It looks as if the BNP will stand against Margaret Hodge (Lab) at Barking.
What will actually happen is anyone's guess, but the unpopularity of Labour's policies, the recession, the imposition of the Lisbon 'Treaty' etc, have given Nick the best chance he has ever had.
To avoid extreme embarassment, Gordon Brown is going to have to pull a very large rabbit from a very small hat...
Sunday, 15 November 2009
Sunday, 1 November 2009
Just when you thought things couldn't.....
This video goes to show that nothing in life is certain. A few Politicians would do well to remember this at the next election....
Thursday, 8 October 2009
I'm a lady..
or a cage fighter.
A pair of yobs picked a fight with a pair of 'drag queens' got their comeuppance when the 'drag queens' turned out to be cagefighters out on a fancy dress stag night.
Dean Gardener, 19, and 22-year-old Jason Fender were left sprawled across the pavement.
Gardener walked up to one and hit him in the face.
But the victim's friend, leapt into action and floored both Gardener and Fender with lightning fast punches and kicks.
..and for once it was the yobs who ended up in Court as well. Good news for once.
A pair of yobs picked a fight with a pair of 'drag queens' got their comeuppance when the 'drag queens' turned out to be cagefighters out on a fancy dress stag night.
Dean Gardener, 19, and 22-year-old Jason Fender were left sprawled across the pavement.
Gardener walked up to one and hit him in the face.
But the victim's friend, leapt into action and floored both Gardener and Fender with lightning fast punches and kicks.
..and for once it was the yobs who ended up in Court as well. Good news for once.
Thursday, 17 September 2009
The story of the Baroness and the maid
The UK Border Agency announced that it would conduct an inquiry after receiving a complaint which said that Baroness Scotland appeared to have contravened legislation that she herself helped to steer through parliament.
Downing Street said that Gordon Brown had "full confidence" in Scotland and that she had hired the housekeeper in good faith. (He also had full confidence in the Speaker Michael Martin and Hazel Blears and Lord Myners)
Baroness Scotland, who is the government's legal adviser, hired Loloahi Tapui, 27, over the last six months to look after her family home in west London.
But she was forced to sack the Tongan national yesterday after it emerged Tapui had overstayed on a student visa. That meant Tapui was no longer entitled to work in the UK.
The incident is embarrassing for Scotland because, as a Home Office minister in 2006, she helped the government to bring in legislation tightening the law on illegal immigrants. (Maybe she forgot)
The Immigration, Nationality and Asylum Act says employers can go to jail if they knowingly employ an illegal immigrant.
But they can also be fined up to £10,000 for unknowingly employing an illegal immigrant if they have not carried out proper checks. The act spells out in detail what checks are required, and employers have to see certain documentation, such as a passport, and keep a copy.
Steve Lamb, Regional Operations Director of the UK Border Agency said, We will not tolerate illegal working, .... - it undercuts British wages, exploits vulnerable workers and hurts legitimate law-abiding businesses. 'As long as there are illegal jobs, the UK will be an attractive place for illegal immigrants.
Well, actually he did not say it about Baroness Scotland. I found the entry on the UK Border Agency website under the heading, 'Employer faces £10,000 fine'.
Any bets on the Baroness getting off 'scot' free
Downing Street said that Gordon Brown had "full confidence" in Scotland and that she had hired the housekeeper in good faith. (He also had full confidence in the Speaker Michael Martin and Hazel Blears and Lord Myners)
Baroness Scotland, who is the government's legal adviser, hired Loloahi Tapui, 27, over the last six months to look after her family home in west London.
But she was forced to sack the Tongan national yesterday after it emerged Tapui had overstayed on a student visa. That meant Tapui was no longer entitled to work in the UK.
The incident is embarrassing for Scotland because, as a Home Office minister in 2006, she helped the government to bring in legislation tightening the law on illegal immigrants. (Maybe she forgot)
The Immigration, Nationality and Asylum Act says employers can go to jail if they knowingly employ an illegal immigrant.
But they can also be fined up to £10,000 for unknowingly employing an illegal immigrant if they have not carried out proper checks. The act spells out in detail what checks are required, and employers have to see certain documentation, such as a passport, and keep a copy.
Steve Lamb, Regional Operations Director of the UK Border Agency said, We will not tolerate illegal working, .... - it undercuts British wages, exploits vulnerable workers and hurts legitimate law-abiding businesses. 'As long as there are illegal jobs, the UK will be an attractive place for illegal immigrants.
