Friday - June 19, 2009

Doctors told to give priority to gypsies because these ppl are now designated as, a race.

Just as the wife was getting over her cold I caught it from her.  Not very nice past 24 hours and now, it looks like she’s getting it back. What a sight we make if anyone could see and hear us.  Coughing and sneezing and wheezing and honking and going thru Klennex in copious amounts.  And I don’t think I’m up to much posting today.  Can’t seem to get warm or else go from too warm to too cold.  Bah.  Colds are a pain from head to wherever. Pick a place. We probably have some discomfort there.  sneeze-cough.

I was greeted by this article first thing today and have broken a rule of not posting the same story at two places.  But the nature of this total outrage just BEGS to be posted.  Some of you have your own blog sites I know, and I hope you will pass this stupidity on.

So then, based on race you can qualify for things that native born Brits who are taxed can not qualify for.  Like extra time with your doctor and waits at the office.

Speaking of waits.  My wife who is a native born Brit is losing the hearing in one ear and the other ain’t so good either. She has an appointment at the hosp. clinic and the wait is ten weeks.

Just where does this stupidity end and when will it end?  My guess is never to the last and things are always open on the first. The idiots that control things can ALWAYS find something.

This is another one of those articles I had to make myself post. I have run across many stupid things and have posted them but this surely must take a prize of some kind.  Damn it all this is a lifestyle.  If I decided it had appeal and wanted to join a group of these folks, would my race designation change? 

Gypsies and travellers should be given priority in NHS hospitals and GP surgeries, according to Government guidance.

By Ben Leach
Published: 9:44AM BST 18 Jun 2009

They should be given longer consultations, and should be seen by GPs when they walk in without an appointment, even if doctors are fully-booked.

The average length of a consultation is five or ten minutes but travellers will be given 20 minutes and allowed to bring relatives into the consulting rooms.

The guidelines have been introduced because, under race laws, gypsies and travellers are defined as minority ethnic groups and the NHS is obliged to consider their special needs and circumstances.

Yet no special treatment is promised for other groups such as those from the Asian sub-continent or Africa, the Daily Mail reported.

The guidance forms part of the Primary Care Service Framework, drawn up by the NHS Primary Care Commissioning - an advisory service for local health trusts - to help all PCTs understand the Department of Health’s policy.

It will go on trial for between three and five years, Although PCTs do not necessarily have to follow the guidelines, they could be breaking human rights law and the Race Relations Act of 2000 if they do not.

Tory health spokesman Andrew Lansley said: “No one should get priority treatment in the NHS apart from our Armed Forces, to whom we owe a special debt of gratitude.

“Decisions about who should be treated first should be based on a patient’s medical needs, not their ethnic group.”

A spokesman for the Department of Health said: “We are aware that gypsies and travellers have experienced tremendous difficulties in accessing primary care.

“Partly as a result, community members experience the worst health inequalities of any disadvantaged group.

“The framework suggests fast-tracking for two reasons. First, as a matter of urgency, inroads need to be made into the health problems of gypsies and travellers.

“Second, if mobile community members are not seen quickly, the opportunity could be lost as they move on or are moved on. This should not be to the detriment of service provision to the settled community.”

SOURCE

Settled community my achin’ ass.

Posted by peiper     on 06/19/2009 at 07:15 AM   
Filed Under: • Government • Health-Medicine • Insanity • Outrageous • UK •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - June 18, 2009

Rush Limbaugh: Obama is Destroying the Economy

Rush has made his opening monologue from June 8th available on YouTube. It’s broken into ten parts. Here’s part one, as viewed through the DittoCam:

“You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence.” - Charles A. Beard

Posted by Christopher     on 06/18/2009 at 07:37 PM   
Filed Under: • Commies • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Economics • Editorials • Government • Obama, The One • Scary Stuff •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - June 15, 2009

New gween plan for recycling. Bigger fine for those who don’t, then for those who shoplift.

New gween plan for recycling. Bigger fine for those who don’t, then for those who shoplift.
Hey ... this is the UK and, logic rules? 
Just how many containers will households have to keep track of and store?

Here’s what’ll happen I predict.  More people who have the room in their back gardens (and some who don’t) will be making greater use of bonfires. Which btw is legal here.  Can be a bother too when the wind gets in the right (wrong from your pov if you’re in the path) direction and the fumes come indoors.  It’s happened to us here more then once.  I think more folks will be doing that.  Then too I think the idiots who already do, will flytip to a greater degree.
That is, dumping rubbish on the roadsides or in out of the way but still public places.

Recycle your waste or face a £100 fine, says Government
By Steve Doughty

Every household will be forced to recycle their rubbish under new Government plans.

Those who fail to comply are likely to face £100 on-the-spot fines - rising to £1,000 for persistently flouting the law.

Under the scheme, everyone will have to keep a kitchen slopbucket to hold their food waste and scraps.

Glass, cans, wood and paper will be banned from wheelie bins to force people to separate them in recycling boxes.

The idea of councils charging bin taxes was killed off earlier this year by then Waste Minister Jane Kennedy.
But within hours of her resignation from Government yesterday, Environment Minister Hilary Benn announced a consultation on compulsory recycling.
He said: ‘It’s time for a new war on waste.’

The scheme follows four years of controversy over fortnightly collections, bin taxes and other Government efforts to enforce recycling and reduce the amount of refuse sent to landfill sites.

Under the system, food waste will have to be kept in a caddie in the home until collection by binmen.
Ideally this should be weekly, but many cash-strapped councils will only commit to fortnightly collections.

