Thursday, 22 December 2011

Making the most of our Roads - Pre-booked Parking.

Imagine...

You want to go in to Brighton for the New Year Sales, you will be bringing back lots of items, so need your car to transport them.

As things stand today, you set off early, you hit the traffic queues, slowly crawl into Brighton, stop/start, stop/start burning fuel, wearing brakes, emitting fumes. Eventually you get to join the long, long queue for the car park and then trickle even more slowly forwards until eventually you get through the barrier and go looking for a space. Time wasted, fuel wasted, jams caused.

Or

You txt a request for a parking space near the shops you want to visit, request a time and duration of stay. You get a txt back giving three options for available locations, time and duration. You select one, then get on with your business. Knowing that there will be no jams and a space will be waiting for you, you set of shortly before you allocated slot, driver directly to the parking space park and shop.

An answer - pre-booked parking

A huge number of vehicles clogging Brighton roads are simply looking for or waiting for a place to park.

They sit in queues, holding up other traffic all emitting fumes to no purpose.

A solution? How about making all parking spaces in Brighton pre-bookable so no car ever waits for a space? Before a vehicle even starts its journey, the driver knows where they are going - and because the roads are clear there is no need to set off early to allow for jams. Set of to arrive just in time, as the previous vehicle vacates its space.

So drivers spend less time travelling, so use less fuel, emit fewer fumes and tie up the roads less.

How do you force people to use the pre-booking? You don't need to, it as long as bookings are allocated fairly everyone is better off, there is no reason/need to force people to use it.

Council tax payers could be given a free allowance of parking slots, early booking could be given a discount, any person, company or organisation with parking space could allow the system to manage their space too (when they don't need it).

The city has recently abandoned plans for 'Park and Ride' - but with pre-booked parking the city could implement 'Park and Park' for its visitors - instead of queueing on the city roads, wait in a holding area outside the city until a parking spaces is allocated and then drive directly to it to arrive just as it becomes available.

Brightons roads would be used for their intended purpose, to let people get from A to B, not as a huge holding area for people waiting for parking spaces.

Good For Brighton - Its people, visitors and businesses

Under Labour, Conservative and Greens, the council are jaded and out of new ideas they are all pretty much the same in thinking pricing is the only solution.

The city needs to move away from the failed old parties and the new failed party (the Greens) and get some fresh thinking - that's me - that's UKIP.

Monday, 19 December 2011

Want to work instead of get benefits? That's a criminal offence!

This is a short blog to expand on a point I was making elsewhere.

One of my closest mates at my crappy comprehensive school had entered the school planning on being a doctor or surgeon - his primary school report said he was 'the perfect pupil' he had played cricket for the county juniors and was a top geezer. His family were as 'salt of the earth' as it is possible to be - rock solid working class grafters - running a newsagents/sweetshop with three teenage+ boys (he was the youngest) living above the shop - and with an outside toilet. Sleep overs (and even visiting for the evening) would be a revelation to many...

The crappy comprehensive we attended crushed any such expectations and leaving at 16 he became a bricklayer for British Rail...

Having lost touch I later heard (from his father who had become a cabbie who happened to get me as a fare) that my mate had been short of cash and had let the insurance on his motor bike lapse - he got caught by the police on the way to work and charged. He lost his licence. But he needed his motorbike to get to work so went on using it... eventually he got caught again and was 'done' for driving while banned, not having insurance etc...

Yes, I know 'its the law' and all that... but this was a young bloke trying to earn a living, a bloke with no interest in benefits, from a family that had no interest in benefits...

These events actually pre-date the Blair/Brown fiasco of a government, but I see the influences persist right thought to this day.

Relying on the state is 'easy' - but if you want to leave and be independent you need a massive escape velocity, because at every turn there will be people and institutions poised to take what you have earned so far, and throw you back down into the black hole of welfare dependency.

Thursday, 15 December 2011

Fighting prejudice everywhere...

I am lucky to be in a group that, while commonly hated, doesn't go in for self-loathing. I am a normal, white, law abiding, middle class, married, male with kids.

I value what freedom I have and object to any other UK citizen having less freedom than I do - I also hope (probably in vain) that those with more freedom than I have are working to expand my freedom, the evidence seems to be quite the opposite, those more free than I want to further limit everyone elses freedom.

Gender

I object to being obliged to provide information that the recipient has no right to. A big issue that I have objected to for many years is 'gender' on forms. Unless someone has the 'right' to check my gender for themselves then I do not believe they should be asking me for the information.

I have no gender 'issues' myself, I simply object to unnecessary information being demanded (for train season tickets for instance).

It now transpires that transsexuals have a genuine specific problem with 'gender' being given on forms it can put them in awkward and embarrassing situations. Now there is discussion of allowing them to not answer such questions, or have a special category. My suggestion? Scrap the question all together - like I have suggested all along. Only your partner and doctor NEED to know your gender.

If companies/organisations weren't gathering more information than they needed, this problem would never have arisen in the first place.

Smoking

I don't smoke (I gave up before I got married, in the 1980's). And I prefer not to be in a smokey atmosphere - however I strongly object to the bullying anti-smoking lobby - especially that part I involuntarily finance though my taxes. The bogus argument of 'protecting employees in bars' preventing ALL customers from smoking is devious, dishonest and nasty.

Alcohol Consumption

I read that the recent 'occupy' camp in Brighton had tried to operate a 'Dry Zone' policy (which I take to mean no alcohol on site). I hope, after consideration, they will see the irony of their position.

There are two points as I see it:

Firstly it condemns even moderate drinkers (pretty much everyone?) banning something just because a few have a problem with it is very totalitarian response - not a place I would have thought Occupy would want to put themselves.

Secondly, if someone genuinely is an alcoholic why should that excluded them from the protest? Is occupy launching itself with its own class of 'untouchables' built in to its very core?

I don't expect this view to get much sympathy, but its this lazy approach to equality now that will end up damning it in the future. That such a prejudice could slip into a new protest movement unnoticed shows how far gone society is...

Today drinkers, tomorrow smokers, then they will come for...


Summary

People really should stick up for others while they can - otherwise when you need someone to stick up for you it may be too late.

I don't remember where but someone wisely observed that sticking up for others is never comfortable - because you only need to stick up for others when they are unpopular and everyone else is against them - and so will be against you too.

Usual useless government action - this time for 'Troubled Families'

The government and their interference is the cause of most problems in society, not the solution.

A governments only 'tool' is taxpayers money, their only control is to take more in tax and throw it at a 'problem' or not take more tax and let taxpayers fix problems themselves.

The first justifies the governments existance and expansion, the second undermines it so they always choose the former.

I Received a link to some government 'infographics' on 'Troubled Familes':

1) First a circular argument - "We need to stop it because otherwise it won't stop"



2) Another circular argument - trouble at school or with the police is part of the definition of a 'troubled family', so of course they will be more likely to have been in trouble at school or with the police. (re: being in cares see 'infographic' number 4).



3) Now we have 'estimates' based on number of troubled families within local authority area - well, unless local authority areas are all the same size this is meaningless, even if the figures weren't guesses.



4) Being in 'care' shows more state failure. This may show one of two things, either being in care is bad for children and the state is useless as a parental replacement, or if being in care isn't to blame directly then the state took the children into care too late for any damage to be repaired.



5) Finally the governments 'solution' - throw money at it.



In summary, what a waste of taxpayers money, what an insidious trick for the government to pull on the public - to justify taking tax and pretend people will be helped when they won't be.

Monday, 12 December 2011

The Met, Millie Dowler and Voice Mail (pt2)

This is a follow up to a previous blog post:
Media, Ministers, the Met, Murdoch and Money (1)

The story about Millie Dowlers voice mail deletions didn't make sense, so back in July I blogged about it and sent of an freedom of information request to the Metropolitan Police.

This has finally (about six months on) got to the end of the Mets' request/review procedure, with them refusing to give me any information (or confirming/denying that any relevant information exists).

However the story is back in the news, so here is an update:

After Millie Dowler went missing, her mobile voice mail became full - people leaving messages asking her to call, but not being picked up/deleted.

It was reported that someone working for the News of the World had 'hacked' the voice mail to gather information about the story, it was further reported that this person deleted some of the voice mails so there would be space for new messages that may lead to new stories.

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/04/milly-dowler-voicemail-hacked-news-of-world)

At this point, Millies mother became aware that messages had been deleted, so took hope that Millie herself had picked them up, and so must be alive. This, unfortunately, was not the case.

(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2064516/Milly-Dowlers-mother-reveals-phone-hacking-gave-false-hope-Leveson-Inquiry.html)

I was surprised that the police had not traced the caller who deleted the message, so put in an FOI request regarding this.

