At the time of the Dunblane shootings there were all sorts of rumours that it and the perpetrator, Thomas Hamilton were linked to a paedophile ring right at the heart of the Establishment and this was why some of the files were to be sealed for 100 years.
Be that as it may, there have now been more disturbing stories about child abuse in Scotland, particularly from a young woman called Holly Greig, who claims she was abused, as a child, by an Aberdeen paedophile ring and attempts to cover this up by the authorities - culminating, just before the weekend in the arrest of an investigative reporter - who was doing just that - investigating. Here is what he has to say (this video has now been pulled by YouTube, however you can still see it at Fausty's ).
Old Holborn & Dark Lochnager have blogged about this much better than I ever could - read their accounts, follow their links and see what action you think needs to be taken.
UPDATE 27/02
The Palestine Telegraph is running with this story.
Tuesday, 16 February 2010
Sunday, 7 February 2010
Tears of a Clown?
It is a long time since I have been so angry with any politician's action as I was after reading about Gordon & Sarah sobbing publically on TV about the death of their baby daughter and their son's ill-health.
Are there no depths that this self-serving couple will not sink to in an attempt to gain sympathy and votes from the public?
The death of a small child is always tragic for the parents and they do have my condolences for that - but to use that death as a vote catcher beggers belief.
Don't forget, this was the man who said his family were private and off-limits - until he needs some extra votes to continue his 'fat-cat' lifestyle it seems.
If this subject is really so gut-rending for Gordon and Sarah surely they would have told Piers Morgan beforehand to avoid the topic completely? Or even said, in response to his first question on the subject, that they didn't wish to talk about it?
Instead they charged in, tear ducts at the ready to publically wallow in the topic. Vile and disgusting.
'Tears for Socialism' seems to be all the rage this weekend with both the Browns and Alasdair Campbell bursting into tears on TV.
Are there no depths that this self-serving couple will not sink to in an attempt to gain sympathy and votes from the public?
The death of a small child is always tragic for the parents and they do have my condolences for that - but to use that death as a vote catcher beggers belief.
Don't forget, this was the man who said his family were private and off-limits - until he needs some extra votes to continue his 'fat-cat' lifestyle it seems.
If this subject is really so gut-rending for Gordon and Sarah surely they would have told Piers Morgan beforehand to avoid the topic completely? Or even said, in response to his first question on the subject, that they didn't wish to talk about it?
Instead they charged in, tear ducts at the ready to publically wallow in the topic. Vile and disgusting.
'Tears for Socialism' seems to be all the rage this weekend with both the Browns and Alasdair Campbell bursting into tears on TV.
Saturday, 6 February 2010
Justice? What justice? I see no justice.
With the Chilcot Inquiry well under way and with most of the cast of 'villains' having already made their appearance - and escaped unscathed - I'll leave it up to each person to decide which 'economies of the truth' graced the Inquiry.
However the video may jog your memory.
Thursday, 4 February 2010
Eric Pickles Enquires?
'Borrowed' this from Old Holborn (politicalspeak is SO easy)! Now who do you think is being 'economical with the truth' here? Peter Watt, Eric Pickles or Gordon Brown? I know who my money's on - and it ain't either young Peter or the gentleman from Ongar.
The Prime Minister
10, Downing StreetLondon,
SW1A 2AA3
February 2010
Dear Mr Brown,
At Prime Minister’s Questions today, you told the House of Commons that you knew nothing about the secret fund, worth a reported £50,000, which was held by the Labour Party for your benefit.
When asked why you did not declare this on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests (RMFI), you said specifically: ‘I know nothing about what he [the questioner] is talking about.’
This simply cannot be true.It is clear from Peter Watt, the Labour Party’s former General Secretary, that you were the beneficiary of a secret fund held by the Labour Party. He has said explicitly:‘Before becoming Prime Minister, Gordon went to some lengths to insulate himself and the Treasury from our financial troubles, setting up his own personal pot of cash at party HQ. This was money we could not dip into, since it was set aside for the Chancellor’s own pet projects. Murray Elder helped secure donations from the Chancellor’s supporters’ (Inside Out, January 2010, page 105).He went on to claim that it may have been used to finance your ‘long-term campaign to become party leader’ (Inside Out, Peter Watt, 2010, page 105).Mr Watt’s assertions were widely reported. Indeed, across several pages in the Mail on Sunday, Mr Watt claimed that you used ‘up to £50,000-a-year of Labour money to pay for private polling’ (Mail on Sunday, 17 January 2010).The allegations were explicitly confirmed as truthful by a Labour official who said in the same article: ‘It [the fund] was funded through donations to the Party.’
In the light of these allegations, my colleague, Greg Hands MP, wrote to you more than two weeks ago, on 17 January, to query why you had failed to declare the fund properly the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. This letter was publicised in several newspapers on 18 January. As you did not respond, Greg Hands submitted a complaint to John Lyon, the Parliamentary Commissioner this week. I attach a copy of this complaint for your reference. Again, this complaint was reported.
Yesterday in a speech titled ‘Transforming Politics’, you said that you would ‘do all that is necessary to restore trust’ in politics and the conduct of MPs. If you wish to restore trust in politics, you should stop treating people like fools by claiming that you were unaware of this fund when all the evidence points to the contrary.
I therefore urge you to admit to this fund’s existence, apologise for misleading the House and co-operate with any inquiries that John Lyon may wish to make.
Yours sincerely,
Eric Pickles
Chairman, The Conservative Party
Member of Parliament for Brentwood and Ongar
What will the outcome be? My money (sadly) is on it being swallowed up in the black hole that passes for 'transparency' in Westminister these days. The Sunlight Centre for Open Politics had already made an official complaint to John Lyons back in mid-January h/t Guido and nothing appears to have happened.
The Prime Minister
10, Downing StreetLondon,
SW1A 2AA3
February 2010
Dear Mr Brown,
At Prime Minister’s Questions today, you told the House of Commons that you knew nothing about the secret fund, worth a reported £50,000, which was held by the Labour Party for your benefit.
When asked why you did not declare this on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests (RMFI), you said specifically: ‘I know nothing about what he [the questioner] is talking about.’
This simply cannot be true.It is clear from Peter Watt, the Labour Party’s former General Secretary, that you were the beneficiary of a secret fund held by the Labour Party. He has said explicitly:‘Before becoming Prime Minister, Gordon went to some lengths to insulate himself and the Treasury from our financial troubles, setting up his own personal pot of cash at party HQ. This was money we could not dip into, since it was set aside for the Chancellor’s own pet projects. Murray Elder helped secure donations from the Chancellor’s supporters’ (Inside Out, January 2010, page 105).He went on to claim that it may have been used to finance your ‘long-term campaign to become party leader’ (Inside Out, Peter Watt, 2010, page 105).Mr Watt’s assertions were widely reported. Indeed, across several pages in the Mail on Sunday, Mr Watt claimed that you used ‘up to £50,000-a-year of Labour money to pay for private polling’ (Mail on Sunday, 17 January 2010).The allegations were explicitly confirmed as truthful by a Labour official who said in the same article: ‘It [the fund] was funded through donations to the Party.’
In the light of these allegations, my colleague, Greg Hands MP, wrote to you more than two weeks ago, on 17 January, to query why you had failed to declare the fund properly the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. This letter was publicised in several newspapers on 18 January. As you did not respond, Greg Hands submitted a complaint to John Lyon, the Parliamentary Commissioner this week. I attach a copy of this complaint for your reference. Again, this complaint was reported.
Yesterday in a speech titled ‘Transforming Politics’, you said that you would ‘do all that is necessary to restore trust’ in politics and the conduct of MPs. If you wish to restore trust in politics, you should stop treating people like fools by claiming that you were unaware of this fund when all the evidence points to the contrary.
I therefore urge you to admit to this fund’s existence, apologise for misleading the House and co-operate with any inquiries that John Lyon may wish to make.
Yours sincerely,
Eric Pickles
Chairman, The Conservative Party
Member of Parliament for Brentwood and Ongar
What will the outcome be? My money (sadly) is on it being swallowed up in the black hole that passes for 'transparency' in Westminister these days. The Sunlight Centre for Open Politics had already made an official complaint to John Lyons back in mid-January h/t Guido and nothing appears to have happened.
Monday, 10 August 2009
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Having, through a mix of laziness, business & the 'we're all going on a summer holiday' feeling not blogged here for almost a month, I was kicked back into action by the report on Sky this morning that over the last year someone in Britain has been spied on by the 'powers that be' every minute.
That's right, every minute of last year someone has had their phone calls, their email, their text messages or their personal data 'snooped' on.
These surveillance powers were originally claimed by the government to be necessary to prevent terrorism. A laudable objective - saving lives & preventing another 07/07 has got to be good - right? Most of us would agree with that?
However, these powers were subsequently 'opened up' for the use of Local Authorities and a whole raft of of other groups - basically Uncle Tom Cobley and All - with the result that my local Council used surveillance powers meant to prevent terrorism, for checking where a 3 year old school place applicant lived and to spy on people shell fishing . Cambrideshire Council used these same powers to check up on paperboys' & girls' paperwork. It appears that Councils generally have been abusing these powers and are continuing to do so.
Back in February 2008, the BBC had this to say - and it looks as though things have only got worse. A worrying point, Google any of these links and the majority appear to be 2008 or earlier. Have these abuses become so commonplace that they're not even considered newsworthy now?
British people now live in the most spied upon state in the world (by its own government) according to an article & survey in The Register. Chris Huhne commented on TV this morning that the current government need to realise that 1984 was meant as a warning - not a blueprint.
So, under Gordon Brown we now have a surveillance state that Joseph Stalin could only dream about. Official snoopers that Erich Honecker and his East German Stasi would have given their eyeteeth for.
Peaceful protest appears to be no longer allowed with 145 complaints about police behaviour during the recent G20 protests and with at least one death under investigation.
Where did we go so badly wrong? Britain 2009 seems to be a million miles away from the country that Harry Patch and his friends fought for. How can we restore it?
That's right, every minute of last year someone has had their phone calls, their email, their text messages or their personal data 'snooped' on.
These surveillance powers were originally claimed by the government to be necessary to prevent terrorism. A laudable objective - saving lives & preventing another 07/07 has got to be good - right? Most of us would agree with that?
However, these powers were subsequently 'opened up' for the use of Local Authorities and a whole raft of of other groups - basically Uncle Tom Cobley and All - with the result that my local Council used surveillance powers meant to prevent terrorism, for checking where a 3 year old school place applicant lived and to spy on people shell fishing . Cambrideshire Council used these same powers to check up on paperboys' & girls' paperwork. It appears that Councils generally have been abusing these powers and are continuing to do so.
Back in February 2008, the BBC had this to say - and it looks as though things have only got worse. A worrying point, Google any of these links and the majority appear to be 2008 or earlier. Have these abuses become so commonplace that they're not even considered newsworthy now?
British people now live in the most spied upon state in the world (by its own government) according to an article & survey in The Register. Chris Huhne commented on TV this morning that the current government need to realise that 1984 was meant as a warning - not a blueprint.
So, under Gordon Brown we now have a surveillance state that Joseph Stalin could only dream about. Official snoopers that Erich Honecker and his East German Stasi would have given their eyeteeth for.
Peaceful protest appears to be no longer allowed with 145 complaints about police behaviour during the recent G20 protests and with at least one death under investigation.
Where did we go so badly wrong? Britain 2009 seems to be a million miles away from the country that Harry Patch and his friends fought for. How can we restore it?
Thursday, 16 July 2009
Getting to grips with anti-social behaviour
While this Govt of None of the Talents (GONTS) continues to ruin the country, it's nice to see that local jobsworths on the Councils are continuing to do their best for the crime statistics by targeting OAPs for 'crimes' of anti-social behaviour.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8153073.stm
Well, it's so much easier to threaten & harass OAPs rather than tackle thugs who might respond in a personal & anti-social way isn't it?
