Wednesday - February 04, 2009

The age of the snitch: How public sector informers are creating Stasi Britain…!

This shows ya what multi-culture/diversity, anti this and anti that get you.
Even a PRIVATE conversation where someone makes an offhand remark brings the PC Police in the form of snitches. For what?
Read the article.

Meanwhile, a totally foul mouthed and tasteless personality on the Beeb (BBC) gets MILLIONS a year because he has the talent to use the ‘F’ word a lot and make public phone calls of a lewd nature to ppl. 

But Carol Thatcher did worse.  Yeah, instead of the ‘F’ word she used ”GOLLIWOG.” Now then, I did know that Wog was supposed to be the equivalent of our ‘N’ word back home.  It is used not just for Negroes but to describe ppl from India and Pakistan as well.  It isn’t a term of endearment.

I do know that a Gollywog was a minstrel doll in another age.  Kinda doubt they still make them. 
So Thatcher, with a drinky or two under her belt referred to someone as a Golliwog. In a private conversation.
BUT ... There are ALWAYS and FOREVER gonna be (white) people who will be, “offended” and “outraged” by remarks of a racist nature.
Naturally, they have to go running and shout MOMMIE - MOMMIE, Mary said this and Tommy did that.

So the result is that Carol Thatcher gets the axe for a private comment while the another ON AIR personality gets away with sleaze in public.
What logic. What a culture. How stupid!

HOW POLITICALLY CORRECT!

How public sector informers are creating Stasi Britain.
Last updated at 2:10 PM on 04th February 2009

BY MELANIE PHILLIPS, WRITING IN THE DAILY MAIL

Sometimes you have to pinch yourself to remember that Britain has historically always been the cradle of liberty. For today we seem to be sliding inexorably into a culture of control which would have been very familiar to the Stasi or the KGB.

Carol Thatcher, the daughter of former Prime Minister Lady Thatcher, now faces being banned from the BBC after reportedly referring to an unnamed tennis player as reminding her of a ‘golliwog’.

Carol, who was crowned Queen of the Jungle in the 2005 reality series I’m A Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here!, has been a regular presenter on The One Show - a daily magazine programme on BBC One - for three years and is described as part of the family on the BBC website.

But yesterday the BBC threw her out by announcing in the wake of the ‘golliwog’ row that it now had ‘no plans’ to use her again in her regular presenting slot.

Row: Carol Thatcher’s use of the word ‘golliwog’ has seen her fired from the BBC

Let it be said loud and clear, racially offensive language is unacceptable. Ms Thatcher maintains, however, that she made merely a jokey remark.

Her friends say that all she did was to compare the player’s hairstyle to the ‘Robertson’s Golly’ which once adorned that company’s jars of jam and marmalade.

But without knowing the context in which she made this remark - and the tone in which it was said - none of us can judge what to make of it. And that surely is the point.

For the really disturbing thing about this episode - unlike that involving Jonathan Ross, who deeply offended millions in public, had to have an apology dragged out of him and kept his £18million job - is not so much the remark itself but the fact that Carol Thatcher made it in private.

Offence: Friends of Carol Thatcher say she just compared a tennis player’s hair to that of a golliwog

We can’t gauge whether or not this really is a hanging offence or a trivial aside of no consequence, because she made the remark after several drinks in the show’s hospitality room to the presenter Adrian Chiles, who is said to have been ‘outraged’ by it.  So outraged that it seems it is being used to hang her out to dry. But it was a remark made in the course of a private conversation - which has now been used to sack her after someone involved in that lighthearted banter passed it on to BBC executives in the form of a complaint.

Despicable
It is the BBC’s reaction which is really shocking and offensive, together with the behaviour of the person who turned in Ms Thatcher (would they have done so if she’d had a different mother?) to the Corporation’s commissars.

It is hard to think of anything more despicable than snitching like this on a private conversation. People say or do all kinds of things which are perfectly acceptable in the context of drinks with friends or colleagues, but which would cause a very different impression if they occurred in public.

If we were all to be treated in this way, how many of us would remain in our jobs? Is there anyone who can honestly claim never to have uttered an injudicious remark when sharing a drink with friends?

This is the whole point of privacy. The very essence of a liberal society is to acknowledge the distinction between public and private, and to tolerate in private what might not be acceptable in public.

To seek to enforce codes of behaviour in private relationships is totally coercive and illiberal. Yet that is precisely what has happened in the case of Carol Thatcher.

By reporting her remark to the BBC hierarchy - and who knows whether or not it was distorted or taken out of context in the lodging of this complaint - her disloyal and sneaky colleagues took an axe to her right to privacy.

The implications are deeply disturbing. For such behaviour means that no one can ever relax with colleagues for fear that one of them might go running to the boss to complain.

It destroys the freedom to speak in private for fear that this might be used to cast you into outer darkness for having a view which falls foul of some arbitrary definition of what is acceptable.

After all, no offence could possibly have been given to the unnamed tennis player or the public at large because the remark was not broadcast.

This is, in fact, the second time in just a few days in which someone has found herself facing the sack for behaviour which has caused no actual offence but where charges have been laid by officious colleagues enforcing an oppressive code of behaviour.

Disciplined
Community nurse Caroline Petrie offered to pray for an elderly patient who was being treated at home. The following day, Mrs Petrie was confronted over her offer by a nursing sister.
The day after that, she was told that she was suspended while disciplinary action would be taken against her which might lead to the sack.

But although the patient had turned down her offer of a prayer, she said she was not the slightest bit offended and certainly had not made a complaint.

As with Carol Thatcher, it was this nurse’s colleagues who were offended that Mrs Petrie had transgressed codes of ‘equality and diversity’ - which apparently preclude a nurse offering the Christian solace of prayer.

And it was professional colleagues, both in that NHS Trust and in the BBC, who took it upon themselves to enforce those approved attitudes from which there can be no deviation.

