Thursday - October 01, 2009

Leave Them For The Crows

I call this unfair! The deal was, cradle to grave care from the nanny state! What part about being DEAD don’t they get? Bury them. In fancy coffins no less. It’s their RIGHT!!!

Inside the Wayne County morgue in midtown Detroit, 67 bodies are piled up, unclaimed, in the freezing temperatures. Neither the families nor the county can afford to bury the corpses. So they stack up inside the freezer.

Albert Samuels, chief investigator for the morgue, said he has never seen anything like it during his 13 years on the job. “Some people don’t come forward even though they know the people are here,” said the former Detroit cop. “They don’t have the money.”

Lifelong Detroit residents Darrell and Cheryl Vickers understand this firsthand. On a chilly September morning they had to visit the freezer to identify the body of Darrell’s aunt, Nancy Graham—and say their goodbyes.

The couple, already financially strained, don’t have the $695 needed to cremate her. Other family members, mostly in Florida, don’t have the means to contribute, either. In fact, when Darrell’s grandmother passed recently, his father paid for the cremation on a credit card—at 21% interest.

So the Vickers had to leave their aunt behind. Body number 67.

“It’s devastating to a family not to be able to take care of their own,” said Darrell. “But there’s really no way to come up with that kind of cash in today’s society. There’s just no way.”

The number of unclaimed corpses at the Wayne County morgue is at a record high, having tripled since 2000. The reason for the pile-up is twofold: One, unemployment in the area is approaching 28%, and many people, like the Vickers, can’t afford last rites; two, the county’s $21,000 annual budget to bury unclaimed bodies ran out in June.

“One way we look back at a culture is how they dispose of their dead,” said the county’s chief medical examiner, Carl Schmidt, who has been in his position for 15 years. “We see people here that society was not taking care of before they died—and society is having difficulty taking care of them after they are dead.”

GOD FORBID that any of these people should have actually spent a couple dollars (that they might have earned once upon a time) on burial insurance!

Posted by Drew458     on 10/01/2009 at 04:28 PM   
Filed Under: • Nanny State •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

A NANNY STATE UPDATE OF SORTS …. WORKING MOMS AND BABIES AND CHILD PROTECTION

Even where there’s no need but ... it’s now in the books. It’s da law.  It’s also pretty stupid as you will see when you read this.

Here a simple sample of the idiocy that is now, this sceptered isle.

DC is Detective Constable

DC Shepherd earns just over £16,000 a year for working part-time, with a take-home wage of £1,000 per month. Edie’s nursery fees are £487 a month.
“The irony is that the state is now having to pay most of my child care because I am a single mother on a low income who works part-time and eligible for working tax credit and 80 per cent of my child care costs. They pay me nearly £500 a month, whereas before they didn’t have to pay me anything.
“The government is trying to promote the return of mothers to work and doing this at the same time.”

Posted this story very recently.  But now the ladies involved are speaking and while some is a rehash, this still makes for a very interesting illustration of this doomed culture.  If you are not familiar with this latest nanny state case, by all means read on.

DC Shepherd and DC Jarrett: “It has been a horrible few months”
DC Leanne Shepherd and DC Lucy Jarrett had no idea that their reciprocal child-care arrangement was illegal – until Ofsted came knocking.
By Neil Tweedie
The Telegraph

The creeping invasion of the state into what was once the preserve of the family and the individual – the databases, the intrusive checks, the inevitably disastrous attempts by bureaucrats to engage in social engineering through the promiscuous use of shoddy legislation and lazily-devised “initiatives” – has become so much a feature of modern life that most of us no longer notice it. Until the day it comes knocking at the door.

For Detective Constable Leanne Shepherd, that day was Friday July 10 of this year when an official from the Office of Standards in Education (Ofsted) called at her home in Milton Keynes, Bedfordshire. A CID officer in Thames Valley Police, she was enjoying a day off with her daughter, Edie, just two-and-a-half years old, when the bell rang.

“She was really lovely, the Ofsted lady,” remembers DC Shepherd. “She said there was a report that I was child-minding illegally. When I asked her what she meant – was I committing a criminal offence or something - she said she wasn’t 100 per cent sure.”

DC Shepherd’s alleged “crime” – and even in the age of the nanny-state-gone-wild, this takes some beating – was to have embarked on an arrangement with her friend, colleague and job-sharing partner, DC Lucy Jarrett, by which they took turns to look after each other’s daughter during days off. It was, according to both women, a “perfect” arrangement that lasted more than two years and allowed them to pursue challenging careers part-time (they conduct investigations together), and spend sufficient time with their first-borns in the years when they needed their mothers most.
There was no rigid pattern to the arrangement – its virtue was its flexibility – but it was reciprocal: each woman received a benefit in the form of two, and occasionally more, days of free child care during most weeks of the year.

This supposedly violates the Childcare Act of 2006, which prohibits adults not registered as child-minders looking after other people’s children for more than two hours a day for reward – the reward being the free care.
Ofsted had been tipped off by someone who must have lived near to DC Shepherd’s house because the Ofsted woman talked of cars coming and going from her property.

