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.

Evolution of the Government schools 1957-2007

I probably should have titled this the Devolution of the government schools. I got this in an email from my buddy flapjawman.

Scenario: Jack goes quail hunting before school, pulls into school parking lot with shotgun in gun rack.

1957 - Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack’s shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.

2007 - School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.

Scenario: Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school.

1957 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.

2007 - Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark. Charge them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it.

Scenario: Jeffrey won’t be still in class, disrupts other students.

1957 - Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by the Principal. Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.

2007 - Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for ADD. School gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a disability.

Scenario: Billy breaks a window in his neighbor’s car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt.

1957 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman.

2007 - Billy’s dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy removed to foster care and joins a gang. State psychologist tells Billy’s sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison. Billy’s mom has affair with psychologist.

Scenario: Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school.

1957 - Mark shares aspirin with Principal out on the smoking dock.

2007 - Police called, Mark expelled from school for drug violations. Car searched for drugs and weapons.

Scenario: Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from 4th of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle, blows up a red ant bed.

1957 - Ants die.

2007- BATF, Homeland Security, FBI called. Johnny charged with domestic terrorism, FBI investigates parents, siblings removed from home, computers confiscated, Johnny’s Dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.

Scenario: Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary hugs him to comfort him.

1957 - In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing.

2007 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison. Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy.

I know, this is a fictional email that’s doing the rounds. But I can recall similar stories to every single one of these scenarios. Stuff I did back in the 60’s and 70’s would get me arrested and/or drugged. I disrupted class, got into fights, took guns to school (my bolt-action .22 for the shooting club), carried aspirin, broke windows (not car windows, and not on purpose.). I got paddled at school AND again when I got home.

I think I turned out fairly well.

Stupid government schools.

   Monday - October 27, 2008

A VILE AND DISGUSTING PRANK AIRED ON BBC AND APPROVED BY A TOTAL ASS.  READ!

THIS TOTAL CRAP IS WHAT NOW PASSES FOR ‘ENTERTAINMENT’ IN OUR WORLD.

I feel a bit off the rails posting this story when all our attention and interest is so focused on the election.
But I really want people to read and and take a good look at what jerks who are making money in the millions do and call talent. And entertainment.
And people put up with it. WHY?  They are so bereft of any real talent or humor, they can only produce tasteless,,,, ?? I’m lost for more words.

OK, there’s talk here that these idiots will lose the contract. Oh whoo-hoo.  The bastards belong in jail and should be sued for every single damn dime they have, to send a message.  Oh right. That’ll happen in my lifetime huh?

It doesn’t matter at all that you who read this in the USA don’t know who these scum are. One of em btw recently in the states doing his decadent
thing. He calls it comedy.  And some think he’s funny.  Stupid,stupid,stupid!

Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand prank sparks calls for BBC inquiry
The future of Jonathan Ross’s £18 million BBC contract has been called into question after the prank he and Russell Brand played on the actor Andrew Sachs.

By Anita Singh, Showbusiness Editor
Last Updated: 6:55PM GMT 27 Oct 2008

Ross and fellow presenter Russell Brand left a string of sexually offensive answerphone messages for the 78-year-old Fawlty Towers star, broadcast to two million listeners on Brand’s Radio 2 Saturday night show.

They claimed that Brand had slept with Mr Sachs’ 23-year-old granddaughter, Georgina Baillie, an aspiring model, and joked that the actor might kill himself upon hearing the news.

Mr Sachs was left “upset” by the calls and the BBC received 546 complaints from appalled listeners after the October 18 show.

Speaking about the row for the first time, Mr Sachs said: “People ask me if I’m angry - well, yes, but not half as angry as Georgina. That’s where the apology should be directed. People are writing about it and talking about it, quite rightly. I am sorry that I am involved in it… I love the BBC, I have worked for them for over 50 years and I continue to work for them. Sometimes things can go wrong.”

Mr Sachs said he had received a “very nice” letter of apology from Jonathan Ross. “I have just read it. It basically says ‘sorry’.” However, asked if he had forgiven the chat show host, Mr Sachs replied: “It is God who forgives.”

Georgina’s mother, Kate, said of the presenters: “Maybe those two should just learn to grow up. My father is the world’s most decent man and to put him up in front of an audience for humiliation is ridiculous.”

The BBC initially defended the prank, which was pre-recorded and cleared for broadcast by producers. However, the corporation later backtracked and issued a statement. It read: “We have received a letter of complaint from Mr Sachs’ agent and would like to sincerely apologise to Mr Sachs for the offence caused.

“We recognise that some of the content broadcast was unacceptable and offensive. We are reviewing how this came about and are responding to Mr Sachs personally. We also apologise to listeners for any offence caused.”

Ross is no stranger to controversy, not least for the £18 million, three-year contract said to make him the highest paid presenter at the BBC.

John Whittingdale, chairman of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport select committee, said: “The trouble is, this is not the first occasion on which Jonathan Ross has crossed the line and has been pulled up by the BBC and told not to carry this kind of material, and it appears that has had little effect.”

The BBC pays “a very substantial amount of public money for Jonathan Ross and a pretty large amount for Russell Brand too. I think they are both talented broadcasters but they have got to remember that when they are broadcasting on the BBC in particular, they are not able to use material they might use in a live show.

“The message needs to be rammed home. It does raise questions about their future with the corporation.”

He added. “I think anybody who listens to Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand has a rough idea of what to expect but, in my view, this did go too far. To make that kind of comment to a much-loved, elderly character actor like Andrew Sachs was pretty offensive in the first place. To then broadcast it to two million people seems to me unacceptable.”

Mr Whittingdale said “some very serious questions need to be asked right at the top of the BBC” as to why the offending clip was broadcast. He called for Ofcom to investigate the matter and said the BBC’s reluctance to apologise immediately was “pretty extraordinary”.

Ross caused offence on his BBC1 chat show in 2006, when he asked Tory leader David Cameron if he had enjoyed sexual fantasies about Lady Thatcher. Brand is similarly controversial, recently outraging US viewers during the MTV Video Music Awards by calling George W Bush “that retard cowboy fella” and making a string of off-colour sexual jokes.

Both men were uncharacteristically sheepish yesterday. Asked if he had anything to say to Mr Sachs, Brand replied: “Obviously I would talk to him directly. I am not sure you are the right conduit.”

Ross has written a personal letter of apology to Mr Sachs. His agent, Meg Poole, said she had received a “nicely worded and apologetic email”. She welcomed the BBC’s apology but added: “I think Andrew feels that if anyone is due an apology, it is Georgina.”

Brand and Ross left the messages when Mr Sachs, who played Manuel in Fawlty Towers, failed to answer the telephone for what was said to be a pre-arranged interview. Brand told listeners: “The elephant in the room is, what Andrew doesn’t know is, I’ve slept with his granddaughter.” During the first of several calls, Ross blurted out: “He ****ed your granddaughter!” They phoned back and left another message, this time with Brand singing: “I said some things I didn’t of oughta, like I had sex with your granddaughter.”

http://tinyurl.com/558qs

5

   Wednesday - October 15, 2008

JOBLESS COUPLE WITH 10 KIDS ON THE DOLE, UNHAPPY.  THEY WANT MORE BENEFITS!

Can’t find the words to fit the story here.  Pretty certain bet that the offspring will follow in parents footsteps.

The jobless couple with 10 children who rake in £32,000 a year in benefits.. and who STILL aren’t happy
By NEIL SEARS
Last updated at 5:41 PM on 14th October 2008

Tracey Crompton has never had a job, and her husband Harry has been out of work for 15 years.

Yet the couple live for free in a seven bedroom house with their ten children and receive £32,656 in benefits a year.

They even have their own vineyard in their 270ft long garden.

In fact, they receive so much in handouts that they have already bought and wrapped £3,000 worth of Christmas presents, and plan to buy more.

The couple say they are enjoying the credit crunch because it has forced down the price of luxury goods like TVs and computer games, but do have two gripes.
Firstly, they want even more benefits.

Secondly, that their neighbours have nicknamed them ‘Britain’s Biggest Freeloaders’.

Mrs Crompton, 40, moaned: ‘I’m not satisfied with the benefits we get - I want more. I haven’t been able to work because I’ve had to bring up the kids and Harry’s got health problems.’

Fortunately their benefits do stretch to a £250 weekly shop which usually includes 50 packs of crisps and ten litres of fizzy drinks.

Mrs Crompton went on: ‘If the kids need something I go and get it. I rarely go without things either. If I need something, like a new pair of shoes, then I’ll get it.’

The couple and their children Michael, 20, Robin, 19, Matthew, 17, Sarah, 16, Samantha, 14, Harry Andrew, 12, Alex, 11, Kristian, nine, Jesse Lee, seven, and Joshua, six - live in Hull in two semis knocked into one.

As both are unemployed, their weekly £120 rent is paid by housing benefit and they receive another £628 a week in income support, disability and carer’s allowance and other payments. Mr Crompton, 50, says he is unable to work due to angina and irritable bowel syndrome.

Mrs Crompton said: ‘We don’t have money worries. We don’t go without things and I think that’s because we are self-sufficient. We grow our own food. I don’t see why others should have money worries.’

Sadly, others do not always understand. ‘Every time I walk down the street, people shout “scroungers”,’ said Mrs Crompton.

And it seems that she does not have the time for housework.

The walls of her home are dirty and peeling and the floor is covered in videos and magazines.

‘I don’t have much time for cleaning since I started a college course in catering,’ said Mrs Crompton.

‘I’m really nervous about what will happen at the end of my course. I’ve never worked and so it would be scary to think I would have to get a job. It would have to be very well-paid to pay more than the benefits.’

http://tinyurl.com/4fnb2e

   Monday - October 13, 2008

‘Next time, walk away’: What a magistrate told a husband who stood up to yob threatening his wife .

So where’s the guy supposed to walk away to?  He was at his home unless I misunderstood the article.

I know you ppl will have your own comments to make and they will surely mirror anything I might say.

The surprise is that the guy didn’t simply break the little bastard’s face.  Yeah, then he’d have been jailed. And the thug here damn sure knows his rights as you’ll see.  This kind of crap is maddening. RCOB!

Personally, I fear that if it were me and I let myself go and hit the little shit once, I just wouldn’t be able to stop.
I guess that doesn’t say much for my self control, but given this particular scenario, could ya blame me?

By Daniel Bates
Last updated at 7:56 AM on 13th October 2008

A husband who stood up to a yob who shouted vile abuse at his wife has been convicted of assault and told by a magistrate: ‘Next time, walk away.’

Stephan Toth acted after the 13-year-old threatened his wife Selina, who has cancer.

Mr Toth put his hands on the boy’s shoulders and guided him to his mother’s house, where he explained to her what her son had done. He then went home, only for the police to call at his flat and arrest him.

Stunned: Stephan Toth was charged with assaulting a teenage boy who verbally abused his wife

The 34-year-old father of one was kept in a dirty cell for eight hours and interviewed for two hours before being charged with common assault.

After a three-month wait he was convicted and given an absolute discharge, leaving him with a criminal record.

And he was stunned when chairman of the bench Tony Pomeroy told him to ‘just walk away’ next time.

Mr Toth said: ‘Am I supposed to just walk away when some yob screams such awful things at my wife? No way.

‘I did what any reasonable person would do yet the law is behind him, not me. I’m the victim here but somehow I’ve ended up becoming the criminal. Meanwhile that boy feels like he’s above the law.’

As he waited for the trial, Mr Toth, from Margate in Kent, lost his job as a carer and has been unable to find work since. He was hauled before Margate magistrates over the incident in front of his flat on June 1.

His 46-year-old wife, who is suffering from cervical cancer, was becoming upset by the boy, who cannot be named for legal reasons, screaming abuse through her open window.

Mr Toth said: ‘I went up to him and said, “Enough is enough”. He said, “You can’t touch me, I’ll get you sacked”. I thought his mum should hear this so with open palms I coaxed him towards her house, which is a few doors down.

‘My job is providing support and care at a school for children with learning and physical disabilities, so I’ve been trained on how to handle youths properly and barely even touched his shoulders.

‘I got him most of the way then he ran off, so I went and spoke to his mum. She refused to accept he had said anything and shouted at me so I called the police to let them deal with it.’

Officers arrived at Mr Toth’s flat half an hour later. The boy’s family claimed Mr Toth grabbed him in a bear hug and tried to pick him up, causing six scratches to his chest.

Mr Pomeroy said: ‘There is insufficient evidence that there was a bear hug causing injuries but the defendant has admitted that he took hold of him by his shoulders and that constitutes an assault in our opinion.

‘We think however that there was some degree of provocation in this.’ He added: ‘It would be an idea next time just to walk away.’

Mr Toth, who also had to pay £85 costs, is planning to appeal. He added: ‘I’ve been treated appallingly. My career is looking like it’s going to be crushed, we have bills to pay and my wife’s already fragile health is worse because of this.’

Kent Crown Prosecution Service defended its decision to take Mr Toth to court. A spokesman said: ‘The CPS only brings a prosecution if there is enough evidence to provide a reasonable chance of conviction and if the prosecution is in the public interest.’

http://tinyurl.com/476fhk

I CAN’T BELIEVE THIS IS FOR REAL. BUT NO, I CAN. HAS ANYONE HEARD THIS YET. LISTEN, PLEASE!

HT/Jim Miller

It’s about 3am in NJ as I post this.  It’ shortly after 8am here. I received it from a trusted source.  My former neighbor.
There is no video. This is radio.

And these folks vote?  You bet your ass. And our country’s.

Taint Funny McGee.

http://www.bpmdeejays.com/upload/hs_sal_in_Harlem_100108.mp3

   Wednesday - October 08, 2008

POLICE PROTECT CITIZENS BY ARRESTING CITIZENS WHO CHOP DOWN TREES USED BY THUGS. HUH?

Just another example of (one of many) when a law abiding citizen has had too much.
Guy kills trees,,, guy gets arrested.

Bet the punks are laughing.

Resident who chopped down trees used by yobs to hide from CCTV camera is arrested and charged with criminal damage

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 4:30 PM on 08th October 2008

A public spirited resident chopped down two trees to stop yobs sheltering behind them - and was promptly arrested by police.

Keith Best, 42, took the law into his own hands because the trees were obscuring the view of a crucial CCTV camera.

He acted because louts and vandals have been making life hell for fed-up families in his street - and they were not being captured red-handed on film. 

Furious Mr Best, who has lived in the street for 20 years, decided enough was enough and cut down the two trees in a bid to stop the trouble.

But he was shocked to be confronted by four police officers at his front door after he’d acted for the good of the neighbourhood in Dagenham, Essex, .

‘I thought they were knocking the door in,’ said Mr Best. ‘I opened it and there were four police officers standing there.

‘I let them in as I had nothing to hide. One of the officers said ‘Did you cut a couple of trees down?’ and I said, ‘yes, I did’.

‘He said, ‘I’m arresting you for criminal damage’ and read me my rights. I near enough fell through the floor.

“They said I could pay an £80 penalty notice or they would take it to court. I said, ‘fair enough, I’ll take it to court’.’

Mr Best said the yobs had turned his once peaceful neighbourhood into a war zone and had assaulted a pensioner and two young people.

‘People don’t feel safe sitting in their own back gardens,’ he said.

‘People have had bottles thrown at their cars, others have had abuse shouted at them.

‘One boy was beaten up and another stabbed. There are a lot of older people who are afraid even to open their doors.’

He said when people phoned the police they were routinely told a response unit would be sent but it never turned up. Complaints to the local council and the Safer Neighbourhood Team had also done little to help, he said.

Mr Best said that about a month before he chopped down the trees which had been obscuring the cameras for three years he phoned Barking and Dagenham Council and asked them to take them down but nothing was done.

He said: ‘The trees are a meeting point for the youths - we get between a dozen and 25 of them.

‘It is where they drink and take drugs - we have actually found used syringes down there. They use it as a toilet and we have even seen them having sex around there.

‘Up until three weeks ago it was pretty much every night.

‘I went out there on September 6 at about 11am, in full view of everyone, I wasn’t hiding anything, and cut them down.

‘The council had done nothing to make things better for us, so the residents had had enough.

‘They couldn’t be bothered to get off their backsides to protect us and our property, or even their own property, so I decided to do something. The residents said, ‘good for you’.’

Mr Best has been given 21 days to pay the fine but has decided to make a stand and force the issue to court. He and his neighbours are lobbying their Safer Neighbourhood Team and council for better lighting and fencing and more police patrols at night.

‘I was only trying to make the situation better for those living in the area and for those who use the community hall,’ he said.

His neighbour Julie Reynolds, 37, a child minder and mother of two teenage sons, said the residents backed Mr Best and were disgusted with his treatment.

She said: ‘It is utterly ridiculous. He’s trying to help the council and the neighbours - these youths have been causing chaos.

‘He’s the only one who’s doing anything to help. No one wants to help so he took it into his own hands.

‘Now he’s been arrested and fined, it’s just ludicrous.

‘The kids are getting away with criminal damage, aggravating everybody and causing a nuisance. All Keith has done is cut trees down to make way for the CCTV.

‘He has been punished and the kids are getting away scot free.

‘We call the police and it takes them three or four hours to get here and it’s too late. But they send four officers to arrest Keith.

‘I think he did the right thing and I think the way he has been treated is disgusting.’

Fanshawe Community Hall chair Tracey Benson said the vandals had badly damaged the wall at the back of the building, hacking at it with a scaffolding pole.

She said: “They keep coming back and making it worse. It’s a mess. We’ve had a lot of graffiti as well.”

Other buildings in the area have also been targeted, including an NHS clinic which had water pipes ripped from its walls and a shop where cardboard boxes stored outside were set light.

Mr Best added that since the trees had been cut down there has been no more vandalism or new graffiti on the community hall.

PC Anthony Roll of the Met’s Safer Neighbourhood Team said they would tackle the problems.

He said: ‘We are aware of the campaign. Teams have got on top of the problems in other wards and we are confident we will get on top of the problems in this ward as well.’

http://tinyurl.com/3mwwa2

Jobless Afghan mother of seven gets £170,000 benefits and lives in £1million council house

Moonbat Award for the govt. if this is all actually true.  Double the prices you see for approx. dollars folks.  Unbelievable.  I sincerely hope that we aren’t this loopy back home in USA.  I have heard of this here already in regard to a muslim hate preacher whose family has a large house, SUVs and benefits etc.
But hey ... the taxpayer has too much spare cash laying around anyway.

How could I not post this item?  It’s just too darn mind numbing to ignore. 
I’ve recently read that some 70 or was it 75 thousand Brits have left their country.  Not surprising either.  In fact, I think it’s more like their country has left them. And stories like this are just part of the whole picture.

‘It’s like winning the lottery’: Jobless Afghan mother of seven gets £170,000 benefits and lives in £1million council house

By Danny Brierley
Last updated at 1:59 PM on 08th October 2008

A family living on benefits in a £1.2 million house in west London told today how they felt they had won the lottery.

Mother-of-seven Toorpakai Saindi gets £170,000 a year in benefits and the council pays the property’s private landlord £12,500 a month to accommodate the family who fled Afghanistan seven years ago.

The house in Acton has seven bedrooms, two reception rooms, a dining room and two kitchens, as well as an extensive back garden.

Mrs Saindi’s son, Jawad, 20, told the London Evening Standard: “If someone gave you a lottery ticket would you leave it? No. You take what you get given.

“It’s not that we wanted this big house - my mum is not happy because she has to clean all of it. The first day we moved in here we got lost because it was so big.”

It is owned by landlord Ajit Panesar, who is being paid double the normal market value of the property.

Mr Panesar said: “I can’t help it if the law says I should get paid that amount of money.”

The Saindis were first housed in a three-bed-room property in Enfield.

Four years later they moved to a five-bedroom house in Ealing and three months ago were placed at their current address which they are entitled to have by law given the size of their family.

Comfort: The spacious West London home which Mrs Saindi occupies with her seven children at the taxpayer’s expense.

Jawad, who is planning to study at the private Regents Park Business School, said the family had left Afghanistan because of the civil unrest.

He added: “It was a big choice to go to another country and we came here for the education for the little ones. It was great in Afghanistan, every house over there is enormous - this place would be as big as something we would give chickens but we are just grateful for what we can get.”

Jawad, who lives at home with his mother, three sisters and three brothers, said he could not believe how much the landlord was being paid by the council. Their father is separated from Mrs Saindi.

Ealing council, who housed the family, blamed the Government saying it set the rates for the property. However, Whitehall officials insisted the council could have put the family in a cheaper home.

Mrs Saindi approached Ealing council, which had a legal obligation to find her a seven-bedroom property, in July after being made homeless. It is understood the council did not have a suitable house available so turned to the private sector.

But the move has angered neighbours and campaigners who say vast sums of taxpayers’ money are being wasted in housing benefit, and claim a more suitable property could have been found.

Mark Walllace, campaign director of the Taxpayers’ Alliance, said: “The system has gone seriously wrong when one family is costing taxpayers so much. This family could be helped without the need for such a huge bill.”

Mrs Saindi, whose children are aged from eight to 22, said: “I always thought the housing benefit was a lot, but I’m told this is what it is for homes like this here. It’s a lot of money but the council pay it. This is their problem. I don’t know why they pay so much.”

Mr Panesar says he checked the price with the Rent Service, part of the Department of Work and Pensions, which agreed the rate was acceptable. It is believed the figure is so high because the Rent Service grouped Acton with wealthy Westminster during boundary changes in April.

http://tinyurl.com/54xzll

   Friday - October 03, 2008

Mother is denied pill by Muslim pharmacist …..  RCOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!

First: 
I should not be so quick to blame the mudman because it’s the pc left lunatics and libtard fools that have indoctrinated various groups who now take for granted that they have all these “rights” under freedom of religion and civil rights etc.
Second:
This place is doomed anyway so it doesn’t matter anymore, I suppose. Nuts! 

Seems to me you’re hired to do a job and paid to service the community. Oh, but not so anymore.
Can you imagine what the reaction would have been say 50 years ago before this place got flooded with immigrants from another century?
Yeah I know this particular pill wasn’t around then but that ain’t the point.
Geez I am PO’d this could happen.  Tesco is WRONG and so is the organization that backs this kind of dumb and utterly moronic rule.

Mother is denied pill by Muslim pharmacist
A woman was refused the “morning-after pill” by a supermarket’s duty pharmacist because it was against his religious beliefs.

By Paul Stokes
Last Updated: 3:56PM BST 03 Oct 2008

Ruth Johnson, 33, who has two children, including a month-old baby, had not been using her usual method of contraception with her fiancée.

She went to the Tesco dispensary in Hewitts Circus, Cleethorpes, Lincs, and asked an as assistant for the pill Levanelle.

Miss Johnson was told it could only be dispensed by the locum pharmacist who was called to speak with her.

She said: “He came out from behind a screen and told me that he would not be allowing me to buy the pill from him because he had a right to refuse to sell it on the basis of his personal beliefs.

“The pharmacist was of Asian origin so I asked him if it was because of his religion and he replied ‘Yes’.”

Miss Johnson, from Cleethorpes, was left feeling ashamed and worried and complained to the store manager who told her they couldn’t force the pharmacist to sell the product.

She said: “I asked him if a Jewish or Muslim checkout operator could refuse to sell pork or alcohol or if a Jehovah’s Witness could refuse to sell birthday and Christmas cards.”

Her concern is that the policy could deter teenage girls from seeking the morning-after pill.

“I appreciate we live in a multi-cultural society but what gives him the right to impose his beliefs onto me?” she added.

(Righst? What rights? In a multi culture society, only minorities have any “rights.” And these days, especially mudslimes. Stone age MFers)

A Tesco spokesman said the pharmacist was acting within his rights to refuse to sell the pill and the customer was advised where else she could buy the product.

(Well Tesco is bloody well WRONG!  Why should a customer have to go somewhere else to buy a legal product ok’d by her doctor as I’m sure she must have had an Rx or why ask the pharmacist? This kinda crap is getting worse by the day. And oh btw, a pharmacist can and they do refuse to sell legal drugs they do not approve of, as my post of some months ago pointed out.  They have a totally insane system here. )

He said: “We do apologise to Miss Johnson for the inconvenience caused. However, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s code of ethics allows pharmacists the right to refuse.”

The Society said its code of ethics and standards is adopted by all healthcare bodies.

Its does not require a pharmacist to provide a service that is contrary to their religious or moral beliefs but any attempt by a pharmacist to impose their beliefs on a customer seeking professional help without offering an alternative could form the basis of a professional misconduct complaint.

Two years ago Jo-Ann Thomas, a school crossing patrolwoman with two children, faced a similar situation in Thurcroft, Rotherham, South Yorkshire.

She was told by a Muslim pharmacist at Lloyds Pharmacy near her home that she should go to her doctor for supplies even though the item was in stock.

She said at the time: “I’m a 37 year old woman, not a daft girl who doesn’t know what she’s doing. It’s my choice not his. It’s his religion not mine. He’s a dispensing chemist and his job is to dispense drugs.”

http://tinyurl.com/3n72ou

   Tuesday - September 16, 2008

College bans ‘Christmas’ and ‘Easter’ from calendar for fear of offending ethnic students.

More lunacy from the pc crowd that today control England.  I’m not gonna add anything to this.  Isn’t that I wouldn’t like to. I would.
I just can not find the words.

College bans ‘Christmas’ and ‘Easter’ from calendar for fear of offending ethnic students

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 4:26 PM on 16th September 2008

Yorkshire Coast College has re-branded Christmas and Easter as ‘end of term breaks’

A college has renamed the traditional Christmas and Easter breaks in a bid to avoid offending students from other religions.

The college’s new calendar shows that both of the traditional holiday periods have now been re-branded as ‘end of term breaks’.

Critics have complained that the decision by Yorkshire Coast College is nothing more than ‘political correctness’.

Tory MP Robert Goodwill said: ‘I have heard that some people refer to the Christmas period as the Winterval, which is worse. This is absolutely barmy.

‘We are a Christian country and, to be honest, religious tolerance in this country is about respecting other people’s religious beliefs.’

‘We live in a country where there is a mutual respect for religious beliefs.

‘School terms are traditionally separated by Christmas and Easter and they should be referred to as such.

‘They are petrified that they offend the minority but what they are doing is offending the majority.

‘It’s political correctness gone mad and I am disappointed that it’s from an edict from Ofsted.’

The college, based in Scarborough, North Yorkshire offers a range of courses concentrating on training for ‘life skills’ such as Engineering, Motor Vehicle Training and IT.

The college insists that the decision is in line with Ofsted guidelines and has been made to ‘increase inclusion and diversity’.

It circulates the internal year planner annually to 150 teaching staff and up to 50 other workers to inform them of important dates such as term times and training days.

A spokeswoman for the college said: ‘Every school and college, wherever located, is responsible for educating its learners who will live and work in a country which is diverse in terms of cultures, religions or beliefs, ethnicities and social backgrounds.

‘All employees at Yorkshire Coast College are encouraged to closely follow guidelines set out by Ofsted for the promotion of equality and diversity.

‘We constantly review the ways in which we communicate, to ensure that we do not discriminate, and part of those reviews means that we have stopped referring to the Christmas Break and Easter Break and we now have End of Term Break.’

However, Ofsted today denied this. A spokesperson said: ‘Ofsted inspection guidance for colleges makes no reference whatsoever to the observance of religious festivals; there is no ‘edict’ from Ofsted.’

http://tinyurl.com/5oazny

   Wednesday - September 10, 2008

Council threatens families with a £1,000 fine… for parking on their own driveways.  BAT ALERT

OK, here we go again. Never heard of such an outrageous ruling and especially as the council, years ago, was responsible.

I know we (USA) come in for a lot of criticism here, but I can tell you there isn’t any town council anywhere in the US that would even dream of this bit of lunacy. Hey, can the town council be issued with an ASBO?  Seems they deserve one.

Council threatens families with a £1,000 fine… for parking on their own driveways

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 11:31 AM on 10th September 2008

Furious residents have been left stunned after a council threatened to fine them £1,000 - for parking on their own driveways.

Homeowners in a quiet village have been told they have the wrong type of kerbs, despite having driven over them for the 50 years since the properties were built.

Councillors are using a law passed 30 years ago to stop them from parking beside their own homes.

Furious: Ken Laverack has been told he faces a £1,000 fine for parking on his own driveway as he has ‘the wrong type of kerb’

But residents each face a £1,200 bill if they install ‘dropped kerbs’ that allow easier access to their driveways.

The council threat came in a letter delivered to 12 houses on Pinfold Street, a quiet road with smart semi-detached houses worth around £200,000 in Eastrington, East Yorkshire. 

The properties were built between 1949 and 1952. Some were built with driveways and others were added years later.

Two of the houses are council-owned, but they still received the letter - including baffled Ken Laverack, whose drive was built by the council 20 years ago after the 1980 Highways Act was introduced.

Retired Ken, 61, said: ‘I just couldn’t believe it when the letter arrived.

‘The council themselves put my drive in 20 years ago and now they’re saying I can’t use it. It’s absolutely ridiculous, my car is just on the road now.

‘It’s crazy that they didn’t tell me about this when the drive was built.

‘They could easily have done so because the act was in place then.

‘We’ve sent a letter of complaint off to the council and will have to see what happens.

‘I’ve lived here over 30 years, I’ve raised a family here yet I’m being told I can’t park in my own drive.’

Neighbour Adam Stroud said: ‘I think it is scandalous. My wife has lived here for 29 years and has driven all that time and I have been here for 18 years.

‘It’s madness to clamp down on it now.

‘The Highways Act was issued 28 years ago so why were the kerbs not dropped then if the act is so vital. Why should we have to pay to have this work done to council property - the footpath - just so we can cross it to get to our private land?’

Roy Poulter, 63, an IT consultant who has lived on the street for 11 years, added: ‘It’s absolute nonsense. I’ve been driving over the kerbs for all these years with no problems and now they have sent us a letter aggressively ordering us to stop parking on our own drives.

‘I was quoted £1200 to have the work done by a contractor which is a huge amount of money.’
Councillors

Threat to fine: Twelve homes in Pinfold Street have been targeted by the council for parking in their own drives

Grandad Roy, who lives with wife Ellen, 60, added: ‘People cannot afford to have the work done or the cost of a fine so are forced to park their vehicle on the street. 

‘Where do they expect people to find this amount of money - especially in the current climate?

‘This is a farming village and Pinfold Street is regularly used by farmers as a route to get to the fields but with parked cars on the road they just cant get through.

‘We need to sit down and talk to the council sensibly to find a solution.’

People have now been forced to leave their vehicles on the road after receiving the controversial letter from East Riding of Yorkshire Council.

Local Tory Councillor Mark Preston said: ‘The current policy of East Riding Council in threatening residents with fines of up to £1000 to any household that does not comply with the regulation is heavy handed, and is ill-timed in light of the current economic pressures on many households.’

The letter claims that under the Highways Act, they must stop using their drives ‘until a satisfactory means of access to the kerb of verge has been constructed.’

A spokesman for East Riding Council said: ‘It is illegal under the 1980 Highways Act to drive a vehicle over a kerbed footway or verge which has become an increasing problem leading to sustainable damage to highways and cost to council taxpayers services including electrical cables and water pipes which are put at risk as a consequence of this inadequate use of the highways.

‘The legislation deals with the use of the highways including verges and footways, it does not relate to private land.

‘The council regularly takes action relating to unlawful access from the public highways throughout East Riding.

‘This problem has been brought to our attention recently. Homeowners are able to apply for a properly constructed drop kerb to provide vehicular access to property and many thousands of East Riding residents have followed this procedure.’

http://tinyurl.com/5pyp27

   Thursday - September 04, 2008

Muslim terrorists and criminals have been given £25,000 worth of lunch boxes.

Have the Brits lost their minds?  Well no. At least man person in the street hasn’t.  But there’s not much the average ratepayer can do about it.  Complain?  Who’ll listen who cares?  They’re closing post offices all over the country, some services are being cut back, powers that be complain about lack of funds for this and that program but ... they find approx. $50,000 for scum.  BTW ... why do they have to be fed anyway?  BAH!  This is crazy!

Prisoner bosses spend £25,000 on lunchboxes for Ramadan
Muslim terrorists and criminals have been given £25,000 worth of lunch boxes to keep their meals warm during Ramadan.
By Chris Irvine
Last Updated: 12:05PM BST 04 Sep 2008

The bright yellow metal containers were issued to nearly 250 inmates in London’s Belmarsh Prison, which is home to a number of convicted and suspected terrorists, including Abu Hamza, serving seven years for incitement to murder and racial hatred.

The boxes allow prisoners to keep meals warm until darkness when they are allowed to break their fasting period during Ramadan, which started on Monday.

Prison officers at Belmarsh have criticised the move, fearing the 18in long containers, which resemble a tool box, could be used as a weapon.

One prison source told The Sun: “It’s madness to allow dangerous prisoners to have a metal box with handles. These are not petty criminals - these are hardened terrorists.

“In the past they have been given the opportunity to have a container like a small cool box but these things are just a lavish upgrade.

A Prison Service spokesperson said: “The purpose of prison is to deprive offenders of their liberty as a punishment for crimes committed against society. It is not there to restrict religious beliefs and practice.

“HMP Belmarsh provide flasks for the Ramadan fast which allows Muslim prisoners to keep food warm for the Iftar (evening meal). They are re-usable and will be used for years to come. Flasks are the most cost effective way of meeting this requirement without disruption to the running of the prison.”

http://tinyurl.com/6qxatn

   Wednesday - September 03, 2008

yeah, what they said

“This is the blade by which politics turns to bloodshed.”



I am utterly disgusted with the MSM. And the violent lunatics on the left, both the ones that blog and the ones that violently protest while also attempting to murder children.

So is Mischa.

So is Ace. And with mighty good reason.

Bitch slap the next journalist you meet, just on general principles. There aren’t enough horse whips in the world to dole out the floggings deserved.

Also worth a quick read is First Things First, from whom I snagged the header, who dares to look into the madness that is The Daily Kos, and comes away with the core mindset there from the comments:

Are you telling me you would not destroy the love a family holds for one another, even if it meant letting someone who would destroy the constitution become president?

None of use would use these tactics in a perfect world. It is not a perfect world. It is a fallen world. We have to judge costs and benefits, not moral absolutes. I know this is the way to fanaticism and destruction—believe me I do. But, when we face opponents such as the ones we face . . . what else is there for us to do?

What choice do we have? When faced with monsters, we have to be monstrous ourselves.

These people are batshit insane. Lock them up, throw away the key, then drown them.

   Tuesday - August 26, 2008

Police officers told to mind their language.  (an oooold story from 2001. but still current)

Gee, this story was three years before we moved here to the wife’s native country to look after her aged and decrepit mom. And that was just her brain at the time.
Now then people, I have very much edited this before posting so do not simply go with my edited version.  Use the link for the whole story.  I’m simply posting it here because it was listed as related to a previous Moonbat post I have.  There may be some fraction, some little justification for rules with regard to
offensive language and behavior.  I do not dispute that and I very much doubt the “man in the street” does either.  However, as one officer has said, they’re
afraid to open their mouths in case they offend someone.  And you just know in this politically correct nightmare the left has been allowed to construct, anything at all can be found to offend someone, somewhere.

Not too long ago and I believe I mentioned it, our milkman went on vacation for a week.  We received a notice informing us that our “MILKPERSON”
was going to be away for a week.  Milkperson. Imagine that.  How fraken stupid!

Stay Tuned and lots-a-luck not getting yourself sued by someone you might offend.

http://tinyurl.com/6mu9ay

Story from:
Paul Stokes
The Telegraph, June 2001.

The 16-page document drawn up by Greater Manchester Police sets out words and phrases deemed unsuitable and likely to offend. In his foreword to The Power of Language David Wilmot, the Chief Constable of Manchester, draws attention to the importance of using appropriate language. He says the aim is to protect the 6,900 officers, 3,240 civilian employees and 685 special constables from making unintentional mistakes and help them interact within the community.

He said: “We want everyone to respect the views and feelings of others, and to use language that doesn’t offend.”

The term “deaf and dumb” will be replaced by “deaf without speech” and people will no longer be “wheelchair bound” but “wheelchair users”. Political correctness extends to policemen becoming known only as police officers, a spokesman as a spokesperson, foreman as a supervisor and workmen as workers.

Officers are warned against using obviously offensive words such as cretin, spastic, cripple or mongol or even “people with special needs” in relation to the disabled. Pejorative expressions such as happy clappy, bible basher, God botherer and God Squad are also outlawed when describing people with religious convictions.

It is pointed out that homophobic words like queer, poofter, fag, dyke and butch cause offence to gays and lesbians as do phrases such as “gays often do those types of jobs”, “a woman with lesbian tendencies”, “a person of the other persuasion” or “he or she bats for the other side”.

Officers are urged to be extra sensitive when dealing with cross dressers, transsexuals and transvestites in case they cause offence and to try to understand the differences between them. A senior officer with more than 20 years’ police experience in Manchester said: “This document is a waste of time. Police have enough on their plates these days without adding to the problems.

“This document makes out that we are all idiots who need to be told how to address people. We are human beings who are trained to deal with tricky situations, this report makes a mockery of that. We’re scared to open our mouths in case we offend anybody.”

---

---

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 © 2004-2008 Domain Owner