Mr Ross’s offence is that in sick language he offended the elderly. Old, white, middle-class people don’t really count for much in the BBC mindset. Ms Thatcher’s alleged offence involved race - which to the BBC constitutes the most heinous crime of all.

Such political correctness is now the governing characteristic of public sector institutions such as the BBC and the NHS, along with an intelligentsia determined upon a draconian process of social engineering aimed at changing not just society but human nature itself.

Ostensibly designed to protect disadvantaged groups, it is actually all about advertising the moral purity of those who enforce it. It’s a dogma enforced with the zealotry of a secular inquisition and is profoundly totalitarian in character. Indeed, behaviour such as this has always been a key feature of police states and totalitarian regimes.

The Stasi or the KGB gained much of their power over the population they tyrannised by getting people to inform on each other, using such informers to bring forward evidence of ‘thought crimes’ from private or overheard conversations.

Such use of informers sets people against each other in a climate of permanent and corrosive suspicion.

Destroying the trust which is the basis of relationships, it is thus a principal means of controlling the population.

In Communist regimes, Stasi and KGB informers and apparatchiks designated dissidents, religious believers and other free spirits as enemies of the state.

Conformist
In politically correct Britain, BBC informers and NHS apparatchiks designate jovially gabby broadcasters and Christian nurses as enemies of society, to be summarily convicted by kangaroo courts of conformist bureaucrats and banished in opprobrium and disgust.

It’s all part of a wider trend. The police ‘hate crime’ division urges the public to inform on anyone who expresses an opinion they deem hateful to the usual range of disadvantaged groups.

An energy company invites children to become ‘climate cops’, reporting on parents, relatives and friends who leave TV sets on and commit other examples of ‘climate crime’.

It is this combination of lunacy and coercion which leads one to think that the land of those great apostles of free thinking, John Milton and John Locke, is fast turning into a nightmare straight out of the pages of George Orwell or Franz Kafka.

GOLLIWOG

Posted by peiper     on 02/04/2009 at 09:56 AM   
Filed Under: • Nanny State • Stoopid-People • Typical White People: Stupid, Evil, Willfully Blind • UK •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - February 02, 2009

Cricket team told it can’t call itself ‘the Crusaders’…in case it offends Muslims and Jews. (WTF?)

I just can not believe this.

When oh when is this kind of shit gonna end.
They can’t do something “just in case.” Using Just In Case as a reason and you can ban anything.

So if I understand this idiocy correctly, there were a “couple of complaints.” As in what? Two?  So the management is changing a name after using it with no trouble for 10 fuckin years and suddenly a few crack pot scum bucket sub-human wimpy bastards just discovered a team name, a team I bet they don’t even follow, all of a sudden they find themselves “offended.” After ten years?

I would like to know since when did ANY JEW hear the word Crusader and become offended. When? Who? Where?  BULLSHIT!!!
I doubt many muslims care unless some are instructed to ‘suddenly’ care.

The article claims some Jews complained.  I find that very hard to believe. If it’s true, then fuckem. They’re stupid ppl and deserve no consideration.
What a stupid overdemanding world. Pander to any of these groups and they will make a point of going out of their way to find things that “offend them.”

No country ... no people ... no culture that puts up with and -or- encourages this kind of total crap, deserves to have any kind of future.  You are fuckin DOOMED England!  I hate to say that really I do.  But it’s all over.  You are already dead but nobody has bothered to bury the stinking corpse which is decaying and rotting all around you.  Look at the mess. Can’t you smell the stink of rotting flesh?  That’s your country.  It’s been murdered by the left and there isn’t a soul left able to bring them to book.  RIP ....  unless even that offends your enemies.

Cricket team told it can’t call itself ‘the Crusaders’...in case it offends Muslims and Jews
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
Last updated at 11:00 AM on 02nd February 2009

A cricket team has been forced to change its name after angry complaints from Muslims and Jews.

The Middlesex Crusaders, who have played under the name for almost 10 years, will play next season as The Panthers.

Bosses at the county club acted after protests about the name from Jewish and Muslim communities, who said they felt it was a reference to the religious wars waged by Christians in Europe against other faiths.

But Middlesex members condemned the decision to change the team’s name and described the move as “batty”.

“The world really has gone mad,” one said. “It’s a real kick in the teeth and is bound to upset a lot of fans.”

Middlesex chief executive Vinny Codrington said his club “had one or two complaints from our Muslim community and our Jewish community”.

“The name was nothing whatsoever to do with the Crusades in the 11th and 12th century,” Mr Codrington said.

Middlesex, which plays most of its home games at Lord’s in St John’s Wood, won the 2008 Twenty20 Cup.

THE TEAM PHOTO HERE

Posted by peiper     on 02/02/2009 at 10:36 AM   
Filed Under: • EUro-peons • Nanny State • Stoopid-People • Typical White People: Stupid, Evil, Willfully Blind • UK •  
• Comments (9) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - January 29, 2009

A Post For Peiper

Peiper’s got a bad case of the sniffles. Probably brought on by the terrible cold weather over there in the UK, combined with the traditional English cost saving home construction concept of not building a house with a proper furnace. So he’s offline for a few days, but that isn’t stopping him from reading the daily newspapers. Perhaps he should get some blood pressure meds from National Health as well. So I’ll do a few UK based posts for him until he gets better.

It matters not that endless studies have shown that a “parenting unit” of one man and one woman is the superior way to raise a normal, balanced child. The law is the law, and to prove the law is in effect quotas must be kept.

Two young children are to be adopted by a gay couple, despite the protests of their grandparents. The devastated grandparents were told they would never see the youngsters again unless they dropped their opposition. The couple, who cannot be named, wanted to give the five-year-old boy and his four-year-old sister a loving home themselves. But they were ruled to be too old - at 46 and 59.

For two years they fought for their rights to care for the children, whose 26-year- old mother is a recovering heroin addict. They agreed to an adoption only after they faced being financially crippled by legal bills.

The final blow came when they were told the children were going to a gay household, even though several heterosexual couples wanted them. When the grandfather protested, he was told: ‘You can either accept it, and there’s a chance you’ll see the children twice a year, or you can take that stance and never see them again.’

The man said last night: ‘It breaks my heart to think that our grandchildren are being forced to grow up in an environment without a mother figure. We are not prejudiced, but I defy anyone to explain to us how this can be in their best interests.’

Social workers themselves have admitted that the little girl is ‘more wary’ of men than women.

How’s that for opening a big can of worms? No priority is given to the actual grandparents who were willing to adopt their own grandchildren. So “keeping it in the family” has no weight. No priority was given to any hetero couple willing to adopt the children, because the law says “We’re all equal”. And while we might all be equal as adults out in society, are we really all equal when it comes to raising children? Is this news article, and the major dust-up it’s causing in the UK, just aspects of latent prejudice? What about single parent households? What if the gay couple were both female?
Is this article raising the old canard that male homosexuality implies pedophilia, or is completely normal for any female of any age to be ‘more wary’ of men than women? Maybe this is just sour grapes on the grandparent’s part? On the other hand, why did they have to go to court and fight for years, at a tremendous expense, for the right to legally raise their own kin?

Go read the rest of the article, and also read Melanie Phillips’ take on things, then have your say. There are lots of aspects to this story that are debate worthy.


And another thing ... Hillary be damned, in this case it really is all about the children. And that should be the overwhelming factor. Always.

The prevailing argument that all types of family are as good as each other as far as the children are concerned simply isn’t true. While some children emerge relatively unscathed from irregular households, children need to be brought up by the two people ‘who made me’ - or, in adoptive households, in a family which closely replicates that arrangement. Where that does not happen, the child’s deepest sense of his or her identity as a human being is at some level damaged.

A child needs a mother and father because their roles in bringing that child up, and the way the child sees each of them, are not interchangeable. They are different and complementary, which is why if one of them is absent the child suffers, in many cases very badly indeed. For very young children the absence of a mother, whose nurturing role cannot be replicated even by the most loving and attentive of fathers, is particularly tragic.

Therefore to say that depriving children of a mother figure is in their best interests - as the Edinburgh social workers have said - is clearly ridiculous.

Don’t overlook the state of mind in the UK. Or lack thereof perhaps? To them, it’s a big question worthy of debate, on whether you should let your daughter have her boyfriend sleep with her in her own bed while she’s living in your house. My answer to that one was obvious: if you want the benefits, then take on the responsibilities. Go get your own apartment and a job, then you can shag your ears off whenever.

Posted by Drew458     on 01/29/2009 at 09:48 AM   
Filed Under: • Nanny State • UK •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - December 30, 2008

Council disregard objections of 3,000 residents to traveller site as ‘they are racist’.

This is a small example of the BS people are FORCED to put up with here in the socialist paradise.
This reasonable group of comments that were solicited by the council to begin with, are “racist” because the pc district council didn’t like the question or the comments from .... oh. Nobody really important.  Just the folks who pay the taxes is all. Just the people who were living peacefully in their neighborhoods.  Small potatoes what?

For those at BMEWS who might not know, “Travelers” is the oh so pc title now given to Gypsies. And let me tell ya, these folks ARE organized. They move their campers,trailers, diggers and trash onto public ground, they do it on weekends before anyone can do anything, council offices are closed, they immediately enroll their kids in local schools first thing which then make it even harder to evict them, they install electric, septic tanks, and whatever else is needed to live on a site.
Once installed, it can take forever to get rid of them legally as things slooooowly move through the courts.  And I haven’t covered it all by any means.

So then, object to the noise and the filth and question what their presence does to your property value, not to mention crime, and it’s automatic. You’re a racist.
BTW ... I don’t even pretend to understand the racist tag since “Travelers” are mostly white and very,very many come over from Ireland. Oh yeah I forgot to tell you.  They have lawyers these folks do.  Lots of em.

By Dan Newling
Last updated at 8:14 AM on 30th December 2008

When residents were asked to provide feedback on council plans to build traveller camps on their doorstep they dutifully responded.

More than 3,000 homeowners filled in forms outlining their views, many raising concerns over a possible increase in noise, traffic, rubbish and a detrimental effect on property prices.

However, such objections were not appreciated by Mid-Bedfordshire District Council, which partially or fully rejected nearly nine in ten of the replies for including comments ‘of a racist nature’.

(and btw, things of a racist nature can be ANYTHING they (council) deem it to be)

Weeks after asking for residents’ views earlier this year, the council posted an article on its website entitled ‘Racist Comments Not Welcome’.

It claimed the council’s ‘duty of community leadership’ meant it had to crack down on the use of racial stereotypes, and revealed that while 400 responses would be considered, 3,100 were in some way racist and would be rejected.

The council even sent letters to objectors telling them their views had been deemed offensive and would not be taken account of.

Retired company secretary Lucy Clarke from Stotfold - one of the six small towns and villages mooted as sites for the 25 traveller families - was astounded to receive her letter.

Mrs Clarke, a grandmother of three, said: ‘As far as I am aware I objected to the camp for entirely reasonable grounds. And yet I then get this letter from the council.

‘They even accused me of incitement to racial hatred. It’s ridiculous - like putting me on a par with Abu Hamza.’

She added: ‘I am not racist, but I am concerned about what one of these camps could do to our town.’

Even the local town council could not avoid falling foul of the censors.

Brian Collier, chairman of Stotfold council said: ‘We wrote a detailed response in which we summarised locals’ concerns.

‘There is another gipsy site not far from here that has a well-known crime problem.

‘As part of our response we echoed people’s worries that the same may happen here.

‘We were totally shocked when we then received a letter from the district council saying that was racist. There are lots of people here who have had the same treatment.’

The district council’s attitude has been criticised by local campaigners, politicians and civil liberties groups.

Tory communities spokesman Eric Pickles said yesterday: ‘I hope that they write a letter of apology to everyone they have accused of being racist. Otherwise, people simply aren’t going to feel able to object to these camps without the fear of being branded racist.’

