www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Sunday, February 07, 2010

Is this all they've got left?

Screaming hate-filled abuse at those who disagree with them is de rigeur for leftists. If you dare you question anything to do with multiculturalism or immigration, you are a racist. If you question the junk science behind so-called climate change, you are a denier.

Unfortunately the old tunes are, well, kinda old. They no longer excite the punters.

So the new approach? Blub. Reformed alcoholic and ex-manic depressive Alastair Campbell has a lip trembling moment on Marr, while Piers Morgan's outrageous hour-long promo piece for Gordon Brown also sees a tear or two roll from Gordon's eye. The professor at the centre of the climate change storm tugged at the heart strings by saying he'd considered suicide. Pathetic.

Oh and a quick word, in passing, on Iain Dale's piece on the possible instruction by Messrs Chaytor, Morley and Devine of the Labour Party's solicitors, Steel & Shamash. My chums on the left (you know, the anonymous losers who never crawl out from under their welfare-engorged holes in the ground) seem to see nothing wrong with Gerald Shamash possibly being instructed by the three accused troughers (who are, after all, innocent until proven guilty). Provided that any new clients see no conflict of interest in Steel & Shamash acting for them as well as for the Labour Party, and vice-versa, there is indeed on the face of it no regulatory bar on Steel & Shamash being instructed by Chaytor, Morley and Devine. I wonder if Labour HQ has therefore consented to Steel & Shamash being instructed?

And we still haven't yet been told if the three charged MPs are on criminal legal aid...

Saturday, February 06, 2010

Has Scott Brown ever killed anyone? Exactly.

The son of the late Ted Kennedy is whining that Scott Brown's candidacy was a joke. Some joke! He won Massachusetts for the GOP on a tide of opposition to Obama's socialist experimentalism.

Still, at least he never killed anyone and then fled the scene.

Friday, February 05, 2010

Steal or Steel?

I see that the three Labour MPs facing charges under the Theft Act over their expenses claims - Elliot Morley, Jim Devine and David Chaytor - have put out a joint statement. They make it clear they dispute the charges and they will invoke the Bill of Rights 1689 (which provides for parliamentary privilege) as the basis for disputing the jurisdiction of the courts to even hear the cases brought by the Crown. Disgraceful.

Last month we learned that Morley, Devine & Chaytor had instructed the Labour Party's own solicitors, Steel & Shamash, on the case. Solidarity, comrades! It is not clear whether they remain on the case. They do, however, offer criminal legal aid: I do hope the taxpayer isn't picking up the tab here...

It would be a brave move to use Steel & Shamash. Not only did their previous efforts in another case result in an election petition being thrown out because (despite professing to be election law experts) they failed to follow the straightforward requirements of the Election Petition Rules (ironically because they failed to serve the DPP with an election petition!) but it was Steel & Shamash that were also the lawyers the former Labour Party General Secretary, Peter Watt, relied on and to whom he refers to in his memoirs:
"I rang Gerald Shamash, one of the party’s solicitors, to confirm our legal position. His view was that as long as the donors were technically giving their own money, it should not be a problem..."

However a few days later, Watt reveals that events (and legal advice) had moved on:
"Gerald rang. ‘I’ve been looking at the relevant piece of legislation again. I’ve just discovered an obscure clause regarding so-called “agency arrangements”. It’s possible the law has been broken,’ he said quietly.
‘What does that mean for me?’ I whispered – but I already knew".

If this is the calibre of advice that Morley, Chaytor and Devine are receiving, I doubt the Crown Prosecution Service will be too worried as this case makes it way through the courts.

UPDATE (8.45pm): Keir Simmons, ITV News' Crime Correspondent, is reporting that none of these MPs were arrested, fingerprinted or had to give DNA samples. One law for them...

Tuesday, February 02, 2010

Autoglass: a suggestion for you to make millions

Windscreen repair companies and customer service have nothing in common. A shower of shite the lot of them.

My wife and I arranged to have our windscreens repaired to do. Mine had a small chip in it, so my insurers said that resin would be injected and this would be handled by National Mobile Windscreens. I passed them as I pulled up outside my home, called the number on the "sorry you were out" card within 30 seconds and (surprise, surprise) the cretin of a repairman feigned not being able to take a call from the depot at HQ. He called me half an hour later. Lazy bastard. I've had to rearrange.

Then Autoglass turned up to replace my wife's car windscreen (which has a nasty full length crack along it). It was raining (as if that's a surprise in England) and he couldn't replace the windscreen. She'd have to arrange another time for them to visit or she could waste her time by driving (with a cracked windscreen) to a neighbouring town.

Why do Autoglass and other windscreen repair companies not use a canopy or gazebo when it rains? It could be easily erected (thus enabling the removal of the cracked windscreen, exposure of the interior of the car for the application of bonding materials and the fitting of a replacement windscreen) and then dismantled, come rain or shine. Think of how many more windscreens they'd be able to fix, rather than wasting time and journeys (for which I suspect they still charge car insurers, who then charge us as customers).

I put this to the Autoglass guy today. "What about the wind?", he wailed while standing in the wind-unswept plains of Kent. Presumably the readily erectable gazebo/canopy could be weighed down by a concrete block or two on its base and while the noise of tarpaulin flapping might be irritating, it would at least keep repairmen and car windscreens/interiors dry.

Lateral thinking: when did we lose the ability to do this in Britain?

Monday, February 01, 2010

John Terry: Cui Bono?

The revelation of John Terry's affair with his England team mate's ex-girlfriend is fascinating. Terry now faces losing the England captaincy and possibly even his place in this England World Cup squad. Chelsea, sitting atop the Premiership, now face their captain and leader being distracted for weeks during the title run-in.

When wondering how the story got into the public domain, always ask "Cui Bono?" - Who Benefits?

Is there a footballer who plays for a rival title challenging team in the Premiership who might become England captain in Terry's place? Rio Ferdinand is one. Wayne Rooney is another. Are things so bad in the England camp that players are plotting to oust each other from the squad? I sincerely hope not. I very much doubt it. But I would love to know how this story got into the public domain...

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Barry the Bully Boy

Further evidence that Obama is a grubby little bully boy who has brought the worst of Chicago's politics of intimidation to Washington DC. Here he attacks the Supreme Court on prime time television during the State of the Union Address. How vulgar and un-Presidential can you get? That may be the way politics is conducted in Kenya or Indonesia or Chicago - but it's not how politics should be conducted by the President of the United States, Barry.

UPDATE: ObamaWatchNews focuses on Barry's lies in the State of the Union.


Hillary 2012

Poor ol' One Term Barry. I bet being President looked so easy when he was receiving the adulation of inner city blacks in Detroit and Harlem and fawning Europeans in Berlin. A year on from his inauguration it all looks so different: New Jersey, Virginia and even Massachusetts all gave Obama and his Democratic Party the old heave-ho. All three voted for him to be President in 2008.

Cue machinations by the Clintons. Hillary was notably absent from the State of the Union Address yesterday. My take on her absence? She is distancing herself from One Term Barry with a view to resigning as Secretary of State next year (over a foreign policy issue where she can portray herself as a hawk and Obama as an appeaser, thus repositioning herself to moderates and independents as a centrist herself). Then she will challenge him for the Democratic Party's nomination in 2012. Obama will lose against a photogenic, telegenic, charismatic GOP conservative. Hillary on the other hand is a sterner threat to the GOP - and now, it seems, to Obama.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

A new campaign for the TaxPayers' Alliance?