“I was in shock the whole time,” remembers the police officer. “I couldn’t imagine I was doing something wrong – I thought I could clear it up if I told her everything. She talked about reciprocal care; I argued that it was an arrangement based on friendship.”
DC Shepherd pointed out that during her maternity leave she had looked after DC Jarrett’s daughter Amy, who is six months older than Edie, purely as an act of kindness. She had received no reciprocal child care at that time.

“She (the Ofsted official) said, ‘I’m just going to check’ and went out to her car to use the phone. She came back and said, ‘You are. You’re breaking the law’.
“Even when she left, I thought that there must be some mistake. I was angry that someone could complain about me – that someone could be so petty – and shocked that what we were doing could be wrong, and that I would have to change everything.”
Seventeen days later a letter arrived from Ofsted ordering DC Shepherd to stop minding Amy immediately, and warning her that she might be subject to surveillance and unannouced visits by Ofsted inspectors.

“I thought it was laughable that they would go the extreme of using surveillance when I was trying to live my life and do my job,” she says, still upset at her treatment.
DC Shepherd, 32, has been single since the end of her relationship with Edie’s father, also a police officer, in November last year. He remains supportive, but without DC Jarrett’s help there is no chance of Edie staying out at home while her mother is on duty, and she has had to be put into a nursery.

“Amy and Edie get on like sisters – they have grown up together. You would always hear them saying ‘you’re my best friend’, ‘I’m your best friend’. They are only-children, so it was nice for them to have each other around.
“Edie went to nursery today and cried her eyes out. It has happened too quickly for her. I haven’t been able to introduce her to it gently. She has still not settled properly – she barely eats there. She asks, ‘Can I see Amy today?’ A two-year-old is not going to understand.”

The enforced change has not only caused her daughter deep distress but has actually cost the government money. DC Shepherd earns just over £16,000 a year for working part-time, with a take-home wage of £1,000 per month. Edie’s nursery fees are £487 a month.
“The irony is that the state is now having to pay most of my child care because I am a single mother on a low income who works part-time and eligible for working tax credit and 80 per cent of my child care costs. They pay me nearly £500 a month, whereas before they didn’t have to pay me anything.

THERE’S A LOT MORE RIGHT HERE AT THE SOURCE.

Posted by peiper     on 10/01/2009 at 01:49 PM   
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Nanny State • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - September 26, 2009

Banned Moms Part 2: Same Deal In Michigan

A West Michigan woman says the state is threatening her with fines and possibly jail time for babysitting her neighbors’ children.

Lisa Snyder of Middleville says her neighborhood school bus stop is right in front of her home. It arrives after her neighbors need to be at work, so she watches three of their children for 15-40 minutes until the bus comes.

The Department of Human Services received a complaint that Snyder was operating an illegal child care home. DHS contacted Snyder and told her to get licensed, stop watching her neighbors’ kids, or face the consequences.

“It’s ridiculous.” says Snyder. “We are friends helping friends!” She added that she accepts no money for babysitting.

Mindy Rose, who leaves her 5-year-old with Snyder, agrees. “She’s a friend… I trust her.”

State Representative Brian Calley is drafting legislation that would exempt people who agree to care for non-dependent children from daycare rules as long as they’re not engaged in a business.

“We have babysitting police running around this state violating people, threatening to put them in jail or fine them $1,000 for helping their neighbor (that) is truly outrageous” says Rep. Calley.

Hey, what happened? I thought Hillary told us that the whole village should be raising your children. You know, helping out, pitching in. But it turns out to be illegal, at least in Middleville Michigan. Because unorganized, non-government run Community Volunteering is “operating an illegal business”.

Hmm, it’s this kind of thing that makes me wonder if ... just perhaps ... we have too many laws and too many people “working” for the government.

Posted by Drew458     on 09/26/2009 at 06:19 PM   
Filed Under: • Nanny State •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Miscellaneous

First, let me start off with a joke one of the guys at work told me as we were clocking off for the day:

Al Gore, Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama go to heaven.

God addresses Al first.. “Al, what do you believe in?”

Al replies: “Well, I believe that I won that election, but that it was your will that I did not serve. And I’ve come to understand that now.”

God thinks for a second and says: “Very good. Come and sit at my left.”

God then addresses Bill . “ Bill , what do you believe in?”

Bill replies: “I believe in forgiveness. I know I have sinned, and hope I will be forgiven. I’ve never held a grudge against my fellow man, and I hope no grudges are held against me.”

God thinks for a second and says: “You are forgiven, my son. Come and sit at my right.’’

Then God addresses Barack. “Barack, what do you believe in?”

He replies: “I believe you’re in my chair.”

H/T: Sodahead

Well, that’s where I found it after Jeff told it at work.

NEXT

The war against… toilet paper:

There is a battle for America’s behinds.

It is a fight over toilet paper: the kind that is blanket-fluffy and getting fluffier so fast that manufacturers are running out of synonyms for “soft” (Quilted Northern Ultra Plush is the first big brand to go three-ply and three-adjective).

It’s a menace, environmental groups say — and a dark-comedy example of American excess.

The reason, they say, is that plush U.S. toilet paper is usually made by chopping down and grinding up trees that were decades or even a century old. They want Americans, like Europeans, to wipe with tissue made from recycled paper goods.

It has been slow going. Big toilet-paper makers say that they’ve taken steps to become more Earth-friendly but that their customers still want the soft stuff, so they’re still selling it.

This summer, two of the best-known combatants in this fight signed a surprising truce, with a big tissue maker promising to do better. But the larger battle goes on — the ultimate test of how green Americans will be when nobody’s watching.

“At what price softness?” said Tim Spring, chief executive of Marcal Manufacturing, a New Jersey paper maker that is trying to persuade customers to try 100 percent recycled paper. “Should I contribute to clear-cutting and deforestation because the big [marketing] machine has told me that softness is important?”

He added: “You’re not giving up the world here.”

Toilet paper is far from being the biggest threat to the world’s forests: together with facial tissue, it accounts for 5 percent of the U.S. forest-products industry, according to industry figures. Paper and cardboard packaging makes up 26 percent of the industry, although more than half is made from recycled products. Newspapers account for 3 percent.

But environmentalists say 5 percent is still too much.

Doesn’t look recycled. Just looks used…

H/T: Belowthebeltway

Egads! I’ve got so much stuff to post!

Guess the rest will have to wait…

Posted by Christopher     on 09/26/2009 at 06:03 PM   
Filed Under: • Environment • Fun-Stuff • Insanity • Nanny State • Obama, The One •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - September 21, 2009

Another one of those small stories that point to the ridiculous way of life in a nanny state.

It isn’t earth shattering and everyone will forget this post even before they finish reading it. But it strikes me as just another bit of proof as to how far people have gone here, to make certain they comply with the law. Even if it means going to ridiculous extremes.

It’s also btw, further proof that Brits for the most in spite of very bad news and coddling of criminals and a justice system that has little or none of that, many Brits do try and play by the rules and do try and obey laws. With this govt. in place tho it’s sometimes hard to figure out what new thing will become illegal today that may not have been yesterday.  It’s that old play by the rules attitude while the rest of Europe often plays by theirs when it comes to the EU. But I’m getting a bit off topic so here’s the story I want you to see.

David Hockney said he loathes the Labour Government for interfering in his life by introducing the smoking ban.

Published: 3:39AM BST 20 Sep 2009

The 72-year-old British artist, who is a lifelong smoker, is backing a cross-party group of MPs who want the ban to be relaxed to allow people to light up in designated rooms in pubs.

Hockney told the BBC’s Politics Show that he was appalled to find that his local cafe in east Yorkshire no longer even allowed people to smoke at tables outside because they were frightened that smoke would waft inside and breach the law.

He said that if ministers had told the late TV chef Keith Floyd to give up rich food, alcohol and cigarettes in order to live longer ‘’he would have said to them that’s not what I call living. Up yours!’’

I quit smoking about 22 yrs ago and from time to time I do still miss it. Especially when stressed.  But overall, I’m ok and have no plans to resume a very unhealthy addiction. However .... I confess I enjoy the waft when outdoors on the odd occasion.  That tiny “waft” the folks at that local cafe are so worried about.  I’m also against the ban on smoking in bars and pubs and restaurants.  Why the hell shouldn’t there be areas indoors where it’s okay?
Look, nobody is going to get the big ‘C’ from doses of second hand smoke in those circumstances. If that were the case, then I should have been history years ago as besides smoking myself, I was often in areas of close quarters with many other smokers. So I was not only breathing in mine but theirs as well.  True, I had a tumor removed. But I’m convinced it had nothing to do with other people’s smoke and more to do with me smoking two or packs of unfiltered Lucky Strikes from the age of 13 until the time I quit a few months after my surgery.

I think over here where I am, I’m more likely to be the victim of crime way before I fall victim to someone’s smoking habit. And that’s the truth!

I guess what I hate most is a govt. prodded by special interest groups deciding things best left to choice. Why not pubs that cater to smokers then?
No, can’t do that coz ppl will still get sick. Yeah but once they know, should that not be their choice?

READ THE REST HERE

Posted by peiper     on 09/21/2009 at 03:05 AM   
Filed Under: • Daily Life • Health and Safety • Nanny State • UK •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - September 20, 2009

“First, we kill all the pigs…”

It has exposed the failings of a government where the power is concentrated at the top, where decisions are often carried out with little consideration for their consequences and where follow-up is often nonexistent, according to social commentators and government officials.

Doesn’t that just sound like the Obama (mis)Administration? But, while applicable, it is not. This is about the Mubarak dictatorship in Egypt. Seems, in an effort to halt the swine flu, they actually killed all the swine.

