Sunday - August 16, 2009

BOYOHBOY.  WAIT TIL YOU’VE SEEN ALL OF THIS … BURKA DEMAND FOR NON MUZZIES? WELL, YEAH.

You may recall a post yesterday in which it’s reported that France has said NO to the wearing of full dress, being called Burkinis, in public swimming pools. It’s an issue of hygiene, say the French.

OK.  Here’s how some are facing the issue here in the land of Hope and Glory.  Rule Britannia.

Now get this BMEWS.  It ain’t the muslims making any demand here re. non-muslims. No. Apparently, appeasing, cowardly guilty white non muslim councils think non muslims in public pools should cover up so that they do not offend.  I really do not think this is gonna fly, I don’t think too many (well there’s always the odd few) will comply. What’s bothersome is that some damn fool would actually make the suggestion.
Bad as things are here, I really can not see most Brits going along. Yeah, the politically correct. But we already know how stupid they are so that would not surprise.

There’s a lot here so I’m not gonna rant on this. I’ll leave it to you. 

Swimmers are told to wear burkinis
British swimming pools are imposing Muslim dress codes in a move described as divisive by Labour MPs.

By Patrick Sawer
Published: 9:00PM BST 15 Aug 2009

UK councils running restricted swimming session for Muslims

Under the rules, swimmers – including non-Muslims – are barred from entering the pool in normal swimming attire.

Instead they are told that they must comply with the “modest” code of dress required by Islamic custom, with women covered from the neck to the ankles and men, who swim separately, covered from the navel to the knees.

The phenomenon runs counter to developments in France, where last week a woman was evicted from a public pool for wearing a burkini – the headscarf, tunic and trouser outfit which allows Muslim women to preserve their modesty in the water.

The 35-year-old, named only as Carole, is threatening legal action after she was told by pool officials in Emerainville, east of Paris, that she could not wear the outfit on hygiene grounds.

But across the UK municipal pools are holding swimming sessions specifically aimed at Muslims, in some case imposing strict dress codes.

Croydon council in south London runs separate one-and-a half-hour swimming sessions for Muslim men and women every Saturday and Sunday at Thornton Heath Leisure Centre.

Swimmers were told last week on the centre’s website that “during special Muslim sessions male costumes must cover the body from the navel to the knee and females must be covered from the neck to the ankles and wrists”.

There are similar rules at Scunthorpe Leisure Centre, in North Lincolnshire, where “users must follow the required dress code for this session (T-shirts and shorts/leggings that cover below the knee)”.

In Glasgow, a men-only swimming session is organised by a local mosque group at North Woodside Leisure Centre, at which swimmers must be covered from navel to knee.

At a women-only class organised by a Muslim teacher at Blackbird Leys Swimming Pool, Oxford, to encourage Muslim women to learn to swim, most participants wear “modest” outfits although normal costumes are permitted.

The dress codes have provoked an angry reaction among critics who say they encourage division and resentment between Muslims and non-Muslims, putting strain on social cohesion.

Ian Cawsey, the Labour MP for the North Lincolnshire constituency of Brigg and Goole, said: “Of course swimming pools have basic codes of dress but it should not go beyond that.

“I don’t think that in a local authority pool I should have to wear a particular type of clothes for the benefit of someone else. That’s not integration or cohesion.”

Labour MP Anne Cryer, whose Keighley, West Yorkshire constituency has a large number of Muslims, said: “Unfortunately this kind of thing has a negative impact on community relations.

“It’s seen as yet another demand for special treatment. I can’t see why special clothing is needed for what is a single-sex session.”

READ MORE HERE

Posted by peiper     on 08/16/2009 at 12:19 PM   
Filed Under: • Nanny State • RoPMA • Stoopid-People • Typical White People: Stupid, Evil, Willfully Blind • UK •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - August 05, 2009

Beloved brass dog that sat on a car bonnet for 50 years… until elf ‘n’ Safety got a sniff

The place just keeps getting more and more bizarre.  I’m left wondering just who the person was and what they may look like, who took the time to call the authorities about this.  More then likely a person who snoops on neighbors and as a kid was the one to squeal to teacher on other kids.

You may have another take on it so here. See what you think of this.

The beloved brass dog that sat on a car bonnet for 50 years… until elf ‘n’ Safety got a sniff

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 12:19 PM on 05th August 2009

For 50 years, the small boxer dog Colonel faithfully sat on the bonnet of every car his owner drove.

From Ford Cortinas, to Lotus and even a Jaguar - but sadly no Rovers or Porsche Boxers - the little brass model was a constant companion to 86-year-old former rally driver Raymond Smith.

But now Health and Safety has got its claws into Colonel, and he has been ordered to the dog house as he is ‘a danger to pedestrians and illegal’.

Raymond has now been forced to remove the two-inch-long chrome-plated dog after the police warned him of the dangers.

He was threatened with a £50 fine and having his licence endorsed with five penalty points if he ignored them.

Raymond, from Dorset, said: ‘Nobody has taken any notice of it for 50 years, it was harmless.

‘But someone who I must have crossed swords with over parking or something has reported me to the police. They told them I had a dangerous dog on my car.  ‘I got a call from the police and I thought somebody was having me on.

‘So I called in to the station and a traffic officer told me it was illegal as it was a potential danger to pedestrians and I had to get rid of it.

‘It is stupid - it seems quite ridiculous.’

Raymond, a retired mechanic and test driver for Fiat, had the model dog made in honour of Colonel who he and his wife Faye had as a pet in the 1950s.

The object is screwed firmly onto the bonnet and is similar to the iconic Rolls Royce figurine.