(http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/millie_dowler_voice_mail_deletio)

Subsequently it has transpired that at the time of the voice mail deletions, News of the World had not yet engaged the man responsible for the hacking claims against them - so it was not him who deleted the messages.

(http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3992095/Milly-Dowler-hope-messages-were-not-wiped-by-paper-say-cops.html)

Now it is being suggested that it was the police themselves who caused the messages to be deleted!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2072851/Phone-hacking-Milly-Dowlers-voicemail-messages-deleted-police-News-World.html

I don't think my (refused) FoI request is unreasonable, and a reply would have shed light on this long ago.

So I am left wondering if the Metropolitan police actually have a different, undisclosed, reason for refusing my request and taking so long about it.

Sunday, 11 December 2011

Labour 4 Westbourne ? ha ha ha!! No, get out of the LabConGrn rut - Vote #UKIP

 Vote PERRIN, Vote UKIP, Brighton and Hove City Council, Westbourne Ward, 22nd December

I was given a copy of Labours election leaflet for Brighton and Hove City Council - Westbourne Ward.

I was gob-smacked on the issues they cite as reasons to vote for their candidate! Remember, Labour ran the council for TEN years until THREE years ago.

1) They say Hove needs a new school.

OK, so when should plans been put in place for that? Kids aren't born at school age... there is plenty of notice on how many school places will be needed - it is LABOUR who failed to plan in the first place! OK the conservative administration that followed them should have caught up - especially as the Westbourne ward had two conservative councillors representing it!

Thats a Labour and Conservative fail right there.

2) They say a £200 council tax rise (3.5%) is too high and will hit struggling households.

OK, so what was the average council tax increase while Labour were in charge?


Looks around 9% to me... and that was when inflation was around 2%!

Big Labour fail there.

3) They say parking charges strangle business.

OK, they are certainly right there, but they were no better - a report from the Argus back in the late 2000, talking about 2007/2008 when labour were in charge:
It made a profit of £7.4 million That amount was a £1.2 million leap from the £6.2 million and £13.9 million income generated in 2007/8.
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/4698793.Brighton_and_Hove_City_Council_s___7_million_parking_profit/

They seem to be saying "Vote Labour, because the Greens are doing what Labour were already doing."

Well I say Brighton and Hove need change from the LabConGrn rut that forms the current council - so...
Vote PERRIN, Vote UKIP, Brighton and Hove City Council, Westbourne Ward, 22nd December

Thursday, 8 December 2011

The council only exists to serve the residents - make me your man on the inside.

Vote PERRIN, Vote UKIP, Brighton and Hove City Council, Westbourne Ward, 22nd December

The council only exists to serve the residents. Even the big businesses like American Express are only of benefit to Brighton and hove in as far as they benefit the residents (with jobs, inward investment, bringing in wealth, business and supporting better facilities).

The council has (and finances) many 'partnership' organisation - collections of organisations being consulted on policy. How many residents are a member of even one of these organisations? I am not a member of any - I expect (and other residents should expect) to be able to speak to the council directly.I further suspect that many of these 'partnership' organisations are manned by the same people over and over - giving residents no voice, and unaccountable 'representatives' several voices. These partnerships must be properly reviewed.

I am not (yet) a councillor, I don't have time to examine everything the council does, but every time I look at what the council is doing or a council document I see masses of improvement and efficiencies that can be made! If this is typical then there is huge scope to make savings in the cost of the council operation and improve the service offered to residents - often simply by making the council properly and directly accountable to the residents so silly pet projects can be ditched before they even start!

Vote PERRIN, Vote UKIP, Brighton and Hove City Council, Westbourne Ward, 22nd December

Brighton and Hove - It isn't just Pavilion! Transport and Shopping.

Vote PERRIN, Vote UKIP, Brighton and Hove City Council, Westbourne Ward, 22nd December

The Council persist in planning and operating as if the City is just Brighton Pavilion.

This shows especially in transport policy - the city has been described as ideal for alternative transport such as walking and cycling. This may be true of central Brighton, but further out there is not only simple distance to consider, but the substantial hills of the downs. Mass public transport is not an adequate replacement for personal transportation. Even in central Brighton it is a brave person who would leave their bicycle parked and unsupervised.

Residents deserve special treatment by their own council, to access the facilities of the city. Some free parking - especially for those furthest from the centre - whether on a specific day, with residents 'vouchers', or a dedicated (pre-bookable) residents car park (the Laines car park has a 'private' entrance and could be considered).

Once people get out of the habit of shopping in the city - going elsewhere, or even shopping on line, it will be far harder (if not impossible) to entice them back. The council lose income, businesses lose income and residents lose facilities that make the city such a great place to be.

There are tough financial times ahead, and with more and more closed shops boarded up in the centre of Brighton already we need to boost trade before the decline becomes permanent.

Vote PERRIN, Vote UKIP, Brighton and Hove City Council, Westbourne Ward, 22nd December

Wednesday, 7 December 2011

Brighton and Hove - Housing - Not failing to plan, but actually planning to fail.

Vote PERRIN, Vote UKIP, Brighton and Hove City Council, Westbourne Ward, 22nd December

Just last month Brighton and Hove council had a report that Brighton and Hove will need 16 to 20 thousand new homes by 2030 - so they are recommending the building of only 11 thousand (at least 5000 short!).

Either the council do not trust the original estimate - in which case they need to explain why and have another (trustworthy) one done or they need to explain why they are deliberately planning to leave Brighton and Hove (and a future council) short of between 5,000 and 9,000 homes.

In the same document they recommend arbitrarily restricting the the increase in 'houses of multiple occupancy' (HMO's)- which would prevent many existing properties being more efficiently used.

http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/downloads/bhcc/sustainability/City_Planning_Doc-Summary_Leaflet.pdf

So the existing council are planning to ensure a housing shortage, by deliberately building too few new homes while also putting barriers in the way of those who might seek to address the shortage by creating more HMO's and so making better use of the housing already available... Brighton Greens are rapidly becoming another 'failed old party' to join LibLabCon...

Vote PERRIN, Vote UKIP, Brighton and Hove City Council, Westbourne Ward, 22nd December

Monday, 5 December 2011

Brighton and Hove Budget - Part 3 - 'Below Inflation rise'

Vote PERRIN, Vote UKIP, Brighton and Hove City Council, Westbourne Ward, 22nd December
Coucnil Tax rise below inflation? No, 100% over Inflation - its doubled.

The budget makes quite a play on the following graph:
It shows how much above inflation council tax has risen over the past decade and a bit.

In the budget document this is included to used to support an argument that a 3.5% increase is 'fair' because it is below inflation, when many past increases have be far, far higher than inflation.

However, there are several issues here - firstly the reason the council are going for 3.5% is not because they want 3.5%. They are asking for 3.5% because that is the most they can ask for with out triggering a local referendum - and they know full well that they would lose that referendum.

I am quite sure that the Greens would ask for 10% of 15% increases as labour did in the early 2000's if they could get away with it!

Also, what is so magical about a single years inflation figure? My own graph:
Shows the net effect of the increases against inflation over the past decade.

Right now council tax payers are paying almost twice as much now as they should be according to inflation.

The council raise around £60,000,000 (sixty million pounds) more than they would if rises had been restricted to inflation. So what do we get for that £60,000,000? How did we get by ten years ago with out that money being taken from us and spent by the council?

I am sure every taxpayer would be happy to have that extra £400 a year back - to spend as they see fit, maybe with local businesses, maybe on local charities, maybe just to heat their homes over winter - whatever they, as individuals, have as their own, personal priorities.

What is the justification for not giving back what was taken, without explanation?
Vote PERRIN, Vote UKIP, Brighton and Hove City Council, Westbourne Ward, 22nd December

Sunday, 4 December 2011

Synchronicity or Inspiration? Esther Rantzen - Silverline

I was delighted to read in todays Sunday Times that Esther Rantzen is starting a help line for older people 'Silverline'. A service working in a simliar way to 'Childline' the childrens service that she created some time ago, and appears to be going from strength to strength.

Older people requiring care have always been vulnerable, but now with ever more older people requiring care and ever less control over who provides the care the situation needs urgent attention.

It was this that prompted me to tweet the following about a month ago:
https://twitter.com/#!/pperrin/statuses/134210762846638080

Well what ever promoted the creation of 'Silverline' - I think it is a fantastic cause that deserves support.

Saturday, 3 December 2011

Brighton and Hove Budget - Part 2 - New Projects, 'spare money' - Greens break their #1 manifesto pledge.

Vote PERRIN, Vote UKIP, Brighton and Hove City Council, Westbourne Ward, 22nd December

The Green manifesto clearly said that they would
Resist, to the greatest extent possible, the service cuts and privatisation imposed on local councils by the Conservative and Lib Dem Government. Where the Coalition leaves no choice, protect services for children, vulnerable adults and those on low incomes.
Green Manifesto, Priority Number 1

Having detailed all their cuts, the Greens say they have some spare money available for new projects - new projects that they then set out.

But if the cuts mean they have money left over, this surely simply means they have chosen to make more cuts than they needed to.

The Greens may believe that their new projects are more important than the items they have cut, but that doesn't change the fact that they have made cuts that they did not need to make. So the Greens have deliberately acted against what they said was their number 1 priority in their manifesto.

So much for the Greens 'fresh start for a fair city'.

Vote PERRIN, Vote UKIP, Brighton and Hove City Council, Westbourne Ward, 22nd December

Brighton and Hove Budget - Part 1 - Toilets and Libraries.

1) Public Toilets

Public toilets are an essential part of a city's infrastructure - don't let them close

Clean, usable, public toilets are an essential part of the infrastructure for any city that wants people to access it using public transport and to travel on foot. They are also an essential facility outside the urban area where tourists, and parents with children maybe caught short.

Toilets in public areas are open to abuse. Hence many retail outlets now restrict use of their toilets with access-codes and the like. Also, while shops already have staff on hand to look after them, public toilets generally do not have this benefit so require dedicated staff to be employed if they are to be supervised.

Acting as an attendant to a public toilet, simply to ensure that it is kept clean and call on the police if there is any disturbance is not an arduous task, and I am sure there are many people who would be prepared to take on the role as a public service and for 'pin money'.

2) Libraries (especially Mobile Libraries)

Libraries - especially Mobile Libraries - should be considered as an essential part of the councils infrastructure in communicating with the public.

Libraries should be considered one of the Councils primary public faces in communicating with the public, and part of the councils eyes and ears in recognising and listening to the public.

Brighton and Hove council - especially the Greens - persist in thinking of the city as purely the central urban area. Access to the central facilities of the city is not good for people living further out, and with the councils attacks on car owners that access is being made worse and more expensive.

Losing mobile libraries is just an other indication of this blinkered thinking.

The council should add value to the use of libraries - it should look at cutting advertising/publication in the commercial press, and issuing a free-sheet of such notices that the public can obtain on paper from libraries, or on-line. Access to other council facilities through libraries should also be considered - whether directly, or using public access computers in libraries with print-on-demand.

In respect of Libraries it is for the council to use them or we, the public, will lose them.

Thursday, 1 December 2011

Recall of Elected Representatives

David Cameron has no genuine commitment to making parliament and MP's more accountable to the public.

In principle, recall should be available to all electorates on demand. At any time, a petition by a proportion of the electorate should trigger a new election - simples.

David Cameron has suggest a process that he has labelled 'recall', but gives the electorate no additional influence, control at all!

Cameron insists that an MP must:

  1. Commit a significant offence
  2. Be censured by parliament
  3. Be subject to a major petition from the electorate
  4. Parliament must agree that parliaments original censure was insufficient
  5. New election!

My response:

  1. Offence: Who decides what is 'significant' or not? How about betraying a manifest pledge? Yes/No?
  2. Censure: What if parliament decide no censure requried (maybe a minister already resigned)?
  3. Petition: Yes, I'll accept that
  4. When would parliament *EVER* admit it had not done enough and must defer to the people?!?
  5. Election: Yes, I'll accept that too.

Wednesday, 30 November 2011

Green farce continues in Brighton and Hove (pt 2) Vote #UKIP in #westbourne

My previous blog post was about Brighton's Green Led City Council increasing vehicle emissions around three schools by reducing the speed limit from 30mph to 20mph. (see here).

Now the full two-faced farce that is the Green party shows itself as they use emissions to justify a massive hike in parking charges despite city centre shops already suffering from the recession, hard times and cut backs.

Public Health Implications:
5.15 Measures or changes that will contribute towards reducing the impact of cars in the city, and therefore the effect on public health in terms of harmful pollutants (and injuries sustained in collisions) will be beneficial to public health. Nitrogen dioxide, principally emanating from vehicles, is a respiratory irritant which is known to exacerbate asthma. There is a 3.5% increase in mortality for a 100ug/m3 increase in ambient NO2. There is a 5% increase in hospital asthma
conditions for the same increase in NO2
http://present.brighton-hove.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=35826

So all of a sudden CO2 is important - when it supports the council fleecing residents and visitors... but not when it may impact the health of the city's children at school where they cannot escape it.

It seems that the Greens support what ever figure looks like it will let them bash the motorist, business owner, parent and resident and simply ignore the same figures when it may prevent them bashing the motorist, business owner, parent and resident.

As a side note, funny that the report very specifically mentions '100ug/m3' of NO2 causing '3.5%' increase in mortality, but gives no indication of how much traffic reduction may reduce NO2! Will it be 10,000ug/m3 or .0001ug/m3 or somewhere in between? With out this figures given are meaningless - just intended to generate 'fear, uncertainty and doubt' and so make people easier to manipulate.

Lets make this a one term Green administration.

Vote Paul Perrin - Vote UKIP - especially at the Westbourne by-election on the 22nd!

Monday, 28 November 2011

Un-joined up Green farce continues in Brighton and Hove speed limits...

Brighton Greens continue their attack on car users, even at the potential expense of children's health...

Recently three areas have been accepted to trial a speed limit reduction from 30mph to 20mph. It is interesting that all three sites are based around schools, but no argument is presented suggesting that pupil safety will be increased, each case is made on more general grounds.

However, being near schools does have a consequence that seems to have been completely missed - a consequence related to a previous blog post here which presents independent data showing that changing speed limits from 30mph to 20mph increases car emissions by around 15%.

http://free-english-people.blogspot.com/2011/07/green-mp-caroline-lucas-attacks.html

So while the speed limit change does nothing to improve pupil road safety, it does ensure that the children will be subject to increased pollution through car emissions.

This is the extract from the council minutes accepting the speed limit change:


3.1 The Review undertook a pilot study to test the review methodology in three demographically different areas of the City with a view to implementing any recommendations in order to assess the effect of 20mph speed limits, as opposed to zones. The difference between a limit and a zone is that a zone includes traffic calming measures intended to make the speed limit selfenforcing. The three areas in the pilot study were:
  • Eastern Area, vicinity of Saltdean Primary School selected because it lends itself to the creation of a small area which would encompass the local commercial centre.
  • Central Area, vicinity of Stanford Infant and Stanford Junior Schools, centrally located within an area subject to numerous complaints from local residents regarding safety, with a supporting collision history. This would be a medium sized scheme, including the surrounding residential streets.
  • Western Area, Portslade in the vicinity of Peter Gladwin Primary, St Nicholas C of E Junior and Portslade Infant Schools. A large area encompassing all three schools and a substantial residential area with some supporting collision history
http://present.brighton-hove.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=33467

Who will save us (and our children) from these troublesome Greens (and others who supported this change)?

Well I am running for the council in the current Westbourne by-election (http://paulperrin.co.uk) and will happly take up that challenge.

Thursday, 24 November 2011

Council tax payers in Brighton and Hove have every right to feel dismayed...

“Sadly, Jason Kitcat seems to revel in being part of the only council administration anywhere in the land currently planning to increase council tax next year, when most others are seeking to implement a freeze or a cut. Council tax payers in Brighton and Hove have every right to feel dismayed that their civic leaders have so little regard for their hard-earned cash that they want to snatch even more of it.

“Council tax virtually doubled over the last decade – without an equivalent increase in quality or quantity of services – so Cllr Kitcat and his colleagues should be looking at how to make savings from what they are already taking. Earlier in the year we found the council’s mileage rate to be 65p, rather than the HMRC-recommended level of 45p, whilst it was still employing three “European Officers” and three political advisers. Has anything been done to rectify that waste of taxpayers’ money? Other councils are cutting their coats according to their cloth: Brighton and Hove should follow suit.”
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/home/2011/11/taxpayers-alliance-reveals-novembers-pinup-pinhead-month.html

Monday, 21 November 2011

Society vs People... The left and the greens cry "there is no such thing as a person"

There is a very famous quote from Margaret Thatcher, a quote that is most famous for having been taken out of context and then used against her an others in an entirely bogus way.

That quote (in fact a paraphrase) is, as I am sure you have guessed, "there is no such thing as society".

This paraphrase comes from a published article which can be seen here http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689.

The point was not a dismissal of people working together, it was a recognition that 'society' is nothing other than the people who make it up - without the individual people there is no society.

Why do I blog on this now?

I blog on this now because a realisation has struck me, a discovery regarding many of those who disparage the 'no such thing as society' quote. The realisation that these people also take exception to the genuine meaning of Mrs Thatchers words!

They don't recognise individuals, they only recognise societies, organisations, communities and other collectives.

This becomes apparent when reading articles, blogs and other (particularly personal) writings. From the 'great and good' who would rather give to a big charity rather than directly to a person in need; through to local councillors who want the council to have more money to help the poor and vulnerable but then raise that money by taxing those very same poor and vulnerable people!

I cannot count the number of left wing and green blogs that throw around phrases like 'poor' and 'vulnerable' referring to classes of anonymous people - but show not an ounce of interest or compassion for the individuals who make up those groups. As if the people, the individuals do not exist outside of the 'society' or 'collective' that the left have assigned them to for the purpose of what ever argument they are presenting.

Saturday, 19 November 2011

Rank Cowardice...

I read that the entire Governance Committee of Brighton and Hove council ABSTAINED on a decision that had been fully researched and had a recommendation to be rejected. Once the entire committee had abstained the chairman of the the committee then declined to use their casting vote.

A right of way was being claimed across a piece of land - those claiming had to show that the right of way had been in use for 20 years - the councils own report said that had not been proved so the application should be rejected.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS:
2.1 That the Committee declines to make an Order on the basis that the evidence
referred to in this report does not demonstrate that the claimed right of way
subsists or can reasonably be alleged to subsist.
http://present.brighton-hove.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=35149

As a taxpaying resident, I can only wonder how these councillors dare to hold their seats and responsibilities and also to claim attendance allowances and special responsiblity payments.

They have completely failed in their responsibilities, and the decision will now go to central government for a decision.

Why did they act this way? Is it simply cowardice? A fear of upsetting the voters who supported the claim? As a council by-election is imminent, I can only assume the worst - that the 10 councillors were more concerned about party political campaigning than fulfilling their responsibilities and doing their (taxpayer funded) duty.

When reviewing the list of councillors on this committee remember what other 'complex' issues they may claim to understand - issues far more complex than rights of way... climate change for instance - its causes and consequenes...

Meeting Attendance (Expected)
AttendeeCommittee RoleParty
Cllr Leo LittmanChairGreen - Preston Park
Cllr Ann NormanDeputy ChairConservative - Withdean
Cllr Amy KennedyMemberGreen - Preston Park
Cllr Jason KitcatMemberGreen - Regency
Cllr Gill MitchellMemberLabour - East Brighton
Cllr Warren MorganMemberLabour - East Brighton
Cllr Brian OxleyMemberConservative - (resigned)
Cllr Stephanie PowellMemberGreen - Queens Park
Cllr Bill RandallMemberGreen, Council Leader - Hanover & Elm Grove
Cllr Geoffrey Theobald OBEMemberConservative - Patcham

Tuesday, 15 November 2011

Brighton Greens - using the poor as pawns in their political game.

So it starts...

Having decided to reject a government offer of 2.5% and instead charge residents an extra 3.5% (2.5% to cover rejecting the governments offer, and 1% for... ?) the Greens are moving onto the next phase of their plan - to try to portray this as a 'government cuts' issue.



https://twitter.com/#!/jasonkitcat/statuses/136369907687374850


Will the resident who want to pay an extra 3.5% to get an extra 1% spending please make themselves known? For other council tax payers, I am sure you will not be fooled by this pathetic, manipulative posturing by the Greens.

Who will be hit hardest? It will be those near the bottom - those who have the least income but not so little as to have their council tax paid for them. The greens are stamping on the fingers of those at the bottom to make them let go and give up - at the same time hoping to point the blame elsewhere.

Voters who think the greens are 'cuddly tree huggers' need to be put on notice - the greens are anything but cuddly, for the sake of everyone in the city, especially the poor this really has to be a one term green administration.

Thursday, 10 November 2011

30th Day of Action - Child Minding to let working parents work - an update.

My previous blog entry outlined an idea I had for providing community child minding on the 30th - when unions and teachers may be striking and closing schools for the day.

So an update...

The Police

They Suggested I contact the Criminal Records Bureau for a 'CRB' check as these are required for working with children.

I looked into this, but asking for a CRB check of myself, to be sent to myself so I can be sure that I am a suitable person for this activity doesn't seem to make much sense!

And if parent doubts you to the extent they want to see a CRB, then how could they trust that what you showed them was a genuine CRB anyway?

CRB checks are really to help employers vet staff - they are not a 'licence' or 'authorisation', so not much used to me!


The Council

I phoned the council to chivvy things along - they had my email and it was pending a reply, so it was all in progress.

In summary, it is not the councils area/responsibility, but I was told that looking after children under 8 requires Ofsted registration (which is a very long process). But that there are no limitations on children over 8.

The helpful council lady gave me Ofsted's number so I could get the full low down.

Ofsted

The lady at Ofsted gave me an outline of their requirements - particularly that there is a list of
exemptions to registration. Unfortunately the list is currently under review, so not available on their website!

However she explained one exemption to Ofsted registration which is if you intend to look after children for less than 14 days in one calendar year, so as I am only looking at a day I would be exempt.

In summary so far...

Its all fine from that side of things - no limitations or restrictions. And there was me thinking it would be red tape up to my neck and health and safety gone mad! And that I'd be able to write a whole raft of blog posting complaining about things... but no.

To go further, there would the issues of location and additional helpers - but nothing official to worry about.

**Update**

1) While no Ofsted registration is required, they do require 14 days written notice!

2) My wife is Akela of a local cub pack - and is now looking into running an event in the Scout Hall as a bit of a fundraiser (donations, not charges - maybe suggest 1.5 hours pay?).

TUC/Unison Day of Action ? Innocent working parents deserve better.

The 30th November is planned as a TUC 'day of action' with as many public servants walking out and striking as they can muster.

Times are already hard in the private sector - and many parents hard-pressed. The last thing they need is to have to take a day off and lose a days pay simply because the public servants they are already paying handsomely (better than themselves in many instances) want more.

So... I think what is needed is a free, one-off child minding service for the day.

What would this entail? Well I am finding out - Starting with the local council and the police...

The police contact centre have responded suggesting I contact the CRB for a check - I have contacted them, but as a private citizen, and knowing I have no convictions, cautions or anything else am not sure what a CRB would tell me about myself!

My initial letter to Brighton and Hove City Council and Sussex Police follows.

-- Lets see how it goes, as the private citizen strikes back against so called 'public servants'...


Hi,

There is a 'day of action' planned for the 30th of November when many public servants are intending to cut the services they supply for one day. This is expected to lead to the closure of a number of schools.

As thing stand, if/when schools close many working parents will have to miss a days work, and so lose a days pay so they can look after their children who will be off school.

So, I am interesting in what legal restrictions there may for providing/manage/organise/arrange a community child minding service for the day, so working parents who would otherwise miss a days work, and so a days pay have somewhere/someone to leave their children with for the day.

Other than providing a free, public service to rescue hard-pressed working parents from the 'day of action', I have no other fixed plans and would plan to arrange the service within what ever legal limitations there maybe.With only a few weeks to go, this obviously needs to be done with the minimum of red tape.

Can you give me contact details of anyone who should be notified and/or can advise on any legal requirements regarding such a service?

Regards

Wednesday, 9 November 2011

Greens - think human poverty is good for the environment?

If your council freeze council tax this year, central government will add 2.5% to the total!
If your council don't freeze it then central government will add NOTHING.

To keep council tax down (a tax generally considered 'regressive' as the poor pay more in proportion to their income/wealth than the rich) the ConDem government coalition has told councils that if they freeze their council tax this year, then central government will top them up with the equivalent to a 2.5% on council tax! Hurrah!

It appears every council in the UK has accepted this offer except for one. The one exception is the Green led Brighton and Hove council. They are not willing to freeze their council tax, so will forefit the 2.5% central government grant and instead add 3.5% to individual council tax bills.

Double whammy - I am paying tax to central government, they have offered 2.5% back, Brighton Greens have declined that offer AND demanded a 3.5% increase - so I am 6% down on the deal.

I have heard it suggested that the Green movement actually want people to be poor, because that means they have less opportunity to 'damage' the planet. This would certainly be an explanation for this and some other recent actions by the Green led Brighton and Hove City Council.

Sunday, 30 October 2011

Anti Squatting, Pro Squatting - just cant trust politicians on either side...

Politicians - Blue or Green - just can’t trust them eh?

Anti-Squatting: Weatherly and co misleading on squatters, citing issues *already* covered by existing law:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/sep/25/squatting-law-media-politicians

Pro-Squatting: Brighton Greens – cite house empty for 30 YEARS to support confiscating properties empty for 6 MONTHS.
http://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2011/10/brighton-house-stood-empty-for-32-years/

As Weatherly has also said he would happily remove protesters from St Pauls himself, I assume he prefers protest by riot to peaceful occupation… Next election, he is toast...

Cameron - the advertising man. All talk and no action (OK - lies).

From the UK Governments e-petition site, as instigated/created by one "David Cameron"

What are e-petitions?


e-petitions is an easy way for you to influence government policy in the UK. You can create an e-petition about anything that the government is responsible for and if it gets at least 100,000 signatures, it will be eligible for debate in the House of Commons.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/

See that bit 'influnce government policy'? Well here is what David Cameron said about the e-petition on a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU.

At Prime Minister's Questions, he said he shared MPs' frustrations with how the European Union worked but would oppose calls for a vote on whether to quit the EU as it was "not our policy".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15373005

See what he did there?

First says petitions are there to influence government policy, then justifies a three line whip against a petition (the EU Referendum) before the debate has even taken place becuase it is 'not government policy'.

Do I need to spell it out again? I'd guess not... but... Cameron says 'petitions are to influnce government policy' then says "I'll three line whip this because is isn't government policy"

So does anyone need a clearer example of David Cameron as a bare faced liar? Or can we all agree on that?

**edit**

Since posting this blog entry I have used writetothem.co.uk to ask my MP this very question, I have also registered a complaint with the advertising standards authority.

Saturday, 29 October 2011

Cameron agreed to SIX EU treaty changes - with no repatriation of powers...

Denis Cooper, on Conservative Home said...

Since the Treaty of Lisbon finally came into force on December 1st 2009, there have been no fewer than SIX piecemeal EU treaty changes put in the pipeline.

Firstly a protocol was agreed to sort out a legal pickle over the numbers of MEPs; that was quietly approved by Parliament through Part 2 of the European Union Act 2011:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/12/part/2/enacted

Then:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/wintour-and-watt/2011/sep/09/eu-euro

"There are four more treaty changes which have to be ratified by all 27 member states in addition to the ESM revision. They are Croatia's accession treaty, which must be ratified by 2013; the Irish protocol, which persuaded the Irish Republic to vote in favour of the Lisbon Treaty; the separate Irish amendment to the Lisbon Treaty, which allows every member state to keep their European commissioner; and the Czech protocol which persuaded the eurosceptic President Václav Klaus to sign the Lisbon Treaty. Cameron will not use any of these treaty changes to repatriate powers."

Hang about, what's this "in addition to the ESM revision"?

Oh, that's the other EU treaty change, the radical EU treaty change agreed by EU leaders on March 25th through European Council Decision 2011/199/EU:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:091:0001:0002:EN:PDF

which the government, and for some reason also the mass media, like to pretend never happened.

Although Hague did have to lay a statement before Parliament on October 13th:

http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/pdf/eu-section5-statement

admitting its existence and denying us a referendum on it; and on Monday a question from Mark Reckless MP forced Cameron to likewise acknowledge its existence, Column 36 here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111024/debtext/111024-0001.htm

"Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con): The Prime Minister tells The Daily Telegraph today that we should use any treaty change to shore up the euro to get powers over employment and social policy back, yet on 25 March, he agreed to precisely such a treaty change, but did not ask for anything in return.

The Prime Minister: I have to take issue with my hon. Friend. The very limited treaty change that is about to be debated in, and hopefully passed by, the House of Commons ... "

Except that it isn't a "very limited" treaty change; it's a radical treaty change, and one which Cameron stupidly and recklessly gave to the eurozone states - more accurately, really, to Germany and France - without getting anything substantive in exchange to protect our national interests.

---

Nice one Denis - thanks for the permission to repost.

Friday, 28 October 2011

IDS - standard collapse or a 'supposed' conservative EUSceptic

The changing face (thin mask) of Conservative party EU Scepticism
OR
Cameron's desperate attempt to prevent complete conservative wipe out in the next EU elections

Conservative 'Champions' of EU-Scepticism


We have seen William Hague start as (probably) a genuine believer in the primacy of Westminster as the UK government and then gradually drift in to the standard EU phillia of our political class.

We have seen David Cameron talk tough on the EU (although whether 'cast iron' Dave was ever genuinely EU sceptic (or has any firm principles) is open to question) but when cornered revealed as an EU phile.

Now we have the supposed 'arch' conservative EU Sceptic - their new champion replacing the fallen Cameron and Hague - Iain Duncan Smith. Presented as the man who disobeyed John Major PM's three line whip on the 'Mastrict Treaty' but then went on to lead the Conservative party (the 'quiet man who rapidly fell silent').

The fall of the final 'Champion'


The story of IDS's Mastrict rebellion was stoked up in the press - the new EU hard man.

Then came the vote on having giving the people a referendum on the EU. IDS follows the party line (as a minister he had no choice! to do otherwise would have split the coalition!).

But we were reassured...

IDS lets it be known that he wanted to vote for a referendum, but couldn't - however if it happened again he would resign rather than go against his EU Sceptic principles:
IDS threat to quit: I won't vote against my Eurosceptic principles again


There are official denials of such a threat, but IDS refuses to support the denials ('Minister Coy over quit threat'):
(Note the BBC have removed their original report of this and replaced it to make IDS look less scheming than he was).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15487211

Then IDS admits he didn't support the referendum at all anyway, so any threat to resign was purely on being subject to a three line whip:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gvCmJZ26EEvJl1LuQLzgp84bgZ1A?docId=N0319781319754075306A

Finally realising how stupid, dishonest and unprincipled this whole episode make him appear - IDS now issues a blanket denial that there was ever any disagreement by himself at all!
(This is the story that the BBC used to airbrush out their 'IDS refuses to support Camerons claim of no threat to resign).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15487211

Conclusion

There are no EUSceptics on the Conservative front bench.

Wednesday, 26 October 2011

BBC Still not responded to my complaint - trying to conflate 'EU' and 'Europe'.

A few blog postings ago I blogged about a complaint I made to the BBC - I asked for a response, they haven't bothered, so I have just complained again.

The BBC continues to confuse 'EU' a political elite based in brussels, the 'Eurozone' a subset of contries that susbscribe to the EU and share the Euro as their currency, and Europe - the continent, its people, its countries, its languages and its cultures etc. For instance Stephanie Flanders on BBC Today this morning (26th October 2011)

I complained about this previously, asking for a response which you have failed to provide - I expect a response to this by return.

Original complaint:


The BBC persistently seeks to conflate the continent of Europe, its people, countries and cultures with the political organisation that is the "European Union".


i.e. On the Radio 4 Today program this morning the presenters (I won't call them journalists) constantly referred to the Conservative party conference not discussing 'Europe'.
What is is about 'Europe' that they should discuss? Its geology? Its population? No your lazy and misrepresenting presenters actually meant 'European Union' - its commission and other institutions.


Asking people what they think of 'Europe' is very, very different to asking what they think of the "European Union'.


I am sure the BBC are fully aware of this device to misrepresent public opinion on the European UNION, but by making an official complaint I hope to start the process of slapping the BBC back into line.

If they deign to reply I'll let you know what they say - if not, I'll get around to escalating it...

Wednesday, 19 October 2011

Letter to my MP - calling to support EU referendum regardless of party whips.

Following the presentation of a 100,000 signature petition to parliament, there is to be a debate on whether the people of the UK should be given a referendum on our membership of the EU (European Union).

It has also been reported that Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour party leaders are against having a referendum (despite what they have said in the past), and that MP's may be subject to a party whip to vote against the referendum.

Accordingly I have written the following to my (conservative) MP.

Please read it then WRITE TO YOURS.

My Letter

Dear,

There is soon to be a debate/vote on giving the people of the UK a referendum on the UK's EU membership.

Such a referendum would deliver on the promises that David Cameron made on behalf of the Conservative party before being elected - that the people of the UK should have a direct say in the constitutional changes that the EU is bringing about.

It would also deliver on the promise that Nick Clegg made when he instructed Liberal Democrats to vote down a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty - he said it was 'because it is the wrong referendum, people want a referendum on in/out'.

More generally people feel that just as the Liberal Democrats were elected on a false pledge on Tuition Fees, the Conservatives have been elected on a false pledge of EU-scepticism.

Apart from the direct EU issues, all parties and MPs have professed to support calls for 'reconnecting' the public with politics. We have had a referendum on voting reform, what better way to continue this reconnection that with a referendum on another divisive (between politicians and public) issue?

And what better way to entrench the division between people and politics than vote down this referendum - a debate that has come about through a petition of 100,000 people?

The referendum question as proposed is not particularly good - giving three options, and being worded badly - but the principle of finally giving the people a say on this issue cannot be ignored.

I ask and hope that you will vote for a referendum on this issue, regardless of any instructions from you party.

Yours sincerely,

Reply


Dear

Thank you for writing to me about the Motion regarding a referendum on Britain's continued relationship with the EU.

At present, this matter is very much in flux because of ongoing discussions in Westminster. Although I am in Brighton today, undertaking constituency visits, I am in touch with colleagues in Parliament regarding this matter on a frequent basis.

Please be assured that I shall vote for the best outcome for our country as a whole.

In the meantime, I have carefully noted your comments and request that I vote to support a referendum.

I will keep in touch as matters develop.

Kind regards.

Reply after Vote


Dear

I wanted to write to you regarding the EU referendum debate.

I have received many emails and letters espousing both sides of the argument. I am only too aware of how important this is.

I believe the EU has become a huge, overly costly, bureaucratic organisation fundamentally lacking in both democracy and accountability to the many millions of people who pay for it through their taxes and who are bound to live by its rules.

However, I must emphasise, the Motion that was put for debate and a vote yesterday was three-pronged and badly timed as it was demanding an in-out referendum in the next Parliamentary Session. With Europe and the Eurozone in a financial crisis which is affecting our economy and those countries not even in the EU, I could not support such a motion as the most important thing in the short term needs to be financial stability and political certainty. I think it is also important to stress that notwithstanding its many failings I am a believer in working with, and co-operating with, our European allies especially as the Eurozone is Britain's biggest customer.

The Conservative Party manifesto for the last General Election which was voted for by millions of people, made it clear that we believed Britain should remain within the European Union but we should not be run by the EU.

The issue is we did not promise a referendum on whether we should stay or leave the EU. However, we did promise a referendum on any further transfer of power from Britain to Brussels and we have already delivered on that promise with our "referendum lock". We also made it clear that we will work to repatriate many of the powers we believe Britain has lost to the EU, particularly over social and employment legislation. The Prime Minister confirmed that policy yesterday, in the debate.

It is worth pointing out that there were two other amendments put forward for debate, which I was minded to support if they had been selected for debate by the Speaker:

"This House calls upon the Government to publish a White Paper during the next session of parliament setting out the powers and competences that the Government would seek to repatriate from the EU, to commence a renegotiation of Britain’s relationship with the EU and to put the outcome of those negotiations to a national referendum.”

and the second motion that I could have supported is:

"This House believes that it was wrong for successive Governments to hand over increasing powers to the EU without seeking the approval of the British people in a referendum; believes that it was right for the present Government to introduce legislation which requires a referendum before the transfer of any further power in a in a new Treaty; and notes that by enacting this legislation Parliament has prevented such undemocratic transfers of power in the future. This House believes that the steady and unaccountable intrusion of the European Union into almost every aspect of our lives has gone too far and that the burden of EU legislation is suppressing growth in the UK economy. It calls upon the Government to negotiate to return powers that should reside with the UK rather than the EU, including in the field of social and employment legislation. Furthermore, this House:

- Calls on the Government to bring the EU budget under control and believes that anything more than a real terms freeze in the next EU multi-annual budget would be unacceptable;

- Believes that the United Kingdom should not participate in the Eurozone bail-out of Greece and insists that the Government avoid participation in any further Eurozone bail-out of Greece; and

- Believes that Eurozone bail-outs should be the responsibility of the Eurozone Member States.”

However, the Speaker, who has absolute control of these matters, did not choose to call either amendment. I was sorry to hear this when I was in the Chamber. Given my reasoning above, I decided to reluctantly vote against the Motion that was debated last night.

I want to assure you that I appreciate the strength of feeling on this matter, and I will continue to keep you appraised of developments.

I hope the foregoing is helpful.

Kind regards,

Saturday, 15 October 2011

Screw faith, its religion that matters.

Why do faith schools tend to do better than non-faith schools?
Why do faith communities tend to be more ordered than non-faith ones?
etc...

Well the clue is in the name 'faith'. 'Faith' is used to all and every religion, and to make a distinction between religion and non-religion based things - and this puts the answer in plain sight.

The important thing about 'faith schools' and 'faith communities' is not 'faith' at all - in my experience, most people who classify themselves as having a religion are very dubious about the existance/form of what their 'god' is supposed to be. You hear "well I'm christian, but...", "my family is jewish", "I was raised a catholic".

The common thing about all these 'faiths' is a common set of rules - the religions themselves. A clear set of rules, set out, explained, examples given at great length, and a history that they have tended to favour 'well ordered' societies (those that don't, have - by natural selection - fallen by the wayside).

What makes these 'religions' as distinct from purely moral/social codes is that that final arbiter is cited as 'god' an external judge who has no reason to be anything other than perfectly fair.

I suggest the 'faith' bit is most relevant to children and newcomers - like training wheels on a bicycle or scaffolding around a new building - it supports the subject while development is taking place - but there comes the time when the scaffolding is irrelevant, the development is complete and will stand or fall on its own merits - the scaffolding can be removed or left it place, it makes no real difference.

In the end, broadly following the rules of any religion is as good (often better) than trying to follow any other set of moral/social rules - even if you don't have faith or believe in its god.

So a 'faith school' does better than a non-faith school even when very few people there actually have any 'faith' - it is simply that they have a clear set of rules that are well known, easily remembered and that participants have agreed to follow - rules which cannot be challenged on a whim nor need endless explanation - the answer to challenges is "it works" or "god says so", if you don't like it then 'goodbye'.

Clearly a common moral code works well for societies, simple tools like doing the 'right thing' because you are expected to behave as if your every thought/action is being observed (by a god) are useful. Its 'religious codes' that work - not faith.

If every one behaved *as if* they were being observed, there would be no need for CCTV cameras! Children can behave that way because they have the 'scaffolding' of faith in a god - adults because they see from experience that it make society a better place.

Monday, 3 October 2011

Complaint to the BBC: Use of the word "Europe" to refer to the "European Union".

I have just sent the following complaint of bias to the BBC.

The BBC persistently seeks to conflate the continent of Europe, its people, countries and cultures with the political organisation that is the "European Union".


i.e. On the Radio 4 Today program this morning the presenters (I won't call them journalists) constantly referred to the Conservative party conference not discussing 'Europe'.
What is is about 'Europe' that they should discuss? Its geology? Its population? No your lazy and misrepresenting presenters actually meant 'European Union' - its commission and other institutions.


Asking people what they think of 'Europe' is very, very different to asking what they think of the "European Union'.


I am sure the BBC are fully aware of this device to misrepresent public opinion on the European UNION, but by making an official complaint I hope to start the process of slapping the BBC back into line.

I'll let you know what they reply...

Sunday, 2 October 2011

Again UK again stands as a beacon of freedom in Europe.

Now the Euro project honeymoon is passed and the scales are falling from the eyes of the gullible who took it at face value the real story is starting to be told and recognised as the real truth.

The Centre for Policy Studies publication of 'Guilty Men' a short read by Peter Oborne and Frances Weaver not only tells it how it is, but tells it as it always was. Nothing material has actually changed, it is just the the truth of it can no longer be denied.

It is just as it was during the second world war, when the UK stood alone as an example to the peoples of other European countries.  An example that it is possible for the people of a country to resist the sweeping oppressive domination of Germany and their French collaborators.

The UK not only (again) has its share of appeasers, but has a strong fifth column that actively support the interests of the UKs enemies against the interest of the UKs people.

This time the enemy is the EU - not the people of Europe nor their countries, languages or customs - but those people who have been allowed to become their political leaders and the people and institutions who have actively supported them and opposed the forces of freedom.

The collapse of the Euro project is an opportunity to show that their previous arguments and assertions were nothing other than 'whatever was required' to bring all the people of Europe into subservience under the yoke of the EU.

The UK stands as an example to the people of Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Spain etc that there is life outside the Euro - we are the physical proof of that, the proof that EU-apologists were so keen to destroy by taking us in to the currency.

The people of the UK are now close to having the opportunity of leading the oppressed people of Europe to freedom. Not just out of the Euro, but right out of the whole evil EU empire.

Freedom for the people of western europe, and real freedom for the people of the former eastern European states who thought they were getting freedom by leaving the USSR ,but just swapped one totalitarian politcal master for another - the EU.

This is the line between the people of Europe (including the UK) and their politicians - it is our own political class who have sought to enslave (just as most african slaves were first enslaved by other africans - our real enemies are within) - most people have not been as vigilant against this as they should have been, it is not too late, now is the time to push ahead and lead the way out of the EU.

Wednesday, 28 September 2011

Unwise Brighton politicians - put back on the record (from 2010)

This is a statement made in April 2010 by Unite Against Fascism and a supporting response from Brighton Unity made in April 2010. Its signed by a number of politicians, and I put it here just so it is on the record (having been airbrushed off the internet elsewhere...).

The UAF statement was massively rejected and opposed by many of their 'usual' supporters - as 'March for England' opposed any participation by EDL, and is generally considered a peaceful 'pro-England' group.

Following this call by UAF to counter-march in Brighton, it seems EDL were actually inspired to march in Brighton some months later - well done UAF, creating trouble/friction were there was none...

STOP THE RACIST EDL FROM MARCHING IN BRIGHTON!
On Sunday April 25th there will be a 'March for England' taking place in Brighton. In previous years we have ignored this demonstration as it has been small and peaceful. However, this year members of the racist and violent English Defence League (EDL) will be attending the march.
The EDL is a racist organisation with links to fascist groups like BNP and Combat 18. They claim to oppose only 'militant Islam', but they target all Muslims by demonstrating against mosques such as in Harrow and Dudley and chanting slogans such as "Pakis Out" and "if you build your f*ucking mosque we'll burn it down".
Just weeks ago Sussex UAF members were sent racist private messages by local EDL supporters and the Sussex UAF page was vandalised with posts from several regional EDL divisions.
Previously where the EDL have marched, Asian people have had their property vandalied, been physically attacked and also stabbed. When they have been outnumbered they have been prevented form attacking anyone.
Lets stop them marching in our town to show them that Brighton will not be divided! There will be unity festival to defend and celebrate multiculturism in Brighton, join us!
Sunday 25th April
Meet 10am,
Victoria Gardens, Grand Parade.
(North Of Brighton Pavillion)

*******************

Brighton Unity Statement
We state our strong opposition to a march that is planned for Brighton town centre on the 25th of April.
We believe this march, which claims to celebrate St Georges Day, will actually bring the unwelcome presence of the violent and racist group the English Defence League (EDL) to our city.
The organisers ‘March for England’ claim to be an anti-racist organization with no connection to the EDL, but the site forum has several mentions of EDL groups joining this march, and the website includes links to other far-right organisations including the EDL.
Forum discussions on the he EDL’s own website show many of its members are planning to join the march.
The involvement of EDL members with this march is an unwelcome development, elsewhere when this group has been involved in marches, such as Luton, Stoke and Dudley the result has been violence, racial abuse and attacks on individuals, property and on places of worship.
Brighton and Hove is a city that its residents value for its tolerance and peaceful nature.
We live in a vibrant multi-cultural community, where other peoples’ lifestyles, race and faith are accepted and appreciated, we do not need this march and we will not support it.
Many people in Brighton will enjoy and celebrate St Georges Day and the rest of the weekend, without the nasty xenophobic and islamaphobic rhetoric of the groups involved with this march.
Signed,
Cllr Paul Elgood
Lib Dem Group Leader
Cllr Rachel Fryer
Queens Park, Green Party
Cllr Vicky Wakefield-Jarrett
Hanover & Elm Grove Ward, Green Party.
Cllr Ian Davey
St Peters & North Laine Ward, Green Party
Cllr Amy Kennedy
Preston Park Ward, Green Party

Nancy Platts
Labour parliamentary candidate for Brighton Pavilion
Berni Millam
Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate for Brighton Pavilion
Dave Hill
TUSC Parliamentary Candidate for Brighton Kemptown
Simon Burgess
Labour Parliamentary Candidate for Brighton Kemptown

Phelim Mac Cafferty
National Chair LGBTGreens.

Peter Atkinson,
Branch Secretary,
Unison, Sussex Community and Mental Health
Stephen McClean
senior steward for Brighton Unison health (pc)
Susan Bowes
Unison, Brighton Local Gov Branch Equalities Officer (jobshare).
Tom Hickey,
Chair of the co-ordinating committee
UCU, University of Brighton
Steve Pepper
PCS branch secretary
Kevin Dale,
Make your vote count co-ordinator PCS East Sussex

James Ledward
Publisher/Editor G-scene magazine

University of Sussex students Union:
Tom Wills
President, Students' Union
Biz Bliss
Ethical & Environmental Officer
Ciaran Whitehead
Welfare Officer
Josh Jones
Education Officer
Michael Holder
Communications Officer
Riya Mary Al'sanah,
International Students' Officer
Kelly McBride
Chair - Sussex LGBTQ
Kirsty Murdoch
Women's Group Representative
Casimir Schauman
Community Engagement Officer
Simon Englert
Entertainments Officer

Saturday, 24 September 2011

Brighton and Hove Community Seaside Homes - You can't trust the Green party.

Probably the first blog of several on this subject...

Brighton and Hove city council have just sold off 499 council properties.

The greens have pushed this through, breaking all sorts of principles that they have claimed to support...
Some of the 'problems'...

1) It was expected to raise £45million - it actually raised only £30million.

2) Previously 70% of all council tenants voted against stock being transferred from council to housing association ownership but 499 figure means no re-ballot is required (500 or more would have meant another ballot!),

3) Exploiting a loophole - this was rushed through to avoid expected changes to legislation - it is not a well considered situation, but a dash for cash.

4) The business plan for the company taking on the properties depends on avoiding VAT and other duties that may otherwise be payable - simple tax avoidance which may be clamped down on.

5) As a private limited company the new company is not subject to FoI etc and other transparency measures expected of public sector organisations.

So a £15million kickback to a private company from the council taxpayers, avoidance of consultation with
tenants, sharp practices on legislation, tax avoidance - thats just for starters...

And as Brighton and Hove's Green council privatise council housing, nationally the Green party are calling for privatised services (PFI) to be nationalised! http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/23-09-2011-greens-say-nationalise-PFIs.html

This must be hugely disappointing for anyone who actually trusted the Greens!

Tuesday, 20 September 2011

Abuse of 'company' - how the rich stay rich - Part 1

This is just to document one example of how 'companies' are abused by the rich to avoid taxes.

If you or I buy a property and sell it, we will be subject to a various taxes including stamp duty and capital gains tax - the average man in the street has no real scope to avoid these taxes.

However, the wealthy don't need to worry about such things. They will create a new company, and that new company will buy the property. As owners of the company they can use the property as their own (getting tax relief on all costs associated with the maintenance and upkeep of the property) and when it comes time to 'sell' the property they effect this by selling the company that owns the property to the new owner...

Because this is simply a sale of shares, there is no property stamp duty to be paid and all kinds of company tax breaks can be used to minimise (or completely avoid) capital gains and other taxes.

The 'company' is an artificial construct - an organisation with its own legal identity - that has enabled massive growth and development - however this privilege is being massively abused by the rich - as are trusts. Common people die, their estates are liquidated, taxed and redistributed - companies and trusts 'live' for ever they can acquire asserts and sit of them in perpetuity - depriving real, living, people of opportunity. And this is all for the benefit of the few mega-wealthy in our society.

Why don't politicians address this simple abuse/tax avoidance? Well where do you think their money comes from? Its a conspiracy/cartel of the rich powerful against the common man - and powerful politicians are not on the side of the common man...

Sunday, 18 September 2011

"Fairness" the cabinets petard - let them be hoist by it.

If Cameron, Clegg, Osbourne, Cable et al really believe tax is a 'fairness' issue then they must start writing those big, back dated, personal cheques now - or for ever be branded hypocritical liars and exploiters...

I pay my taxes because I'd be prosecuted if I didn't - the tax man is just a bully, viciously threatening people who don't do as he says. He is bigger than me, so for now I give in to the bully.

Politicians prefer to lie and talk about 'fairness' in taxation.

I don't know about you, but if I think something is unfairly to my advantage and someone else's disadvantage I don't wait to be 'found out' or 'told' to fix it, I just go ahead and make it fair off my own bat.

If I am given too much change, I'll say so - if I found a wallet/purse in the street I'd hand it in - I don't want to unfairly profit at someone else's expense - it would demean and belittle me. I don't want an unfortunate shop assistants pay to be docked to make up for the 'loss', or man/woman to go short through someone me being greedy.

How does this relate to tax?

Well if someone really believes that, as a rich person, they are 'unfairly' paying too little tax they have no reason or need to wait for the tax rates to change - they can write out a cheque this very instant and pay whatever extra tax they think it 'fair' for someone in their position to pay... Further, they can make amends for their 'unfair' excess wealth by backdating that payment - and paying any extra tax they have ever 'unfairly' retained in the past.

Our government, the condem'd cabinet are millionaires and are complaining that it is 'unfair' that they are not being taxed more - the solution is in their own hands.

Cameron, Clegg, Osbourne, Cable et al - start writing those big, back dated cheques now - or for ever be branded hypocritical liars and exploiters...

Wednesday, 14 September 2011

Schools - Artificial monopolies are always bad.

For most people the state has a monopoly on providing education. The state has taken all our money and spent it as it sees fit.

Supporters of this monopoly often want to extend it to everyone by banning all private schools. Looking at the results from schools I suspect this is because state-monopoly supporters don't like us, the public, to have the solid evidence of state-school failure. But while we have private schools we can see for real just how bad state-education is.