In other news, a Muslim country had swine. Why? We find out later in the story…

When the government killed all the pigs in Egypt this spring — in what public health experts said was a misguided attempt to combat swine flu — it was warned the city would be overwhelmed with trash.

The pigs used to eat tons of organic waste. Now the pigs are gone and the rotting food piles up on the streets of middle-class neighborhoods like Heliopolis and in the poor streets of communities like Imbaba.

This is from a New York Times story which features a picture of goats trying to do a pig’s job. Basically, it looks (and doubtless smells) like New York City during a garbage strike.

Posted by Christopher     on 09/20/2009 at 03:21 PM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Government • Health and Safety • Nanny State • Scary Stuff •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Christian hoteliers charged with insulting Muslim guest, and it’s a criminal offence.

You bet it is and if the paper’s reporting is honest and unbiased (?) then this is outrageous.

The way it reads, it was more discussion then insult. So why the charges?

This isn’t the only weird pc article today with regard to religious matters.  A nurse (yes, another one) faces the sack because she has worn a small cross on a chain while on duty. Woo-hoo.  How many patients died?  This religious pandering PC shit will be the death of the country yet.  Unless its already dead and there wasn’t anyone left to bury the corpse. 

A Christian couple who run a hotel have been charged with a criminal offence for allegedly insulting a female Muslim guest about her beliefs.

By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent
Sunday Telegraph

Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang are charged with breaching Section 5 of the Public Order Act – causing harassment, alarm or distress. If convicted, they face fines of £2,500 each and a criminal record.
The Muslim woman was staying at the Bounty House Hotel in Liverpool, which is run by the Vogelenzangs, when a conversation arose between the hoteliers and their guest about her faith.

t is understood that among the topics debated was whether Jesus was a minor prophet, as Islam teaches, or whether he was the Son of God, as Christianity teaches.
Among the things Mr Vogelenzang, 53, is alleged to have said is that Mohammad was a warlord. His wife, 54, is said to have stated that Muslim dress is a form of bondage for women.
The conversation, on March 20, was reported by the woman to Merseyside Police. Officers told the couple that they wanted to interview them over the incident.

After being questioned on April 20, they were interrogated again three months later before being charged on July 29 with a religiously-aggravated public order offence. They appeared in court on August 14 and are now awaiting trial.

Mr and Mrs Vogelenzang do not accept that they were threatening or abusive in any way. David White, who is representing them, said that they believe they have the right to defend their religious beliefs.

Their case is being funded by the Christian Institute, which has backed a number of Christians in legal disputes.

A spokesman for the Institute said: “We are funding Ben and Sharon’s defence because we believe important issues of religious liberty and free speech are at stake.

“In many instances we have detected a worrying tendency for public bodies to misapply the law in a way that seems to sideline Christianity more than other faiths.”

A police spokesman said: “Merseyside Police can confirm that Benjamin Vogelenzang and Sharon Vogelenzang, both of Fazakerley, were charged with a religiously-aggravated public order offence on 29 July 2009. This follows an incident on 20 March 2009.”

SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 09/20/2009 at 02:39 AM   
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Daily Life • Nanny State • RoPMA • UK •  
• Comments (10) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - September 11, 2009

Well, it looks like the nanny state has finally come to this. Maybe it’s needed in this world. ??

I really don’t know anymore. Based on the kind of God awful news we get these days about child abuse, my knee jerk reaction is of course, good. Something needs to be in place to avoid the kind of things people are doing in the world we now live in.
But then upon reflection I think wait a minute.  This isn’t too comfortable at all. It almost says that ALL of us are potential child predators.
Will kids be safer if we’re all thought guilty before hand?

What a world.  And one sad and frustrating feature of it is, and I’m referring to what has been reported here in the UK, is that an awful lot of that abuse has been overlooked by the very people who are supposed to report on it and if need be, stop it.  I think this is scary frankly.
You may not agree, but it seems over the top.  Why not make severe examples out of those authorities KNOW are guilty?

You’ll recall the update posted here last week about the two brothers, aged 10 and 11 who assaulted two boys, forced sexual activity and tried to burn a girls hair.  Their home life if you can call it that, wasn’t much. The mother on drugs and booze and an abusive dad etc., etc. They learned that behavior from their parents.  She was giving them pot to keep em “calm.” Lets face it. That’s child abuse. And it was known for more then a year by the powers that be. (but I still think the little shits should be hung)
Anyway ...  take a look at this headline.

Doncaster boys’ mother on 5-month holiday
The mum of the two young boys, convicted of torturing another two youngsters in Edlington near Doncaster, is staying in a seaside caravan being paid for by Doncaster Council because of fears for her safety if she stayed in her council house.

Uh huh ... on the taxpayer as usual but apparently mommy dearest was sober enough to understand SAFETY.  Hers.  And if she wasn’t fearful over the past year or two while ppl were complaining, why suddenly now?

Which all brings me to the story below.  Here’s where we are, the former Gt. Britain, year 2009.  The issue is Child Abuse.