Well, actually he did not say it about Baroness Scotland. I found the entry on the UK Border Agency website under the heading, 'Employer faces £10,000 fine'.
Any bets on the Baroness getting off 'scot' free
Friday, 4 September 2009
Not all Judges are out of touch...
Ministers have been urged to change the law after a top judge said prison sentences for dangerous and violent criminals were too soft.
Judge Ian PEARSON, says he and his colleagues often found their hands tied when it came to handing down hefty jail terms.
Sentences for GBH and dangerous driving, in particular, should be substantially increased, he said.
Judge Pearson, who has sat at Portsmouth Crown Court for four years, said: 'Dangerous driving is a maximum of two years when it should be at least five.
'You can get 10 years for killing by dangerous driving but only two if you maim them for life.
'Grievous bodily harm is a maximum of five years, unless made with intent which can be life. There's an argument for there being a mid-range offence carrying 10 years.
'If someone is glassed in a pub and badly scarred, unless you can prove it was with intent, you can only really give them three years.
'If you can prove it was with intent you can give them life - it's an anomaly.'
Judge Pearson, who has more than 35 years experience in the legal profession, said prison acted as a deterrent and that the courts 'shouldn't shirk away from imposing prison sentences when appropriate'.
'Obviously crown court judges can only sentence in accordance with the law and in accordance with the views of the appeal court, so we would like frequently to impose heavier sentences,' he said.
Judge Pearson also said offenders who breached community penalties, such as those who fail to turn up for unpaid work, had to be punished quickly.
'The public, rightly in my view, have some concern over community penalties,' he said. 'It shouldn't be a soft option. If they step out of line they will come back to court straight away.'
Somebody tell the Home Secretary, - whoever it is this week.
Judge Ian PEARSON, says he and his colleagues often found their hands tied when it came to handing down hefty jail terms.
Sentences for GBH and dangerous driving, in particular, should be substantially increased, he said.
Judge Pearson, who has sat at Portsmouth Crown Court for four years, said: 'Dangerous driving is a maximum of two years when it should be at least five.
'You can get 10 years for killing by dangerous driving but only two if you maim them for life.
'Grievous bodily harm is a maximum of five years, unless made with intent which can be life. There's an argument for there being a mid-range offence carrying 10 years.
'If someone is glassed in a pub and badly scarred, unless you can prove it was with intent, you can only really give them three years.
'If you can prove it was with intent you can give them life - it's an anomaly.'
Judge Pearson, who has more than 35 years experience in the legal profession, said prison acted as a deterrent and that the courts 'shouldn't shirk away from imposing prison sentences when appropriate'.
'Obviously crown court judges can only sentence in accordance with the law and in accordance with the views of the appeal court, so we would like frequently to impose heavier sentences,' he said.
Judge Pearson also said offenders who breached community penalties, such as those who fail to turn up for unpaid work, had to be punished quickly.
'The public, rightly in my view, have some concern over community penalties,' he said. 'It shouldn't be a soft option. If they step out of line they will come back to court straight away.'
Somebody tell the Home Secretary, - whoever it is this week.
Tuesday, 18 August 2009
Most (un)wanted
A discount retail chain is stepping up the battle against store theft by displaying pictures of suspected shoplifters in shop windows and on its website -(Good for them)
Home Bargains has introduced a new hardline approach to in-store theft by launching an online campaign to identify suspected shoplifters, as well as putting posters of the suspects up in stores.
The retail chain, which has 190 stores countrywide, estimates that shop theft costs it an estimated pounds 6 million a year and says it is determined to crack down on the criminals. -( £6M?, you would have to win at least 12 sexual/racial harassment claims to make anything like that kind of money)
But Simon Davies, director of the human rights organisation Privacy International, said: 'You can't just bring your own system of vigilante justice. -(If it works, why not?)
'The whole exercise is wrong-footed legally, it flouts the entire justice system.- (A bit like the Human Rights Act then)
Mr Davies said the company was potentially libeling the people shown in the photos, and that those identified could also bring action under data protection laws. He said that if company bosses think they can prove guilt through CCTV images then 'they must know better than the High Court'.
'The High Court has already said that convictions using CCTV are unsafe because there are too many flaws in the footage,' - (I'll remember that next time I get caught on a speed camera)
The naming and shaming aspect also contravenes Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. -(Or more likely a fair £80 fixed penalty ticket..)
