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

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%.

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

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 ( 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.”

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

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.

2.1 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.

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.!/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.


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.


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'...


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?


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.