Parents who ferry children must have anti-paedophile checks

Parents who give lifts to other children from sports and social clubs face prosecution if they fail to register with the Government’s new anti-paedophile database.

By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor
Published: 7:00AM BST 11 Sep 2009

Any formal agreement to ferry youngsters to and from the likes of Scouts, dance classes or local football matches, even if only once a month, will fall under the Government’s new Vetting and Barring Scheme.

It means anyone who fails to register and have their backgrounds checked faces a fine of up to £5,000 and a criminal record.

Parents who help children read in class or those who host foreign pupils as part of school exchange trips will also have to be vetted by the new Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) and undergo criminal record checks.

School governors, dentists, pharmacists, prison officers and even dinner ladies are among the huge list of people who will now fall under the scheme, which starts to be rolled out next month and will eventually cover 11.3 million people.

Anyone who is paid for their efforts will also be charged a £64 fee to register, although unpaid volunteers are exempt from paying.

Critics warned the system, the largest database of its kind in the world, is disproportionate and will put people off volunteering or carrying out public duties.

It has been set up in the wake of the Soham murders and is aimed at stopping paedophiles getting access to children or inappropriate people working with vulnerable adults.

It is the first time the true scope has been revealed and will cover even those with the briefest of contact with children.

The Information Commissioner’s Office, the data watchdog, fears such a large database will present a security risk to people’s personal details.

Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: “Children’s safety is paramount but we are in danger of creating a world in which we think every adult who approaches children means to do them harm.

“The creation of the world’s biggest checking system is a disproportionate response to the problem it is trying to solve.”

Chris Grayling, the shadow Home Secretary, added: “We all understand the need for proper protection of our children but this new regime has the potential to be a real disaster for activities involving young people in the UK.

“We are going to drive away volunteers, we’ll see clubs and activities close down and we’ll end up with more bored young people on our streets.”

Under the scheme anyone in regular contact with children or vulnerable adults in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will have to register with the ISA, a Home Office sponsored body, and have a criminal records check.

THE REST OF THE ARTICLE IS HERE

BTW .... The headline in another newspaper leads off with,

NOW BIG BROTHER TARGETS HELPFUL PARENTS.

Posted by peiper     on 09/11/2009 at 08:18 AM   
Filed Under: • Nanny State • UK •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - September 10, 2009

‘pocket money’ thug paid not to steal… is jailed for knifepoint robbery

Just doesn’t make a G-D bit of sense does it?  But of course it did. This is England.  NOT, “This is London” as in the radio broadcasts of the war years.
No, this shit is England today where multi-culture and diversity are everything.  Where English history is criticized and belittled, where the English language itself isn’t much encouraged or it seems that way. This is England 2009 where one idiot politician who actually heads a party once suggested ppl should, “hug a hoodie.” A country of ASBOs (Anti Social Behavior Orders) where young thugs and street punks try to earn one and wear it as a badge of honor.  This is an UNARMED except for the punks and killers, place where it was thought to be a really neat idea to pay a thug NOT TO STEAL.
Imagine that.  And horror of horrors what do you suppose happened? You won’t guess so I’ll spill the beans.
The criminal broke his word.  Yeah I know. Hard to believe.  After accepting the bribe he went out and robbed people anyway.
Just what in the heck is this world coming to when authorities can’t count on the word and promise of a criminal?

Fuckin Idiots!

Look I’m sorry for the bad language and it doesn’t make me look very smart I will grant you that.  But stuff like this just makes me boil and see red.
How in the world with all sorts of evidence to guide them, could authorities begin to believe this might work?  Bribes for thugs?
Oh heaven forbid they should find the money for libraries or child care or anything else but this, this, stupidity.

“Britain is the one sinking ship where all the rats have stayed!”

Soft justice fails as ‘pocket money’ thug paid not to steal… is jailed for knifepoint robbery

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 12:23 PM on 10th September 2009

A scheme which saw a teenage robber handed £60 a week not to steal by the Government has been exposed as a dismal failure after he was jailed for a terrifying knifepoint robbery.

Career criminal Casey Bowen, 28, burst into a shop in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, and subjected staff to a terrifying raid in May.

He punched a customer in the face and forced two members of staff to open the shop safe before stuffing the cash in a plastic box and cycling off.

Bowen was given the moniker ‘pocket money boy’ in 1994 when he was handed a £60-a-week incentive not to steal - after he was arrested a staggering 37 times in two years.

But after forking out £1,560 of tax payer’s cash in just six months, social services stopped the payments after it emerged his offending had got worse.

Bowen, of Churchdown, Gloucestershire, was paid to go on trips to Birmingham and London, visits to the cinema, the zoo, football matches and the seaside - but continued to offend.

And on Tuesday Bowen was jailed for five-and-a-half years at Gloucester Crown Court after admitting robbery.

A spokesman for social policy think tank Civitas said: ‘It was an enormous experiment which ended in utter failure. The 1990s scheme was a total disaster.

‘Young offenders were pampered when they should have been forcefully dealt with.’