Once collected by binmen, the waste will be taken to central ‘anaerobic digestion’ plants and used to generate energy.
The process, however, has never been used profitably in past years.

Mr Benn said: ‘Take food, glass, aluminium or wood - why would you want to put any of them into landfill when they can be recycled, or used to make energy? What sort of a society would throw away aluminium cans worth £500 a ton when producers are crying out for the raw material?’
A consultation paper on compulsory recycling will be published this year, followed by a detailed consultation next year.

Compulsory recycling has been tried out in four London boroughs. The schemes, which require householders to put certain materials in specified bins, apply only to those living in houses, not flat dwellers.

In one borough, householders failing to comply face £100 on-the-spot fines.  This compares with £80 fines for shoplifters who steal goods worth under £200.

In other areas, fines of up to £1,000 are imposed by courts on those who persist in breaking the rules. Doretta Cocks, of the Campaign for Weekly Waste Collections, said: ‘They just are not getting the message.

‘Who is going to police this system? It means bigger and bigger rubbish-police forces. ‘How else are they going to work out if someone has put vegetable peelings in their wheelie bin?  ‘Taxpayers and council tax payers will be footing the bill. It’s ridiculous.’

(of course it’s ridiculous. it’s labour, int it?)

Tory communities spokesman Caroline Spelman said: ‘More needs to be done to increase recycling.
‘But Labour ministers’ heavyhanded approach is all about forcing councils to cut rubbish collections, sneak in bin taxes and hit families with unfair fines.’
‘Under the Government’s plans, a convicted shoplifter will receive a smaller fine than a family home for making a minor mistake in putting out their household rubbish.
‘Hard-pressed council taxpayers deserve much better than that.’

SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 06/15/2009 at 01:46 PM   
Filed Under: • Daily Life • Environment • Government • UK •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Weasel Words From Washington

Rep. Pete Stark, a leading congressional author of health reform legislation, called Thursday for a 2 percent income tax surcharge to pay for the health insurance program he predicted Congress and President Obama would enact later this year.

“If you wanted me to bet how would I pay for this, I would tell you not to bet against a surtax,” the Fremont Democrat said. “None of us like to talk about that.”

Stark predicted that when it comes down to paying for health care reform, “it’ll be, ‘Swallow hard, take the tough vote.’ “

Stark, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s health panel and a member of his party’s liberal wing, argued against paying for health care by taxing employees for employer-paid health coverage, or by ending the income tax deductions that employers now take for the cost of providing health insurance to their employees.

Yeah right. Surcharge. Surtax. Same difference. It’s still a tax increase, just what we all need in the middle of an ongoing and worsening recession. Thanks for nothing. Liars.

Posted by Drew458     on 06/15/2009 at 09:24 AM   
Filed Under: • Government • Health-Medicine •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - June 13, 2009

PART TWO OF …. Exploiting the Human Rights Act to defy the law.  THE OTHER SIDE, THE LAW ABIDING.

Right. The folks who count for s!#t!  The law abiding home owner. The everyday person.
You know the one. The people with rights, but less then other people. 

I don’t generally look at the wkend Telegraph property section.  That cos the wife never misses it and when she finds something she thinks I’d be interested in, she brings it to my attention.

Well, I just posted an article from The Mail on the land stealing, unlawful vermin who have somehow achieved “racial” status called, travellers.  These folks are above the law and above criticism.
So ... this is what appeared in another paper, the property section called Ask The Expert, in the Telegraph.
Another eye opener.

Our property experts answer your questions on all aspects of buying, selling and owning a home.

Published: 12:00PM BST 09 Jun 2009

POINTS OF LAW

I live in a house on 18 acres and have two holiday cottages. I’d like to build a third, because of demand, but this is a rural area so planning was refused, as was our appeal.

Adjoining my land is a long-standing, unauthorised but tolerated, travellers’ camp. Recently the council’s gipsy liaison officer was granted planning permission for 12 log cabins. Could I argue my human rights are being infringed on the basis that I am not a traveller?

David Fleming writes:

Your question takes us to the dangerous area where law meets politics so I must tread carefully.

Local authorities are under a duty to provide for travellers so special rules apply to such sites.

But even if planning permission should not have been granted for the cabins, that would not help you – for the same reason that you can’t complain when the police stop you for speeding, even though other motorists, who could equally have been stopped, pass by.

The courts have held that the Human Rights Act has little application in planning law. All the rights granted, including free use of one’s property, are subject to “public interest” exceptions; it is the role of the planning system to strike a balance between an individual’s right to do what he likes with his property and the public interest in the control of development.

Note: David Fleming has practised law for 27 years and is head of property litigation.

POINTS OF LAW

Now I ask you BMEWS. Is this placed screwed up totally er what? 

Posted by peiper     on 06/13/2009 at 11:32 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Government • Insanity • Nanny State • Outrageous • Travelers/Gypsies/Squatters • UK •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

This One Really Takes Balls

Low-cost pet sterilization would be available to a wider range of dog and cat owners under a bill an Assembly committee approved yesterday.

To qualify for the subsidized operations, owners would have to show proof of benefits from state or federal public-assistance programs. Animals eligible for the spay or neuter surgery—which renders them unable to breed—would have to come from a shelter, pound or nonprofit rescue group.

The operation can cost from 60 to several hundred dollars, depending on the type and gender of the animal. The extent of presurgery testing and care after the surgery also plays a role in the cost.

For each subsidized procedure, the owner pays $20 to the state’s Animal Population Control Fund. Veterinarians’ charges would be reimbursed by the state.

The bill, approved by the Assembly Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, must go before both houses of the Legislature and be signed by the governor before it becomes law.

The discount would apply to participants in the following: the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; the Women, Infants and Children food program; Senior Gold prescription drug plan; and the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. New Jersey residents would still be eligible for the low-cost program, including inhabitants of subsidized housing and recipients of Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid.

Yes, right now it’s just a bill. But this is New Jersey. It will pass. Oh, it will pass.

Posted by Drew458     on 06/13/2009 at 09:02 AM   
Filed Under: • Government • Insanity •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - June 09, 2009

The makeshift minister who can’t even do her job because she’s still an MEP.

The other day I posted something and in passing mentioned this far left loony tune whose husband is very well known and a total schmuck in addition to being a Marxist/Leninist left wing big mouth.
Well ... it sure did set off our Lyndon here at BMEWS. I thought he was gonna stroke out which shows ya just how highly he thinks of them. Lyndon is not one to get too emotional or hot headed. Maybe he won’t see this post.

Actually, my own dear wife is not one to get overly excited and usually maintains her British cool.  EXCEPT where this couple is concerned. In fact, when I said there was this interesting article in the paper this morning on this subject, she refused to read it and asked me to please turn the paper over so this face doesn’t show. 

It’s interesting none the less, and I must say maddening to a degree.  This govt. must be mad as well. 
Get this, they are bringing back into govt., someone who had to resign over the expenses scandal recently.  ??

A Jewish comedian once said that Hitler created more Jews out of Jews who weren’t Jews before, then any single man on earth.
Well, Mr. Brown and his govt. here have created the situation where they have created hundreds of thousands and maybe millions of votes and support for the BNP Party which as many of you may know, have a rather foul reputation. 

Farce over Glenys Kinnock, the makeshift minister who can’t even do her job because she’s still an MEP

By Kirsty Walker
Last updated at 9:54 AM on 09th June 2009

Glenys Kinnock: Is she a minister or isn’t she?

Glenys Kinnock’s appointment as Europe minister descended into farce yesterday after it emerged that she could not do the job because she was still an MEP.

Under EU Parliament rules, Mrs Kinnock is not allowed to serve as a minister in a national Government until she steps down as an MEP on July 14.

Days after accepting Gordon Brown’s surprise invitation to join his Government, Mrs Kinnock was forced to admit she was a mere ‘acting minister’.

There was speculation in Westminster last night that Mrs Kinnock was reluctant to quit her job as an MEP as she would have to forgo some of her gold-plated pension and golden-goodbye.

The absurd situation is set to cause further embarrassment for Mr Brown as he fights for his political survival.

Downing Street sources last night insisted Mrs Kinnock had resigned as an MEP.

But a European Parliament spokesman said he had no knowledge of her quitting the post. ‘We would normally get a formal notification if that had happened,’ said the spokesman. ‘But we haven’t had one.’

Tory Europe spokesman Mark Francois said: ‘Today’s confusion regarding Glenys Kinnock is symptomatic of the kind of chaos which now reigns in Downing Street, whereby even Ministers of the Crown do not appear to know whether they are Ministers or not.’

By resigning a few weeks early, Mrs Kinnock is expected to lose out slightly on some of her MEP’s pension - believed to be worth around £66,000 a year. The pension is calculated on her time served as an MEP and her age. Her early ‘retirement’ is only set to cost her a few hundred pounds.

Mrs Kinnock is also entitled to receive a parachute payment - aimed at helping MEPs ease back into life after losing their seats - worth around £32,383.

But as she has gone on to a Government job, her salary will be deducted from this transition allowance, effectively cancelling it out.

A spokesman for Open Europe said: ‘The appointment of Glenys Kinnock is quickly turning into a shambles. The Government is all over the place on Europe. Yesterday’s election results show it needs to get its act together sooner rather than later.’

Mrs Kinnock, 64, and her husband have earned a reputation as serial junketeers after jumping on the EU gravy train in the 1990s. During her 15 years as Labour’s MEP for South Wales East, Mrs Kinnock’s salary had risen from £31,686 to £63,291, plus substantial expenses.

Yet a surprise call from Number 10 means she will make the transition from £63,291-a-year euro MP to £83,275-a-year Europe Minister.

Lord Kinnock, 67, and his wife are not the only members of their family who have a taxpayer-funded living.

Their son, Stephen Kinnock, headed the St Petersburg office of the publicly funded British Council until October. Its unpaid chairman is Lord Kinnock.

The 39-year-old now works as a director of the World Economic Forum.

The Kinnocks’ daughter, 37-year-old Rachel, landed a job on Mr Brown’s political staff two years ago.

Lord Kinnock was appointed as a European Commissioner in 1995, on a salary of £105,584 a year.

By the time he stepped down in 2004, he was earning £163,453 in salary, a £24,000-a-year housekeeping allowance and a £7,000 entertainment budget.

Mr Kinnock received almost £273,000 when he left the job to help him adjust to life outside the Commission. He can also draw on a £64,000-a-year pension.

Meanwhile, Mr Brown struggled to re-assert his battered authority on the Labour Party by plugging the gaps left in his Government with a string of ministerial appointments.

Sadiq Khan has become the first Muslim to attend cabinet after being appointed Transport Minister.

AND HOW ABOUT THIS ONE? THIS IS SURE TO WIN VOTER FAVOR. NOT.  THIS COUNTRY HAS ANOTHER WHOLE YEAR OF A LABOR GOVT. OH BOY.

MALIK TO RETURN

A Labour minister who was forced to resign over his expenses will return to the Government in the reshuffle.

Shahid Malik will be back on the Government payroll weeks after stepping down while Parliament’s sleaze watchdog investigated his living costs.

Government sources said Mr Malik has been cleared of any wrongdoing but will repay £730 of taxpayers’ money which he blew on a massage chair.

The former Justice minister will not fill his old job.

JUST A SMALL SELECTION OF VOTER COMMENTS ON THE SUBJECT.

Posted by peiper     on 06/09/2009 at 05:49 AM   
Filed Under: • Government • Corruption and Greed • UK •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - June 08, 2009

Council refused to fix potholed road over fears it would upset illegal travellers.

Ran across this today. Had to post!
How much more stupid can councils here get?  They’re afraid of the people who are breaking the law by having an ILLEGAL camp.
To make matters dumber, in this case, even the travellers are in favor.  No problem they say. So what’s with the council?
duh.
I will never come to grips and understand this place or the mindset. They’re worried about rioting?  Hey, have you jerks ever heard of the machine gun?
Ratta-tat-tat. Problem is solved. Move on. See? That’s not hard at all.  How about a blockbuster bomb?  You’d have em singing, BOOM ... Why did my camp go BOOM… Out of the gloom and BOOM ... No more problems.

Last updated at 12:31 PM on 08th June 2009
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER

Work to fix a badly potholed road was put off for fear of upsetting travellers at Europe’s biggest illegal camp.

Residents in Crays Hill, Essex, had complained that their once-peaceful road had become a crater-filled track since the 1,000-strong Dale Farm camp was formed.

But police and council workers had ruled out fixing it because they are worried about rioting by travellers who could think they are about to be evicted if workmen turn up.

The decision was branded ‘appalling’ by residents - and even the travellers on the site say work to fix the road urgently needs to be done.

Essex County Council wants to resurface the road but will only send workmen with a police escort.

Essex Police initially turned down requests to send officers, saying it may spark fears among travellers that they are about to be evicted.

Instead they said they would only help after launching a leaflet campaign and hold discussions with the camp’s residents about the planned work.

Earlier, MP John Baron had written to Basildon Police Chief Inspector Simon Dobson asking for a police escort for road workers. But he was told before any work was done experts would need to consider ‘traveller engagement’.

He said before any potholes were filled they would need to create a network of people to negotiate with the travellers, send a clear and consistent message and hold an open meeting so travellers could ask any questions about the works on Oak Lane.

Chief Inspector Dobson added that the issue ‘required a clear communication strategy to minimise the risk of any false perception by the local travellers that the works are a pre-cursor to any enforced eviction’.

Pam Cummins, a parish councillor, said: ‘Talk about tip-toeing around people. When they fixed the road outside my house they didn’t come and ask me first.’

David McPherson-Davis, another parish councillor, said: ‘The road is almost impassable for an ordinary vehicle. ‘Residents complain on a daily basis.’

About a thousands travellers are thought to live in the village of Crays Hill, making it Europe’s biggest illegal camp.

The camp has been a long-running source of friction for almost a decade with claims of anti-social behaviour, death threats and HGVs making deliveries of furniture to the site.

It is estimated to have cost Basildon Council more than £700,000 in legal costs to try and get the illegally camped families evicted.

The travellers have vowed to build a ‘tent city’ on land nearby if they are evicted.

PC Nigel Scott said leaflets are going to be given out at the local school which has predominately travellers children as pupils to explain the work is to be carried out.

He said: ‘If they think there is an eviction there will not just be people from Dale Farm but half the site in Cambridge and half the people from Wolverhampton turning up.

‘It could all turn very weary very quickly’.

Even the travellers think the process to fill in a few potholes is longwinded. 

Gratton Puxon, a spokesman for the families, said: ‘I think I speak for everyone when I say the police are not needed.

‘People at Dale Farm want the road fixed as much as residents. It should be done without the need for this rigmarole.’

PHOTOS AND SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 06/08/2009 at 08:21 AM   
Filed Under: • Government • Travelers/Gypsies/Squatters •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - June 07, 2009

THE LADY RESIGNS AND SAYS NO WINDOW DRESSING FOR HER, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I don’t suppose most in the USA or anywhere outside the UK are too much interested in the recent political scandal that has the present govt. in meltdown.

What many of the so called representatives of the people have done is indeed scandalous. In fact, there is every reason to believe some is even criminal. 

The fat cats who sit on their collective backsides making laws and rules that OTHERS will have to endure have the public in a snit. They avoid taxes, make false financial claims on the taxpayer etc. No point in going over old territory again here.
This is another facet of political mindset.  There are those who will disagree but I think it’s rather hypocritical and offer the following.

An MP named Caroline Flint has left the govt. Talk about a snit. Or maybe a woman scorned?
One day she spoke of her continued support of the PM, who many want out of office.  Unsaid at the time was that she fully expected a promotion to another job, which she didn’t get.
Now then, she may well have had a legitimate complaint about that. I wouldn’t know.
What we all do know is that the next day she quit in a huff and issued a scathing report to the press on her former boss, the PM, Gordon Brown.

She accused him of running an old boys club for one thing.  Well, again. I wouldn’t know. Perhaps he was.
But ... she then went on to claim that she was tired of being “used as window dressing” for his administration.

Now then, ok. Sure nuff. I can understand a lady wanting to be appreciated for her abilities and I am all for that. Really I am. Not that looks count for nothing. Of course they do. It’s just human nature the left seems intent on denying so often. But here BMEWS.

Here are a couple of photos.  Do these appear to you to be the product of someone who doesn’t approve of window dressing?
I do understand her point but if what she accuses the PM of is the truth, the whole truth yadda,yadda; Why wait so long to expose it? Or, was it okay as long as it worked for her.

Caroline Flint resigns as she accuses Gordon Brown of treating her like ‘female window dressing’
Caroline Flint has accused Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, of treating her like “female window dressing” in a damning letter announcing her resignation as Europe Minister.

THE TELEGRAPH

On only Thursday night Miss Flint insisted she was “very proud” to be a member of Mr Brown’s Government and would not be leaving it.

But the Prime Minister told a press conference on Friday afternoon that she was in fact stepping down after refusing an enhanced role as Europe Minister. 

He said she “was and has been a very good minister”, adding: “I asked Caroline if she would take on the job attending the Cabinet so she would be present at every Cabinet meeting.

“Unfortunately she didn’t see it that way and that’s where it’s left.”

In her resignation letter Miss Flint berated Gordon Brown for treating her and her other women colleagues as “female window dressing”.

She wrote: “I have the greatest respect for the women who have served as full members of Cabinet and for those who attend as and when required. However, few are allowed into your inner circle.

“Several of the women attending Cabinet – myself included – have been treated by you as little more than female window dressing. I am not willing to attend Cabinet in a peripheral capacity any longer.”

She also accused the Prime Minister of operating a “two-tier Government: your inner circle and the remainder of the Cabinet” and said he had “strained every sinew” of her loyalty.

Miss Flint’s is the latest of a spate of ministerial resignations in recent days – which she vowed on Thursday night not to join.

Speaking to the BBC, she said: “I am staying in the Government.

“I have spent my entire ministerial career for six years now serving Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and I am very proud to be in a Labour Government and very proud to be part of Gordon Brown’s Government.”

Miss Flint is to be replaced by Glenys Kinnock, the wife of ex-Labour leader Neil Kinnock, the Prime Minister said.

Mrs Kinnock will join the House of Lords immediately, he added.

Mrs Kinnock will join the House.

Oh my,oh my.  The govt. moves more to the far left every day. Or it seems that way.

Posted by peiper     on 06/07/2009 at 10:51 AM   
Filed Under: • Government • Politics •  
• Comments (13) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - May 26, 2009

Tears Of Joy?

I recently saw an old episode of “West Wing,” where Edward James Olmos, playing a fictional Puerto Rican federal judge, was nominated to become the first Latino on the U.S. Supreme Court. I cried, thinking how remote this possibility seemed, yet how close.

Now that Judge Sonia Sotomayor has been nominated by President Barack Obama to the Court, that episode finally rings true. When I heard the news, I wept, for the long-overdue acknowledgement that Latinos matter.
...
The search for a justice with “empathy” is no less coded than is the traditional search for “judicial temperament” and a person who will “judge, not legislate.” All nominees have the requisite merit badges, as does Judge Sotomayor. And to make their way to such a short list, all have the combination of personal and professional lives that warrant their consideration.

What Sonia Sotomayor will have, as few other candidates, is the additional weight of historical expectations and the hopes of Latinos.

In today’s culture, Latinos are marginalized and demonized and feared. In Judge Sotomayor’s New York, roving gangs of thugs go “beaner hunting,” looking to harm undocumented Mexicans. Such racial hatred knows no nuance, as one such mob killed a permanent resident Ecuadorian, thinking him to be Mexican.

Cecilia Lopez, a student who is the first person from her family to go to college, sees something of herself in the first Hispanic woman to be nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“To me, as a student that comes from a low-income background, I think she’s a true example of the fact that when you’re wanting to achieve something, it’s truly possible, regardless of your background,” said Lopez, a 20-year-old senior at the University of Texas.

On Tuesday, President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor, a woman of Puerto Rican descent, to the U.S. Supreme Court. If confirmed, Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic person and only the third woman to serve on the nation’s highest court.

In the wake of the nomination, Hispanics celebrated Sotomayor as a symbol of success and also as a reflection of the changing demographics of the country. In a sense, she is the Hispanic community’s answer to Obama’s narrative—a sign that, as Lopez said, anything is possible in America if a person works hard enough, no matter their race or economic situation.

Are we running out of “firsts” yet? Will we ever? Because I’d like to actually get past all this Identity Politics stuff in my lifetime, if such a thing will ever be possible. Sure, OK, fine. Let’s have a big happy Viva La Raza moment. And let’s not have any sour grapes about who put the first black person on the Supremes, or who first had a black person as Sec Def or Sec State, or who put the first woman on the Supremes, or any of that. Ancient history.

Then when all the hoopla is over, can we take a look at this woman’s qualifications? In the long run, I think that’s more important.

Sotomayor is touted by supporters as a justice with bipartisan favor and historic appeal.

She currently serves as a judge on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The liberal-leaning justice was named a district judge by President George H.W. Bush in 1992 and was elevated to her current seat by President Clinton.

Supporters say her appointment history, along with what they describe as her moderate-liberal views, will give her some bipartisan backing in the Senate.

Sotomayor presided over about 450 cases while on the district court. Prior to her judicial appointments, Sotomayor was a partner at a private law firm and spent time as an assistant district attorney prosecuting violent crimes.

Robyn Kar, who clerked for Sotomayor from 1998 to 1999, described her as a “warm, extraordinarily kind and caring person.”

It’s going to take a couple of days before any serious details emerge. Is she a judicial activist? Probably. Does she have a racial/gender chip on her shoulder the size of Cleveland? Probably. Think she’s a not-quite-in-the-closet Socialist? Who knows? And it’s my prediction that the GOP doesn’t fight her very hard at all. So get used to it now, because she’s a done deal.

(all articles sourced from cnn.com)

Posted by Drew458     on 05/26/2009 at 03:26 PM   
Filed Under: • Government •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - May 22, 2009

A man gives DNA swab, is fingerprinted, photographed, then placed in a cell. Brit version of DMV?

MoT is Ministry of Transport.  The equivalent of our DMV.
So, I found this yesterday but again, couldn’t locate the story on line and so called the paper.  And what a story this is, short though it is.
Maybe I have it wrong but gosh, did they have to take him to the pokey?  And all the while the poor schnook wasn’t guilty of anything.
There had to have been a better way to check it out surely.  And they also wanted his DNA?  Jeesh.
But what do I know?  Not much I guess.

21 May 2009 DAILY TELEGRAPH Page 15 (DTN) Edition 1C (282 words)
Motorist held for three hours over ‘too pale’ MoT certificate
By Paul Stokes

A DRIVER attempting to renew his tax disc was arrested, fingerprinted and held in a police cell for three hours because his MOT certificate was the “wrong” shade of green.
Michael Cook, 49, joined the queue at his local Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency [DVLA] centre with his two-week-old MOT certificate and the one issued the previous year in hand.

But shortly after passing them over the counter a policeman arrived and Mr Cook, a self-employed roofer, was taken into a side room..
He was told that staff at the centre in Gosforth, Newcastle, believed his new MOT certificate to be a fake because it was a lighter colour than the old one.

He was taken to a police station where he had to give a DNA swab, was fingerprinted, photographed, then placed in a cell.
Mr Cook, a father of two, from South Shields, said: “I was stunned and could not believe what was happening.
It was so embarrassing.

“I had to be interviewed and they were asking all sorts of questions about where I had the MOT done.
“I was there for quite a few hours until they proved it was a genuine certificate.” He later returned to the centre and was finally issued with a new tax disc. Mr Cook said: “I think I deserve a proper apology for what they put me through.” A spokesman for the DVLA said they sympathised with Mr Cook and would be contacting him to apologise.

“In a situation where there is a potentially fraudulent document presented, it is our procedure to contact the police,” said the spokesman.
Northumbria police confirmed that no crime had been committed and no further action was taken..
Copyright: Telegraph Group Ltd

no link available

Posted by peiper     on 05/22/2009 at 10:42 AM   
Filed Under: • Daily Life • Government • Outrageous • UK •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

NO WORK FOR TWO YEARS AND DRAW FULL PAY? SURE. ANYTHING’S POSSIBLE THRU TAXPAYER!

This is more of the same regarding public monies but not the scandal stuff I’ve been sharing. It’s weird enough though.

Lyndon will correct me if I have it wrong I’m sure, but I heard figures that the UK PAYS £4million A DAY to the EU.  ???
I have no idea what this country gets back for that.  I hear a lot of grumbling and people saying they want out.  Their critics then say those folks are living in another world and not a logical one as the EU has a lot of positive benefits.  ??  I’m out of my depth on that EXCEPT where I actually see and read about laws passed in Brussels that apparently have to be obeyed here in England. Again ...  ???

I do know cuz I’ve been here long enough to have seen this, that where the people vote on the issue, the powers that be in the EU say whoops. You didn’t really mean that NO Vote, so we’ll give you another chance to correct the first voted mistake by the little people.
And it look like the Irish are going to vote all over again. 

So I guess a vote here on this issue at least is almost meaningless. 

There isn’t a link to the source for this article in this morning’s paper.  I spent a good bit of time talking to folks at Telegraph today because this wasn’t in their on line version.  So I got the library to email this to me.  The same for the story that will follow on a different subject.

22 May 2009 DAILY TELEGRAPH Page 22 (DTN) Edition 1C (482 words)
The £6m MEPs with no work to do
By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
EIGHTEEN “phantom” MEPs will be elected on full pay and perks next month despite not being able to start work for up to two years due to Ireland’s rejection of the Lisbon Treaty.

The extra candidates will be chosen in the European Union elections on June 4 despite the treaty, which increases the number of MEPs from 736 to 754, remaining unsigned.

Amid confusion over when and how they will take up their seats, the European Parliament will give the extra MEPs “observer” status from next year. The deal will mean they can draw full salaries and allowances at an annual cost of more than £6million without any legislative duties.

The 18 MEPs, from 12 EU countries, including the West Midlands, will be paid more than £76,000 a year, with staff and office allowances worth £210,000.
They will also be entitled to tax-free allowances of £255 for every day of their limbo existence in Brussels and can claim back business class travel.
Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independence Party, said: “Welcome to virtual politics.

This has to be the political expenses scandal to end all expenses scandals. The perfect politician for today’s elite — one that takes wages and does no work at all.” Ireland votes again on the Lisbon Treaty this autumn with the intention that it can come into force in January next year but an additional legal “protocol” allowing the MEPs to assume full duties could take another two years.

The Irish vote could also reject the treaty again, throwing the EU into a political crisis and freezing the size of the parliament.
Richard Corbett, the Labour MEP who guided the Lisbon Treaty through the European Parliament, defended the arrangement to make them “observers”.

“This is straightforward and there is no need to make a fuss,” he said. “They can do all the work of an MEP except taking part in votes. This is a way of making a smooth transition and has been done before.” Spanish ministers argued that there would be an “imbalance” between the EU institutions if the 18 MEPs could not take their seats until the end of the new parliament in 2014 due to Ireland’s rejection of the Lisbon Treaty. They were seeking a deal under which the extra MEPs would take their seats as soon as the treaty came into force.

One option was to include a clause in an EU entry treaty for Croatia in 2011 but Spain wanted to force all countries to agree a deal in their national parliaments next year.
Andrew Duff, the leader of the Liberal Democrats in the European Parliament, suggested that the slow process of ratifying the move could mean that the MEPs remain observers for years.

“From January 2010, a legal instrument is going to have to be ratified in each national parliament. We know that can take a long time,” he said..
Copyright: Telegraph Group Ltd

Posted by peiper     on 05/22/2009 at 09:53 AM   
Filed Under: • Economics • Government •  
• Comments (9) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Conservative MP who claimed more than £11,500 on a phantom mortgage is facing more questions

BMEWS readers will I hope forgive me for banging on about the current political scandal that has rocked this country for more then two weeks.
And it is FAR from over.  It seems there new revelations every day but that shouldn’t be surprising.  There are over 600 MPs and of course not ALL have been accused of wrong doing.  Quite the contrary. There are a few so far who have passed the integrity test.

As I have mentioned before, because it’s personal, by July the wife and I have to come up with a pile of cash to pay inheritance on this very old house.
Fair enough I suppose.  You live on this island, you pay your taxes.  And damn well on time btw.  Inland Revenue here not a whole lot different from our own IRS back home.  If you’re caught cheating the law will come down on your head like a ton of bricks.  You folks all know well there is very little if any leeway when it comes to ... oops. I made a mistake on the tax form. Sorry.  Fine, but you will also PAY for that mistake. If you aren’t fined or jailed for intentional cheating, if the mistake is indeed an honest one, you will still have to pay a hefty interest charge for late payments to the tax man.

UNLESS YOU ARE A POLITICIAN of course in which case normal proceedures apparently do not apply.

LyndonB gave us this very excellent link that covers the subject well and I would recommend it to anyone with even a little interest in understanding the subject. It’s not a boring tutorial thing at all. Here. Check it out.  Thanks Lyndon.

WWW.ORDER-ORDER.COM

Now then, all of the above brings me to this story (one of so many) which really bothers us a lot. (wife and I) Especially facing the circumstances we do and we’re luckier then many.  See what you people make of this.

Bill Wiggin, the Conservative whip who claimed more than £11,500 on a phantom mortgage is facing more questions over the location of his second home.

By Martin Beckford
Last Updated: 6:55AM BST 22 May 2009

Mr Wiggin filled in 23 consecutive monthly forms nominating his constituency house as his second home for the purposes of his parliamentary expenses, even though he and his wife owned it outright.
After The Daily Telegraph disclosed his claims , he took to the airwaves to insist it was all an “honest mistake” from which he had not profited.He said he had mistakenly written the address of his property near Ledbury, Herefordshire, as his second home on the forms instead of his townhouse in west London.

Mr Wiggin, the MP for Leo minster and former shadow Welsh secretary, said: “I haven’t taken public money wrongly and I don’t like being lumped in with other MPs who have.

“I think people need to realise we are but human. I am sure plenty of people have got forms wrong.”

But when questioned further by this newspaper, he admitted he only spent weekends and holidays in the country, where he breeds prize-winning cattle, and the rest of the time in London. Both Mr Wiggin and his wife are registered as secretary and director of her former PR company with Companies House under their London address. The law states company directors must register their “usual” address.

It suggests that his London home is his main home, which would mean he would be ineligible to claim expenses on it.
MPs are only supposed to use public money to cover the cost of running a second home away from their constituencies or Westminster, not their primary residence.

As The Daily Telegraph disclosed , Mr Wiggin used to nominate his London address as the home on which he claimed the Additional Costs Allowance.

But in May 2004, just after he and his wife bought the £480,000 property near Ledbury, he started writing the new address on his expenses claims forms.
He submitted monthly mortgage payments on the property for two years, even though he had not taken out a loan on it. He claimed £11,514 in mortgage interest payments after filling in 23 consecutive handwritten forms.

In December 2006, the Commons fees office asked him to provide an up-to-date bank statement and he then changed his second home address back to London.
David Cameron said: “It is a bad mistake but it looks like it is an honest mistake and he was not claiming money that he was not entitled to.
“If he was, that would be totally different and he would be out of the door.”

SOURCE

Alright. I understand people make mistakes.  I make em every day.  So do you.  But do you make the same one 23 times?  Over how long?
Hey look.  If you are filling out HAND written forms, aren’t you paying a bit more attention to what you’re doing and saying? 
And then there’s this to consider.  As a lawmaker, how closely are you reading the bills and things that come before you?  Because what you do doesn’t impact you at all. But it does millions of others who don’t have your perks and free ride on our collective back.

And speaking of collective backs, my next post will cover in small detail an amazing bit of squander and monies ill spent in Ireland on MEPs. translation,
Member of European Parliament

Posted by peiper     on 05/22/2009 at 05:45 AM   
Filed Under: • Economics • Government • UK •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - May 20, 2009

FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME IN 300 YEARS OF BRIT HISTORY … AND ABOUT TIME TOO.  NOW THEN ..

LET’S SEE WHAT GOOD CAN COME FROM THE RECENT SCANDAL !

There are heads on the block following 13 continuous days of revelations concerning the sneaky underhanded and maybe illegal ways in which MPs have been robbing the Brit taxpayer blind.  They have been doing so for years, but not with the kind of proof that lately has come to light.  And the people are angry.

I really do hope some sort of good will come from all this and the folks here will find the leadership to put things right.  Truly tho, I despair. I really don’t have any sort of faith in anyone. But then, it really doesn’t matter what I think as I’m not a voter or even a citizen.  But we do pay taxes here.  OH BOY, DO WE PAY!  And all so a group of folks who feel very special can mooch off of everyone else.  Like welfare cheats of whom there are too many.

Many of these MPs have done things that we ordinary mortals would be fined and jailed for. And that is not a figure of speech but an absolute fact of the current matter.  I doubt much any Brit of any political party would disagree with me on that.

The Telegraph ran this editorial in the morning paper.  Even if some names won’t be familiar to some, it makes for interesting reading.
This is after all, the first time in 300 years that a speaker has seen the boot.  In earlier times some have been given the ax.  But this is not ALL about the speaker alone.  It’s my belief that this might be a very defining moment in English history.  Stay Tuned.

Speaker Michael Martin’s downfall: Only the start of a very British revolution
Telegraph View: Michael Martin’s departure amid the MPs’ expenses scandal is the clearest sign that this Parliament has run its course.

Last Updated: 8:18PM BST 19 May 2009

The resignation of Michael Martin as Speaker marks the latest stage of a very British revolution. While his departure has been precipitated by his fumbling and inadequate response to this newspaper’s disclosures about MPs’ expenses, it reflects a collapse of public faith in the political system that has been evident for some time. Over the past 12 years we have seen a Government with an overwhelming parliamentary majority turn the Commons into a cipher for often perverse decisions. It has burdened the Commons and the country with pointless and even dangerous legislation. People feel their political representatives are aloof and arrogant. Now, in addition, they think they are venal, too. In a characteristically British way, we have all put up with this for far too long – there have been no marches, no riots, no clashes with the police. The public has now decided it is time for change: its fury has forced apologies, repayments, suspensions and resignations; constituency parties are threatening deselections; MPs are voluntarily deciding to stand down; the Speaker has been forced out, for the first time in 300 years.

When he was elected on October 23, 2000, Mr Martin said: “I thank the House for its confidence in me. I pray that I shall prove worthy of that confidence and that all of us will maintain the high tradition of this place.” He was living proof of Thomas Rainsborough’s dictum during the Putney Debates in 1647 that “the poorest he hath a life to live as the greatest he”. Born into poverty in a Glasgow tenement, Mr Martin had risen to become the First Commoner of the Land. It is his tragedy, and that of Parliament, that he could not live up to the expectations placed in him. Indeed, the manner of his election contained the seeds of his downfall: it was, in essence, a political stitch-up whereby an MP for the governing party was installed in the chair through the mechanism of a massive Labour majority, when parliamentary convention suggested that an Opposition MP would have been more appropriate.

Not only was Mr Martin the wrong choice; he turned out to be a catastrophic one as well. His fate is symbolic of the rottenness of a political system that was once the envy of the world. That system now lies broken and demoralised. With its sovereignty already dissipated by the power of the European Union, the role of the House in scrutinising legislation has been further undermined by the placing of time limits on all debates; the hours it sits have shrunk, the chamber is often virtually empty, and MPs routinely fail to articulate the concerns and aspirations of the people who elect them. Westminster has sunk into a slough of despond. The dwindling turnout at successive elections is testament to what the country thinks of the system. Mr Martin, as Speaker, has presided over this sorry shambles.

The expenses crisis is symptomatic of his failure and of the wider malaise that has beset the institution. The argument that he should not be made a scapegoat for the failings of MPs ignores the fact that he is, in addition to chairing debates, effectively the chief executive of the Commons. As its administrative head in overall charge of the fees office, Mr Martin should have taken a grip on the abuse of allowances by MPs; instead, he turned a blind eye to it and then conspired to cover it all up by attempting to exempt MPs from the Freedom of Information scrutiny they had imposed on the rest of the public sector.

Even that, however, does not explain why his resignation is necessary. There have been poor Speakers in the past whose demise has been hastened by a visit from the men in suits; there have been unpopular ones; there have been corrupt ones. It has always been said that the institution is greater than the office holder, and its gravitas must therefore be maintained at all costs. It is, then, a measure of the constitutional crisis now consuming Westminster that rebuilding the integrity of the Commons is only possible with a new Speaker at the helm.

MPs must choose the right person on June 22. It must be an individual who has not been tainted by the current second-homes scandal; who commands respect on all sides of the House; who has the intelligence, independence of thought, authority and strength of will to represent the interests of MPs against the executive, both this one and the next. It is a rare animal that is being sought. There is no reason why it should not be another Labour MP. Indeed, it should not matter which party the Speaker belongs to. It is a mark of the damage caused to the office by the perception, whether fair or not, that Mr Martin was “Labour’s man” that political considerations should be at issue. It is the character of the individual that matters, not party allegiance. The next Speaker will be more powerful than many of his predecessors. He or she will be chosen by secret ballot, introduced because of the circumstances of Mr Martin’s election, and so there will be less opportunity for the party gerrymandering that happened then.

Yet for all that the resignation of the Speaker is an exceptional event in British politics, it is still not enough. The Government is bereft of ideas, Whitehall decision-making is frozen and the Prime Minister is drained of all authority. It is clear that this Parliament has run its course. Once the new Speaker is installed, a general election should follow soon after. Gordon Brown should set aside party considerations, and go to the country this autumn. With a new start, the institution can be refreshed. That is the British way and it is still a good one.

Posted by peiper     on 05/20/2009 at 07:30 AM   
Filed Under: • Daily Life • Government • Corruption and Greed • Politics • UK •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner