Archive for December, 2011

The Whips apparently claim to speak for the Silent Majority

December 31, 2011

I’ve just been listening to the Speaker’s debate on the Parliamentary Channel.

The topic ( a subsection of a debate on whether the Victorian age was the Golden age of Parliament” is  whether or not Whipping should be abolished.

Lovely bit of sophistry used to perpetuate whipping.

“It’s the vocal minority calling for an end to the Whip and Party Politics.”

” We don’t hear from the silent majority, who want strong Government.”

” If we wish to speak for the silent majority, then we must support The Whip and Party Politics.”

So the vocal minority, who want reform are to be ignored.

The Silent Majority don’t have to be ignored, because they must be happy with the Status Quo.

Furthermore, It wouldn’t be fair to bother the Silent Majority with a referendum on a topic, in which they have no interest.

Being The Silent Majority, they probably wouldn’t vote, whereas the vocal minority would.

This would mean taking control from the safe hands of the 650 highly paid public servants, who actually know what’s best for both sections of the plebians and Parliament and The City.

capping political donations is preferable to state funding

December 28, 2011

A recent commentary said that Chirac would have escaped prosecution under the new set-up, whereby Political parties are state funded.

Surprisingly, when all political parties are in favour of privatising State functions, this is one concept, which is almost certainly going to be raised, again, in this country.

It is said that “he who pays the piper calls the tune” and this is the logic being falsely used to argue for Parties being paid out of public purse .

The claim is that this would free politicians from being sub-servient to vested interests such as Murdoch, Rothschild (I believe that there’s a connection to our old dirty handed friends Goldman Sachs).

The problem is a question of who gets to decide the conditions of payment.

If the piper gets paid without conditions then he is free to play his own tune .

In this instance political parties would simply be giving themselves a basic funding level and feel free to carry on hore-ing their favours. There would be an added advantantage that they could now set a higher scale of charges to their clients.

The logic used behind presents, given by foreign dignitaries, to Civil Servants and Ministers of The Crown, is that donations below a certain level can be accepted as a token of friendship, without being deemed as corrupting.

This is probably the best way of dealing with political party funding.

They don’t need to be able to buy £millions of advertising (sending us all mad with their lies pushed in our faces).

We don’t need one or two Fat cats buying the Tories, or Big Unions buying Labour.

If individual MP’s, unionists, CEO’s etc. won’t fund the parties then they obviously aren’t doing the job.

The only ones to lose out will be the party grandees and their whips.

@Brian Reade ref : Suarez… You mustn’t stand up to bullies, if the bully is the FA and you are LFC.

December 28, 2011

I always admire The Brian Reade column in the Mirror and he seems to make a fair case for Liverpool F.C. taking the abuse of the FA on the chin.

Maybe I’m mis-reading between the lines but he seems to be of the opinion that the FA have come down exceptionally hard on Suarez and LFC.; more so than another player in another club.

Whatever the injustice of the situation, the FA can’t be seen to back down, as that would encourage the thug-in- the-stands and upset some very vociferous and influential groups.

As the FA can’t be seen to back down and / or admit to being vindicative, the argument is that LFC will only encourage further abuse from the FA and the Anti-Racist professionals.

I get the impression that he anticipates John Terry being treated more leniently despite the possibility that there may be strong evidence against him and despite the fact that he denies saying anything that can be considered derogatory.

He may be correct, in his appraisal, but it’s still going to grate, when a more favoured player, from a more favoured club is let off with an admonition and a promise to be nice.

@TheGreenParty @Number10gov @Labour

December 26, 2011

This tweet, from France24 , says that the Carbon emissions market isn’t working because the European economy isn’t producing enough to make it worthwhile trading. (a sort of back door way of saying that the imposition of the Euro etc. has knackered industry)

Carbon emissions trading market must have an administrative organisation with buildings and personnel; with at least one Eurocrat on a five-figure salary.

If this system isn’t working then closing the admin. down will get rid of at least bloody big carbon footprint and free up a lot of, allegedly, very able people to do something more productive.

@occupy @UKLabour @Number10gov what will happen to repossessions when interests rise

December 26, 2011

I got this url from a tweet:

It’s about the disgraceful situation in The States but it gave me pause for thought.

When interest rates begin to rise again, what contingency plans will we have in place to prevent families from being destroyed.

The sort of families that will be put on the street will not be the ones, who will readily re-enter their property or move into a squat.

I doubt that the politico’s will have thought this matter out, except as far as enforcing the property rights of the banks.


@guardian unfair comment on Suarez

December 24, 2011

Despite logging on, I couldn’t find how to email the Guardian directly, so I’ve posted my letter here.

Whilst I appreciate the “Kick it” metaphor, the reporting of the Luis Suarez verdict seems better suited to the phrase “putting the boot”.

I’m not referring to the obviously unbiased and gratis commentary of the MUFC knight, with his superior hairdryer style of man-management.

I’m referring to the editor approved article by David Lacey.

After creating a grotesque image of LFC by describing, it’s attitude as “knuckle dragging” (a phrase commonly used, when reporting on BNP or, at one time, Millwall supporters), it’s not enough, within the same paragraph, to feign impartiality by asserting that “Anfield is not a hotbed of racists”. Even this supposedly ameliorative statement has a negative connotation.

We do need to end racism and all other hate crimes but that won’t be achieved by an eight match ban on one player, based on his admitted use of a word, which has no direct English equivalent, because it sounds like, and has the same root origin, as a particular English word. If Suarez had used the John Terry defence and denied all culpability, would he have got away with it? After all there was no video evidence and Evra’s reputation is not as well founded as Ferdinand’s.

Why, in this instance, are this man and my club chosen to be the scapegoats for all the racist attacks that have been made on a certain section of the community? Is it because he admitted using a word that he (supported by fellow Uruguayan Gus Poyet) considered inoffensive.

OK! the FA has to make a stand. They feel that they have to come down hard on players, in the hope that any thugs in the stands will feel isolated.

However! the circumstances of this case seem to myself, and presumably to many other LFC supporters, to lack that element of fairness that is usually expected of our “judges”.

Players crowd around a ref and try to force a changed decision or call for a card to be shown. They exaggerate the effects of a foul (as, admittedly, Suarez has done) to ensure the referee is aware that a foul has occurred, etc.

Mostly this behaviour is ignored, or, at least, put to one side, until a suitable moment.

If a referee were to appear to red-card a player and award a penalty kick, because an opposition player has told the referee that the player has expressed dissent behind his back, there would be obvious consternation amongst both supporters and unbiased observers.

To the thousands of us, whose club and our ambitions for its success have been attacked through this 8-match ban, this decision is on par with that red card.

For us the expressed support for this decision seems a mixture of the sanctimonious and the hypocritical.

No doubt we will, in the long run, have to accept this decision and its consequences. We will have to put up and shut up.

No doubt we will, now, be forever branded as a racist club and referee’s will feel bound to over-protect certain players, especially those indicated by Sir Alec.

If you throw the first stone, does that prove that you are without sin?

December 23, 2011

Jesus once countered one of his tormentors with the words “Let him, who is without sin, cast the first stone”.

Such cleverness would fly high over the heads of Today’s stone-throwers.

Stone-Throwers such as the Chief Sports-Writer for The Daily Express, John Dillon.

( Or FA apologist Graham Taylor )

One can appreciate his position, from a self-serving point of view.

He writes for a Tory Newspaper, which must be seen to be distancing itself from any accusations of racism and yet there are two highly public cases of alleged racism in football.

It therefore falls to their Chief Sports writer to lead the attack.

How better, than to climb into the highest pulpit and attack not just the two accused but associate them with those mindless thugs, who are most vociferous in football stands, whether it be racist, anti-racist, or even their own team.

Best thing is that he is unassailable.

Anyone, seen to protest his words, is immediately set upon, by the  sanctimonious, as being co-racist.

I am a baby-boomer, I have lived through the times when racism was endemic. when not to be racist was almost considered unpatriotic.

This was a time, post-War, when our parent’s generation had been killing people, who were of a different race, in the most horrible ways. I’m not talking gas ovens, and death marches but Hiroshima, Hamburg, flamethrowerrs, carpet-bombing of civilians.

Men, who had attacked Mosley’s blackshirts had put on a uniform and stuck a bayonet into a stranger’s guts, simply because he wore a different uniform.

How more racist can one get?

Later, we had Windrush, when West Indians were brought over to this country to undercut wages, just as, my antecedents, the Irish had been used a generation earlier.

This time it was different. These immigrants could be identified very easily because of their skin colour.

The rule of the playground is attack those who are different and, if you are being bullied because you are smaller, fatter, bespectacled, ginger, it’s a god-send to be able to point a finger at a more obvious difference.

Lots of words are coined to denote such differences. Most used were those that we learned from the G.I’s, so when the Civil Right’s movement kicked off in The States and many of us were awakened to how bad such racism could get, we countered by first attacking those epithets, which we had learned.

The first political act was to remove the word Negro from official forms. Although my generation had been brought up to see it as simply a posh (Latin)version of the word black, it was to close to the word used in the Southern States of America, which can not, even now, be used except when referring to it as the n**** word.

Racism still persists but it is not Racism that is socially abhorrent, it is the utterance of proscribed words.

It was alright for Patrice Evra to refer to Luiz Suarez as a South American, because although the intent was racist, the words are merely an acceptable descriptive.

When Suarez addressed Evra as negrito, he may have intended a racial insult, in which case he was acting as a racist.

However, as a Liverpool supporter and therefore partisan, I prefer to believe that he was merely responding in a natural form of speech and, therefore, deserving of no more than a reproof; a sort of yellow card.

Whatever the case, it seems certain that the FA came down hard, because he was an easy target and they needed to show their muscular attitude to that which they perceived as politically incorrect.   Not to be seen to take action when there are so many strident groups making a living by attacking signs of racism, or tolerance to any trace of it would have invited censure from those, who could affect their livelihoods.

Anyway, Suarez had admitted using a word, which sounded like an offensive word to the Anti-racist careerists.

It is merely unfortunate that the word, in his language, is not offensive.

According to fellow Argentinian, Gus Poyet, “In Uruguay it is a nickname for someone whose skin is darker than the rest,”

Read more:

No matter what the consequences for Suarez, or what the lack of consequences are for John Terry  (a native English speaker), it’s time to call a halt to this parody of anti-racism.

It’s hate-crimes, which need to be stopped, not the use of words that some choose to find offensive. Poor old Alan Hansen is even being pilloried for the term “coloured”, which for a while was the word, we were all being told we must use, instead of “negro” or “black”.

OK! people with an obvious trace of native African genes (Suarez has them but it’s not so obvious) are not Green skinned, so shouldn’t be called coloured.

I get it.

Neither are they black.

President Obama has skin tones, for which we use the French term Cafe au lait, but so have many Mediterranean peoples. President Obama can, according to the American usage, refer to himself as African-American.

What should we call Glen Johnson, Ashley Cole, or Paul McGrath?

These are men, who must have suffered racial abuse but possibly to differing extents.

Paul McGrath seems to speak as someone, who has been badly scarred by his experiences.

Glen Johnson’s reaction, to Paul McGrath’s words, seems to indicate that he is more concerned about intent rather than superficial harm.

I would like to see a more grown-up approach to such matters, by people with the power to affect change.

I am used to the jibes about Scousers, I don’t like them but I understand the playground mentality of many of Today’s politicians and other comedians.

I understand why a joke abot the recent riots, focussed on Liverpool, rather than London, where it started and where it involved greater damage to people and property.

I understand why Graham Taylor might have been upset about a National Newspaper blighting his life with the nickname “turniphead”.

I understand why Frankie Boyle focusses on named individuals for his jokes, rather groups of people (can’t be an “-ist”, if you don’t refer to a group of people).

I understand why Reginald D. Hunter finds jibes at Ginger haired people to be faintly ridiculous.

You can’t judge a book by looking at the cover.

You can’t change the content of Mein Kampf by putting a pretty floral dust cover on it. Judge the character of a man, not his bad choice of words.

Hammering Luis Suarez, as the perfectly nice, respectable men of the FA have done, won’t change the attitude of a BNP supporter.

In fact given the circumstances of this particular case, it is more likely to add fuel to BNP hate-raising.

NHS data bank: Poor Business Acumen or poor excuse?

December 22, 2011

Consider Cameron’s justification for selling data (allegedly anonymised) from this resource to private companies.

I.e. it will earn the country money and reduce taxes.

£4,700 million to earn what?

£4million? £40 million? £400million? The information can only be worth £4,700 million to someone who’s buying the NHS.

The targets of #Occupy

December 22, 2011

Wealth isn’t dirty (I’d wouldn’t mind a bit more myself), neither is Capitalism, as a principle, nor is power.

The problem is the morality of those withwealth and Power.

Our last Labour Government  was full of people who started out as very moral people but ended up as corrupted politicians sucking on the teat of the likes of Murdoch.

Our present Tory Gov’t seems to be funded by highly dubious concerns, related to The City of London.

The City provides 10% of our GDP and probably thinks it owns the UK and its citizens, in the same way that Kim Jong-il actually owned North Korea.

Our Tax officials, presumably supported by their political masters, have cut sweetheart deals (i.e. effectively let off their tax paymernts) with these people e.g. Goldman-Sachs, who are sited on Paternoster Square, home of the City of London and the target of Occupylsx.

Houston perverts its own laws to attack democracy supporters

December 22, 2011

This is a link from OccupyHouston

Apparently seven protestors face 2 years jail for tying themselves to a piece of PVC pipe.

The strange interpretation of the law is based on the pipe being adjudged (i.e. this was considered opinion of an allegedly intelligent and impartial person dedicated to upholding justice, through a proper interpretation of the law and its intended purpose) by an actual living intelligence as “a Criminal Instrument”.

I bet the legislators never envisaged that interpretation / perversion of their words.

Shoes enable you to walk along the streets, where the protests take place.

Can they be considered as criminal instruments?

If you hold onto a lamp post, to prevent being dragged off, is that a use of a criminal instrument?

This is a catch-all Law and needs to be rescinded.