Philip Davies, Tory MP for Shipley, told the Daily Express: ‘I hope the namby-pamby do-gooders take notice of this.

‘Instead of having money and goodies thrown at them, offenders should be punished for their crimes.’

Sentencing, Judge Martin Picton told the yob he nearly jailed him for life under a public protection sentence.

He said: ‘This was a very serious offence. You committed a grave robbery when armed with a knife, causing terror to your victims.

‘Wielding a knife like that created an obvious risk that someone could be badly injured.

‘If you ever commit an offence like this again in the future that will be it; it will be a public protection sentence.’

Balaclava-clad Bowen burst into the shop in Whaddon, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, on May 28 before staging the brutal raid.

He was arrested after police found him hiding at a nearby house.

Bowen ordered staff Philip Clements and Jemma Giesdorf to open the safe and fill a plastic box with cash.

The court heard that Miss Giesdorf has been left so traumatised by the robbery she refused to work without a security guard.

Bowen has previously absconded from children’s homes all over the country, including the top-security Aycliffe home in County Durham where he got into trouble for assaulting staff.

In 1996 he got his second custodial sentence in two months for a 3am burglary at the Cheltenham home of a 100-year-old woman.

He stole her jewellery box and £40 and got just three months after his barrister pleaded with the judge: ‘He is only just 16 and it is far too early to give up on this young man.’

Aged 19, he was jailed for burgling the homes of two elderly women and was told by the judge: ‘You have a dreadful record and nothing seems to have stopped you so far.

‘Your own hardships are no excuse for burgling other people.’

In May, Bowen admitted threatening to kill police officers and their children after he stole alcohol and threatened staff at a Cheltenham supermarket.

He was jailed for a week for a similar offence last October.

In July 2005, he was jailed for a year for harassing a former girlfriend by bombarding her with 800 text messages.

Bowen’s younger brother, Clinton, was dubbed ‘Canal Boat boy’ after he was given a supervision order with a ‘specified activity’ - a three-month cruise with an organisation called Care Afloat, costing £1,100 a week.

HERE FOR PHOTOS OF THIS THUG

his barrister pleaded with the judge: ‘He is only just 16

Right.  First we kill the lawyers!

Posted by peiper     on 09/10/2009 at 09:00 AM   
Filed Under: • Daily Life • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • Nanny State • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - August 31, 2009

Blunders and the law and reporting to the EU … USA doesn’t have to. Yet.

Just a short article cut out of the paper the other day.  There isn’t even a writers credit.
It’s just another one of those things that cause you to wonder ..  Is anyone using any common sense anymore? Dumb question of course coz the answer is ... don’t be stupid. Course not.

People selling violent films and pornography to children will escape prosecution after a govt. department discovered that a 1984 law had not been properly enacted.

The Crown Prosecution Service has been told to drop all cases relating to offences under the Video Recordings Act, which sought to prevent violent video games and porn being sold to children, and to ensure that the most explicit adult films could only be sold in licensed sex shops.

The error came about because the government of the day was unfamiliar with a newly passed EUROPEAN DIRECTIVE REQUIRING THEM TO NOTIFY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE LEGISLATION.

Those who breach the VRA for the next three months will be immune to prosecution, those previously convicted for offences under the act will not be able to appeal their case.

OK so, what does that mean.  Way I read it, the govt. here has to inform the eu about laws and rules passed here.  Is that right?  Or am I misreading this.  And there’s a free pass for the next three months for someone selling bad stuff to kids. ??

And then there is this bit under elf ‘n’ safety.

It has been decreed that if hounds are on show and allowed to be handled by children, there must be wet wipes present so the little ones can decontaminate themselves after touching the dogs.  Hey .. it’s in their rule book.
Any of you people grow up with dogs when you were little?  Hmmm. I see we’re all still here.
So there was this outdoor show ya see, and this being England some heavy rain surprised nobody. And being England, some folks were ready for it.
But Health and Safety officers were on the job doing their bit for, well, elf ‘n’ safety.
So anyway, it rained and officers went to the stall of a man selling outdoor cloths.  He’d put down some straw to soak up the puddles and give people something to stand on.  The officers told him he couldn’t do that. When asked why not, they said:
“It’s a hazard and may catch fire.” Not too surprisingly he lost his cool some and took out a box of matches and said:
“£1,000 to anybody who manages to set fire to that straw.” The officers left .

Can’t make that stuff up.
Just another day in a nanny state.

Posted by peiper     on 08/31/2009 at 09:17 AM   
Filed Under: • Animals • Daily Life • Nanny State • Odd-Strange •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - August 28, 2009

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

CNet News

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They’re not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

“I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness,” said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. “It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill.”

Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller’s aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.

A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president’s power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.

When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. “We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records,” Rockefeller said.

Hello one, hello all, going to jump right into the fray again, I’ve been away for FAR too long, sorry guys/gals.
It’s been clicking right along here in the Severa household. Kids started back to school this week.
Our youngest son turns 10 next week and our oldest son turns 13 (YIKES!) in January. Time flies when you’re having fun....
or not having fun, as the case has been since Obama was elected.
Now I’ll freely admit, I’m young (32) and somewhat new to politics (Reagan is the first President I can remember and I bawled like a baby during his funeral) but I swear on everything that’s holy (and a few things that aren’t) that I have NEVER been so scared of a President and his Administration as I am right now.
Every day it’s something new to add to the stack of stuff against Obama and his followers but it’s like America is asleep at the wheel of a speeding Corvette and that “bridge out ahead” sign is looming up awfully damned fast…

Posted by Severa     on 08/28/2009 at 07:27 PM   
Filed Under: • Nanny State • Politics •  
• Comments (9) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - August 24, 2009

AND TO THINK, THE PUTZES WHO DREAM UP THIS STUFF ARE UNELECTED AND PAID BY ???

Sure. Who do ya think they get paid by?  BMEWS didn’t hire these absolute schmucks.  Aggghghhhhhhh

RCOB ...  Jerks. All jerks. I’m trying to think of something clever here.  Forget it. BLANK. Just blank.

These ppl really do not have anything else to do. Do they? Maybe they aren’t employable. ?  How do they manage to see things that just are not there.  Jeesh.

Right-hand man, gentleman’s agreement and whiter than white: PC quangos ban common phrases to avoid causing offence

By James Slack, Home Affairs Editor
Last updated at 2:19 AM on 24th August 2009

Nonsense: Matthew Elliott said ‘Most people assumed that this sort of PC madness went out in the 1980s.’

Right-hand man, gentleman’s agreement and whiter than white are the latest phrases to fall foul of the political correctness lobby.

Government quangos have issued fresh lists of phrases they are seeking to ban to avoid causing offence.

Staff at the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission have been advised to use ‘miserable day’ instead of ‘black day’. The Commission claims that certain words carry a ‘hierarchical valuation of skin colour’.

It also cautions that the term ethnic minority can imply ‘something smaller and less important’ and should be used with care.

The examples of political correctness emerged in answer to a series of Freedom of Information requests.

Some institutions have urged workers to watch out for gender bias or sexism in language.

The Learning and Skills Council wants staff to ‘perfect’ their brief rather than ‘master’ it while Newcastle University reckons ‘master bedroom’ can be problematic.

The National Gallery in London says the phrase gentleman’s agreement may be considered offensive to women and suggests using ‘unwritten agreement’ or ‘ agreement based on trust’ instead.

The phrase right-hand man is also considered taboo, with ‘second in command’ thought more suitable. Advice issued by the South West Regional Development Agency says: ‘Terms such as black sheep of the family, black looks and black mark have no direct link to skin colour but potentially serve to reinforce a negative view of all things black.

‘Equally, certain terms imply a negative image of black by reinforcing the positive aspects of white.

‘For example, in the context of being above suspicion, the phrase whiter than white is often used. Purer than pure or cleaner than clean are alternatives which do not infer that anything other than white should be regarded with suspicion.’

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: ‘Most people assumed that this sort of PC madness went out in the 1980s, when Margaret Thatcher reined in the Left-wing councils, so it’s unbelievable that it’s rearing its head again.

SEE MORE HERE

Here’s what a few Daily Mail readers had to say.

Posted by peiper     on 08/24/2009 at 03:15 AM   
Filed Under: • Daily Life • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Nanny State • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

ALL GLORIOUS COMRADES TAKE NOTE.  ATTN PLEASE WHILE EUROPE PRONOUNCES

Stupid fuckin socialist dipshits!

PUBLIC URGED TO SNOOP ON BLUB SHOPS

THE public has been urged by the govt. to inform trading standards officers about shops that continue to sell traditional light bubs banned by Europe.

From Sept. 1st it will be illegal to make or import coventional pearl or frosted bulbs of any shape or wattage.

All traditional incandescent bulbs of 100watts will also be banned.  They will be replaced by energy-saving bulbs.

But it is thought that consumers still prefer the traditional type because of the apparent poor quality of light from the new bulbs.

Daily Telegraph
Monday
24 August ‘09

it is thought that consumers still prefer the traditional type
Well duh.  Who pays any attention to the consumer when the eu speaks?

note to p. BUY another hundred bulbs today.

ON the other hand.

‘Green’ Germans hoard traditional bulbs to beat ban

By David Derbyshire
Last updated at 1:34 AM on 24th August 2009

Germans have been stockpiling vast numbers of energy-hungry lightbulbs

Germany’s green credentials have long made it the spiritual home of tree-huggers across the world.

But those who actually live there seem reluctant to embrace the eco-warriors’ latest symbol - the energy-saving lightbulb.

Germans have been stockpiling vast numbers of old-fashioned energy-hungry lightbulbs ahead of next week’s EU ban on many of them.

Sales of conventional incandescent bulbs shot up 34 per cent in the first six months of this year as consumers hoarded the dwindling supplies.

In most other European countries, sales fell over the same period. In Britain, where big retailers introduced a voluntary ban on 100 watt bulbs in January, sales are down by a fifth.

Brussels is banning all pearl or frosted traditional bulbs and clear 100 watt bulbs from September 1 as part of its drive to cut carbon dioxide emissions and tackle climate change.

Stocks are expected to run out in most towns by the end of next month, forcing householders to buy energy-saving compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) or low-energy halogen bulbs.

The figures highlighting Germany’s unwillingness to switch to CFLs have surprised some in a country with such a strong green movement and which brought the world the eco-friendly repairable Birkenstock sandal.

DAILY MAIL

Posted by peiper     on 08/24/2009 at 02:53 AM   
Filed Under: • Commies • Daily Life • FREEDOM • Government • Corruption and Greed • Jack Booted Thugs • Nanny State • News-Briefs • Stoopid-People •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - August 16, 2009

Another weapon in the Islamist assault on Western cultural values.

This is an excellent read.  I am making no comments, this speaks for itself.  It’s his take on my previous post re. swimming and burkinis. And what a stupid name that is btw.  There’s a bit more background here.

Here’s some info on the writer.

James Delingpole
James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including Welcome To Obamaland: I’ve Seen Your Future And It Doesn’t Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels. His website is http://www.jamesdelingpole.com

How The West Was Lost (ctd): the Burkini

By James Delingpole Religion
Last updated: August 16th, 2009

The Burkini. You’d think it was a joke invention: a bit like the grotesque “Mankini” so hilariously sported by Sacha Baron Cohen on all those posters for Borat. What, after all, could be more absurd than melding the not-notably-sexy Muslim dress - the Burka - with the kind of achingly seductive kit worn by Brigitte Bardot in And God Created Woman?
And God Created Woman....

But no, the Burkini is for real. It was designed by an Lebanese Australian Aheda Zanetti to enable women in thrall to extreme Saudi-style dress codes to go swimming on beaches and in public baths without incurring a beating or instant divorce from their characteristically tolerant and cosmopolitan menfolk.

“Practical and stylish,” is how they’re described on a BBC website. Hmm, up to a point. Practical if your primary goal is to protect yourself from box jellyfish stings; stylish, maybe, if your points of comparison are a gorilla outfit, or a Barbara Cartland pink dress, or a tent. But I do think we should be wary of viewing the burkini in terms of a fashion story or an amusing novelty, when it also represents something more sinister. I’m sure the designer didn’t intend this, but the Burkini has become yet another weapon in the Islamist assault on Western cultural values.

When most of us think of militant Islam, we tend to think in terms of suicide bombs on London buses, planes flying into Twin Towers and 19-year olds getting their limbs blown off by Taliban IEDs. But as any extremist Imam could tell you, there are at least two ways in which a good Muslim can further the ongoing struggle to convert the whole world from the House of War (that’s the non-Muslim world) to the House of Islam (ie global submission to the will of Allah): one (see above) is by poison or the sword; the other is by honey.

So the Burkini is part of the honey campaign: all those parts of the Islamist war on the West that have nothing to do with killing people. This campaign includes everything from schoolgirls fighting legal battles (with the help of one Cherie Blair) to fight for their inalienable right to go to school dressed like a sack, to Muslim supermarket workers trying to dictate the terms of their employment (refusing to sell alcohol), to the ongoing campaign (apparently endorsed by our own Archbishop of Canterbury) for certain civil decisions in the Muslim “community” to be made under Sharia law. The goal is to establish the view that Islam is a religion should be allowed to trump everything, including the cultural norms of any non-Muslim society in which its adherents find themselves living.

Why should we care if women want to dress up in burkinis? Well we shouldn’t. It’s a free country. Where we should worry very much is when, in the name of weasel concepts like “tolerance”, “respect” and Multiculturalism, the wider society is bullied into adopting similar “Muslim” (ie Saudi-style, Wahhabist) dress codes too.

This is outrageous. A public swimming pool is not a mosque. It is a secular, leisure facility designed for (and funded by) the local community. If parts of that community feel unable to use those facilities for religious or cultural reasons, well that should be their problem and no one else’s. I dare say naturists object to the trunks/bathing costume dress code operated by local public baths, too. But I don’t think any of us would think that constitutes an argument for introducing special “Nudie” hours at local swimming pools, fun though that might be.

As I remember from my days living in East London (at the much lamented Haggerston Leisure Centre), it’s quite maddening when, after a hard week’s work, you suddenly find you can’t go for a Saturday evening swim because the pool has been set aside for the purposes of religious apartheid.

But apart from being annoying, it’s an absolute disaster for social cohesion. The reason for home-grown Muslim suicide bombers is that British Muslims are constantly encouraged to think of themselves as being different and apart from mainstream British society. Heaven knows it’s a message they hear often enough from their Imams. Is it really something they should be hearing from their local councils and swimming baths as well?

THE TELEGRAPH

Posted by peiper     on 08/16/2009 at 12:45 PM   
Filed Under: • Nanny State • RoPMA • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner