Saturday - July 26, 2008

LADY FINED $600.00 FOR USING THE WRONG COLOR TRASH BAG.  JOKE?  NO. NOT AT ALL.

The fine was revoked but ......

Trader is fined £300 by council for using black bin bags instead of grey
Story from:  The Daily Mail, England

Nicole Rosbrook was fined for using the wrong coloured bin bags
Customers shopping for clothes at the Charli boutique watched in amazement when two uniformed men marched in and threatened staff with criminal prosecution.

Their crime? Putting out rubbish in the wrong-coloured bin bags.

Council officers announced that the shop in Muswell Hill, North London, would be fined £300 after using black bags because they had run out of the grey version issued by the local authority.

The designer store had been waiting since July 1 for a delivery of new bags, but by the 17th staff decided they would have to put their rotting rubbish out in four standard black bags - a decision which cost them £75 per bag.

Owner Sangita Ibrahim, 47, said: ‘The shop was really busy and they came in here like the Gestapo.

‘Staff were told they would face criminal prosecution and receive a criminal record for the bags. I felt like I was going to be frogmarched away.’

Colleague Nicole Rosbrook said: ‘The two men actually went through the bags, leaving them open and rubbish strewn over the pavement.’

Manager Dora Panagi, 41, added: ‘Muswell Hill has a real pest problem and we had food in the bags in the stock room.

‘We had been waiting two weeks for these grey bags to be delivered so we could put it out.

‘It started to smell terrible so we put it in four black bags and put two of the grey council bags on top so that they would know it was our rubbish and take it.

‘When I came in the next day there was rubbish all over the pavement and I thought that foxes had got to it.

‘Then in walked these two guys looking like policemen with all the badges and the way they dealt with it was horrific.

One said there had been a criminal offence and I didn’t know what he was talking about. My knees were shaking.

She said that when customers tried to intervene they were brushed aside by the officials.

‘Funnily enough the next morning after that happened the bags were finally delivered.’

A Haringey Council spokesman said: ‘We are working very hard with residents to stop people abusing the trade waste collection by using it for their rubbish.

Trade waste is left out in specific bags to ensure we provide paying traders with an efficient service.

The rubbish was clearly not in the correct bags and looked like the many fly-tipping bags our traders find dumped in their waste.

‘Consequently the notice was lawfully issued by our fly-tipping patrol who followed proper procedures.

‘Having investigated the situation with our contractors who collect trade waste and supply the trade waste bags, we will be contacting the shop to arrange cancelling the enforcement notice in this case.’

Council staff at a rubbish tip are to wear head cameras so they can record bad behaviour by members of the public.
Poole Council in Dorset said the move was designed to protect its staff at the Nuffield Household Waste and Recycling Centre after recent cases of abuse and aggression.

http://tinyurl.com/5rbwkb

Posted by Drew458     on 07/26/2008 at 06:05 AM   
Filed Under: • Crime • Daily Life • UK •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - July 25, 2008

Grandmother arrested on race charges after telling rowdy Asian students to ‘go home’.

CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS?  THAT’S ALL IT TAKES HERE.

FOR GOSH SAKE ENGLAND.  WAKE THE HELL UP. THERE’S STILL TIME. 

DAILY MAIL

July 25, 2008

After being woken for the third time in one night by a group of drunken and noisy students, Jo Calvert-Mindell was at her wits’ end.

The former policewoman got dressed, went outside and shouted at them: ‘Why can’t you go back to where you come from and make some noise there? I bet your families and neighbours wouldn’t put up with it.

‘You don’t care about us and do just as you like. What gives you the right to frighten my elderly neighbours, cause damage and keep us awake at night?’

She also reported the incident to police, who came and dispersed the eight students.

The 51-year-old grandmother was astonished when four months later she was arrested and accused of being a racist. It turned out that two Asians in the group had complained to the police.

In April, Miss Calvert-Mindell, who has never been in trouble with the police before, was charged with using racially aggravated threatening words or behaviour under section 5 of the Public Order Act.

In May, she appeared at Folkestone Magistrates’ Court in Kent, where she denied the charge.

The case hung over her until the Crown Prosecution Service decided to drop it last week, admitting there was little chance of conviction. Now she is filing a complaint about the way the police treated her.

Yesterday, Miss Calvert-Mindell, a Liberal Democrat councillor and community volunteer, said: ‘The last thing I am is a racist.

‘I have a totally inclusive attitude to different races and cultures - I don’t care if you are black, white, green or a Martian.

‘Their colour had nothing to do with it - it was their behaviour.

‘I think there is something very wrong in our society when a resident can’t go out and try and prevent crime and disorder and encourage the defendants to go back home and that they can then play the race card to completely absolve themselves of responsibility for that behaviour.

‘The authorities today are so sensitive to being criticised for being racist that any claims of racism just raises their antennae, instead of using common sense.’

The incident that led to her court appearance happened in the early hours of November 8 last year on the Hales Place estate in Canterbury.

Miss Calvert-Mindell, who has a daughter and three grandchildren, was woken three times by students from the nearby University of Kent, who were shouting drunkenly and kicking bins.

Fed up after months of sleeplessness caused by noisy students she put her clothes on and went down to tell them to be quiet.

She said that when she shouted at the students ‘all I meant was that they would not do that at their family homes wherever they had come from in England.’

But one of the students said she was being racist. Two Asians in the group later complained to police.

Assistant district crown prosecutor Carol Chastney said: ‘Following a review we decided to discontinue the proceedings against the defendant as there was no longer sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.’

Kent Police refused to apologise. Superintendent Chris Hogben said: ‘An allegation was made that was fully investigated. A case was presented to the CPS and the decision was made to prosecute.

‘If Miss Calvert-Mindell would like to discuss our response and the conduct of officers I would urge her to contact me direct.’

http://tinyurl.com/6dejh5

Posted by Drew458     on 07/25/2008 at 03:23 PM   
Filed Under: • Outrageous • Racism and race relations • UK •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

4-inch key fob gun used to shoot clubber ‘in row over girls’.

So, the lovely Mr. Henry (see his ugly face on the link) points this tiny gun at some other misfit and BANG. He fires the thing.
The other bleeds because he’s been hit and has a boo-boo and goes to a hosp. to have a bullet removed from his shoulder.
You folks clear on that?

BUT ... the jury .... oh hell.  That’s why I posted this. You read it. Dumb as a box of rox. Just like ours.

Pictured: The terrifying 4-inch key fob gun used to shoot clubber ‘in row over girls’

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 12:32 PM on 25th July 2008

At first glance it looks like any other keyring used for automatically unlocking car doors.

But this innocent-looking key fob hides a deadly purpose.

Small enough to fit in the palm of your hand it is actually a double-barrelled gun capable of wounding and even killing a man.

The terrifying new escalation of Britain’s gun culture was revealed in a landmark court case in which a clubber who shot a man with the weapon was jailed for nine years.

Marcus Henry, 27, fired the double barrelled weapon - which is small enough to fit in the palm of the hand- after being accused of showing ‘disrespect’ in a bar.

Victim Yaw Darko Kwakye, 24, was hit from just three yards and needed surgery to remove a single bullet from his shoulder.

Marcus Henry was jailed today for shooting a man with the key fob gun
Detectives from the City of London Police are now using the unusual weapon for training purposes - but believe there are at least 100 in circulation.

The gun was originally made in Bulgaria as a lifejacket flare gun but criminals have adapted them to fire .25 calibre bullets.

DS Dave Carter said: ‘They are very dangerous weapons, arguably more dangerous than your average handgun because to the casual glance they look like something different.’

Henry denied he was the gunman but was convicted of possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life, possession of a prohibited weapon and unlawful wounding.

A jury acquitted him of both attempted murder and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

(see I don’t understand that. he fired the damn gun right? he used gun control to hit his target. so how could they acquit him on the wounding charge?)

Judge Christopher Moss QC told Henry it was lucky his victim had not been killed.

He added: ‘To this day you continue to deny your guilt in this matter.

‘These offences must attract severe prison sentences. Not only did you have the firearm in your possession, it had ammunition loaded into it and you in fact wounded another by firing it at him.’

The Old Bailey heard how Henry and his friend had clashed with the victim’s group inside the Departure Lounge in Crutched Friars Street in the City of London.

Henry was seen chatting to Mr Darko Kwakye’s girlfriend Christine Bennett shortly before the club closed at 4am on December 16 last year.

Prosecutor Mark Heywood told jurors: “There appears to have been a confrontation between the two of them with Darko Kwakye saying ‘you can’t go for other people’s girls. That’s disrespectful’.”

Punches were thrown by Mr Darko Kwakye before the two groups separated.

But Henry waited outside by his friend’s Lexus for the victim and his friends to leave the club and the pair squared up once more.

Mr Heywood said: “Henry was seen to have his hand near his waistband on a number of occasions and was heard to say ‘look how many of you there are, there’s only two of us.

‘He then brought his hand out and in to a straight arm firing position and then aimed in the direction of Mr Darko Kwakye and the others.

‘There was a lot of movement and between two and four sounds like shots.’ The victim’s group at first scattered but then returned to attack the car as Henry and his friend sped away.

‘Mr Darko Kwakye had in fact been hit in the right shoulder, but he didn’t realise it,’ said Mr Heywood.

‘He went down the street and got in to a car with two others. He realised as he was travelling away there was blood on his shirt and a bullet hole. He was in pain and realised what had happened.’ Miss Bennett took the victim to Newham General Hospital where the bullet was removed, the wound was treated and he was released.

Mr Heywood told the jury: ‘In these days of heightened security, particularly in our capital city, if someone wants to carry a weapon it must be concealed

http://tinyurl.com/585evb

Posted by Drew458     on 07/25/2008 at 01:59 PM   
Filed Under: • Crime • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - July 24, 2008

post is delivered to wrong address for 19 years.

Neither rain nor sleet nor .... oh wait .... wrong post office.

Pensioner furious as post is delivered to wrong address for 19 years

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 5:59 PM on 23rd July 2008

A man whose post has been delivered to the wrong address for a staggering 19 years, has finally received an apology from the Royal Mail.

Raymond Southwell has called the company every month for almost two decades to complain that his mail doesn’t arrive at his home in Salterns Lane, Fareham, Hants.

Each time he calls, Royal Mail staff assure him the error won’t happen again.
But 76 year old Mr Southwell’s post still gets delivered to an address in the nearby Salterns Estate.
Raymond Southwell

Going postal: Raymond Southwell had had enough after the Royal Mail delivered his letters to the wrong address for 19 years

The gaff has meant Mr Southwell, who suffers from arthiritis, and wife Jill, 66, who has MS, have failed to receive vital prescriptions on time.

The couple have also missed credit card payments because they didn’t get the bill in time. And a birthday card addressed Mrs Southwell arrived at their address one month late.

Mr Southwell said: ‘It’s absolutely ridiculous. Why it has happened for so long, I don’t know. It’s not even that the post isn’t correctly addressed because it always is.

‘But you can rant and rave as much as you want and nothing changes. Up until now Royal Mail haven’t apologised once.

‘I’m fed up of ringing them up and being told it wont happen again - only for it then to carry on.

‘The chap in Salterns Estate is very good at dropping things round for us. But sometimes he’s away and so our mail sits on his door mat until he gets back. But he shouldn’t have to do the postman’s job anyway.;

Royal Mail have now promised to take steps to ensure that the problem doesn’t happen again.

Royal Mail spokeswoman Jane Thomas, said: ‘We apologise to Mr Southwell for any inconvenience caused and can assure we’ve taken steps to prevent this happening again in the future.

‘It would appear on odd occasions someone covering the regular post man is not as familiar with the area and has accidentally mistaken Salterns Estate for Salterns Lane.

‘We are now monitoring Mr Southwell’s mail to make sure this is not repeated and we’ve also put a special notice on the sorting frame to remind all staff who go on that round to deliver to Salterns Lane.’

Mr and Mrs Southwell believe the problem occurs because their house is the only one with an odd number in the street.

But they say their home has a sign outside with the house number and the street name.

Mr Southwell added: ‘It’s not as if we are hidden away. The house isn’t hard to spot at all.

‘I’ve had plenty of apologies over the phone but all I want is for my mail to be delivered to the right address.’

http://tinyurl.com/6jfqw8

Posted by Drew458     on 07/24/2008 at 03:25 PM   
Filed Under: • Miscellaneous • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Barack Obama lifts the spirits, but he’s not ‘The One’

Interesting commentary from Brit side.

By Iain Martin
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 24/07/2008

Even if it is not quite the second coming - this is at least his third visit - Barack Obama’s arrival on these shores will be regarded by his Anglo-supporters as a quasi-spiritual event.

While he may not be our saviour, he is promising to make the world we share with the US a safer place, and to behave in an exciting fashion on our television

For those Britons sick of the old-time religion of the Bush years, the arrival of “The One”, as the McCain team sarcastically refer to their rival, is accordingly a glorious, shining moment.

It follows years of misery in which Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their pupil interpreted the nature of the threat correctly but bungled the response.

For those, like this writer, who began the century regarding Bush favourably (the thought seems very distant now), the appearance of a presidential contender who is comfortable in his own skin, eloquent, quick-witted and cool in his general demeanour does lift the spirits.

British Atlanticists who seek a return to a pre-Bush notion of the United States and want to be able to take pride in a pro-American outlook, should not be anything other than pleased that a candidate for this November’s election is so widely approved of.

But there is a rather large problem here: Barack Obama is not what many hope he is. And how could he be? It is said that we live in an age of super cynicism, of knowing, consumerist scepticism about the powerful and the promises they make, but still there are suckers when the zeitgeist candidate invokes the H word, or the “audacity of hope” as Obama puts it.

In America the gloss has come off the idea of Obama as the candidate for “hope” - though in Britain, less so - as some in the coalition for change he has built work out that, as was always going to be the case, he has begun to trim and behave like what he is: a politician.

Obama has come to Britain on at least three occasions, meeting Tony Blair in Number 10 in 2005 and before that, in 1997, attending his half sister’s wedding. He even turned out for the groom’s stag event, which appears to have involved a pub crawl through Wokingham during which “entertainment” from a stripogram was provided.

As a presidential candidate, he will have considerably less fun on this latest trip. Both major British party leaders (and even one former Labour leader who never misses a chance) want to be photographed alongside Obama and bathe in the reflected light.

David Cameron’s team excitedly point out that they have been scheduled in for some time, while the visit is slightly marred from Gordon Brown’s perspective by the Democrat’s decision to meet Blair.

Although Obama will be seen on the steps of Number 10, at this stage it appears that he will not be pictured there with Brown, as that style of welcome was not extended to John McCain when he came to Britain and the Prime Minister must consider diplomatic good form.

The thought lingers that the Obama team knows a picture with Blair is 10 times more powerful when beamed back home than a similar shot with Brown.

By the time Obama leaves, what will we have learnt? That he is a charming and impressive personality is beyond doubt, and that may be enough to carry him all the way to the White House. But does he, for example, have a realistic chance of achieving the objectives outlined in his recent speeches on foreign policy?

The Obama doctrine, such as it can be divined, seems to be that an America under his leadership would rebuild its alliances, deal with energy security and climate change, end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan successfully and bring the struggle with al-Qaeda and the Taliban to a close.

These are laudable aims not far removed from McCain’s (or, let’s face it, anyone’s) aspirations, however close study of Obama’s utterances provides little indication of how any of them are to be achieved.

If he wins, alliances will be rebuilt quite easily by virtue of his magnetism and his second name not being Bush. For the rest, he will have to start spending the accumulated capital.

Take Afghanistan and the Pakistan border regions. Even if we want to end the fight with al-Qaeda and the Taliban, they started it and appear not to want to stop. This suggests more vigorous pursuit if closure is the goal.

He will have to be more hard-headed towards Pakistan than Bush; the US operation targeting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan must be forged together with the one being carried out by Nato, of which Britain is a part.

Then allies, freshly wooed, must provide more in terms of moral support and materiel. It becomes difficult to see how this will work. The German political class, and public, which is to be addressed in Berlin today with a speech intended to echo JFK, will take Obama’s rhetoric to mean they, and the rest of us in the West, can expect a quieter life than we have had since September 11.

The idea of a dove in the White House is popular, even though circumstances will force the next incumbent to be quite hawkish. A reckoning, and resentment, lie ahead.

Worse than that, when the world falls out love with Obama, as it will, his central weakness will be the lack of a clear ideological analysis to sustain him in times of unpopularity. In 1947, a great Democrat, Harry Truman, gave his name to a doctrine which set the West on the road to eventual victory in the Cold War.

Against the advice of many in the foreign policy elite, he said that, although we were tired of conflict - having just defeated one tyranny, fascism - the West would have to steel itself for a long struggle with another: communism.

Where the communists went, America and its allies would block the way. Only when Truman was out of office did the service he had done his country in grasping this truth become apparent. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher inherited his view, believing that communism was economically and morally sick, and if we were strong enough we could defeat it. The rest is history.

The need is for a great foreign policy president of the quality of Truman, or Reagan. To win a long war begun by our enemies, we are going to need more than an attractive but essentially empty vessel.

http://tinyurl.com/6cls9u

Posted by Drew458     on 07/24/2008 at 03:13 PM   
Filed Under: • Miscellaneous • Politics • UK •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

WE MUST ALL DO OUR BIT TO SAVE THE PLANET. SO LET’S GO GWEEN

My first post after an off day and what a coincidence.  Drew has a really terrific post on a subject I was going to lead with based on some doings on this side of the Atlantic.  The lunacy is everywhere and it doesn’t show signs of ending anytime soon.  So may I suggest to all of you that you please do your bit now. Later may be too late.

Follow my example, photo below, and start collecting 100W light bulbs.

Not good enough my light bulb that performs exactly as intended - No - The Gween planet savers want me to change to their more expensive and useless to my needs dim yellow glow.  You folks know what I’m talking about.  Can you honestly read by those eco-friendly bulbs being pushed by the planet savers?
According to their lights I’m an idiot if I reject their arguments with regard to my rejection of their chosen illumination.

There has been serious talk by the EU and it’s being accepted here in UK (of course it is) that the standard and dastardly light that lights well, must go.
They even have a target to the switch off.  Well folks, here’s my answer.

And this is only the beginning. There are only 58 showing here but there are a few more behind, and some 150s not shown.  It has become our policy now to buy 100W light bulbs every week when the wife does a grocery shop at TESCO.  That’s a major chain and I have to tell you honestly they put most of ours back home to shame in some areas.  However, poor,poor Tesco also does some very silly things.  Like caving in to browbeating by a newspaper here called The Daily Mail, which has gotten onto an ecological high horse calling for the restriction or outright banning of plastic grocery bags.

One major grocery chain is now charging customers 10 cents a bag at the checkout.  Tesco for their part, has pulled the stacks of plastic bags from the end of the checkout line, and is putting out three bags at a time.  Customers must ask for more as needed.  Doesn’t matter if you have a cart full of groceries, you must ask for extra bags.  All this in an effort to force ppl to bring their own bags to market.  One problem I see is - how does a customer know exactly from week to week what her/his needs will be?  Just how many of your own bags are you supposed to bring into the store?  Your needs may differ from week to week.  I think I should let my American audience know that over here, most major grocery shops do not use baggers as we do back home.  Customers bag their own stuff altho you can get help if needed.

There’s already one or two small towns that have announced proudly that they are, “Plastic Bag Free.” I’ve no idea how that works or what they’ve done to achieve such an exalted ecological status.

So, my wife went to the market this week and after getting the politically correct three bags, asked for more which they gave her. She pointed out that she had a weeks worth of groceries in her cart, that three bags at a time only succeeded in holding the line up.  Since she was there there at a time when the store
wasn’t too busy and there was nobody else behind her, she started putting only one or two items in a bag and kept asking for more, which they gave with no argument.  Since Tesco caved in to the Daily Mail’s daily harangue, my wife asked why Tesco did not point out the following with regard to the highly damaging, planet destroying plastic bag. 

THESE ARE DEGRADABLE !!! 

THE CASHIER WAS SURPRISED AT THE PRINT ON THE BAG, SAYING HE’D NEVER SEEN IT BEFORE.  I BET TESCO DIDN’T EITHER AND CERTAINLY THE MAIL
DIDN’T EITHER, BEFORE GOING AFTER TESCO TOOTH AND NAIL FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS.  JUST SHOWS YA HOW MUCH RESEARCH THE MAIL DOES, AND HOW SINCERE THEIR POLITICALLY CORRECT CAMPAIGN REALLY IS.

Posted by Drew458     on 07/24/2008 at 08:58 AM   
Filed Under: • Nanny State • Politically-Incorrect • UK •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - July 22, 2008

Don’t set dogs on criminals with allergies, police told.  latest example of “namby pamby” policing

Yeah, there’s a lot I can say but I’ll leave that up to the rest of ya.. Besides which, I have a tendency to curse a lot over stupid stuff like this.
Not as bad as what I say to my computer but that’s something else.

Police dog handlers will have to consider whether criminals have allergies or a fear of dogs before conducting searches in what has been described as the latest example of “namby pamby” policing.

By Gordon Rayner
Last Updated: 11:15PM BST 21 Jul 2008

Guidelines being drawn up by senior officers will tell dog handlers they should “avoid offending” people with phobias of animals when dogs are used in drug raids and other investigations.

The rules have been produced amid fears that suspects with medical conditions triggered by the presence of dogs, such as asthma, may file costly compensation claims against the police if they suffer an allergy or panic attack during a police raid.

Dog handlers have also been told to take “cultural sensitivities” into account, though reports that dogs would be required to wear specially-designed boots on their paws during searches of mosques and Muslim homes have been flatly denied.

The plans have been ridiculed in the respected force magazine Police Review, with one columnist citing it as the latest diktat from “the polite police”.

The anonymous sergeant writes: “The traditional shout of ‘stand still or I’ll set the dog on you’ will presumably have to become ‘excuse me, my police dog is quite hairy and might cause alarm as he sinks his fangs into his right thigh. Is that all right with you?’

“The whole point of police dogs is to frighten people rigid, at least those who have just committed a crime and would otherwise make a clean getaway. They should have considered the mental trauma and possible allergic reaction caused by 60lbs of foaming Alsatian clamping its teeth to their extremities before embarking on their criminal escapade.”

A serving dog handler, who asked not to be named, said: “I have never heard anything so ridiculous. What’s next? Sparing people custody because they have a fear of enclosed spaces?

“This is just another example of namby pamby policing laid down by people who haven’t been on the beat in years.”

PC Mike Dermody, a former dog handler with Greater Manchester Police, was among those dismissing the need for guidelines, saying: “I have never encountered an incident where we have offended someone. If there is a person with an allergy, we will put them in one room while we search the rest of the house.”

And PC David Heaps, a dog handling trainer at Derbyshire Constabulary, said dog handlers were already “mindful not to cause offence”.

The controversy arose after Peter Vaughan, the Association of Chief Police Officers’ adviser on dogs, said: “The draft guidelines outline a general principle that forces should consider what steps can be taken to avoid offending people during operations.

“This might include different categories of people such as those with a fear of dogs, for example or asthma sufferers who may be sensitive to dog hair.”

Mr Vaughan, deputy chief constable of South Wales Police, insisted, however, that “in all operations effective policing will take primacy”, meaning dog handlers would not have to take possible allergies into account when tackling violent criminals, for example.

http://tinyurl.com/5ek6ys

Posted by Drew458     on 07/22/2008 at 02:30 AM   
Filed Under: • Crime • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Insanity • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - July 21, 2008

GREETINGS TO ALL COMRADS AMERIKA/ENGLAND, GOOD NEWS COMRADS.

THE BRIT HOME IS STILL A BRIT’S CASTLE.  HE/SHE IS JUST SUB-LEASING TO THE GOVT.  SEE HOW EASY THAT IS?

Labour has nearly doubled the number of laws that give officials access to your home
By Andy Bloxham
Last Updated: 11:09PM BST 20/07/2008

More than a 1,000 laws now exist that allow the authorities into homes, it has emerged.

The 1,043 laws – nearly half of which have been introduced under Labour – include the right to inspect pot plants for pests, to measure the height of hedges, to search bedrooms for asylum seekers and to look at fridges for their energy rating.

The information will heighten fears among campaigners that Britain is becoming a “Big Brother” society. The Conservatives claimed that the list of powers of entry was “quietly slipped out” without a press release on the Home Office website.

A total of 420 new powers of entry have been introduced by Labour since it came to power in 1997. Sixteen more are contained in laws due to be approved by Parliament in the next few weeks.

The Plant Health (England) Order 2005 allows inspectors to enter homes to see if plants have pests or if certain types of plants have been smuggled in without a “plant passport”.

Section 74 of The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 allows councils to check if a hedge is too high.

The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 can be used to allow officials to ensure accommodation provided to asylum seekers is not being used by others.

Although it is aimed at business, the Energy Information (Household Refrigerators and Freezers) Regulations 2004 can also be used to seize fridges with an incorrect energy rating.

Council bin inspectors already have the authority to enter homes and take photographs for evidence. Those who obstruct them face the threat of a £5,000 fine.

The Tories said the development was proof that Gordon Brown was reneging on his promise to curtail such laws by introducing a “liberty test” to limit state intrusion.

Eric Pickles, the shadow communities secretary, said: “Day by day under Labour, the rights and liberties of law-abiding citizens are being eroded.”

http://tinyurl.com/6jds53

Posted by Drew458     on 07/21/2008 at 11:51 AM   
Filed Under: • Commies • Miscellaneous • Nanny State • UK •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

policeman ‘victimised’ over opposition to homosexual event

Please allow me to state at the top as it were, that I do not personally have anything against these folks except the following.
Certainly not all but a very vocal and perhaps large group want me and apparently this cop, to accept their queer (as in very odd) behavior as normal.

Christian policeman ‘victimised’ over opposition to gay queer pride event
By David Thomas
Last Updated: 8:31PM BST 20/07/2008

A Christian policeman is taking his own force to an employment tribunal over claims that it “harassed” him because of his religious opposition to homosexuality.

Graham Cogman, a constable with 15 years experience, is taking action against Norfolk Police as he claims he was victimised for refusing to wear a pink ribbon on his uniform to mark a ”gay homosexual pride” event, and for questioning the force’s stance towards gay queer acting men and lesbians.

The 49-year churchgoer, who circulated emails to officers quoting the biblical stance on homosexuality being a sin, claims he is being singled out because of his beliefs. The force has responded by saying it will not tolerate any “homophobic behaviour”.

His case echoes that of London registrar Lillian Ladele, who recently won a tribunal after refusing to officiate at same-sex civil partnerships because of her religious views.

PC Cogman, a father of two, said reconciling his religious beliefs with his job was becoming more difficult because the force’s stance on homosexuality was at odds with his religious views.

“The blatant support for homosexual rights in Norfolk Police makes being a Christian officer extremely difficult,” he said.

“I am not undertaking this action lightly but I have to make a stand when things become so blatantly biased against me just because I hold a faith.”

His complaint stems from a circular email sent to officers in early 2005 encouraging staff to wear a pink ribbon on their uniforms during Gay History Month.

After receiving the email, PC Cogman sent a reply to his fellow officers featuring biblical quotations about homosexuality being a sin. He objected again the following year when a similar email was again sent to officers.

He was subjected to a disciplinary tribunal and fined 13 days’ pay.

A spokesman for Norfolk Police yesterday said that PC Cogman’s behaviour “fell well below the standard which we expect”.

“Whilst the force fully respects the officer has strong beliefs, it is only correct that he respects the beliefs and wishes of others,” he said.

“The force will not tolerate any form of homophobic behaviour.”

At the beginning of July, Islington registrar and devout Christian Lillian Ladele won an employment tribunal after claiming she was bullied and treated as a “pariah” for refusing to officiate over same-sex civil partnerships.

http://tinyurl.com/5sto5f

Posted by Drew458     on 07/21/2008 at 09:50 AM   
Filed Under: • Odd-Strange • Sex • UK •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

‘Idiots and lunatics’ may be given right to stand for Parliament. (thought they already were)

‘Idiots and lunatics’ may be given right to stand for Parliament
By Joanna Corrigan
Last Updated: 12:57AM BST 21/07/2008

People labelled “idiots” and “lunatics” under archaic mental health laws could soon be allowed to stand for Parliament.

(My Brit wife believes they are already there.  Based on things I’ve seen so far, I think she may be right.)

Ministers are considering scrapping ancient rules after complaints from mental health campaigners that they are discriminatory.

Laws created in Elizabethan times define idiots as “incapable of gaining reason” and lunatics as capable of only periods of lucidity.

They are banned from becoming MPs “in their non lucid intervals”.

The ancient laws also ban anyone sectioned under the Mental Health Act from putting themselves forward for election, even if they have fully recovered, and require MPs to give up their seat for life if they are sectioned for six months.

A spokesman for Mind, the mental health charity, said it was wrong to rule out people that have suffered in the past but are still extremely capable.

“People who have suffered mental health problems can function at a very high level. Look at Stephen Fry. He has been open about his manic depression and people would be shocked if someone like him were not eligible to stand,” he said.

A recent survey of MPs found 27 per cent had suffered some kind of mental health problem.

One in three said the stigma attached to that type of illness had prevented them being open about it.

http://tinyurl.com/5mphfm

Posted by Drew458     on 07/21/2008 at 09:17 AM   
Filed Under: • Government • Politics • Scary Stuff • UK •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Ministry of Defence admits it was wrong to deny war widow a pension.  (GOTTA SEE THIS)

This really is an outrageous bureaucratic blunder of the worst sort.  My mind can’t take in how it happens, and yet I know it does and this is probably only one of many stories.  But this is exceptional I think you might agree. 

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
Last Updated: 7:29AM BST 21/07/2008

The widow of a war hero who had been wrongfully denied a pension by Whitehall bureaucrats for years was celebrating a victory after the Ministry of Defence admitted “maladministration”.

(only “maladmin?” Is that how the jerks cover their collective butts?)

Dozens of Daily Telegraph readers gave more than £5,000 to Gillian Norbury after hearing of her plight, but she has now been freed from poverty after the Veterans’ Agency admitted it was wrong to deny her a war widow’s pension.

For five years a tireless campaign has been led by one of husband Lt Billy Norbury’s comrades, Capt John Nunneley, which included personally haranguing the former Prime Minister Tony Blair.

He finally confronted Me Blair last year after bluffing his way into a veterans tea party at No 10 telling the then Prime Minister: “I protest most strongly at the inhumane treatment of Lt Billy Norbury”.

Lt Norbury won an immediate Military Cross for an action in Burma in 1944 in which he received horrific injuries to his feet, legs and abdomen.

Fifty-four years later the decorated King’s African Rifles officer died penniless in a public hospital in South Africa after decades of agony and operations.

After selling the family home and its contents and despite his wife Gillian working part-time while nursing her husband, the Norburys ran out of money to support the medical bills. For decades, following alleged bureaucratic bungles by the Ministry of Defence and the Veterans’ Agency, Lt Norbury, MC, was denied a war disability pension because he had enlisted in a “colonial” regiment.

After his death in 1998 Mrs Norbury was forced to leave her family behind in South Africa, where one of her sons was murdered and another died in a flying accident, to live off a state pension in a flat in Newbury, Berks. 

(Berks. is short for Berkshire. A county.  It is I am informed, not pronounced the way spelled.  It’s pronounced, Barkshire.  like, Hampshire in USA)

But now the Veterans’ Agency has finally caved in admitting the “maladministration” and will pay Mrs Norbury a pension plus a modest back-payment.

In a letter to Derek Twigg, the Veterans’ Minister, Mr Nunneley wrote of the “army of heavily entrenched bureaucrats” who had obstructed the case for five years.

The minister replied that the victory it was “in no small way down to your dogged determination to fight Mrs Norbury’s case”.

Mrs Norbury said without the “terrier-like” help from Mr Nunneley she would never have won. “Without his determination and utter refusal to give up on my behalf he has done everything no other person would have done.”

Richard Benyon, her MP, said the case was an example of “a disgraceful performance by officials” and “appalling maladministration” in the pensions system.

The MoD said “new evidence” - a third letter from Mr Norbury’s doctor stating he had died from war wounds - meant it was now possible to award the pension.

It claimed that the pension was back-dated from her claim, two years ago. Both Mr Nunneley and Mrs Norbury had to accept the MoD’s decision despite making their original claim five years ago.

(uh huh. but it’s perfectly okay to pay out hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars to immigrants both legal and otherwise and an equal amount to would be terrorists and make nice and spend big on asylum seekers who CAN’T BE RETURNED to their native countries cause they might get boo-boos there.
But this woman had to jump thru hoops and go thru all she has.  I’m glad she got something but those so called civil servants should be canned.)

http://tinyurl.com/559p8m

Posted by Drew458     on 07/21/2008 at 07:58 AM   
Filed Under: • Outrageous • UK •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - July 19, 2008

Right of households to rubbish bin collection by councils to be abolished

THIS IS THE ANTI-SOCIAL ACT OF A LEFT WING LABOR GOVT. 
I can’t imagine the town or city councils telling homeowners to drop dead BUT ...
I suppose that they could tell homeowners to contract out for trash pick up the same way we did in California.
Thing is tho, in our particular situation, the household is currently paying out £1700 a year to the city council.  We have no street lights or sidewalks on this street.  I’m not at all certain what the payments do cover, outside trash pick ups.  They did provide rat control (outside the house fortunately) two years in a row.  That was interesting btw.  Someone came out and put poison down this hole and spent the time to come back for something like three weeks treating the area.  They could have done it in one day with gas.  But they aren’t allowed to use it here.  ??  It’s thought they come from the field across the road which is a farm and grows rape seed, among other things.

By Christopher Hope, Home Affairs Editor
Last Updated: 11:30AM BST 19/07/2008

The legal right of all householders to have their bins emptied by their local council is to be abolished, the Daily Telegraph can disclose.

The government is to give councils the power to refuse to collect rubbish if home owners fail to abide by draconian rules which may include leaving bins in the right place, sticking to weight restrictions and following strict recycling policies.

Labour is quietly pushing the new rules through parliament without any debate after it proposed amendments to a 130-year-old law which has, until now, made it a statutory duty of local authorities to collect household waste.

There are fears that the changes to the law will lead to large increases in fly-tipping, bonfires of noxious substances and rat infestations around uncollected waste. Despite this, there will no reduction in council tax for home owners.

The Conservatives described the plans as “disgraceful”, adding that bin men will now be able to use “any excuse not to empty your bin”.

Many Labour MPs fear the changes will add to a growing backlash against the government which has seen them slump in the polls.

Ian Gibson, a Labour MP who sits on the parliamentary committee which is scrutinising the changes, said: “It is a British way of life to have your bins emptied once a week. Taking that away is like losing your birthright.”

Phil Woolas, the environment minister, quietly added an amendment to section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 earlier this month which now states: “A waste collection authority is not obliged to collect household waste that is placed for collection in contravention of a requirement under this section.”

Town halls will be free to set their own rules on what constitutes a “contravention” of waste collection policies.

Councils could refuse to empty bins that are too far from a curb, are not placed directly outside a gate or are put out on the street too early.

The proposed changes amount to a reversal of the basic right of all households to have their rubbish collected, which was enshrined in law by the Public Health Act 1875.

The measures have already passed through two parts of a three-stage scrutiny process in parliament and will become law later this year if they are approved by the standing committee on climate change, which is dominated by Labour MPs.

It comes at a time when the government is already under fire over controversial fortnightly rubbish collections, which affect almost 20 million people, and “pay as you throw” schemes being trialled by some councils, in which bins are weighed and penalties imposed on people whose rubbish exceeds set limits.

Eric Pickles, the shadow local government secretary, said: “It is disgraceful that these new laws are being rushed through Parliament with no debate and no vote.

“People genuinely want to improve recycling and go green, but Labour’s policy of bin cuts and bin taxes will fuel fly-tipping, backyard burning and harm public health.

“These changes will fuel the public backlash at the Government’s rubbish policy. Under Gordon Brown, local residents are paying exorbitant levels of council tax, but are failing to get decent public services in return.”

Currently councils must collect rubbish from home owners unless it breaches one of two policies – “a closed lid” policy where the bin is not shut properly or a “side waste” policy meaning bin bags cannot be left alongside wheelie bins.

Whitehall sources said that the change in the law was proposed by central government and was not requested by councils.

A spokesman for the Local Government Association said: “It is in no way in councils’ interests to use tactics that would alienate local people. It would be wholly counterproductive for town halls to approach this issue in a heavy-handed way that could put people off dealing with their rubbish responsibly.

“Councils always provide people with straightforward information about what to do with their rubbish and work with residents to reduce the amount they produce and to encourage them to recycle.

“Britain is the dustbin of Europe, throwing away more per household than any other country in the EU. We have to change radically the way that we get rid of our rubbish and the days of tipping everything into a hole in the ground are long gone.”

Joan Ruddock, the minister for climate change, biodiversity and waste, said: “There is still a general duty to collect rubbish free from households. All that has changed is that when a household is given a formal notice, if they don’t abide by it then the council no longer has a duty to collect.”

(Free?  What Free?  Isn’t that one of the things taxes pay for? Or are taxes only paid to support the lifestyles of politicians? oh. right. forgot.  )

Government targets are for 40 per cent of household waste to be recycled by 2010, rising to 50 per cent by 2020. Policy papers show that officials want to limit rubbish collections in a bid “to compel householders to reduce their waste”.

Last month ministers also revealed that householders will face fines of £50 for failing to recycle their rubbish.

Councils will refuse to collect rubbish if homeowners break recycling rules

http://tinyurl.com/6hgcfg

Posted by Drew458     on 07/19/2008 at 09:13 AM   
Filed Under: • Government • Taxes • UK •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - July 18, 2008

vicious mob attack on police officers

Now see, here again the police who I generally support handled this all wrong.
Pepper spray?  Spray?  NO-NO guys.

THE ONLY WAY IN WHICH TO HANDLE A MOB, IS TO EXTERMINATE IT!

You’d only have to kill a couple dozen using real weapons.  That’s live ammo in case ya forgot.  Anybody bitches about that, you turn your weapons on the trouble makers also.  That’s how you clear a violent mob.  Bang-Bang ur graveyard dead.  Problem solved in seconds.  No paperwork, no lawyers, no civil right groups sticking their noses in.  Those who do, repeat all the above.

Take a peek at the town center where this happened.  This isn’t some inner city ghetto.

Police officer bitten in vicious mob attack ... after asking girl to pick up a piece of litter

Last updated at 4:01 PM on 18th July 2008

Two policemen who were attacked by a 30-strong mob were today recovering from their injuries - with one receiving hospital treatment for a bite wound.

The feral attack was launched after the officers asked a teenager to pick up some litter she had dropped.

One of the policemen required hospital treatment after the attack in Northend, Croydon, South London on Wednesday afternoon.

North End, Croydon, south London: Two officers were set on by a mob, some wearing school uniform, after they asked a teenage girl to pick up a fast-food wrapper she had dropped

Police said that when patrolling officers asked the girl to pick up a piece of litter she did so - but then immediately dropped it.

When they asked her to pick it up again, a friend with the girl reacted aggressively.

A group of up to 30 teenagers and adults gathered around the officers and attacked them. One officer was bitten.

A Metropolitan Police spokesman said the officers, aged 34 and 29, were now on sick leave suffering from bruising and knee injuries.

A 15-year-old girl was arrested at the scene on suspicion of assault. She has been released on police bail.

Two men aged 34 and 38, both from nearby South Norwood, were arrested yesterday on suspicion of assault and violent disorder.

Shopkeepers in the area told today of their horror at the level of violence used against the officers.

T-Mobile phone store manager Shil Mehta said that just before turning on the police the two girls had been fighting each other.

Trouble spot: Shopkeepers in the area told today of their horror at the level of violence used against the officer

‘The attack happened right outside our shop,’ he said. ‘I saw two girls fighting. The officers tried to stop the girls, who were about 15 years old and both were wearing school uniforms, but then they turned on the police.

‘When one of the policemen tried to restrain one of the girls a crowd started to develop around them. I think he was trying to put handcuffs on the girl.

‘There were about 30 people in the crowd at this stage, of all ages. A couple of men aged in their 30s were screaming at the police to let go of the girls.

‘I don’t think they knew the girls, but just saw the police wrestling with them and had a go at the police because they thought they were being heavy-handed.

‘Then one of these men lunged at the officer holding the girl, from behind. I think he tried to punch him in the head - he definitely took a swing. Then the girl tried to run away.

‘At that point the other policeman got his baton out and pepper spray. They managed to get hold of the girl again but by this stage the crowd was huge. I would say about 70 or 80 people were now in the street watching.

‘One of the policemen pinned the girl on the ground because she was maniacally trying to fight him.

‘That’s when the police back-up arrived. There were three or four riot vans, three police cars and two unmarked cars.’

Mr Mehta added: ‘Using batons and pepper spray they managed to disperse the crowd but I have never seen anything like it.

‘I don’t know what happened just before the two girls started fighting. It seemed like the police were already talking to them before they started fighting each other.

‘Then as the police were dealing with them, two blokes waded in and made things a hundred times worse.

‘It really is a sad state of affairs when police are being attacked in a shopping high street in broad daylight. No one is safe, it seems.’

Inspector Simon Ellingham said officers were examining CCTV footage.

http://tinyurl.com/58bm4x

Posted by Drew458     on 07/18/2008 at 10:30 AM   
Filed Under: • Crime • UK •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Schoolgirl, 12, questioned by police for trying on nail polish (hey. she was wrong but)

Is it me because I’m now an old goat so far over the hill he can’t even see where he’s been?
Or are kids today really dumber in spite of the tech age?

So here finally is the story.

By Caroline Gammell
Last Updated: 11:40AM BST 18/07/2008

A 12-year grammar school girl was held by police for more than an hour and questioned on suspicion of shoplifting after trying on nail polish on one finger in a shop.
Hannah Gilbert painted one fingernail in the peach coloured Revlon varnish at a branch of Boots in Folkestone, Kent, after failing to find a suitable tester.

She was caught by a security guard, questioned by three police officers who checked for criminal records and detained until her parents came to collect her and pay for the polish.

Barry and Cheryl Gilbert said they were read their rights and told their daughter could be forcibly restrained because she was over the age of 10 - even though she had made no attempt to escape.

They criticised the treatment as “heavy-handed” and demanded that the police apologise.

Mrs Gilbert said: “Hannah was scared and crying. The whole approach was very heavy handed.

“I find it incredibly hard to believe this was the most serious incident going on for the police.

“Frankly, this country has gone crazy. This is the sort of thing that just makes me want to pack our bags and leave as soon as Hannah’s finishing her schooling.”

The incident happened earlier this month during a trip to the town centre. Miss Gilbert, who lives 10 miles away in St Mary’s Bay, had only been allowed shopping on her own once before.

The Folkestone School for Girls’ pupil said: “I went into the shop and saw a nail polish which I thought looked alright.

“There were no testers so I put a tiny bit on my thumbnail. The security guard walked up behind me and said I had to pay for it or it would be theft.

“I was really scared. I had no money on me so he said I had to come into the office. “

Mrs Gilbert, a 46-year-old nurse, said: “She was kept for an hour in a small office with the security guard and a manager and the police were called.

“The security guard who caught her was grinning like he had caught a big fish. It was ridiculous.

“At first there were three officers there and when we got there it was just one. The officer told us our rights and that they had the power to forcibly restrain Hannah as she was over the age of 10 - it was completely over the top.

“One officer even told me that if I didn’t pay they would take Hannah in a police van to Folkestone Police station and charge her with theft.

“She’s not the kind of child to do something like that. And who was looking after the shop if the security guard was with my daughter? I would have thought that left them more open to crime.”

Mr and Mrs Gilbert paid the £6.29 price of the polish and pledged never to return to the shop.

A Boots spokesman said: “During the recent event at our Folkestone store we worked with Miss Gilbert and subsequent local law enforcement to ensure an effective resolution was met.

“Mrs Gilbert’s daughter remained on the premises until she was able to be released safely into the care of her parents.

“These safety measures are in place to ensure our customers have a continued safe shopping environment.”

A Kent police spokeswoman said: “Police were called to a store on Sandgate Road in Folkestone by the mother of a 12-year-old girl who had been stopped by shop security.

“No crime was reported and no further action has been taken.”

http://tinyurl.com/6d339g

Posted by Drew458     on 07/18/2008 at 09:36 AM   
Filed Under: • Crime • UK •  
• Comments (4) • 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