If the Human Rights 'experts' try and take it further, it will be interesting to see what comes of this...
Home Bargains has introduced a new hardline approach to in-store theft by launching an online campaign to identify suspected shoplifters, as well as putting posters of the suspects up in stores.
The retail chain, which has 190 stores countrywide, estimates that shop theft costs it an estimated pounds 6 million a year and says it is determined to crack down on the criminals. -( £6M?, you would have to win at least 12 sexual/racial harassment claims to make anything like that kind of money)
But Simon Davies, director of the human rights organisation Privacy International, said: 'You can't just bring your own system of vigilante justice. -(If it works, why not?)
'The whole exercise is wrong-footed legally, it flouts the entire justice system.- (A bit like the Human Rights Act then)
Mr Davies said the company was potentially libeling the people shown in the photos, and that those identified could also bring action under data protection laws. He said that if company bosses think they can prove guilt through CCTV images then 'they must know better than the High Court'.
'The High Court has already said that convictions using CCTV are unsafe because there are too many flaws in the footage,' - (I'll remember that next time I get caught on a speed camera)
The naming and shaming aspect also contravenes Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. -(Or more likely a fair £80 fixed penalty ticket..)
If the Human Rights 'experts' try and take it further, it will be interesting to see what comes of this...
Thursday, 30 July 2009
Not again!
A convicted double murderer who killed an elderly Newhaven couple has launched a High Court claim for the right to have laser treatment to remove a "humiliating" birthmark from his face.
A judge said today the case of Dennis Harland Roberts raised important wider issues over whether prisoners are entitled to the same treatment on the NHS as the general public. (Not unless they are dying)
The court heard the delay in medical treatment had caused the 59-year-old Category A prisoner humiliation and led to depression. (Boo Hoo, I expect the family of the murdered couple probably felt a bit down as well)
The Prison Service had written a letter last July saying the number of escorts of prisoners to hospitals from Frankland Prison had risen dramatically and "operational requirements" had led to "non-urgent appointments" being delayed.
Today Adam Straw, appearing for Roberts, accused Justice Secretary Jack Straw of departing - "for no good reason" - from his policy of giving prisoners the same range and quality of healthcare services as the general public. (Except for the obvious reason that they are shits who don't deserve it)
Mr Straw also argued there had been a breach of Roberts' rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, and his Article 8 right to protection of his private life. (That's the bit I was waiting for)
The judge agreed to adjourn today's hearing for two weeks after hearing that the Justice Secretary still needed more time to fully prepare his case.
He said it was "a disgraceful, lamentable state of affairs" that it had been necessary for Mr Straw's legal team to seek an adjournment without even a "remotely satisfactory excuse".
He ordered the Justice Secretary to pay legal costs on an indemnity basis - the highest level available - to "send a message" to the Government to "get its tackle in order" in future similar cases. (Which we will all be paying for)
Each day brings another story of how the HRA is being misapplied and we are paying for all of it
A judge said today the case of Dennis Harland Roberts raised important wider issues over whether prisoners are entitled to the same treatment on the NHS as the general public. (Not unless they are dying)
The court heard the delay in medical treatment had caused the 59-year-old Category A prisoner humiliation and led to depression. (Boo Hoo, I expect the family of the murdered couple probably felt a bit down as well)
The Prison Service had written a letter last July saying the number of escorts of prisoners to hospitals from Frankland Prison had risen dramatically and "operational requirements" had led to "non-urgent appointments" being delayed.
Today Adam Straw, appearing for Roberts, accused Justice Secretary Jack Straw of departing - "for no good reason" - from his policy of giving prisoners the same range and quality of healthcare services as the general public. (Except for the obvious reason that they are shits who don't deserve it)
Mr Straw also argued there had been a breach of Roberts' rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, and his Article 8 right to protection of his private life. (That's the bit I was waiting for)
The judge agreed to adjourn today's hearing for two weeks after hearing that the Justice Secretary still needed more time to fully prepare his case.
He said it was "a disgraceful, lamentable state of affairs" that it had been necessary for Mr Straw's legal team to seek an adjournment without even a "remotely satisfactory excuse".
He ordered the Justice Secretary to pay legal costs on an indemnity basis - the highest level available - to "send a message" to the Government to "get its tackle in order" in future similar cases. (Which we will all be paying for)
Each day brings another story of how the HRA is being misapplied and we are paying for all of it
Thursday, 23 July 2009
Diversity and Adversity
A male was imprisoned for manslaughter after strangling his boyfriend. On his release he attempted to rape a female and was imprisoned for life. During the second term, he began changing his sex, - hormone induced breasts and beard removed (by electrolysis?).
Now he wants to be transferred to a women's prison. This isn't a joke. It is happening now and we are paying.
The prisoner says doctors have forbidden him from having a full sex change until he lives as a woman for a long period, which will be impossible in a male prison. As a result the killer has launched a legal fight to be transferred to a female prison.
The transsexual claims his current incarceration among men is a violation of his right to respect for his private life, as set down in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. (I wondered when that would be brought up)
The Justice Department is having to use more TAXPAYER's money to point out that women prisoners are unlikely to welcome a pre-operative transsexual jailed for raping a woman. (Just in case anyone didn't think that already)
This the Human Rights Act in action. The 'claimant' is nearly always someone that either should not be here in the first place a prisoner or someone who would be in prison if there was any justice. The action is nearly always paid for by legal aid, which is another way of saying that the Govt pay for the claimant to take action against them.
Note to the next PM. Get rid of the Human Rights Act. It only ever helps the wrong people
Now he wants to be transferred to a women's prison. This isn't a joke. It is happening now and we are paying.
The prisoner says doctors have forbidden him from having a full sex change until he lives as a woman for a long period, which will be impossible in a male prison. As a result the killer has launched a legal fight to be transferred to a female prison.
The transsexual claims his current incarceration among men is a violation of his right to respect for his private life, as set down in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. (I wondered when that would be brought up)
The Justice Department is having to use more TAXPAYER's money to point out that women prisoners are unlikely to welcome a pre-operative transsexual jailed for raping a woman. (Just in case anyone didn't think that already)
This the Human Rights Act in action. The 'claimant' is nearly always someone that either should not be here in the first place a prisoner or someone who would be in prison if there was any justice. The action is nearly always paid for by legal aid, which is another way of saying that the Govt pay for the claimant to take action against them.
Note to the next PM. Get rid of the Human Rights Act. It only ever helps the wrong people
Wednesday, 15 July 2009
Cycling - good healthy fun...
This sounded like a good idea from Germany . Although it throws up some interesting points.
Telling your wife you going for a ride on the village bike, and meaning it
Cycling too far and too fast on the way there and being too knackered to get your money's worth
Explaining to the 'madame' that the red mark around your nether regions is only saddle rash not a social disease
After a long 'ride' being too tired to cycle home
Coming home hot and sweaty and telling the wife, 'I really enjoyed that ride'
Explaining to the wife that the red mark around your nether regions is only saddle rash, not lip stick
Telling your wife you going for a ride on the village bike, and meaning it
Cycling too far and too fast on the way there and being too knackered to get your money's worth
Explaining to the 'madame' that the red mark around your nether regions is only saddle rash not a social disease
After a long 'ride' being too tired to cycle home
Coming home hot and sweaty and telling the wife, 'I really enjoyed that ride'
Explaining to the wife that the red mark around your nether regions is only saddle rash, not lip stick
Telling the wife who has found a 'packet of three' in your pocket. 'I thought they were puncture repair patches'
Wife saying 'On your bike' and you thinking that's what got me in the s**t last time.....
Tuesday, 7 July 2009
Sounds fair to me
Monday, 29 June 2009
It will all end in tears
A couple of news stories made me think. One story centered around the fact that there is no money left in the 'pot' and as a result there will be cuts in the public sector. Including the police who may lose Officers from the frontline. (Although there will always be enough money to waste employers time in a recession by sending them false job applications to see if their recruiting policies are sound.)
The second was that some of the Officers on the G20 duty were untrained. Does this mean that they will recruit more Police so that there is enough manpower to allow more Officers to undergo regular and meaningful Public Order training? I am not holding my breath.
Saturday, 20 June 2009
A Gay Day (or a Pay Day)
Good luck to anyone who wants to march, but why does the NHS need to send their Paramedics ? The whole point of the march (I think) is that the participants want to be there, otherwise what is the point?
I am waiting for someone to decide that muslims are under represented on the march. Let's see someone try and pay them to go...
I am waiting for someone to decide that muslims are under represented on the march. Let's see someone try and pay them to go...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