When contacted by the Daily Mail, a spokesman for Mid-Bedfordshire council admitted that it had been ‘somewhat overzealous’.

He said: ‘We were worried that many of the letters contained racist slurs and objectionable comments that we felt could not be published under current race relations legislation.

‘We had no intention of offending those who took the time to respond to the consultation and certainly were not trying to label residents as racist.

‘Only a small proportion (around 5 per cent) of the comments were actually discounted in their entirety. The remainder were taken into consideration, either in whole or in part.’

TRAVELERS

Posted by peiper     on 12/30/2008 at 01:11 PM   
Filed Under: • Jack Booted Thugs • Nanny State • UK •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - December 22, 2008

‘Blindingly obvious’ safety suggestions for Christmas.  Blindingly Stupid and as usual, who pays?

Who Pays?  Ya gotta ask?
Oh surely not the taxpayer.  Jeesh ... The Stupid just keeps getting schtupider.

Leaflet’s ‘blindingly obvious’ safety suggestions for Christmas
The government has printed thousands of leaflets containing “blindingly obvious” safety tips for the festive period.

By Chris Irvine
Last Updated: 10:36AM GMT 22 Dec 2008

The ‘blindingly-obvious’ leaflets were printed with the authority of Children’s Secretary Ed Balls Photo: PA

The leaflets, which have been printed with the authority of Children’s Secretary Ed Balls, tells parents that children could be hurt if they fall off rocking horses or ride their new bikes into walls.

(bet you guys reading this did not know that. so consider this a PSA for Americans too, paid for by the wealthy Brit taxpayer.)

It also alerts people to the dangers of tinsel, with a thousand people each year apparently “hurt by trimmings or when decorating their homes.”

The Department for Children, Schools and Families has printed the 150,000 leaflets designed to look like advent calendars, to be distributed through shopping malls and children’s centres “to help make the festive season safe”.

Safety tips featured in “Tis the Season to be Careful” include a warning that parents may cut themselves with knives when trying to prize open presents quickly.

The leaflets also recommend avoiding decorations like baubles that break easily, as the pieces can be very sharp.

Children’s minister Delyth Morgan said the leaflet would remind parents of safeguards-around the home so they can “make sure Christmas is a time for fun and laughter but not tears”.

Tory junior Children’s spokesman Tim Loughton said: “This is yet more evidence that the DCSF really stands for the Department that Can’t Stop Fiddling.

“It is ironic that a Government Department which has become accident prone for messing up test results, pouring millions into databases that don’t work and failing to protect our most vulnerable children is now spending thousands on producing leaflets to state the blindingly obvious.”

LINK

Posted by peiper     on 12/22/2008 at 11:39 AM   
Filed Under: • Nanny State • No Shit, Sherlock • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

How’s this for stupid!  Police sent on two-hour course to learn to climb 3ft ladder. Moonbat Alert!

The lunatics may be running the asylum but never mind.  At least I am happy to see public monies spent on this most important safety issue.

Moonbats Rule!

Police sent on two-hour course to learn to climb 3ft ladder
Police officers have been sent on a courses to learn how to climb a 3ft ladder to put up anti-speeding devices.

By Jon Swaine
Last Updated: 3:24PM GMT 22 Dec 2008

Forty-five staff at Lancashire Police had to complete a two-hour seminar before they were allowed to install roadside speeding signs. The class included guidance on how to use a ladder safely.

The devices - smiley-face speed indicator signs (Spids) - were being put up freely by staff before health and safety officers from the local council told the force that they were breaching regulations.

Some staff were banned from even moving existing signs until they had attended the seminar. Several of the £3,500 devices were left dormant for up to four months as a result.

A police statement, which was issued as part of a Freedom of Information request, said: “It would appear that, although working at less than one metre above ground level, staff should have been on a ladder training course.

“It is fair to say that risks associated with deployment of a Spid sign have not changed, but the risks associated with working at height were not fully appreciated initially.”

Ben Wallace, the MP for Lancaster and Wyre, said: “It’s another example of the tail wagging the dog, of bureaucracy gone mad. It beggars belief that bureaucracy stands in the way of common sense, even when it concerns our police force.”

Lancashire police said that the training course had also been necessary because some devices had not been installed correctly and could not detect all oncoming traffic. They said that the courses had not cost anything more than staff time.

A spokesman said: “The two-hour class briefly touched on how to use a ladder safely. If we didn’t do it and people were falling off ladders, we would be criticised.”

STUPID ELF N SAFETY

Posted by peiper     on 12/22/2008 at 11:02 AM   
Filed Under: • Nanny State • Product Safety • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - December 17, 2008

good morning all comrades. todays order of business: Private schools told: open to poor or Close!

Today’s lesson for new comradeskys, commissars will take notes on those not paying attention.

“FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY, TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEEDS.”

Comrade Marx will give test.  Those failing will be re- schooled. Those unwilling will be shot. 

Have a nice day.

Private schools have been told to provide more free places to children from poor homes - even if they claim to be full - or effectively face closure.


By Graeme Paton, Education Editor
Last Updated: 12:22AM GMT 17 Dec 2008

The new rules are designed to stop fee-paying schools being run exclusively for the wealthy.

Guidance published today by the Charity Commission also suggests schools could raise fees for existing parents as part of a “deliberate pricing strategy” to fund more places for deprived children.

The rules, which come into force next year, will be a blow to many independent schools as they battle the threat of falling pupil numbers prompted by the economic downturn.

Last night, experts said it may be the “final nail in the coffin” for some smaller schools.

Under Labour’s 2006 Charities Act, fee-paying schools are no longer automatically entitled to charitable status.

They must prove they provide “public benefit” to hang on to tax breaks worth an estimated £100m to the sector every year.

Schools have already warned they may have to increase class sizes or ask existing parents for more cash to satisfy the requirements.

Official guidance outlines how independent schools - along with charities for the poor, charitable hospitals and religious groups - can pass the new test.

It said they must do far more than offer “minimal or tokenistic” help for working class children.

In Scotland, four leading private schools have already been ordered to increase the amount spent on poor pupils or risk being stripped of charitable status.

The Charity Commission said it would intervene at schools struggling to meet the requirement in England and Wales to find “ways to fund free or subsidised access”.

It has the ultimate power to remove schools from the charities register - effectively closing them down and transferring assets to other charities - although officials insist this would be highly unlikely.

Sue Fieldman, of the Good Schools Guide, said: “This is not the Christmas present private schools wanted. It could not have come at a worse time. Many are already stretched financially as parents struggle to pay fees and it could be the final nail in the coffin, particularly for some small prep schools. I imagine the commission will be quite lenient to begin with but increase the pressure on schools when the economy picks up.”

Guidance, which has been toughened up compared to draft rules published in March, suggests schools can help pass the public benefit test by:

* Giving pupils from state schools free access to swimming pools, drama studies and concert halls

* Allowing them to sit in on certain classes not offered in the state sector

* Giving poor pupils coaching to boost their chances of getting into top universities

* Sponsoring one of the Government’s semi-independent academies

But the document makes it clear that providing more bursaries is the most likely way to satisfy the requirements.

It suggested schools should consider “increasing general fee levels in order to offer subsidies to those unable to pay the full cost”. Last year, the average private school charged £11,253.

(in dollars at that time it would have come to more then $22,000.)

The commission said the option was “certainly available” to owners, although it would not be feasible for every school.

Guidance said others may offer more places even if they are officially full. This will raise concerns among parents that small class sizes - seen as one of the main attractions of the fee-paying sector - may have to rise in some schools.

“It might be possible to offer additional places at a school in addition to the places for existing pupils,” said the document. “Even if there are legal and practical limitations on how many boarding pupils can be housed, additional day pupils might be easier to cater for and cost less.”

Schools were encouraged to drop academic scholarships - which can often go to bright children from wealthy homes - and divert cash to means-tested bursaries.

If schools cannot afford subsidies, the commission said they should consider embarking on fundraising drives or find “wealthy philanthropists”. Commissioners may step in to help schools raise money.

Commissioners are already investigating five schools as part of pilot tests. Other schools will be expected to file public benefit reports in their annual accounts from 2009, and officials may carry out random inspections.

The guidance makes clear schools will be judged on a case by case basis, although large schools with the highest fees will be expected to do the most.

It also rejects claims from many headmasters that they should pass the test simply by educating pupils who would otherwise be schooled at taxpayers’ expense.

“If the opportunity to benefit… is not genuine, or is meaningless or trivial, then it would count for very little in a public benefit assessment,” said the guidance.

More than 500,000 children attend 2,000 private schools in the UK. The majority were set up as charities, receiving benefits - principally in rate relief - of about £225 per child every year.

Last year, the number of pupils at independent school increased, but there are fears the economic downturn may push some families away. At least seven have closed this year citing the credit crunch.

Guidance effectively rules out the possibility that schools can relinquish charitable status or be sold to profit-making organisations to get around the rules.

Under charity law, any proceeds of a sale must be used for charitable purposes, it said.

Dame Suzi Leather, Charity Commission chairman, said: “Not only is it now a legal requirement for all charities to demonstrate how they benefit the public, but also our own research shows that the public expects charities to be clear about what they do and to be accountable and transparent at all times.”

The Independent Schools Council was outraged by draft guidance published earlier this year, insisting it was “heavily biased in favour of wealthier charities”.

David Lyscom, ISC chief executive, said it was studying the latest report before advising schools in the New Year.

SCHOOL DAZE

HELP, is needed here from someone who understands the school system here better then this foreigner posting the article.  Lyndon? Chris? Brits anywhere?

Why does a school charging £11,000 a head qualify to collect any monies from charities. Unless the money is specific to a person on say a scholarship or grant of some sort.  I know private schools here are what Americans call public, and public schools here are private.  ???

Man oh man.  I can see why you guys drive on the WRONG side. 
Get ready for “roundabouts” in the USA. Right. Nashville already has one or two. Anywhere else? 

Posted by peiper     on 12/17/2008 at 02:36 AM   
Filed Under: • Commies • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Education • Government • Nanny State • UK •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - December 15, 2008

After 130 years of fundraising, Salvation Army rattling tins might offend or frighten, wanna guess?

They just don’t want to name any one religion in particular but come on, who do you suppose these dunderheads have in mind.  You get ten guesses.

Tell ya what though.  It isn’t anyone from any religion, not even the muslims, who make these kinds of silly rules or worries about offense. It’s stupid white folks EVERY TIME!  Or almost every time.

Personally, I always thought all that damn rattling was a lot of unwanted noise. But otherwise, it never would have occurred to me that it might be “intimidating” or somehow offensive.  This latest action really is stupid.

What religion is there in this country that that might be offended or intimidated by a charity tin making some noise?  Answer, > 0.

After 130 years of fundraising, Salvation Army told to stop rattling collecting tins because it might ‘offend other religions’

By Paul Harris
Last updated at 12:07 PM on 15th December 2008

For 130 years they have been part of Christmas, filling the air in towns across the land with music and carols.

But one thing is missing from the repertoire of Salvation Army bands this year - the percussion of rattling tins.

Members have been forbidden to shake their charity tins - even if it’s done in time to the music - in case it harasses or intimidates people. One said she had been told it might also offend other religions.

Tin man: Salvation Army collectors have been told not to rattle their tins as it could be construed as religious harassment.

Guidelines for branches organising public collections say tinholders should simply keep the tin still.

It means that when the brass bands start up they can rock and roll all they want - but if they shake and rattle, it could put them in conflict with the law.

Councils and police can enforce the no-rattle rule and have powers to prosecute or ban offenders. The restriction was branded ‘bonkers’ yesterday both by donors and long-serving Salvation Army volunteers.

More…

* Prison bans chapel crucifix to avoid offending Muslims

One collector told the Daily Mail: ‘I’ve been doing this for more than 40 years and I fail to see how rattling a tin could cause offence. If I was shaking a tambourine I could do it all day - if I shake my tin, I could end up in court.’

The ‘Silent Night’ rattle ban manifested itself at the weekend in Uxbridge, West London, when musicians from two local branches performed outside a shopping mall.

(They were outside because traders complained last year they were too loud to play inside).

Tony Keywood, shopping with his wife Sheila, was among a crowd enjoying the carols and stepped forward to make a donation.

‘I jokingly told them off for not shaking their tins,’ said Mr Keywood, 78, a retired telecoms executive. ‘They said they weren’t allowed to do that in case it caused offence to other religions. They said they’d been told rattling a tin was considered to be intimidating.

‘I don’t know who makes up these rules but I suspect it will have something to do with human rights. I do feel Britain has lost its way on things like this.’

Laws on public collections are long-established, but until the recent proliferation of so-called ‘charity muggers’ were not widely utilised.

Fundraisers have to be licensed, usually by the local authority, police or landowner. Councils and police can decide whom to license and how the rules are enforced.

The Salvation Army relies heavily on public generosity and believes street collections help to foster good relations.

Guidance now, however, is that members should not shake their tins. A Salvation Army source said: ‘We don’t have a formal policy of “You Shall Not Rattle” but we always act within the law.

‘Some authorities specifically ask us not to shake our tins. It is seen as harassment, or making people feel uncomfortable. I don’t think it’s to do with other religions. But it can make people feel we’re putting them under pressure to give.’

A spokesman added: ‘We want people to donate from the best of motives, so we advise collectors to avoid rattling their tins or asking people directly for money when stood on the high street.’

ARMY

Posted by peiper     on 12/15/2008 at 09:08 AM   
Filed Under: • Nanny State • Outrageous • Religion • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - November 24, 2008

THE MEDICAL EXAM …. THIS WON’T HURT AND YOU’RE DOING FINE.  YEAH? LIKE HELL I AM

Part One:  THE EXAM.

Colonoscopy:
Something recommended for everyone over age 50, especially if there’s a family history of colon cancer.
I just wouldn’t want it done here in the UK again, if I have any choice. And I might not.  Nothing humorous about this subject but before I get into my experience with the procedure done here, I must say the following.

The Brit nursing staff and support people are top notch and more caring then are my fellow Americans. Hey, I am in a position to compare based on personal experience with the two.  So no offense is intended toward American nursing, where my experience after back surgery was dismal.  Now to be fair, my experience was in Riverside, Ca.  That was in ’91 and perhaps things have improved since then although the odds are against that.  And maybe while I had a bad time in Ca. things were the opposite say in Tulsa ,Ok. or San Diego. My experience at Baptist Hosp. in Nashville wasn’t exactly too affectionate either come to think about it.  But I have to tell you the Brit nurses are gold star performers and in spite of the scare stories about doctors mistakes and hospital infections, I tend to doubt that any nurses anywhere can match the care and concern and the training of the nurses here.  But there is a problem and it’s this.

Their guidelines regarding pain management, are as screwed up as a soup sandwich.  The very same people who write their asinine ONE SIZE FITS ALL MEDICAL REGS., also invented the famous submarine with a screen door.  This is the result of politicians getting into the micro-management of the health service.  Of course, this is all for your own good.  (Nanny knows best)

My exam was scheduled for 9am and by golly they don’t keep you waiting long.  In fact, unlike the hospitals and clinics back home, you don’t have to disrobe entirely and you can keep your shoes on.  In Ca. where last I had this procedure in ’04, they had me remove everything except socks.  I can tell you it was warmer doing it their way here.  A nurse even tied that silly hosp. gown that ties in back and is always too small or too open.  Mine wasn’t. They have you wrap a small sheet around your waist which makes you look like you’re wearing as dress.  Not that there was ever any doubt, but I would never have made a sexy looking female and my legs aren’t hot either.
So in I went to the torture dungeon.

I had a device stuck in my hand through which they administer the drugs for sedation and pain control.  Ouch.
You lay on your left side and they insert the camera and having had this done three times in the past, I had never experienced anything more then some discomfort.  Well, you’d expect at least that.  But I’d never had any pain.
Till this time.

I was told that the sedation wasn’t enough to put me to sleep (unlike USA), because the person doing the procedure might need to talk to me.  What? Was he gonna ask me for my opinion on the American election?  Oh, btw. The fellow doing the exam wasn’t the same doc who initially interviewed and examined me the month before this. But no matter.

For whatever reason, I sure felt the damn probe and I didn’t like it one bit let me tell ya.  Hmmmm.  I guess that proves I’m straight.  Whatever. The damn thing hurt like mad and I said so.  Unfortunately, their “guidelines” didn’t allow for any more pain killer or sedation.
Meanwhile he’s telling me stuff like, “you’re doing fine, you’re doing fine.”
Like bloody hell I replied.  Don’t you just hate it when you’re the one going through something and someone not feeling what you are tells you how well you’re doing.

So, I told him to stop the procedure, we were through, that’s it.
And he again told me that I was doing fine.

That’s when I lost it and said, “Get that fucking thing out of there. We’re done.”

I didn’t make any friends that day and the coffee and two dry and tasteless biscuits they give you after a long fast were pretty bad.  So much so that I didn’t drink the coffee or eat the biscuits. 

Some people just need more pain medication then others.  We are not all the same which the guidelines just do not allow for.

So then, how was your week?

Posted by peiper     on 11/24/2008 at 08:56 AM   
Filed Under: • Medical • Nanny State • UK •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

SO HOW WAS YOUR WEEK? GLAD YOU ASKED.  IT WAS BAD BUT IT GOT WORSE

PART TWO

SO HOW WAS YOUR WEEK? GLAD YOU ASKED.  IT WAS BAD BUT IT GOT WORSE.