It is true that kids in private schools will often be from wealthier families - but family money doesn't make a kid smart. It is schools that are responsible for getting the best educational outcome for an individual child. And time and time again we see thick rich kids reaching their potential, while clever poor kids are kept down. Clever, poor kids kept down so far that even the thickest rich kid has far surpassed them by the time they leave school. This is how social mobility is arrested and everyone is kept in their place. After all if social mobility means people can go up, then it also means people may go down - and the rich couldn't have that, could they?!

Most kids are well trained to play their role - both the 'snobby' kids who look down on the 'oiks' and 'chavs'; and the 'oiks' who play dumb and play up and hold others back so they can pretend to be happy with their lot - rather than striving and running the risk of failure and humiliation at the hands of the toffs.

Some of us think this must change, and often it will be those of us who did strive and take the risks and may well have alienated both the 'oiks' we went to school with and the 'toffs' whose bastions we seek to assault.

This is how it starts.

A basic private education costs in the region of £10,000 a year. Funnily enough the LEA's (Local Education Authorities) who run the state school monopoly receive about this per year for each child they need to educate.

So on cost it is even - private and state education can cost the same - it is only the quality (as evidenced by the outcomes) that differs. Given this - that 'we' already pay for private quality education for all - why do we allow the failed state-education monopoly to provide such rank service? More importantly, how does this get changed?

I say - let the money follow the child. Let the family (parents, child etc) choose where and how the child is educated and let the £10,000 per year go to the chosen educators. Send you child to a state school, private school or whatever, give them the choice.

Educational establishments will need to compete for the pupils/students that they want - they will need to attract them by offering the best quality educational experience, leading to the best outcome that they can.

If suitable educational establishments don't exist there will be no barriers to parents clubbing together to create their own. Maybe in new premises, converted premises or maybe subletting from another school, using their physical facilities but providing their own educational regime. Its not for me to dictate every available option - millions of parents and teachers minds are better than one.

If you take a sterile academic economic view you may not see how this works - but while soulless companies may work to mechanical rules on investment, return and profit - people have a human element that separates us from computer models, especially when dealing with children and extra-especially when dealing with our own children.

A company does not (and cannot get a 'buzz' out of any sense of achievement - but people do. A headteacher who is only interested in the cash they get in their pocket and would move in an instant to get a few pounds more is worthless. But such a person may do well in (say) Banking.

Let parents choose how their kids are educated, let the tax-man pay the £10,000 per year directly to their chosen establishment, remove barriers to creating new schools, and let parents and children be the quality controllers of their education.

Friday, 9 September 2011

Autophulephobia

Auto-Self
Phule-Tribe/Race/People
Phobia - Hatred/Fear

Autophulephobia (auto-fu-lay-phobia) a hatred of ones own people, evidenced as anglophobia and cultural genocide that UK politicians continue to execute against the english people.

Cultural suicide - cultural genocide - if not, then where has everyone gone?

Anglo-phobia

Defining 'Englishness' or 'Britishness' is like defining 'inteligence' - simply not possible. The closest You are likely to get to apply a test similar to that created by Alan Touring (for artificial inteligence) - and simply ask!

Because while the meaning of these words cannot be precisely or scientifically defined, English/British people can pretty reliably tell you what is and what is not 'English' and 'British'. There are many clear cut issues - Fish and Chips are an English/British thing, but Kangaroos are not. But the border, the grey area, is fractal -- the closer you look the less clear it is where the exact divide is.

One thing that has been on the rise among the English recently is a determination not to be seen as 'superior' to any other nationality/race - the plain fear of being called a 'racist'.

This, however is where things are going wrong, very wrong. The fear of being called a 'racist' has led to much English self-loathing. English people very, very keen to do down the English, however, not being suicidal the loathing is directed at *other* English people - people who are also English, but different enough not to include oneself. It is these groups of 'other english people' who are then targeted, blamed and even sacrificed by these autophulephobes. You hear it all the time 'chavs', 'pikeys', 'feral underclass'  etc.

Of course the place this really makes a difference and really matters is in the hands of those with real power - in politics. The UK political class is made up almost exclusively of people who hate the English. Either because they are from one of the other 'home nations', or because they are English autophulephobes.

If you are English, rich, powerful and feeling guilty about all three how do you compensate? Well you could give up your wealth and power - but that isn't going to happen! so you are left only one option, to punish your 'Englishness', but, of course, without hurthing yourself personally. In this way the rich and powerful English come to attack, punish and destroy the English people who aren't quite 'one of them' -- and if you are a rich powerful policitian that means attacking/sacrificing the English general public.

For every English person in poor housing, in poor health, with poor education etc the rich and powerful can feel that bit less guilty about being English, rich and powerful - after all don't the English suffer and have their burden too?

Far fetched? I wish it were - but the evidence is all around us. Politicians dragging down the English - we suffer for what they, themselves, consider their sins.

Brighton and Hove Greens - 'Ban Low Pay' (But No Pay is just fine).

The Brighton Greens immorality and duplicity shows again - claiming support and success for their 'living wage' for people providing council services - but now confirming their support for making people they think aren't worth the minimum wage to work for NOTHING or to not work at all. Its disgusting.

Once again the Greens show their 'cuddly' image is nothing more than a cover for exploitation of the those who are already most disadvantaged.

They pretend to 'help' people/council workers by introducing a so called 'living wage' which they claim is the minimum anyone requires to be part of society (minimum wage is supposedly what is needed to just survive).

But as with minimum wage, a living wage just means any work that is not *worth* the minimum is either not done, or is outsourced to an organisation who can pay less. So salving the conscience of the 'green' employers by having someone else break their principles for them, and keeping those green hands clean.

If you should doubt the insincerity of the Greens then a look at their recently confirmed policy on the use of volunteers for providing some council services - this will clear any doubt, and show the green peril that everyone - especially the poor and disadvantaged - face.

The greens recently confirmed 'volunteers policy' linked with their 'living wage' - means anyone providing council services who isn't qualified/able to justify earning the 'living wage' must either do council work for NOTHING or not at all. So attacking those who are clearly least able to defend themselves.

The green 'living wage' policy says that no work or persons time is worth less than that amount, to the extent that people are banned from working from less, that working for less would be exploitation.

But their volunteer policy says that while  low pay is evil, no pay is just fine.

Thursday, 8 September 2011

Mr Cameron shows who is 'phoney'...

Speaking about the recent riots on the 10th August Mr Cameron spoke of "phoney concerns for human rights" in the past not being tolerated in the pursuit of rioters.

I sent an FOI request to Number 10 asking specifically which occasions he was considering when referring to 'phoney concerns for human rights'.

It turns out that the day after my request, he was asked a similar question in a House of Commons debate and replied:

"The specific point that I was making was about the concern that is often expressed, and was expressed to me over the past couple of days, as to whether under the Human Rights Act "Wanted" pictures. as it were, could he published. I wanted specifically' to send a message to police forces and local authorities that they should go ahead and do that."

There are two obvious flaws with this statement:

Firstly who is Cameron to decide the lawfulness or otherwise of the actions of police or local authorities? He is an advertising man, at least Blair had a legal background!

Secondly this statement does not answer the use of the word 'phoney' - phoney suggests insincerity or dis-ingenuousness in the concerns about human rights - whereas his statement in 'sending a message' could only effect *genuine* concerns.

Then what can you expect from an adversing man? Their claims rarely stand up to scrutiny!

But anyway - thank you Mr Cameron, we know exactly what is phoney now.

(FoI Request: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/phoney_concerns_for_human_rights#outgoing-145482)

Tuesday, 6 September 2011

English Parliament? No Thanks.

I am a citizen of the UK. Parts of the UK are now run by government/assemblies that I have no say over. As I travel around my country, I becoming subject to laws that I have had no say over, laws that have absolutely no democratic mandate from me.

This is simply wrong.

Just because I don't actually live in Wales or Scotland there is no reason that I should have no say over how I am treated when I am there.

As a citizen of the UK I should be treated exactly the same as all other citizens and treated exactly the same where ever in the UK I happen to be.

I only want one parliament - and that is a UK parliament at Westminster. If there is to be a different parliament, an English parliament, then it has to replace the UK parliament - no one needs two.

If this does come about, and we have an English parliament, then I would expect the English parliament to take full advantage of the superior size/wealth of England as compared to the other 'home nations'.

Just as Germany sucks all the wealth out of the smaller, poorer Eurozone countries and takes it to itself, I would expect England to drain as much wealth and power from the other 'home nations' - all English state funded services, functions, employees etc would be repatriated as would all military functions, bases. And as far as possible financial services should also be sucked into the City of London - no Scottish banks, building societies, insurance companies etc should fail to feel the red hot breath of fierce competition from England.

As I say - I prefer a United Kingdom, but if the home nations are to go their own way, England must show no mercy...