Friday, 29 July 2011

Neanderthal Britons

A week is a long time in politics but £10billion is a nice sweetener for shareholders.Not that I want press restrictions. Had politicians an ounce of decency they would have demanded the conviction of every one of their own who fiddled us, the general public, with lies and false expenses.

But instead of Governing properly for thirteen torrid years, the Labour Party played the game and now criminality is every one else's fault and not theirs.

Bent public officials, bent coppers, bent reporters, bent local councillors. Only BRITISH Muslims have the courage to close their streets to the corruption (sic).

4% Neanderthals? Yes, and probably greater within our electorate.

Amplify’d from

Murdoch survives BSkyB board meeting

James Murdoch is under considerable scrutiny as the phone-hacking scandal rumbles on.

James Murdoch is under considerable scrutiny as the phone-hacking scandal rumbles on.

James Murdoch has been backed unanimously by the BSkyB board, ahead of more devastating revelations in the phone-hacking scandal.

A two-hour meeting this afternoon saw Mr Murdoch survive a key test in his struggle to maintain leadership of his father's empire, after facing questions from the broadcaster's board.

The Murdochs own 37% of BSkyB but abandoned their £10 billion bid to buy out the remaining shares at the height of the phone-hacking scandal two weeks ago.

Fresh from his struggles against political opponents, the non-executive chairman of BSkyB, who is also deputy chief operating officer of News Corp, faced probing questions about his ability to lead a FTSE 100 company while trying to manage the scandal.

The board decided Mr Murdoch would remain chairman for the foreseeable future, the Financial Times newspaper reported.


Wednesday, 27 July 2011

Rip Off Britain - the Halifax

Few elderly people are capable of taking advise and are reliant on friends and family. There are many more in isolation who are being ripped off by poor advise and misleading advise.

I am again going to be controversial and state that the CAB is not fit for purpose and does not do what it says on the label. Because it is not a "paying charity" it is glib with advise and never checks the credibility of statements made to it. Why? Because it does not have to pay for the consequences. Whereas charities that donate monies to the needy have a special requirement to check facts. That is why it is criminal that the London elite have done such a poor job with Ssafa Lancashire that the charity is but a shadow of itself a decade ago.

Consumer Action Group, Consumer Forums

Large numbers of Halifaxicon customers face 20 per cent hike to their monthly current account bill this autumn. The state-backed bank is cranking up the fees for its popular Ultimate Reward current account from £12.50 to £15 on the 1 September – just two months away. The £30 a year hit comes as new Lloydsicon boss António Horta-Osório tries to rejuvenate the Halifax brand, which was tarnished by its bailout during the financial crisis of 2008.

Read more:


Monday, 25 July 2011

Arromanches, Normandy

The significance of this series of photograph will be wholly lost on some self appointed representatives. Let me illuminate. The place is the Commando landing stages at Arromanches, where, on the 6th June 1944 true Heroes from all parts of the Free World fought side by side to free Europe and the world from tyranny.

In the foreground (left) is the trail of the 5.5 Medium Artillery piece guarding representatives of the RAF ground support units being honoured and remembered. The French were represented by the local Mayor and the Chief of Police and dipping standards were former regular members of the Royal Marines.

A plaque to the airmen was dedicated and a lone Spitfire circled overhead, much to the cheers and delight of the hosts (the Nederlanders of the Normandie Veterans Association) and the French people, a preponderance of whom were the local schoolchildren - Merci, les enfants.

Most fitting, to the rear and in the centre of the third picture are the remnants of the legendary mulberry landing platforms. Only recently the French had a special ceremony to the civilian seamen who took the mulberries ashore under intense attack from the enemy. Some Blackpool residents would have attended those celebrations had the FESLC been up to scratch. Resident in the town is the son of one of the original heroes, a Scottish tug boat captain who was amongst the first on the deadly beach. His son, a former regular Royal Marine, and friends, would have loved to have gone, but it appears that only a few within the cabal of the FESLC knew of this moving event. The invitation appears never to have been extended to those with attachment to this historic occasion. It is that very same cabal that told Mr Derek Coyle, a survivor and injured veteran of D-Day and a former regular Royal Marine Commando that despite having been informed by a national charity that everything was paid for and his place was secured, who
then appeared not to have had the courage or decency to tell Derek that he would not be going. I wonder if that local Councillor with the dubious history, went in his stead? Not the place or time to ask what happened to the charity money, that's for another time.

It is therefore fitting that the Spitfire should fly over the ground where my father aboard LCI 112 would repeated discharge their care, because my step father had been at the Battle of Britain and had been ground crew to 'Sailor' Malan from Biggin Hill. Had I not received a last minute invite from the secretary of the Green Beret Royal Marine Commando Association in far distant Deal, Kent, I would never had the opportunity to say farewell and thank you to my parents.

So when the Gasjet writes about the Hero Marine Major of the Paint Ball Regiment let them acknowledge this, it is a gross and vile insult to the real heroes and their families who gave much and receive barely a thank you in return. As a regular, the instant that the FESLC is relegated to the confines of a very not so impressive history the better. AND GOOD RIDDANCE.

Saturday, 23 July 2011

From Oz

Dad & Dave saw an ad in the Daily Newspaper in Geelong, Victoria, and bought a mule for $A100.

The farmer agreed to deliver the mule the next day. The next morning the farmer drove up and said, "Sorry, fellows, I have some bad news, the mule died last night."

Dad & Dave replied, "Well, then just give us our money back."

The farmer said, "Can't do that. I went and spent it already."

They said, "OK then, just bring us the dead mule."

The farmer asked, "What in the world ya'll gonna do with a dead mule?"

Dad said, "We're gonna raffle him off."

The farmer said, "You can't raffle off a dead mule!"

Dad said, "We shore can! Heck, we don't hafta tell nobody he's dead!"

A couple of weeks later, the farmer ran into Dad & Dave at the local grocery store and asked.

"What'd you fellers ever do with that dead mule?"

They said, "We raffled him off like we said we wuz gonna do."

Dad said,"Hell, we sold 500 tickets fer two dollars apiece and made a profit of $898."

The farmer said, "My Lord, didn't anyone complain?"

Dave said, "Well, the feller who won got upset. So we gave him his two dollars back."

Dad & Dave now work for the Gillard government.

They're financial advisers to Wayne Swan Australia 's finance minister.

Limit all politicians to two terms.
One in office. One in prison

Accessing BLACKPOOL accounts

For all Sandgrown'ns everywhere, interested in the accounts of the lovely family resort, read here

Not only do you have a right to read, you have a duty to read. It is your town and your money

Monday, 18 July 2011

Help sought from beyond


Wednesday 17th August 2011

We are hosting

An Evening with Spiritual Medium Helen Chadwick

To Be Held at:

Stanley Ward Conservative Club

Common Edge Road


Starting at 7.00pm. Helen has requested that you be in your seat and settled by 7.30pm for a prompt start please.

Tickets £7. Please contact our new Social Secretary, , on or ring 01253

or myself on the number or email below. Tickets can also be bought at the Stanley Club.

In Helen’s own words:-

“I am a professional Spiritual Medium and Psychic with over twenty years experience reading Tarot and Angel cards. As a Channel for Spirit Guides, Angels and your Loved Ones in the Spirit World I bring spiritual messages of hope, comfort, love and peace.”




So desperate for funds Blackpool Conservatives are now relying on assistance from beyond the imagination. “Are you there, Mother?” “I’ve just had a message from someone called Winston.” “There’s a wh wh whiff of cigar smoke in the air.” Clap trap and bull shit more likely. (Notareargunner)

BTW The 'show' should be followed by Derren Browns talk about reality.

Friday, 15 July 2011

Thanks to the Internet, Andy's killer exposed

Who is responsible for the actions of the bailiff? (This article has been taken verbatim from this months letter from the Consumer Action Group.)
The answer to this is simple. It is the local authority.

It is important to be aware that the statutory regulations provide for the local authority to levy distress as soon as a liability order has been made and further, that the local authority can charge fees to the debtor as outlined in Schedule 5. Therefore, strictly speaking, the fees recovered are due to the council.

Some local authorities have their own in house bailiffs, but most councils contract out the levying of distress to private sector bailiff fees. As the regulations confirm, the fees are due to the council but in reality, almost all local authorities allow their agents to keep the fees for the work that the bailiff has undertaken to recover the debt.

In 1997, the fees that could be charged for “attending to levy” (where no levy was made) was set at just £20.00 for a 1st visit and £15.00 for a 2nd such visit. By 2003, so many councils had contracted out the levying of distress to private bailiff firms and the bailiff industry called upon the Government to substantially restructure the level of fees.

A Consultation Paper was issued and following responses, the government agreed to raise the fees for a 1st visit from £20.00 to £22.50 and for a 2nd such visit, from £15.00 to £16.50. A further small increase was agreed a few years ago and the current fee is now set at £24.50 for a 1st visit and £18.00 for a 2nd visit (to attend to levy).

The Consultation Paper also suggested that a maximum fee for a “van attendance” should be introduced but sadly, this was not implemented.

Both increases for a 1st and 2nd visit were minimal and in the response to the Consultation Paper the government confirmed that the reason for this was because:

  • “The fees payable in respect of the levy of distress are intended to cover the costs incurred by the local authority in making the levy and are due to the local authority”

And that:

  • “Whilst many contracts between local authorities and bailiff companies may “assign” the fees to the bailiff company, the fees are not, and were not intended to be, the fees of the bailiff”.

They also stated that the local authority cannot profit from enforcement.

Of utmost importance is the following comment from the 1997 Consultation Paper:

  • “Where an authority does contract out the work to a private sector bailiff company it is important that both sides should remember that the bailiff is working on behalf of the authority. Local authorities cannot abdicate responsibility for the actions of their contractor”.
  • “Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the local authority to ensure that the levy is carried out in a lawful manner and that the fees charged are in accordance with the regulations”

Furthermore; the Government reiterated that:

  • “Fees payable in relation to the levy of distress are intended to cover the costs of the local authority and are due to the local authority. Proposals were made to change some fee levels because it was considered that they were no longer meeting the costs of the local authority. However, fees charged to a debtor should only recompense a local authority for the costs arising from that debtor. They should not be increased to allow for costs from other debtors which have not been recovered nor to allow for an element of profit

Many debtors write to bailiff companies to complain at the level of fees charged to their account. This is wrong. In reality, they should be writing a formal Letter of Complaint to the local authority (with a copy to the bailiff company) as it is the local authority who are wholly responsible for the fees charged by their agents and furthermore, as confirmed above, they are responsible for ensuring that the levy is carried out in a lawful manner and that the fees charged are in accordance with the regulations and finally.....the local authority cannot profit from enforcement.

So for two year of campaigning for Justice from the evil bailiff system in relation to the legalised murder of Andy Miller, it transpires that Blackpool Council's reluctance to comment is because they are culpable for the actions of their employees, sub contractors or call them what you will. With my local councillor fully aware of what I was doing, it is rather suspicious that she was on the Police committee therefore ought to have had some insight into what was happening. Afterall, letters had been sent to the ineffectual Police Complaints authority, to MPs and to every authority in the land - and all the time the guilty authority was that here in Blackpool. Were they all too busy with dodgy house deals, forming building companies, doing ruinous plans for the town that the plight of a thoroughly decent Blackpool man and his children became irrelevant?

Andy Miller was a Veteran, but that sinecure the FESLC with all its JPs, local Councillors and declared bankrupt employees just went about their nefarious activities in wondrous ignorance. And some have the audacity to threaten with legal action anyone who dares identify their iniquities? Hero Major Jim, never was a Royal Marine, has kept that pretty quiet. Anyway, Hero Jim, you have my address, just send your minions to serve a writ on me, but have that cowardly letter you sent to the local RMA ready as evidence

Wednesday, 13 July 2011

Fake charity and bribery

Forward to the Bribery Act 2010

Bribery blights lives. Its immediate victims include firms that lose out unfairly. The wider victims are government and society, undermined by a weakened rule of law and damaged social and economic development. At stake is the principle of free and fair competition, which stands diminished by each bribe offered or accepted.

Tackling this scourge is a priority for anyone who cares about the future of business, the developing world or international trade. That is why the entry into force of the Bribery Act on 1 July 2011 is an important step forward for both the UK and UK plc. In line with the Act’s statutory requirements, I am publishing this guidance to help organisations understand the legislation and deal with the risks of bribery. My aim is that it offers clarity on how the law will operate.

I am intrigued by this forward to the Bribery Act 2010. Do the same legal parameters measure to charities and organisations that purport to be charities? If, say, as an organisation I take a donation of £7.500 for a specific purpose, to give members an affordable reunion, but then instead of smoothing out the costs to the member I use that money to give political associates a freebie, is that bribery?

When a Forces Association takes money from, let’s call it Veteran’s Front Recall, a fictitious government sponsored organisation to assist veterans with financial benevolence, but a large percentage of that money is handed through tickets to the Corrupt Party South Shore Association, is that not bribery under the definitions laid out above? And if it is of such concern that the Governments thinks it has to clarify the law by what is called codifying, the writing of that law in such a way that the man on the Cleveleys tram can understand it, was that illegal at the time of the activity? It may not have been clearly illegal; a parlous state of legal argument, but it gave concern enough to the legislators to enact it into law in a set of words that identifies such activity as a criminal act.

It makes all ex servicemen who have seen “charities” claim money for events but whose cabals dish out tickets to cronies and political wannabees, wonder, why, if they did the service do the phoneys and the cronies get the benefits?

So, several years ago when one man was fighting against the “immoral” misuse of charity monies by his Service Association, had he known that it was illegal would the Charities Commission have acted differently other than disinterested? The same malaise and disinterest in justice has just been exercised by the Metropolitan Police in the handling of the Hacking Files as was exercised by the Charities Commission when complaint was set before them in relation to a specific service association. The Order-Order blog has repeatedly said how ineffective the Charities Commission is and ought to have its charter revoked. Notareargunner endorses this call.

It is with no surprise that discovery has been made of a large hotel giving benefit to a specific group of never was soldiers who front much of the illegal charitable activities of a business fronting as a services charity.