I’m not sure I know how to use words well enough to describe the past week, which saw me off line and feeling like a dog.
When the doctor asked me how long I’d been feeling like that, I couldn’t resist answering, “Ever since I’ve been a puppy.”

The rule is start at the beginning but that rule doesn’t apply here.
So I am starting this saga with PART TWO, first.
And to be honest, it really wasn’t funny although I suppose reading it might cause a giggle or two.  That’s because it didn’t happen to you.

On Thurs. Nov. 20th I had a Colonoscopy. No big deal really and millions of people over the age of 50 have had the experience.  Anyway, it’s the preparation for the exam that’s the pain in the butt really.  Or it’s supposed to be. But I’m way ahead of myself.  That’s part one.  Let me tell ya about Part two.

AFTER THE EXAM

My wife picked me up after an exam at the hospital and we were home by 11:am.  By noon or thereabouts, something very strange was taking place.
Sort of a Kafka like experience except it wasn’t all of me turning into something else.  It was an appendage attached to my face.
Guys will get a handle on this quicker then any lady reading same.

So picture this fellas.  Had to use the loo (bathroom) and there I am standing over the bowl and my aim true when, my nose disappeared and in it’s place was a faucet.  With one hand below the water line and the other furiously trying to wipe the water running down my face with my sleeve, this was becoming a circus.  My eyes were watery and my nose was just leaking water like a tap was stuck open on slow but steady leak.

When I managed somehow to finish there, I came downstairs thinking it was all over. I sat at the table with a magazine when suddenly there were droplets on the page.  It had started again only now in addition to watery eyes, my right eye was actually dripping water down my cheek while my faucet/nose was dripping over my lip.  Add a damn headache to all of the above.

Pretty soon I’m blowing the old nose as well and I went through three boxes of man sized Kleenex and a large roll of toilet paper.  It wasn’t too long before the area under the nose was raw from all the wiping and so after each act of trying to clear a stuffy nose, I was putting Vaseline there.  How the heck can one have a stuffy plugged up nose when it’s leaking water at the same time?

How would I know.  Am I a doctor?  So I thought I would wait out Thursday and if things didn’t get better, I’d call my doctor Friday morning. 

As if all this wasn’t bad enough, I couldn’t sneeze.  I still can’t, but thankfully that tickle that says you are about to is gone for now.
Yeah, no kidding.  There was a constant tickle way up the nose and it was nerve wracking because it was telling me to sneeze.  I’m certain if I could have, I’d have felt better.  But I just couldn’t and the tickle kept coming back again and again.

I just couldn’t stay up and so went to bed with another box of Kleenex and took some Sinex for the stuffy nose thing.  That helped. But I also discovered something.

As long as I was laying prone or propped up reading in bed, the runny nose thing eased off quite a bit.  However, each and every time I got out of bed say to use the bathroom or come downstairs for a snack, it would start to run again.  In fact, it would start before I actually stood up.  Soon as feet hit the floor and I was in a sitting position, the water would run downhill.

SO.

Friday morning and with no change in the situation I called the doctors office, (referred to as a surgery here).  My doctor was in but he wasn’t making call backs that day (?) which is ok because first of all I don’t much care for the doctor I was assigned to, and anyway I haven’t seen him for 8 months.
I was told the duty doctor would call me back, and she did within a half hour of my call.

I told her everything I have written here (except that I didn’t care for my assigned doctor. I didn’t think she’d wanna hear that especially as he’s the senior saw bones there) and she said that there were some weird colds going around “at the moment” but she’s never encountered anything like what I was describing.  She also suggested that it was possible that I’d picked up a hospital born viral infection, and there wasn’t really anything she could do for me, even if I were seen by her.  She further suggested I might want to rub some Vicks on my chest.  Well I might not actually.
Finally, she said to “call back in a few hours if things didn’t improve.”
Huh?  What did she imagine they’d be able to do then?  An autopsy?

Stay Tuned:  THE EXAM, Part One coming shortly ...

Posted by peiper     on 11/24/2008 at 08:36 AM   
Filed Under: • Medical • Nanny State • UK •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - November 15, 2008

The opposition!

Okay. I’m coming out of my post-election depression. I’m starting to pay attention to the news again. And I’ve made a decision.

No ‘loyal’ opposition to the B. Hussein Administration.

Just plain, pure, opposition.

I’ve started off by printing this out and plastering it on my car.

More to follow…

Posted by Christopher     on 11/15/2008 at 10:59 PM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Fun-Stuff • Jack Booted Thugs • Nanny State • Obama, The One • RoPMA • Tyrants and Dictators •  
• Comments (10) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - November 11, 2008

Roadside snack vans threatened unless they offer healthy food .

THE NANNY STATE IN ACTION AND IT’S ALL FOR YOUR OWN GOOD SO STOP THINKING FOR YOURSELVES YOU MINDLESS NOTHINGS. JUST TRUST NANNY AND ALL WILL BE WELL.

Tuesday is usually a busy morning and day for us and so I hadn’t expected to post this early. However, this is soooo bizarre and soooo stupid it defies belief. It also defies logic of course but since when did logic ever come into play with those running a nanny knows best state.

I think in the USA they’re called catering vans. Yes? No?  Been so long away from home I can’t remember.  But these food and hot coffee dispensing vans that are often found at construction sites and in our case at boot sales (flea market to yanks except mostly ours here in Winchester really are boot sales.  Meaning folks selling things from the trunk of their cars or back end of an SUV. There are some professional sellers but mostly just folks getting rid of old treasures in attic and BOOKS. )

Well, I can just imagine some burly construction worker on a break begging for a salad and yogurt.  These health dictators drive us nuts with their plans and pronouncements. A pox on em I say!

Roadside snack vans threatened unless they offer healthy food
Roadside vans offering greasy snacks will be shut down if they fail to offer healthier alternatives, according to new rules.

Last Updated: 3:58PM GMT 10 Nov 2008

A woman prepares to bite into a burger. Roadside vans offering greasy snacks will be shut down if they fail to offer healthier alternatives, according to new rules.
Roadside takeways in Guildford, Surrey, must offer at least one healthy option besides burgers.

The snack vans, often found in busy lay-bys, must now offer soup, salads or low fat yogurts with their artery-clogging kebabs.

They must also limit the amount of mayonnaise served - because it has been branded a “very high fat product”.

Environmental health officers will inspect menus during routine hygiene checks.

And traders who fail to meet the strict new standards in Guildford, Surrey, will be refused a street trader’s licence when it comes up for renewal each year.

Councillors at Guildford Borough Council this week reviewed their street traders policy for the first time in seven years and insisted every menu has at least one healthy option.

The list of recommended food includes low fat grilled sausage with wholemeal bread, chilli con carne with lean mince and jacket potato with a selection of fillings.

A report to the council’s licensing committee said: “In accordance with the council’s health promotion programme, it is recommended that at least one healthy meal choice be provided for customers.”

The report added: “It is important that the use of mayonnaise is limited since this is a very high fat product.

“It could be offered to the customer to add himself as a choice.”

Grant Harris, who has run the Skip’s Catering food van from a lay-by on Guildford’s A281 for five years, thinks his customers will continue to eat burgers and chips.

He said: “Our customers are mainly scaffolders, builders and lorry drivers and they are not going to want this new food.

“The sandwiches and jacket potatoes are more suited to a sandwich bar.

“The rules seems to be going over the top with political correctness.

“Some of the things the council is suggesting I serve would cause a bit of a problem - I just can’t see people wanting them.”

But Clifford Bell, head of environmental health at the council, wants motorists to move away from high calorie, high-fat food.

He said: “It remains for the trader to design his menu around the principles of healthier catering, such as grilling rather than frying.

“The aim is to give consumers a wider choice and move away from the sole provision of high calories, high fat fast foods.”

Vans operating on private land will not be affected.

http://tinyurl.com/6j5np5

Posted by peiper     on 11/11/2008 at 04:41 AM   
Filed Under: • Insanity • Jack Booted Thugs • Nanny State • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (9) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - November 10, 2008

Does anyone remember the ‘stiff upper lip’ of the British? The fighting spirit?

I’ll answer that.  Not too many left who remember and those that are still here are rightly demoralized.

I had something else planned for my first post of this day until I ran across a comment from Lyndon and the link he provided to this. PLEASE go to the link and read the entire rant by this fellow.  He is right on target. He is correct and don’t think for a single minute we’re safe from the same mindless thing in America.  We’re already lost and doomed if you cave into the thinking that we’re “safe.” WE ARE NOT, damn it. So please take heed and pay attention.  The USA is NOT immune.

H/T LyndonB and much thanks for this.

Does anyone remember the ‘stiff upper lip’ of the British? The fighting spirit? The indomitable people who once ran a big chunk of the planet, and who could chase away armed guerillas with a walking stick and an angry voice? A people who, nevertheless, could laugh at themselves and had a great, if sometimes cruel, sense of humour? What happened to them?

Those people would never have set off a security scare because a schoolboy dressed up as the Joker and waved a plastic gun around. Those people would never have arrested a man in fancy dress because he had a plastic knife as part of his outfit (tipped by anon in the comments here). Those people would not have shrieked ‘Terrorist!’ at the sight of a plastic halloween skeleton. The first might have earned a caning, but not expulsion. The second and third should not even have raised an eyebrow. Neither should Old Holborn’s walk.

The people who replaced those real British are spineless weaklings who jump at shadows. Who call the police if they are slightly offended by a word or two. Worse, the police respond not by saying ‘It’s nothing, don’t worry about it’, but by harassing and usually arresting anyone complained about, no matter how trivial and all too often, no matter whether an offence has been committed or not.

These new people are quaking, trembling jellys. They are frightened by mere words, and terrified by a raised hand. They take offence at anything they’re told to take offence at. Those who consider themselves strong are those who have not yet experienced adversity because when they do, they run to the government for help. They cannot help themselves. They will not try.

Oh, there are a few real people left, for sure, but they are only a few. Most are now soft, weak loathsome creatures who stare at the unreality of reality TV from their well-pressed sofas and aim their rage wherever the Righteous tell them. The two minute hate. One day smokers, next day drinkers, next day hoodies, next the obese, next Eurasia… or is it Eastasia? Doesn’t matter. We are at war with the terrorists. We have always been at war with the terrorists.

These people who once called themselves the Great of Great Britain (can we still use that name for this country, or is it not considered sufficiently self-humiliating now?) are useful only for rendering into animal feed. They accept every word they are fed and have no problem at all with the doublethink required to accept it all. Coal-fired power stations will kill us all through global warming. We must build huge windmills everywhere to save the environment and we must not install new power lines underground because that would harm the environment. Snow in October? That’s caused by global warming.

http://leg-iron.livejournal.com/100224.html

While you’re at it, read some of the comments from Brits to this.

Posted by peiper     on 11/10/2008 at 03:35 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • Nanny State • UK •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - November 02, 2008

Get it in writing!

Oh wretched, heartless, ungrateful son!

Julian McCoy is suing to evict his 88-year-old mother from the home where she has lived for 30 years.

Although she can’t drive, uses a walker, has trouble crossing a room and is hard of hearing, Gladys Napier is fighting back.

She has asked a judge to give her back the house. She deeded it to her son two years ago, believing that she would be allowed to stay there the rest of her life, according to court pleadings.

To me, this is an example of how liberal policies are resulting in the weakening of family ties and obligations. Mr. McCoy doubtless thinks that Social Security, Medicare, etc, will care well enough for his mother. But she’s his mother, not mine, and I shouldn’t have to shoulder the burden of caring for her.

Posted by Christopher     on 11/02/2008 at 10:04 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Economics • Nanny State • Outrageous •  
• 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