He has had numerous prangs, all of which Colonel survived without a scratch.

Raymond said: ‘We got Colonel in 1949 and had him for about 10 years. I called him that because my sister had a Labrador called Major and so I wanted to go one better.

‘He was such a lovable dog that when he died I sent a photo of him to this company in London and they made an exact model from the picture.

‘I’ve been driving around with him on the front of my car ever since we had him made.  ‘He’s sat on about 50 different cars and attended rallies all over Europe with me. He survived some pretty bad scrapes in his time.

‘When I had a head-on crash with a tractor in the French Alps my main concern after me and the other driver was for Colonel.

‘I nearly lost him in Germany in 1954. Somebody tried to pull him off but he was too well screwed down.’
Raymond and his faithful friend: The former rally driver fell foul of Elf ‘n’ Safety

Raymond, who served with the RAF in World War Two, said Colonel had been in his usual position on the front of his current Fiat Panda until somebody reported it to the police.

He said: ‘I don’t know why somebody reported me. Nobody has ever taken any notice of him before. He’s not a sharp object and he wasn’t doing any harm.

‘But I had no choice.  ‘I feel rather sad about it. Whenever I drive I am used to seeing him sat out on the front of the bonnet leading the way.’

Raymond, who has been driving since 1938, has now positioned Colonel on the parcel shelf on the back of his car.

PC Terry Swain, of Dorchester traffic police, said: ‘Objects on the bonnets of Mercedes and Rolls Royces are designed to bend or come off in crashes.

‘Fixed, solid objects on bonnets are a safety issue because they can cause increased injury to pedestrians if they were in a collision and rolled over the bonnet.’

STOOL PIGEON SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 08/05/2009 at 06:39 AM   
Filed Under: • Daily Life • Nanny State • UK •  
• Comments (13) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - August 02, 2009

THIS FREEKEN PLACE IS SO TOTALLY PC AND SO TOTALLY SCREWED UP, THERE IS NO HOPE!

Lay your eyes on this latest bit of total Brit PC bullshit from those wimpy lefty ass wipes that make these stupid rulings.

Damn I wish I had a way to do away with em all.  They are useless. Ah ... NUTS!

Damn efin jerks! 

A refuge for battered women is to be closed down because it doesn’t cater for men.

By Daily Telegraph Reporter
Published: 4:26PM BST 02 Aug 2009

The safe haven has provided emergency shelter for more than 1,000 abused woman and children over the past 14 years.

But its doors will now shut forever after council managers realised it did not serve men and women equally.

The shelter, in Weymouth, Dorset, currently has enough beds to shelter six families affected by domestic violence.

No adult men are permitted to stay in the refuge, which is intended to protect physically and emotionally battered women.

Managers now believe money would be better spent helping domestic violence victims of both sexes to stay in their homes.

They will be helped by an “outreach service” which aims to keep more people in their own homes.

But the move has angered women domestic violence campaigners.

Brian Ellis, a local councillor who helped set up the refuge in 1986, said: “It doesn’t make sense.

“The women who use the refuge are there because of what men have done to them and their children.

“When people suffer from domestic violence they need an escape route so it’s just incredible that this decision has been taken.

“They need an immediate escape and that’s what’s being taken away.”

A spokeswoman for Refuge, a charity for women and children affected by domestic violence, said: “There are not enough refuges for women who need help as it is.

“It’s already pretty difficult to get help and women often have to travel long distances to get it.

“Losing beds that are already there is really devastating. It is a whole community that has lost that kind of safety.”

The Weymouth refuge costs £82,780 a year to run and is funded by a number of local councils.

It will close in March 2010 when women will be moved to different accommodation or sent home.

Over the past year a total of 6,323 people have reported domestic violence to Dorset Police.

A spokeswoman for Dorset County Council confirmed one of the reasons for closure was the lack of facilities for men.

She said: “We are not going to be opening up a refuge for men and women.

“Some people would rather stay in their own settings than be moved away and put in a refuge.

“We want to make sure that men and women are both catered for and at the moment we are not able to do that within the small building.”

stupid fuckin dickhead. so close the place putting women who need it just where? Sure. Send em home where they’ll feel safe.  Jeez this kinda stupidity just makes me see red.
Exactly how many men are in need of a shelter like this and how many women who have been abused, along with their kids, will feel safe and trusting with too many guys around them.
What the ‘F’ is it with this place?  About when did they lose all sense of logic?  What? Did I miss something? Did I misunderstand this?

SOURCE FOR IDIOT COUNCIL STORY

Posted by peiper     on 08/02/2009 at 12:56 PM   
Filed Under: • Nanny State • Outrageous • UK •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - July 29, 2009

JUST TOOOO STUPID TO IGNORE. AND A MOONBAT AWARD GOES TO ..Barking and Dagenham Council

Barking and Dagenham Council

Yeah, no kidding folks. That’s the name for real.  Barking and Dagenham Council.

So here’s the story .... and I won’t even attempt to add anything or try to make it funnier coz I can’t. 

Drippy health and safety police ban swimmers from doing lengths

By Jaya Narain
Last updated at 8:13 PM on 29th July 2009

Swimmers at a council pool have been banned from doing lengths for health and safety reasons.

They have been told they may only swim across the width of the pool as it makes it easier for lifeguards to ensure their safety.

Regular users of the Dagenham Swimming Pool in Essex say the rules are a clear indication that Britain is gripped by ‘health and safety insanity’.

Local resident Dean Bradford, 33, who has used the pool for more than 20 years, said the ban on lengths was a farce and would impact young and old alike. The municipal pool is 33.3 metres long (108ft) and 25 metres wide (85ft) and attracts thousands of users each week.

Mr Bradford said: ‘A lot of elderly people swim lengths of the pool to maintain their stamina and health and young people swim lengths to become better swimmers.

There are also those people who swim lengths as part of a training regime to compete in the sport. With the Olympics just around the corner I thought we were meant to be encouraging sporting excellence.

‘By banning lengths all these people are being marginalised and will have to go elsewhere. I think it is totally insane.’

Mr Bradford said he was told by the pool manager that they would need to have an extra lifeguard on duty if people were swimming lengths, as it was more difficult to keep an eye on them and there was not enough funding to pay for one.

But Barking and Dagenham Council, which runs the pool, said they had changed the swimming lanes to run width-ways to help people training for 50metre and 100metre events and to free up more space in the shallow end of the pool for less confident swimmers.

A council spokesman said: ‘This enables people who are less confident to swim lengths of the shallow end to help them get fit and also it makes it easier to see where people are swimming and what they are doing. It’s about variety, giving a whole host of swimming options.

‘Most people who are training for events don’t want to swim 33.3 metres, it doesn’t fit in with the distances involved. It’s not all about health and safety although it is true it does make it easier, they can use different staffing levels. It’s easier for the staff and it’s better swimming.’

But Mr Bradford said: ‘This is just the nanny state gone mad and it’s affecting my life and other people’s lives. It’s another obstacle for people trying to get fit and healthy.’

The council spokesman said the changes affect morning and lunchtime swimming sessions and if feedback was not good the lanes could be changed back to lengths.

SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 07/29/2009 at 02:39 PM   
Filed Under: • Daily Life • Nanny State • UK •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE NANNY STATE MAKING DECISIONS FOR US. FOR OUR OWN GOOD OF COURSE.

And likely it’s also for the kiddies.

It bothers me not just because they (govt.) are taking away individual decision making. Not that alone.
It also bugs me because I can’t understand why people with more education( then what I got), can not figure out that folks who want it will simply double up and buy more.  Why can’t they see that?

They want the size of soda cans made smaller and candy bars to be cut from the present 57 or 58g, to 50g.  Will that 7g make that much difference? And will the candy makers drop their prices?  Uh huh.

Something else that is really bizarre. In an unscientific poll on the Daily Mail site, 22% of ppl think that the govt. is right.  Twenty Two percent of those polled would prefer to allow someone else to be responsible for their thinking.  Not a very good sign.

Chocolate bars could be made smaller to help fight obesity

By Sophie Borland
Last updated at 11:32 AM on 29th July 2009

Chocolate bars could be cut in size to help fight the obesity epidemic.

The Food Standards Agency wants the average bar to be reduced by up to a fifth to reduce daily calorie intake.

It has drawn up plans for confectioners to make voluntary changes to the size of their snacks.

By 2012 the watchdog wants all confectionary to weigh no more than 50g - currently Mars bars are 58g and Bounty bars 57g.

Manufacturers have also been asked to sell bite-size bars as single items rather than as part of multibags.

They will be discouraged from promoting large supersize items - such as the Maltesers ‘Big Bag’ and - Mars ‘Duo’ - and instead encouraged to offer healthier snacks as alternatives .

By 2050 up to 60 per cent of Britons will be obese and the cost to the National Health Service estimated to reach more than £8.4 billion.

The plans, drawn up in an FSA consultation, also propose that within six years, fizzy drinks should be sold in 250 ml containers instead of standard 330ml for most brands.

They propose that drinks’ ‘added sugar’ levels are reduced by 4 per cent within three years in the hope that consumers will be gradually weaned off very sweet beverages without noticing the lower sugar content.

Gill Fine, from the FSA said: ‘We are not telling people what to eat. We want to make it easier for people to make healthier choices — to choose foods with reduced saturated fat and sugar — or smaller portion sizes.’

‘We are committed to working in partnership with Government and its agency to help consumers eat more healthily - and reformulation is just one of the ways in which we will continue to make a real difference.’

FOR MORE

‘We are committed to working in partnership with Government and its agency to help consumers eat more healthily

What they’re committed to is playing health bully. 

Posted by peiper     on 07/29/2009 at 10:04 AM   
Filed Under: • Daily Life • Health and Safety • Health-Medicine • Nanny State • UK •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - July 27, 2009

THE STUPID BASTARDS GET PAID AT THE END OF THE WEEK ANYWAY … WHAT? ME WORRY? JERKS!

What the hell am I on about this time?  Same stupid stuff.  Really guys. This place makes me bonkers and this article from today’s Telegraph only scratches the surface.

The idiots at the council decree and others pay the price.  They still draw a salary while this place may have to close.  There are no repercussions against the rulings that hurt ppl. And btw, take a good look to the right of this photograph.  What do ya see there?  So how come the idiot council doesn’t decree that a fence be installed there?  But this lady’s shop sign is a danger.

Just so you know. DEVON is one (of several) of the most beautiful places in the world.  I’m partial I guess. Others have places they like more I’m sure.

Saying that, I can see where in an area like Devon, which has so much scenic beauty, a town council might demand that commercial signs not be put up and clutter the the roadside.  What an unwanted eyesore that would be.  But that isn’t the case here. That isn’t what they’re saying. 

Devon tea shop forced to remove sign due to health and safety

A village tea rooms owner in Devon has said she will be forced to close her business after a council ordered the removal of an advertising sign for health and safety reasons.

Published: 7:00AM BST 27 Jul 2009

Janice Voce was told the board pointing to her remote tea shop was a “potential hazard” to pedestrians, even though it was on an embankment with no footpath.

Within days of taking it down she saw her takings slump to just £8 a day.

Photo: BNPS

Mrs Voce, 46, said she is being left with no option but to close the Fancy That Tea Shop in the village of East Budleigh, Devon, with the loss of five jobs.

The sign had been in place for a year without any complaints until Devon County Council intervened.

Villagers are rallying behind Mrs Voce and have drawn up a petition in protest at the local council.

Mrs Voce said: “My business is tucked away off the main road and without the sign pointing to us, no-one would know we are here.

“The sign is on a grass verge - nobody walks there and no-one in the village can understand how it is now a problem. As a result I have gone from doing a full trade and employing five people from the village to taking just £8 a day and having to get rid of all the weekday staff.

“It’s a difficult time for any business and we could do with some support from the local council. I’ve tried to explain to them that by asking me to do this they are effectively closing me down, but no-one seems to care. I will probably be shut before the end of the week.”

Christine Channon, a local councillor, is supporting Mrs Voce.

“There isn’t a footpath on the grass verge and there’s absolutely no reason for people to walk there,” she said. “The problem is that nowadays people are litigious. If it’s on land that belongs to the local authority, they would be held responsible so they have got to look at health and safety.”

A spokeswoman for the council said: “The Highways Act guidance says that no unauthorised items, such as advertising boards, should be displayed on the pavement.

“But in Devon our policy is more flexible; we do allow authorised displays on the pavement so long as they are immediately in front of the business.

“However in areas where the pavements are not that wide it can pose a potential hazard to passersby. The council has asked businesses in East Budleigh to take in their displays and most have done so willingly.”

TEA ROOM SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 07/27/2009 at 08:29 AM   
Filed Under: • Government • Nanny State • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - July 03, 2009

HEY .. YOU FIND SOMETHIN’ DUMBER THEN THIS, LET US KNOW. COZ THIS REALLY IS DUH.

Doesn’t matter what I think but the fact is, I am not surprised.  I’ve seen a ton of things as dumb and one or two even dumber the first year I was here.
EVERYTHING is RIGHTS!RIGHTS! and more of the same. So this falls into line with the PC, warm and fuzzy thinking here.  Not by all of course. Some are trying to fight the stupidity.

At the moment though it looks like a losing war.

DOES IT GET MUCH DUMBER THEN THIS? 

Prisoners on run cannot be named ‘due to privacy rights’
Prisoners on the run from Holleseley Bay prison cannot be identified because it would breach their rights to privacy, the Ministry of Justice has said.

By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor
Published: 2:52PM BST 03 Jul 2009

Civil servants have refused to name inmates who have fled prison even though individual police forces will often identify them if they pose a risk to the public.

They say releasing their names would breach obligations under the Data Protection Act.

It echoes a row in 2007 when Derbyshire Police refused to release pictures of two escaped murderers.

The latest development emerged in response to Freedom Of Information requests to name inmates on the run rom the prison near Woodbridge, Suffolk.

The open prison which has sea views and once held Tory peer Jeffrey Archer is known as Holiday Bay because of its easy-going regime.

The Ministry of Justice confirmed 39 prisoners had absconded from Hollesley Bay between January 1, 2007, to March 31, 2009.

It also provided a general list of crimes they were sentenced for and confirmed that 16 involved violence.

The offenders included nine robbers, two serving sentences for attempted robbery, one for wounding and four others for grievous bodily harm.

But the ministry refused to say how many - if any - had been recaptured, saying their identities had to be protected from third parties.

John Gummer, the Suffolk Coastal MP, said he was aghast at the decision and promised to raise the matter in parliament with Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary.

He said: “It’s intolerable and entirely unacceptable. There is no sense in which a prisoner’s identity is a private matter. In my view he sacrifices that when he becomes a prisoner.

“This annoys me very much indeed. We have gone mad if this is what we are doing.

“What I will be doing is putting down a question to the Justice Minister on Monday to ask for the information. I shall insist this is information that should be in the public domain.

“I think this will prove Hollesley Bay has ceased to be treated as an open prison in the historic way, but is now receiving prisoners who would not have been sent to it 10 years ago.”

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: “Whilst it is in the public interest to be aware of offenders who have escaped from custody as they may help in identifying the absconders thereby enabling the police to detain them; it is not in the public interest to prejudice any enquiries or operations the police may be conducting into apprehending the absconder.

“It is the general policy of the Ministry of Justice not to disclose, to a third party, personal information about another person.

“This is because the Ministry of Justice has obligations under the Data Protection Act and in law generally to protect this information.”

In January 2007 Derbyshire Police refused to release pictures of two convicted murderers on the run from jail. Chief Constable David Coleman said Jason Croft and Michael Nixon posed “no risk’’ and the force had to consider the Human Rights Act and data protection laws when asked to publish photographs. The force later denied human rights had been a factor.

CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS? YEAH. I CAN.

Posted by peiper     on 07/03/2009 at 11:11 AM   
Filed Under: • Insanity • Nanny State • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - July 01, 2009

Blood boils as pensioners’ coffee morning axed.

Serious stuff happing back home I see. And that A-1 slob Al Franken wins in MN.  Not a good time for our side.
Still though ... and I know things are maddening back home ... get a load of this.
So far at least, American has not descended to this level of idiocy.  Maybe goin thata way but not there yet.

I need to explain for an American audience what a coffee morning is over here. I don’t know if we do this at home but I’m fairly sure we must but call it something else.

Just a small group of old friends, almost always older retired people, referred to here as “pensioners.” Some meet once a month either at someones house on a rotating basis, it can be once a week if they want.  Some meet in a public place as in this case.  Here in our area btw, the library is not called that anymore. Nope. It’s now “A Discovery Center” if you please. And even if ya don’t.  And like the one here in the story it has a coffee area and offers stale but expensive pastry. It looks like pastry, so it must be. Didn’t taste like it tho.

So these old dears who’ve been meeting for some time now have just discovered they are running afoul of Health and Safety.

IT’S THE KIDS ........

Blood boils as pensioners’ coffee morning axed

A group of pensioners in Cambridgeshire have had their weekly coffee morning axed over fears their hot coffee is a health and safety risk.
In the latest of an ever increasing number of health and safety over reactions – last month it was pick-your-own raspberries being deemed too dangerous - council officials have now banned the meetings claiming that infants who use the library at the same time could be injured if the hot coffee is spilt on them.

One pensioner, Mrs Owen, told The Daily Telegraph: “We are being told we can’t have a hot drink. Health and safety is a silly excuse. We have now made alternative arrangements and plan to have our coffee mornings at each other’s homes.”

HT/ http://blog.williammurray.co.uk/?p=396

I am so tempted to steal a quote from one of my favorites columnists, in fact. Yes I will.

BRITAIN IS MORE WACKO THEN JACKO
From Littlejohn at The Daily Mail

Posted by peiper     on 07/01/2009 at 09:42 AM   
Filed Under: • Nanny State • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - June 18, 2009

Evicted from cave dwelling without fire exit . AFTER SIXTEEN YEARS. The Nanny State in action!

FIRST, I must thank Christopher again for that great post from yesterday which I’ve just seen. 
It’s also why I’m ten minutes late with my own post here. Which wasn’t intended.  In fact, I originally had no intention of getting out of bed this morning. Wife brought up a hot drink and the paper while I sneezed my way through the first few pages of the morning paper.
Then I saw this on page 9 and said, hold on. What stupidity is this?  (I may talk to myself but at least I don’t answer myself. Well, not always.)

Just who is this guy hurting?  What has happened to free will when you aren’t imposing on others and willing to take risks on your own?  And what risk exactly?
The guy may be a loony tune to some folks but so what.  He’s been there for 16 years without any problem.
But along comes the nanny state to claim that A CAVE NEEDS AN EXIT! 
Well then it is no longer a cave. Is it?  Jeesh!

So I simply HAD to exit bed and boot and post this story.  During which process I found some other interesting items and might get to em later. Not sure yet.

Meanwhile ..........

Eco-warrior evicted from cave dwelling without fire exit
An eco-warrior has been evicted from the cave he lives in on his allotment patch in Brighton, East Sussex, because it doesn’t have a fire exit.

By Aislinn Simpson
The Telegraph

Hilaire Purbrick, 45, has inhabited the seven-foot cave he dug on his plot and dined off the land for the past 16 years.

But after having the dwelling checked by the fire brigade, Brighton and Hove City Council decided it did not have enough exits and sought an injunction banning him from entering it.

Mr Purbrick ignored the order and continued to live in the cave, but was pulled back into court on Tuesday when a judge granted the council a possession order which will allow him to be formally evicted and banned indefinitely from the site.

Mr Purbrick now plans to take his fight to the European Court of Human Rights, claiming his right to a private life and freedom has been breached by the order.

“I am still living there and intend to continue to do so,” he said. “I know lots of people in this town who live in houses with only one door with no fire exit.”

The keen gardener has a history of overcoming legal challenges to his earthy home.

In 1999, town hall authorities threatened to remove him, claiming he was running an illegal vegetable shop.

But Mr Purbick won a reprieve after claiming his site “was hardly a Sainsbury’s” and he only had one customer – a pregnant woman who bought his sprouts.

The following year he successfully fought an eviction order after complaints he was keeping chickens and bees without permission.

Granting the possession order at Brighton County Court, Judge Jonathan Simpkiss said there were legitimate health and safety concerns that the cave could collapse.

“The council considers this was a danger to life. They have a responsibility to the public,” he said.

Mr Purbrick’s decision to appeal to the European courts was made after the judge refused leave to appeal in a UK court, saying it was a “hopeless cause of trying to resist the inevitable”.

SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 06/18/2009 at 02:59 AM   
Filed Under: • Nanny State • UK •  
• 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 •  

   Tuesday - June 02, 2009

THERE’S A DARN GOOD REASON PPL CALL THIS PLACE, “THE NANNY STATE.” HERE’S JUST ONE EXAMPLE.

Naturally there are others but this one caught my eye this evening.

What a load of BS. Like kids won’t get their candy fix anyway.  Take a look.

BTW ... for Americans. A translation. Crisps are what we would call potato chips. 
Chips here in UK are what we call French Fries.

Must say though.  When I was going to school, the school we went to had no cafeteria. We all went home for lunch, school was in our area so we’d walk to and from. In those far away days, kids weren’t bused across town just to meet some screwed up racial mandate or quota.  A community school was just that. Close enough to walk and only a few needing rides. In fact, we didn’t have a school bus for the Sarah J. Rawson school. Generally called the Holcolm St. School cuz that’s were it was.  Kids living further afield brought food to school I think. If we had a cafeteria I sure wasn’t aware of it.
Candy? Nope. Didn’t have much of that either except as a treat at home. But there wasn’t any health restriction on it. And Hershey bars were five cents and they were bigger then they are now.

That entire neighborhood has changed of course.  Some 25 years ago I went home for a visit and saw chain link fences in the old hood. Most of the houses didn’t look like the lawns were tended ( same for those once nice houses) and the old school had a chain fence around it.  I wonder if the name was changed.  ???  Probably the Saint Martin Luther King school by now.  The area is ugly now. No surprise of course.

Grammar school pupils face suspension for selling sweets to sugar-starved friends amid junk food ban
By JAYA NARAIN
Last updated at 3:22 PM on 02nd June 2009

Smuggling contraband sweets into school and selling them to classmates is an enterprise that will be familiar to generations of schoolchildren.

But now pupils at a top grammar school have been warned they will be kicked out the classroom if they continue to deal sweets.

Entrepreneurial youngsters have set up a ‘black market’ at their school selling everything from fizzy drinks, sweets, crisps.

But the pupil-run enterprise is a direct contravention of strict rules banning junk food, sweets and pop at the school and pupils smuggling in the contraband sweets have been told they will be suspended.

The warning comes after the ‘sweet ‘racket’ was foiled by staff at top-rated St Anselm’s College in Birkenhead.

The tuck shop entrepreneurs are just the latest in a long line of retaliatory responses to the Government’s drive to promote eating in schools. The handful of culprits were also caught selling fizzy drinks and sweets to pupils travelling to school on the bus.

Headteacher at St Anselm’s, Simon Duggan, fears the practice is encouraging fights and thefts at his school.

In a strongly worded letter to parents at the 450-pupil school, Mr Duggan warned those caught will be excluded from school and ‘their ill-gotten gains’ confiscated.

He added: ‘Sweets are not allowed to be sold in schools under food regulations and we will not let any student subvert these necessary rules.

‘The governors and I expect the full co-operation of parents in this matter. It is simply an issue of common sense.

Tuck shop entrepreneurs: The boys were caught selling sweets to fellow pupils

He said the ‘sweet racket’ was a small scale problem involving only a few of pupils but said he did not want it to grow.

Mr Duggan said the sweet dealing was at odds with the school’s healthy eating push and hard work aimed towards a balanced diet.  He added: ‘We are keen to develop budding entrepreneurs but not if it involves doing something on the margins of legality.’

Anti-obesity campaigners today said they were fully behind the school’s stance - citing fizzy drinks as a major cause of dental problems and obesity.

Dr Tam Fry of the National Obesity Forum said: ‘If he is trying to promote healthy eating he would become frustrated by what’s gone on and decide this is his only course of action.’

The health drive was launched in 2006 after TV chef Jamie Oliver brought the media spotlight to focus on the issue.

He embarrassed the Government into action over tougher food standards and ensured school meals have got healthier.

But in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, mothers passed their children Mcdonald’s burgers, crisps and chips over the school fence after teachers banned junk food.

A primary school was accused of running a ‘mealtime Gestapo’ after insisting on inspecting children’s lunchboxes for unhealthy food.

If pupils are found to have sweets, chocolate, fizzy drinks or full-fat crisps, teachers confiscate them and hold them in the staffroom.

The snacks were seized at Danegrove Primary School in Barnet, North London and were then returned at the end of the day if parents asked for them.

In 2007, Standish High School in Wigan banned pupils from leaving the school grounds at lunchtime, stopping them from going to fast food outlets.

Some children phoned a local sandwich delivery man who came to the school and passed the food through the gates. Teachers complained and the sandwich seller was asked to move on by police.

DAILY MAIL

Posted by peiper     on 06/02/2009 at 02:35 PM   
Filed Under: • Nanny State •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - May 29, 2009

Town halls hire citizen snoopers as young as SEVEN to spy on neighbours and report wrongs.

H/T Argentium G. Tiger

BMEWs Tiger WOKE me up this morning with this article. I had something else but will post it later.
I don’t know how I missed this one and the date is a week ago.
I think the current political scandal re, the members of parliament scheming and leeching off the public has obscured much.
This type of thing came to light last year and caused a fuss and then died down.  So I thought everyone else forgot it cuz I sure did.

Look at the date of this story. Eleven days ago and not a peep anywhere that I heard.  I didn’t even see this in our local paper.  I guess that’s how the authorities can get away with it.

There is another side to this of course.  It sure looks bad enough and especially the way the Daily Mail wrote (and I copied) the headline.
There is a problem with what Brits call fly-tipping. Which is tossing trash at the side of roads or in fields.  I have seen it and trust me, it really does look bad.
And reporting genuine crime should be an act of good citizenship, I would think.
But I don’t quite understand how a council can come to the conclusion that someone has “put out too much rubbish” for pick up. That has me stumped. What if a family just has a lot? How much is too much?  And I can see as well, where the image of Big Brother comes into play.  You are always going to get some officious troll with a fraction of authority of some minor kind, sticking their unwanted nose into your legitimate business.  We’ve run into that sort of thing ourselves in the five years we’ve been here. But I guess recruiting kiddies too kinda smacks of the soviet system. Or Nazi Germany.
Catch em young enough to thoroughly train, and they’ll grow up accepting as normal behaviour the idea that ‘snooping’ on family and neighbors is simply the thing to do. 

By LUCY BALLINGER
Last updated at 1:16 AM on 18th May 2009

Children as young as seven are being recruited by councils to act as ‘citizen snoopers’, the Daily Mail can reveal.

The ‘environment volunteers’ will report on litter louts, noisy neighbours - and even families putting their rubbish out on the wrong day.

There are currently almost 9,000 people signed up to the schemes. More are likely to be recruited in the coming months.

Controversially, some councils are running ‘junior’ schemes which are recruiting children.

After basic training, volunteers are expected to be the ‘eyes and the ears’ of the town hall.

They are given information packs about how to collect evidence, including tips about writing down numberplates, which could later be used in criminal prosecutions.

Luton Borough Council’s Street Seen scheme encourages its 650 volunteers to report ‘environmental concerns’. It is also recruiting ‘Junior Street Champions’, aged between seven and 11.

Primary schools could also be involved within two years.

Similarly, Islington Council in north London has recruited 1,200 ‘Islington Eyes’ to report crime hotspots, fly-tipping and excess noise from DIY.

Volunteers are given a list of things to do when confronted with fly-tippers, including taking photos ‘without being seen’.

Last year the council undertook a recruitment drive for youngsters aged nine and above, called Junior Eyes.

Children are given special books to write down reports on littering or graffiti in their schools, which they then send to the council.

A spokesman for Islington town hall said: ‘It’s not possible for the council to see what’s going on in the borough at all times, so our Eyes for Islington are a great help, reporting issues such as dangerous footpaths, fly-tipping and graffiti.’

Welwyn Hatfield Council in Hertfordshire has given its 13 volunteers handheld computers to take photographs of problem areas.

The information is then uploaded to a map of trouble spots.

Overall, a total of 8,442 volunteers have signed up at 17 councils in England. Other councils are set to follow their example and set up their own networks of volunteers.

They say the scheme helps them find out about problems which they might not know about otherwise. But critics are worried the schemes could easily be abused and encourage a ‘Big Brother society’.

The move comes as local authorities dish out £100 fines to householders who leave out too much rubbish or fail to follow recycling rules.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: ‘Community spirit is one thing, spying on your neighbours is quite another.

‘It is the job of the police to maintain law and order, and there is no reason taxpayers should have to pay twice for the same service.

‘People are sick and tired of being spied on by their councils and in a recession we simply cannot afford luxuries like handheld computers at a time when the most basic public services are being scaled back.’

The Welwyn and Hatfield scheme is run by waste collection and environmental contractor Serco, which hopes to recruit more volunteers this summer.

A spokesman for the council said: ‘Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council and its project partner Serco do not conduct any surveillance of residents in enforcement of environmental crimes, and neither do the community champions that have volunteered.’

Serco said other councils were keen to introduce its handheld computers, although many areas are conducting similar schemes using more low-tech methods.

For example, Hillingdon Borough Council in north London, which has recruited 4,800 volunteers from the age of 16 in the past 18 months, simply gives its ‘Street Champions’ pens and a folder of contact details.

A spokesman said: ‘Street Champions themselves have confirmed that it is not a scheme where people are asked to spy on neighbours. Street Champions are asked to act just as any other resident might to report issues in their local area.’

The spokesman added that two brothels had been closed down this year as a result of reports.

In North Devon, where trial schemes are currently under way, some of the volunteers have helped the police close down a drug den by giving witness statements.

However, the controversial pilot schemes have been dropped in a number of areas including Stoke -on-Trent in Staffordshire and Tower Hamlets in east London.

A spokesman for the Local Government Association said: ‘Environment volunteers are people who care passionately about their local area and want to protect it from vandals, graffitists and fly-tippers.

‘These community-spirited residents are not snoopers.

‘They help councils cut crime and make places cleaner, greener and safer.’

SNOOP SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 05/29/2009 at 07:09 AM   
Filed Under: • Daily Life • Nanny State • UK •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - May 16, 2009

Supporters guilty of ‘disgusting’ homophobic football chants. I do not look for this stuff …

It may look like I do but really I don’t.  These things crop up at eye level and are pretty hard to resist.

I read the article and thought, so what?  But I guess one must take into account the current PC, touchy feely attitude where feelings are concerned.

Hey, I am not saying it’s nice or even right to go out and hurt people’s feelings. But come on. It’s a football match and if someone is known for a lifestyle that is, to say the least, at odds with the norm, well heck.  That’s how some people feel about it and making fun and hurtful jibes can’t be avoided.
Besides, aren’t these folks always having parades telling us all how proud they are to be what they are? 

Anyway, when I started to read this I really expected to find much worse then what is actually here.
I guess it’s seen differently though if one is on the receiving end of the chants. 

Still, what a screwed up bunch of wankers the prosecutors are.  So this one broad who probably looks like the back end of a hippo says,
“bad taste, they were inappropriate, shocking and disgusting” speaking about some of the words used. BUT ... there isn’t anything about this pair that says they were using the more extreme language.  Here, you’ll see what what I’m talking about.
But watch out for really very shocking and disgusting and oh it’s just too awful .... 

A man and a boy were found guilty today of shouting ‘shocking and disgusting’ homophobic chants at a football match.

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 12:22 AM on 16th May 2009

Ian Trow, 42, of Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, and the 14-year-old had pleaded not guilty at Portsmouth Magistrates’ Court to the charge of indecent chanting.

The charges relate to chants made at Portsmouth Football Club defender Sol Campbell during a match against Tottenham Hotspur at Fratton Park, Portsmouth, on September 28 last year.

After a three-hour trial, Georgette Holbrook, chairwoman of the panel, found the two defendants had chanted ‘Come on gay boy, that’s my gay boy’.

She said: ‘We find that the words used were in extremely bad taste, they were inappropriate, shocking and disgusting, and as such they were indecent.’

Sophie Stevens, prosecuting, said: ‘The police and members of the public considered there was significant abuse from the travelling Tottenham supporters, abuse above what is perhaps wrongly accepted at a football match.’

The magistrates were shown a DVD of footage recorded by police showing Tottenham fans at the match.

Angie Cunningham, defending, said the video footage was examined by a professional lip reader who said the youth, who was 13 at the time, could be seen pointing and shouting: ‘Come on gay boy, that’s my gay boy.’

She added that Trow could only be seen saying the words: ‘Come on, that’s my gay’.

But the magistrates ruled that Trow had said the same words as the boy.

Ms Cunningham said it could not be assumed that the two defendants joined in other chants heard at the match.

She added: ‘They passionately and whole-heartedly believed their behaviour and language didn’t overstep the mark of what is acceptable behaviour and language at a football match.’

Portsmouth footballer Sol Campbell said he did not react to the abuse for fear of making the situation worse

The video footage also showed other chants which were shouted by up to 2,500 fans, including: ‘Sol, Sol, wherever you may be, Not long now until lunacy, We won’t give a f*** if you are hanging from a tree, You are a Judas c*** with HIV’, ‘Campbell you are a c***’ and ‘Sol’s a w*****.’

In a statement read to the court, Campbell said he felt ‘victimised’ and ‘disgusted’ by the chanting.

He said: ‘I felt absolutely disgusted at this and I didn’t react because of my profile and I feared I might make the situation worse and cause problems.

‘I felt totally victimised and helpless by the abuse I received on this day.

‘It has had an effect on me personally and I do not want it to continue. I support the police in their action.’

Following the match, Hampshire Police released images of 16 people wanted in connection with the chants.

A total of 11 were arrested and four men pleaded guilty to the offence in January and were sentenced to a three-year football banning order and a fine.

Three men and two 15-year-old boys have been given police cautions, according to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

While cases of racist chanting have been prosecuted before, this was the first case of indecent chanting to be brought to the courts, the CPS said.

Both Trow and the 14-year-old boy were banned from attending football matches for three years.

Trow was fined £500 and ordered to pay £400 costs and £15 to a victim surcharge fund.

The 14-year-old was given a conditional discharge for 12 months and ordered to pay £400 costs.

Miss Cunningham said both defendants intended to appeal against the conviction.

Nick Hawkins, Hampshire Chief Crown Prosecutor and CPS national lead on football issues, said: ‘I am pleased we have secured convictions and admissions of guilt from all 11 people we charged in connection with this unsavoury incident.

‘The magistrates’ decision show ordinary people applying common sense are disgusted with the kind of things that went on at Fratton Park last September and reflect the views of ordinary football fans across England and Wales.’

Posted by peiper     on 05/16/2009 at 01:25 PM   
Filed Under: • Nanny State • UK •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - May 07, 2009

Police constable refuses to mount a bike due to possible health and safety. And it gets funnier.

I’m not 100% certain the guy was serious. On the other hand, even if he was, in today’s climate he just may have a point.  And apparently there really is a proficiency test lasting two whole days on ....  RIDING A FREEKIN BIKE.  So maybe he was really complying with moonbat regs.

Oh dear,oh dear.  Look what the empire has come to.

PC refused to sit on bike for photo without proficiency test
Police officer Tony Cobban refused to pose on a stationary bicycle for a publicity photograph because he had not passed his cycling proficiency test.

By Daily Telegraph Reporter

The officer said he feared he could get into trouble without first having a risk-assessment conducted.

The community officer was following guidelines from his superiors at Lancashire Constabulary, which state that staff who have not taken the exam, a course taken by thousands of schoolchildren every year, are banned from using a bike.

Pc Cobban refused to even sit on the saddle during the photo shoot at Halfords, where two new bikes were donated to the police.

“It was basically a health and safety thing. I was just being cautious as I haven’t passed the cycling proficiency test,” he said.

“My personal view would be concern if anything happens to me while on the bike and it hasn’t been risk assessed or insured – in this day and age you have to cover all bases. It’s the way of the world.

“I could get on the bike but I’m not massively proficient.”

Inspector Nick Emmet, from Lancashire Constabulary, said Pc Cobban was right to be cautious.

“Our officers are required to be appropriately trained and assessed prior to using bikes for patrolling in order to comply with insurance and for the safety of themselves and the public.

“An increasing number of our neighbourhood officers do patrol their wards on bikes and their communities have welcomed this due to their increased effectiveness and visibility,” he said.

Fortunately, Pc Cobban’s colleague, PCSO Emma Nixon, had passed the test and was on hand to pose for a picture sat on one of the bikes.

But his actions have been ridiculed, even by the Lancashire Police Authority, the body responsible for the organisation of Lancashire Constabulary.

“I think it’s one of these PC gone mad things over PCs on bikes – I think having coppers on bikes is great,” said Cllr David Whipp, a member of the authority.

“I think the balance on health and safety is probably right but there may be one or two occasions where you raise your eyebrows.”

Councillor Geoff Driver, Conservative group leader for Lancashire County Council, also criticised the

“The mind boggles when a grown man can’t go on a bike for a photograph,” he said.

“When I hear stories like this I just think what on earth is going on.”

Mountain bikes are often used by beat officers to chase suspects down footpaths or passages that would be too narrow for a car.

Several forces have banned officers from riding bikes until they have passed a two-day proficiency test.

The decision followed the death of PCSO Christopher Maclure, 21, who was hit by a lorry in Wigan while on a mountain bike patrol in 2007.

A spokesman for Lancashire Constabulary said the cycling proficiency exam they use is a modified version of tests taken by children learning to ride bikes but is “police specific”, using in-house instructors issuing extra guidance such as how to use police radios while cycling.

TELEGRAPH

Posted by peiper     on 05/07/2009 at 10:24 AM   
Filed Under: • Health and Safety • Insanity • Nanny State • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (3) • 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