Tag Archive: scandal

Ashcroft: Assurance or Promise most Likely?

“Lord” Ashcroft Then

It’s ten years since Ashcroft “gave assurances” that he would reveal his er.. something or other, to William Hague – according to William Hague in his famous Paxman interview – See Below:

“Lord” Ashcroft Now

Today’s news is that if the tories win the forthcoming election, (and in a statement today, he finally confirmed he WAS a non-dom),  Ashcroft has promised to become fully “resident and domiciled” in the UK.  Try The Sun for more or the BBC.

“Lord” Ashcroft Conclusion

What this all means, of course, is that either;

  • Ashcroft lied to Hague back in 2000 when Hague put him up for his peerage,
  • Or that Ashcroft deliberately misled Hague about it all,
  • Or that Hague colluded in the deception.

I cannot personally think of any other routes that would lead William Hague to state what he so emphatically said to Paxman last summer.  What says you?  I’m all ears.

However, it’s blindingly obvious (yet strangely ignored) that he hasn’t paid tax to our nation for at least ten years - and yet has a weird magnetic control over some of our affairs….

Labour Donors

Lewis HamiltonOf course, the Labour Party have their own share of grey donors; all the way from Bernie Ecclestone back in 1997 to the Indian born Baron Paul with his own peculiar mix of richness, dodgy expense claims and donations.

The Labour queue is pretty long in financial scandal.

The stench of hypocrisy is becoming worse.

But what burnt the honesty cake for me these last two days, was the flag of patriotism being bandied about.

Patriotism – the last refuge of a scoundrel.

The DoorIn 1775 Samuel Johnson made this famous statement (reference here).  Yesterday, Tory leader Cameron said,

“It is an election we have a patriotic duty to win because this country is in a complete and utter mess, and we have to sort it out.”

  • Which is a formidable statement to make given that the whole world is in a turmoil where the rich get richer and the poor have to pay for it, and yet Britain is not a “one-off” and actually, is “not that bad”, you know…
  • Formidable because the starving poor are now castigated for hunting for food after earthquakes by a corrupt, politically charged and motivated media who employ brainless hacks to tow the editorial line.
  • Yet in the UK, no-one starves unless through neglect.
  • Anyone in Britain can get medical treatment and care on demand, with waiting lists at a fraction that they were when the Tories were last in power…

It’s a strange definition of the word “mess” – but a typical usage of the word “patriotism”, by a squeakily clean, disturbingly smooth, scoundrel.

Want and Need

Taxation without RepresentationWhat we want and need is simple.

In a reworking of the slogan “No taxation without representation“, there should be a new slogan, that empathetically states that we do not need lobbying or interference in our governmental process from any person or organisation that does not  pay taxes;  i.e. it does not directly contribute to the material well-being of the country.

No Representation without Taxation!

This means:

  • No positions of power.
  • No quango membership
  • No parliamentary membership.
  • No political donations, directly or indirectly.
  • No lobbying or ‘briefings’, directly or indirectly.

In other words,

Pay up , or shut up!

We all have to, the poor, long-suffering, tax-paying, public.

America

This is especially important for us, as where America leads, we follow.

Within the last two months, a legal judgement was made that made it perfectly proper for any business to promote any political party.  The logic was that if a company pays taxes, it should have representation, just as the founding fathers wanted.

The crucial irony is though, that grievous complaints have been raised in the USA that their due process of democracy was already being undermined by these huge corporations that now bankroll the electoral system.

Of course, the reason that the corporations won was due to the massive financial investment in lobbying that they undertook to ensure they won…….

Watch out Britain!  Q. E. D.

Comments are closed

What is the Point of Fine Words?

Obama

Obama Hope Painting

Obama: Hope and Change?

President Obama was elected under the banner of change.

  • Change for the overall health of his nation
  • Change in economics and finance
  • Change of a re-assertion of the higher ideals of his nation expressed in the US Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Rights.

In this last, he even promised this change in his inaugural speech on that cold January day, and a very big thing was made of it too!

Freedom Cracks

The executive order signals a sharp break with the Bush Administration

The executive order signals a sharp break with the Bush Administration

Barely 100 days had passed before Obama was revealed as the head of a United States, professing freedom for all while at the same time condoning torture.

Guantanamo was promised to be closed and the abuses stopped. The guilty would face the full majesty of the law.

Broken Promises

Even this bold Obama-ite sensed something was possibly wrong when the author stated back in January,

In the last week or two, Obama has been making a point of saying really depressing and right-wing things

Then in July, the same author said,

His world view isn’t set by the media, and the Western media at that.

The thing is when Barack speaks…

Photos showing prisoner abuse in Iraq caused a major scandal in 2004 (click for news item)

Photos showing prisoner abuse in Iraq caused a major scandal in 2004 (click for news item)

The thing is, it all sounds great when Obama speaks.  But as with everything, it’s actions that count, not words.  And the latest action in America is not pleasant at all.

Under direct command from Obama, Defence Secretary Gates has blocked the publication of any more images featuring Americans abusing and torturing people.

Q. The Reason?

A. National security, of course!

These aren’t all old images, mind you!   No!    The images span the period from the Twin Towers’ collapse to 22 January 2009 – this year!  Gates’ reason for blocking the picture releases is;

“Public disclosure of these photographs would endanger citizens of the US, members of the US armed forces, or employees of the US government deployed outside the US”

Germany Calling

Now can you imagine the scenario if a German had said that at the Nuremberg Trials after WW2?  What would the US and British media have made of that?   Let’s see what it sounds like, should we?

“Public disclosure of these photographs would endanger citizens of Germany, members of the German armed forces, or employees of the German government deployed outside Germany”

It’s ridiculous, isn’t it?  The whole point is that these people have done wrong.

Obama and Opinion

Eye Swear, hope to die .......

Eye Swear, hope to die .......

Obama’s new response to the blocking of all torture images is wholly at variance with Eisenhower’s at the end of WW2.

Eisenhower got all media and persons to visit the death camps and tell everyone they knew all about them.

Obama?  He said;

“…the release of such images would be ‘of no benefit’ and might inflame opinion against the US” – !!!!  ???

My opinion is that across the globe, people have been yearning for some leadership on this.  A demonstration of the ‘right way’ to behave.  A feeling that justice can be done.   A beacon of hope to show that actions and attitudes really can change.

There’s a fat chance of anything like that now, is there?

Q. Just what exactly did Obama learn when he lived abroad and elsewhere as a “normal person” as this author confidently states?

A. It certainly wasn’t ethics and it certainly wasn’t honour.

France

Shakespeare says in Henry V, “Done like a Frenchman: turn, and turn again!”  So despite being cool about Sarkozy, Obama has definitely picked up lots of tips on his French trip on D-Day this year about how to behave like Frenchman and how to run a Republic.

See My Old Posts on This – I won’t stop until they do!

Paulson, Like a Bumbling Aristocrat trying to Escape the Guillotine

Guillotine and “The Reign of Terror”

Funny how I missed this during the summer – I was in hospital, I think.

Kaa the Snake

Kaa the Snake

Henry Paulson

Henry Paulson

This video is Henry Paulson, stumbling and squirming, as he struggles to evade quite simple questions for someone in his position.  (I talked about his deceit last year here and here, at the start of the “Credit Crunch”).

Guillotine

Guillotine

His performance reminds me of the terror of the aristocrats during the French Revolution, as they struggled to justify their actions and lives in order to escape Monsieur le Guillotine.

Lives of power, wealth and privilege.

Watch him panic.

Why can’t he answer, simply, the reasons for the various preferential bank collapses, bailouts and the huge sums of money gained by himself and his cronies?

It was his job as a professional, after all…?

Unfortunately, we’ll never know.  The ‘rules of engagement’ for this type of investigation set a time limit on Congressman Stearns‘ questions.

But in a true court of law, there is no time limit to determine a level of satisfactory proof.

And so Paulson walked away, secure with his $200 million tax-free cushion, protectively engineered by a system and rules that he himself set up!

There’s an extra interview, with quotes, of Cliff Stearns in this YouTube clip below that explains much that the Congressman couldn’t ask directly to Paulson.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y_xtyKnkVNw

Comments are closed

Garbage Summer Science

m4s0n501

Is This the Worst Science Project Ever?

Pitt JolieThe Daily Telegraph, short of stories this summer now that the expenses scandal is dead, has published a picture of Angelina Jolie under the heading:

Women getting more beautiful, say scientists: (see link)

According to some work done by  Finnish Philosopher/PsychologistYliopistotutkija – University Researcher Degree: Doctor of Philosophy Department of Psychology University of Helsinki P.O. Box 9 (Siltavuorenpenger 20 D) FIN-00014 University of Helsinki” http://www.helsinki.fi/psykologia/english/introduction/personnel.htm Markus Jokela,

…attractive women have more children than their less attractive counterparts and that a higher proportion of those children are female…

The methodology was to look at 2000 Americans, and then decide that ‘beautiful‘ women had 16% more children.  How this ‘beauty‘ decision was derived, is unknown, save for the comment that,

“attractiveness was assessed from photographs taken during the study”

The article continues in the same vein by quoting the results of yet more “scientists” from the London School of Economics taken in 2006.  They had the same ‘results‘.

The gaffa in charge of this, Mr Kanazawa, said…,

“Physical attractiveness is a highly heritable trait, which disproportionately increases the reproductive success of daughters much more than that of sons.”

Rubbish Science

Dunce's Hat

Dunce’s Hat

The point is that the above statement is produced with absolutely NO backing.  It’s an opinion, that’s all. 

It could be equally well said about men.

Remember, it takes two to tango and make a child.   The fact that attractive men can rapidly spread their seed faster than any woman proves that this statement is bunkum…

Look at it like this…
  • In 9 months, a woman can parent one child.
  • In 9 months, with one successful shag per day, a man can parent 270 children.

Who is having the greater initial reproductive success?  Obviously, the man.

I’m sure that someone like Brad Pitt, Jolie’s husband, if let loose into the wild, would procreate many more children than Jolie could!  If he came to Bridgwater, it’d be legs akimbo for weeks followed by lots of little Brad lookalikes!  Apart from the jollity, this will seriously slew the statistics wholly against the research’s argument! It only takes one rampant male to break the ‘hard work’ of hundreds of ‘beautiful’ women taking a lifetime to improve the gene pool!

Or look at it like this…

DNAThis ‘research’ assumes that attractiveness is a one-way process and that women passively sit around waiting to choose the best mate (using what criteria, are we to wonder?).  Again, this is plain garbage.  Women aren’t passive.  If one of a woman’s criteria for mate choice is the appearance of the man, then it chucks out the research findings right out of the window.  Indeed, the ‘beauty’ gene, if it exists, could be being selected for because the man holds it (he having half of his mother’s genes, after all) without actually expressing it himself.

Note to Researchers: check out the difference between a genotype and a phenotype before spouting this muck.

Or Look at it This Way…

My Observation of many UK towns tells me that there are a lot of fat munters on the estates (call them endomorphs, please).  They all have appear to have heaps of children despite any perceived lack of ‘beauty‘.  So what does this mean to a ‘scientist‘ in this calibre of research?

A.  Using their specious logic, I could say that fat munters are the most successful breeders in the country.  I could say that only fat people breed fast.   I could make all sorts of scurrilous accusations about them and the reason(s) for the perceived fecundity.  Just like boys-nights-out on a Friday eyeing up the talent?   But I won’t….

Because Any Logic with like this is seriously flawed.

CrowdIt’s not logic, it’s just opinion dressed as fact.  What the Telegraph (and other media organisations) has done by publishing this rubbish as summer titter, is to denigrate the hard work of real scientists with the mumbo-jumbo claptrap from pseudo-scientists looking for job justification.

There’s a heap of proper evolutionary and genetic research that disproves this tripe, so why do the Telegraph publish it?  A.  To fill space.

Finally

Even defining beauty with the narrow bounds of appearance is hard enough – but beauty and appearance, the attractiveness of an individual – these are all complex concepts that have provided artists and writers material for millenia

The trouble with the ‘research’ and it’s reporting, is that it demeans the real work to titillate the lowest common denominators in society, with the result that scientists, striving for humanity’s betterment, are made to look like pariahs and idiots, which in the long run, is very, very bad.

Comments are closed

Gordon Brown: Two steps forward, one step back.

Hardly is the ink dry on my post today titled UK Judges See Terror Sense in which I actually praise Brown for some positive moves regarding freedom, then he goes and dumps shit on everything again:  Government plans FOI restrictions.

Here’s the salient point of Brown’s speech to the commons today:

And given the vital role transparency has played in sweeping aside the discredited system of allowances, and holding power to account, I believe we should do more to spread the culture and practice of freedom of information.

So as a next step, the Justice Secretary will set out further plans to look at broadening the application of Freedom of Information to include additional bodies which also need to be subject to greater transparency and accountability. This is the public’s money. They should know how it is spent.  (One step forward -SP)

I should also announce that, as part of extending the availability of official information and as our response to the Dacre Review, we will progressively reduce the time taken to release official documents. (One step forward -SP)

As the report recommended, we have considered the need to strengthen protection for particularly sensitive material and there will be protection of Royal Family and Cabinet papers as part of strictly limited exemptions. But we will reduce the time for release of all other official documents below the current 30 years, to 20 years. (One step backward -SP)

And that’s the trouble.  If we replace the word “sensitive” by the word “embarrassing” it all becomes clear.  Anything that’s embarrassing to royalty or the current government (Q. Who decides what’s senstive?  A.  the PM, that’s who!) will get buried for even longer than now.  So despite the gestures of openness, if a future expenses scandal arose, it could immediately be judged “sensitive” and then no-one would know anything about it!!!

I tell you, Brown is like the Arnhem of politics.  Always one paragraph too late and too far.

The whole speech has actually some very sound proposals to redress much of the current unease within the coountry about the validity of our public representatives.  It’s just that one paragraph that mucks it up!

Unbelievable.

Comments are closed

© 2007-2014 Strangely Perfect All Rights Reserved