pushed this crazy (and patently failed) approach for years, must now defend it in every irrational way possible rather than admit it is wrong.

Maths without numbers?  English without reading or words or writing?  History without dates? In what sick mind could such teaching methods be considered in any way sensible?

I was educated in an Inner London comprehensive school, in the late 1960s / early 1970s.  It was at this time that student teachers were starting to leave Teacher Training Colleges, with the prevailing education methods being challenged.  I experienced some of this, with teachers telling us to 'call me Ron or Beth or whatever' but fortunately my school still had enough 'traditional' teachers to get me through.  By 'traditional' I include teachers who didn't find it necessary to push the latest left-wing ideology or communistic reading of every act that has ever occurred, down my throat.

History teachers taught history.  They didn't comment in great detail on the iniquities of slavery, they just gave the dates of abolition and details about the 'triangular trade' (look it up!) such that I was armed with sufficient information to go off and develop my own thoughts and opinions on the subject.  It was 'chalk and talk' and it was in a disciplined and respectful environment.  I have been fortunate that my children have been mostly privately educated, abroad and so not been subjected to these English education methods.  It is worth noting that in places like, South Africa, Dubai, Norway and Malaysia, the style of education that I received is still the way it is practiced there and no one gives a thought to changing it to some kind of 'child-centric' utopia.  Do you wonder why?