And they still get another box ticked, another crime solved.
Councils - don't you just love 'em?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8153073.stm
Well, it's so much easier to threaten & harass OAPs rather than tackle thugs who might respond in a personal & anti-social way isn't it?
And they still get another box ticked, another crime solved.
Councils - don't you just love 'em?
Thursday, 9 July 2009
Double glazing sales calls on your mobile?
You may have already heard about this but, early next week apparently, 15 million UK mobiles will be on a directory which will mean that anyone with time & £1 to spare will be able to contact the owners of those numbers. It’s easy to unsubscribe but, again apparently, it must be done before the beginning of next week to make sure that you are ex directory. If you, like me, have an ex-directory, number witheld landline & subscribe to TPS (ah, bliss, no more double glazing sales calls as I start serving up dinner) you may want to suggest it to your friends and family who have UK mobiles or they could be swamped by unsolicited messages and calls. Removal is recommended by the BBC - see link HERE
To remove your number click on the link below, you'll need your mobile phone with you to do this as they text you a code
1, http://www.118800.co.uk/
2, Click on ‘Ex Directory’ at top right hand side of page, from there it’s straight forward (apparently).
Alternatively, you can text 'E' to 118800 from your mobile, they send you an SMS......... Funnily enough, I've sent them an 'E' today from both my UK mobile phones - have I had an SMS back? No, I haven't. So I've already drafted my email to the Information Commissioner's Office I'll hang fire until lunchtime tomorrow & then send it if I haven't had a response.
I emailed about this to some of my friends - one of them came back with the comment that by contacting the company in any way you were merely validating your mobile number & what happens if later on, they sell their whole database, complete with your validated number? His suggestion was just never to answer a call where the number is not already in your phone book. So, two different suggestions for dealing with mobile calls you may not want - the choice is yours.
UPDATE 17/07
I had tried emailing the Information Commissioner to complain but a) you have to fill in a long form & b) you have to have contacted the original company first & failed to get any result. Typical bureaucratic toothless talking shop it would appear - no wonder the govt are so light hearted about the continual losing of data - there seems to be no real punishment for flouting all the data/information protection laws.
So I emailed Working Lunch instead. They have had the 118800 boss on the program again - a different boss this time - and he explained how the new singing, dancing 118800 site would be all things to all men (and women). He also said that they were working their way through the 1,000s of opt out requests they've had. See the interview HERE
To remove your number click on the link below, you'll need your mobile phone with you to do this as they text you a code
1, http://www.118800.co.uk/
2, Click on ‘Ex Directory’ at top right hand side of page, from there it’s straight forward (apparently).
Alternatively, you can text 'E' to 118800 from your mobile, they send you an SMS......... Funnily enough, I've sent them an 'E' today from both my UK mobile phones - have I had an SMS back? No, I haven't. So I've already drafted my email to the Information Commissioner's Office I'll hang fire until lunchtime tomorrow & then send it if I haven't had a response.
I emailed about this to some of my friends - one of them came back with the comment that by contacting the company in any way you were merely validating your mobile number & what happens if later on, they sell their whole database, complete with your validated number? His suggestion was just never to answer a call where the number is not already in your phone book. So, two different suggestions for dealing with mobile calls you may not want - the choice is yours.
UPDATE 17/07
I had tried emailing the Information Commissioner to complain but a) you have to fill in a long form & b) you have to have contacted the original company first & failed to get any result. Typical bureaucratic toothless talking shop it would appear - no wonder the govt are so light hearted about the continual losing of data - there seems to be no real punishment for flouting all the data/information protection laws.
So I emailed Working Lunch instead. They have had the 118800 boss on the program again - a different boss this time - and he explained how the new singing, dancing 118800 site would be all things to all men (and women). He also said that they were working their way through the 1,000s of opt out requests they've had. See the interview HERE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
