No decent homes for the Soldiers

Forces Charities Want Answers On Budget Thursday, March 22, 2012 Source: BFBS

Forces welfare organisations the Royal British Legion and the Army Familes Federation have been giving their reaction to the budget outlined by the Chancellor, George Osbourne. The Royal British Legion has welcomed the Budget’s provision for a £100m increase in spending on Armed Forces housing, but says Ministers need to make clear how this affects a planned freeze on improvements to Services accommodation.

A Legion spokesperson said, “Surveys consistently show that housing is a key concern for Armed Forces families. We also know that it affects the morale of our Armed Forces on active service. “The Legion recently told the Defence Select Committee that it is disappointed by the Government’s decision to freeze the Armed Forces accommodation upgrade programme for three years between 2013 and 2016. “While we welcome the Budget’s announcement for further investment in Forces housing, we ask the Government to clarify whether ythe announcement means that the planned freeze will no longer go ahead. "A Ministerial announcement that the improvements will begin at once would send a fantastic message of support to our brave Armed Forces and their families and provide further proof that the Armed Forces Covenant was being honoured.” The Army Families Federation also want clarification on the £100 million investment in service housing. Their main concern is soldiers pay - a private is set to lose three thousand pounds over the next three years; non-commissioned officers £8,000. Abu Qatada preaches hatred against we Infidel British and gets a bigger and better house from the filthy British pensioners .  A Brit gets pissed and Tweets what he thinks is his truth and gets immediate imprisonment.  Soldiers come home from Afghanistan and have to struggle to get decent family housing yet the Prince of Hatred is lauded by the weak minded legal professionals, politicians and the 'we bow to Europe scum'.  Where are the purveyors of hatred on the wanted list of illegals and immoral?  Still ordering their children to be 'honour killed'?  Nowhere.  As with this useless exercise into the raucous 'late night shopping' of the immigrant underclass by a select group of what, a carefully chosen woolly minded privileged whom completely missed their remit and the resultant toilet paper which is not worth chaffing your backside on.  Read carefully because it blames everything on the poor British indigenous by not giving their very little to an invading horde, whom have contributed nothing to society. These are the New Brits, like New Lieber, New Cuntservatives and New Pisstakers.  Watch and listen to every political programme and it will be rammed down your throat that of the 5% immigration population, they are under-represented in the Law, politics and everywhere else.  If so, why do programmes like The Big Questions have more, a great deal more, of its audience comprising of over 5% immigrant representation?  Who are the real unrepresented people on these islands?  Definitely not the Abu Qatada's.

Job Scam - sample email

Welcoming speech

I am a manager of the HR department of a large multinational company.

Our company is well known in various fields as follows:
- real estate
- founding and abatement of enterprises
- supporting in opening of banking accounts
- etc.

We are searching for partners in Europe:
- payment 2300euro+bonus
- 2 - 3 working hours per day
- flexible working schedule

If you are interested in this job send us the necessary information on the following e-mail address:
h r @ w o r k w u g l t d . c o m (Delete spaces in email address before sending us your cv)
Full name: Iam Anidiot
Country:  Cloud Nine
E-mail:  twats@returnofposte.scam
Mobile phone-number: Whitehall1212

Note! We are searching EU only!

Please, write your name and Telephone Number so that our manager could contact you and conduct an interview.

This is a scam and should be deleted

Dinner with Dave

Yesterday, we got yet another glimpse of how corrupt our political system is. The co-treasurer of the Conservatives was filmed giving a rare honest account of how lobbying can work. Donate enough money and you get to have dinner with the Prime Minister.[1]

That’s probably not most people’s idea of a great night out, but the Tory treasurer was in no doubt it would pay off. "It'll be awesome for your business", he said.

A ban on secret lobbying would help weed out this kind of sleaze. New rules could force politicians to reveal who they’re meeting and what they talked about. That's why 38 Degrees members have been campaigning to bring in these rules for ages.

After the MP expenses scandal, public pressure pushed all the parties to make big promises about tackling lobbying. But now it’s time to write the new rules, Cameron has come up with weak rules that won’t solve the problem.[2]

If we speak up together now, we can push him to go much further and bring in a real ban, not just a token gesture. Can you take 30 seconds to sign a petition demanding a ban on secret lobbying?
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/stop-secret-lobbying

We know David Cameron is worried about public anger about secret lobbying. Back when a Labour government was the main culprit, he described it as a "scandal waiting to happen".[3] Now it's his own reputation on the line. A big petition will show him that the anger will just keep on growing if he doesn't introduce a proper legal ban.

38 Degrees members have voted to make it a priority to ban secret lobbying because we know the harm it does on other issues we care about. How many secret dinners with private health lobbyists did Cameron have whilst pushing through his NHS changes?

Help stop the rich and powerful whispering in the ears of MPs who are meant to be working for us – add your name to the petition now:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/stop-secret-lobbying


Thanks for being involved,

Marie, Hannah, Becky, David, James, Cian and the 38 Degrees team


PS: At the moment, David Cameron is proposing a "register of lobbyists" which wouldn't cover most lobbyists, and wouldn't include information on what they were lobbying about or how much they were spending. That's not good enough! Let's up the pressure for a real ban - sign the petition now:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/stop-secret-lobbying

Letter to the Prime Minister

Dear Prime Minister The RT. HON. David Cameron. MP.

I wish to ask you a Question :- " Is This True ?"
I refer to the Pension Reality Check.
Are you aware of the following ?
The British Government provides the following financial assistance:-
BRITISH OLD AGED PENSIONER (bearing in mind they worked hard and paid their Income Tax and National Insurance contributions to the British government all their working life) Weekly allowance: £106.00
IMMIGRANTS/REFUGEES LIVING IN BRITAIN (No Income Tax and National Insurance contribution whatsoever) Weekly allowance: £250.00
BRITISH OLD AGED PENSIONER Weekly Spouse allowance: £25.00
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS/REFUGEES LIVING IN BRITAIN Weekly Spouse allowance: £225.00
BRITISH OLD AGED PENSIONER Additional weekly hardship allowance £0.00
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS/REFUGEES LIVING IN BRITAIN Additional weekly hardship allowance£100.00
A British old age pensioner is no less hard up than an illegal immigrant/refugee yet receives nothing
BRITISH OLD AGED PENSIONER TOTAL YEARLY BENEFIT £6,000
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS/REFUGEES LIVING IN BRITAIN TOTAL YEARLY BENEFIT: £29,900

A pissed off pensioner
Notyetavet

Please read all and then forward to all your contacts so that we can lobby for a decent state pension.
After all, the average pensioner has paid taxes and contributed to the growth of this country for the last 40 to 60 years.


PS.  We have clubbed together to pay for a meeting of your select committee.  Will the £2.57 in one pence pieces be sufficient as it represents about 257% of the spare cash we have at the end of each week?  That's for all 258 of us!

Political truth

True, Oh so true!

                         
 

Two crocodiles were sitting at the side of Lake Burley Griffin in Canberra (that's bloody Oz to the illiterate).  The smaller one turned to the bigger one and said, 'I can't understand how you can be so much bigger than me. We're the same age, we were the same size as kids... I just don't get it.'

'Well,' said the big Croc, 'what have you been eating?'

'Politicians, same as you,' replied the small Croc.

'Hmm. Well, where do you catch them?'

'Down the other side of the lake near the parking lot by Parliament House.'

'Same here. Hmm... How do you catch them?'

'Well, I crawl up under one of their Lexus cars and wait for one to unlock the car door.  Then I jump out, grab them by the leg, shake the shit out of them, and eat 'em!'

'Ah!' says the big Crocodile, 'I think I see your problem. You're not getting any real nourishment. See, by the time you finish shaking the shit out of a Politician, there's nothing left but an arsehole and a briefcase.'

Blackpool contribution to the Budget debate

Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire, Conservative)

I would like to congratulate the Chancellor and his team on producing an innovative Budget in difficult times, but none the less a Budget for business and hard-working families. We need more jobs, more employment and more businesses set-up, because we cannot borrow our way out of a crisis, as Labour would like us to do. Rather, we have to earn our way out of this situation.

I find it strange that Opposition Members are so miserable all the time. All they can do is pour scorn and misery on what is a very good Budget. There are so many things in the Budget that are good for Britain and good for hard-working families, but Opposition Members never seem to be able to see it. Nick Smith is no longer in his place, but I was pleased that he mentioned the measures dealing with future armed forces spending, such as the doubling of the service accommodation relief for families and the welfare grant, along with council tax relief. I am sure that everybody in the House, including Opposition Members, will welcome anything that helps our hard-working service people, who are out there fighting for this country. However, apart from the hon. Gentleman, I have not heard anybody else mention the fact that the Chancellor is doing that.

There are so many positive things in the Budget that it is difficult to pick them out.

• Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 22 March 2012, c1013)

Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South, Labour)

Do try.

Isn't it wonderful, from a party in opposition that absolutely destroyed a legacy of thrift and prudence, the only tangible contribution has been a sarcastic remark at a Blue Rinse backbencher?  They learned nothing from a decade and a half of excess except that their followers will swallow (forgive me for a second because that reminds me of a recent incident where, in a local hostelry, we were discussing wine tasting.  It was mentioned if you could tell which would swallow or spit when one of England's finest young unmarried mothers interjected at the disgusting conversation to be had whilst she was having "her dinner".  I say no more on this...)... I bet this ill-educated sponger on my pension, sorry, I can't say that about thieving politicians.  Mixed metaphors and confusion?  Not where politicians are concerned.  They all look after themselves and their friends, stuff the rest.

Eggs have shot up by almost 80p a dozen.  Eggs are a staple part of most pensioners and poor peoples diets and reflect the true nature of inflation.  Whisky has escalated from £12 per litre to £22 plus in the past two years and the Government and shopper stays silent.  The lunacy of disinformation coming from the mouths of Gordon Marsden, Alex Salmond and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is making sensible elderly people squirm in disbelief; except that at the next elections the morons will go out and put a cross against the name of a total incompetent because...

Words of Wisdom

We have politician who have a ship load of advisers and followers, yet they do the job poorly that every housekeeper not in debt does well.

We all know the way out of this abysmal situation that Labour left us in, but it will upset the Pinkoe Liberal few that wield greater powers than their democratic following should have earned.

1 If a person or even family is illegally in this country, they get nothing.  Leave the social housing for those who have paid for it, the British.

2  Make certain that 1 is followed to the letter.

3 The so called FREE parts of this nations inheritance have been paid for and continue to be paid for by us, education, the NHS, pensions and so on.  It was not bequeathed by my generation and all those that went before for the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have donated nothing in heritage, culture or by donation in life to where we are now. There is no logic in opening the doors to millions of ill educated people who can provide little for our future, we have more than enough of those here already.  Politician's researchers and others...

Musical Question -Name that Tune

I'll give you a clue.  It's an original Highland Fling!

Bailiff Reform Pt 2

                        Bailiff special part 2






Consultation Paper on Bailiff Reform.

CHAPTER 3: NON –REGULATORY OPTIONS

On 13th January 2012, the Justice Minister; Jonathan Djanogly unveiled an updated National Standards for Enforcement Agents (NSEA) and confirmed that they will be adopted by Councils and other authorities.  The link to this can be found below:
National Standards for Enforcement Agents

According to the Press Release the National Standards have been “tightened so that people are protected from rogue bailiffs” and that the additions  tackle….“intimidating and threatening behaviour....prevent bailiffs from misrepresenting their powers....and reinforce rules about how firms should resolve complaints about rogue agents”.

The Minister also confirmed that... “the few unscrupulous bailiffs must be stopped from putting people in harm’s way or taking advantage of the vulnerable” and that.... “we want to bring an end to the rogue behaviour that can make people’s lives a misery”.

At first glance many people may believe that the Ministry of Justice has made some real changes to the guidance but….on closer inspection, this is sadly not the case.

The additions consist of 6 very short sentences and given that these standards have remained unchanged for nearly 10 years, it is very disappointing that further changes had not been made.

I have carefully compared the revised guidance with the original from 2003, and on the forum I have highlighted the changes and additions.
A link to this sub forum can be found at the end of this Newsletter.

The background to the National Standards for Enforcement Agents goes back to 1998 when the government announced an Enforcement Review and three years later, published a Green Paper: Towards Effective Enforcement which included some of the recommendations contained in Professor Jack Beatson’s Independent Review of Bailiff Law.  The Green Paper proposed that there should be a single piece of legislation governing the seizure of goods, a new fee structure, and.... a system to regulate all bailiffs.  In 2002, the NSEA where introduced and were a set of minimum standards with which all bailiffs were expected to comply and was introduced as a “stopgap” measure in the absence of any new legislation.

However, compliance with the standards is not monitored and they do not include any complaints or appeals procedures or provide any accessible means of redress. 

The following year, the government published a White Paper; Effective Enforcement, which followed the Green Paper in proposing a complete reform of bailiff law and a new unitary system of regulation, powers and fees.

Finally, on 25th July 2006, the government published a draft Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Bill which included a single procedure for taking control of goods.  However, proposals to regulate the activities of bailiffs were shelved for the time being. 

At around the time that the NSEA was introduced in 2003, the Office of Fair Trading introduced their Debt Collection Guidance. Unlike the Ministry of Justice, the OFT revised and updated their guidance in 2006 and; in March 2011 issued a Consultation on proposed changes to the guidance. This consultation ran for the statutory 12 weeks and during this time, the OFT also held consultation workshops with stakeholders. There were 65 responses to the Consultation and the revised and greatly improved Debt Collection Guidance was published in November 2011. It is interesting to note that the 6 new sentences added to the revised NSEA are copied almost word for word from the new Debt Collection Guidance!!!

Since the release of the revised NSEA there have been many complaints from both the enforcement and advice sectors that they had not been consulted on the proposed changes and it would seem that MOJ have realised this mistake and it is pleasing to note that under Chapter 3 of the Consultation they are seeking views from the public on proposed amendments.

The OFT’s Debt Collection Guidance consists of 63 pages and is aimed at all businesses engaged in the recovery of consumer credit debts. The vast majority of enforcement work by certificated bailiffs is carried out on behalf of the public sector. It is a shame that the Ministry of Justice do not consider that those collecting government debts should be subject to similar guidance as those enforcing consumer credit debts!!

The country is in the worst recession in modern times and families are really struggling to make ends meet and today; we are hearing that thousands of mortgage holders face significant rises in their monthly payments as two banks increase their interest rates.  Last year, local authorities issued over 3 million Liability Orders against debtors who had fallen into arrears with paying their council tax.  I would have hoped that the updated NSEA would have provided further provisions from the new OFT’s Debt Collection Guidance and by way of example; some or all of the following could have been included. 

• Not putting undue pressure on debtors or relevant third parties.

• Not pressurising debtors to take on further borrowing.

• Not pressurising a debtor to make unreasonably large repayments when to do so, would have an adverse impact on the debtor's financial circumstances. 

• Not visiting a debtor at a time when it is understood or suspected that he is, or may be, particularly vulnerable........for example; when a doctor’s certificate has been provided stating that the debtor is ill.

• Not leaving the debtor's property when it becomes apparent that he is unduly distressed or appears as if he may be vulnerable.

• Visiting debtors at potentially inappropriate locations....for example, at the debtor's place of work or at a hospital where a debtor is a patient.

If some of the above had been included I would have thought that this would indicate to the public that the government really were looking to “protect the vulnerable”.

If the government really wanted to convince the public that they are committed to protecting debtors, why did they consider that it was necessary....at this present time.... to amend the NSEA to allow a bailiff to visit a debtor on Boxing Day (and other bank holidays)?

In addition to updating the NSEA, the government also updated the information on the Direct.gov website. Of great importance is the revised Form EX345 where you will see that MoJ are advising debtors that they could be at risk of having a costs order imposed against them in the event of a court rejecting a Form 4 Complaint against a certificated bailiff!!

Chapter 3 of the Consultation paper is entitled: Non Regulatory Options and under this chapter, the subject of the National Standards for Enforcement Agents is addressed. Although the NSEA are a voluntary code, the government are proposing that some elements of the NSEA would be made legally binding under Chapter 4 (Clarifying the Law).  These include the following categories:

• Times and hours

• Exempt goods

• Protection of children (under 16);

• Notices and warning letters

• Certification

In the Consultation, Question 1 is seeking views on the contents of the NSEA and in particular; whether you agree with the contents and if not, to supply proposals for inclusion or argument against inclusion.

Question 2 is seeking views as to whether you consider the existing law and the revised National Standards for Enforcement Agents is sufficient to address the problems that have been identified in the Consultation or whether you consider that there is still a need for further Government intervention as set out in the remainder of the paper.

If changes are to be made to the National Standards for Enforcement Agents it is important that the public make their views known.
Thank you for taking the time to read this Newsletter. A further newsletter regarding Chapter 4 of the consultation paper will be issued next week. 

Tomtubby


Consumer Action Group intends to respond formally to the consultation paper in May and in doing so will be taking into consideration comments made by the public on the forum.

There is a new forum to discuss the consultation paper and at present, there six sub-forums as follows:

• Amendments to the National Standards for Enforcement Agents

• Discussions regarding the proposed fee scales

• Vulnerable groups and defining "vulnerability"

• Discussions regarding "exempt items" and time and dates of visits

• Proposals regarding High Court Enforcement debts

• Discussions regarding a Regulatory Body/Complaints procedure

 
There will not be another opportunity to have good bailiff law and to protect vulnerable debtors from aggressive bailiffs and this consultation will give the public the opportunity to influence change.

You can submit your own response to the consultation on-line HERE


If you want more help, advice or even just some moral support then come to The Consumer Action Group website where we offer help on pretty well every consumer problem COMPLETELY FREE. 

SPAM WARNING - TALKTALK

SPAM WARNING - TALKTALK email sent by TalkTalk [talktalk@F-eds.com]

Your account details have been changed. We noticed that you recently changed the 3-D Secure Password (Verified By Visa or MasterCard SecureCode) you use to pay your TalkTalk bill, you are the rightful holder of the TalkTalk account and you must verify your account! In order to verify your account please log into your account and submit all your information, if you choose to ignore our request, your account will remain limited until you verify your information. Log in to My Account  (DO NOT TOUCH. Delete full email ) My Account is the brighter way to get more out of TalkTalk. Log in to get extra features and manage your billing online, whenever you like. Log in to My Account  (DO NOT TOUCH. Delete full email) 3-D Secure is an XML-based protocol designed to be an added layer of security for online credit and debit card transactions. It was developed by Visa with the intention of improving the security of Internet payments and offered to customers as the Verified by Visa service. Services based on the protocol have also been adopted by MasterCard, under the name MasterCard SecureCode, and by JCB International as J/Secure. American Express has added SafeKey to UK and Singapore on 8 November 2010. 3-D Secure adds an authentication step for online payments. 3-D Secure should not be confused with the Card Security Code which is a short numeric code that is printed on the card. Please do not reply to this email as replies are not monitored. TalkTalk Telecom Limited - Incorporated and registered in England and Wales. Registered Office: 11 Evesham Street W11 4AR. Registered Number: 04633015 THIS EMAIL IS phishing AND SHOULD BE DELETED IMMEDIATELY or sent to talktalk through the address below. Do not do as it commands as you will give some thieving Nigerian your entire banking details. If it arrives in your email, either delete immediately or be a good punter and send to  talktalk. Do not follow any of the instructions or think you can outwit the shites who have sent it to you.  You will regret it.  IT LOOKS VERY ORIGINAL AND GENUINE,  IT IS NOT. Send spam mail to phishing@talktalkplc.com

Passing the Buck - again.

Police blamed 'drunk Liverpool fans' for Hillsborough disaster

Now classified documents have been leaked in which the Merseyside police are revealed also to have blamed Liverpool fans for drunkenness and for turning up without tickets. The proper Hillsborough inquiry concluded that it was the police themselves that had so mishandled the situation at the football ground that loss of life and injury ensued. Michael Crick is on the case, but it may prove to be another instance in which News International/police collusion came to something of a sticky end. This story is annoying because, like so many, I remember the headlines as though they were yesterday. I also remember the Sun and its awful condemnation of the dead, without evidence.  I also remember the police reportedly, allegedly saying that the crowd was a rowdy group of drunks etcetera, etcetera. Therefore, when going through the motion of asking the police to investigate the Corporate Homicide of Andy Miller, it was not a surprise that not only was the police disinterested, but the IPCC proved to be both useless and ineffective.  One has to wonder why, in one of the most advanced civilisations on Earth, where the average decent Britain once had great respect, and I hope still has, for the ordinary copper, is what is happening with Leveson in London destroying all that faith?  What happened in Lancashire certainly leave a sour taste in the mouths of victims, not only of this horrendous disaster, but all others that Lancashire and neighbouring police SERVICES have been involved with. Therefore it is about time there was a clean-out of these 'Old Boy's Club', these insidious closed shops, these cabals that destroy the fabric of society instead of enhancing and improving it.  If the Ministry of Justice was even mildly serious about Justice, then prosecution of the bailiff that intimidated a 78 year old stroke/heart attack patient out into the icy cold January winter air, which left him dead on the freezing pavement of Accrington town centre, that would be a beginning.

Law and its servants

Lord Leveson had just reminded the world (1540 hrs, Thursday 15^th March 2012) that a journalist whilst knowingly in receipt of illegally obtained information cannot use the law to justify an illegal act.  So what difference is it when the Bailiff Industry uses the cosy relationship it has with the Police to usurp and counter the intent of Parliament by permitting, and in some case abetting, the Bailiff Industry in their nefarious activities?

The collection of debt, as serious as it is, cannot justify an illegal act by a body sent to recover that debt.  Police not answering calls from distressed individuals, Sian Meredith as exposed in The Time, cannot then rely on tainted evidence and defence of that illegal act. Surely this is the basis of Justice and Law.  This is identical to the question that Andrew Neill posed to top barrister Michael Mansfield and solicits the identical legal hogwash that brainy(?) lawyers spout.

Lord Leveson has been very gentle with Alastair Brett (former adviser in law to The Times) and Brett has, in football parlance, taken a shoeing.  Would it be that the MoJ could take such a look at itself because it is failing dismally in its attempts to live up to it remit. It is about time that someone (in or at the Ministry of Justice) gets hold of the Oxford English dictionary and look up the word Justice.

Today in West muncher

Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South, Labour)

Mr Deputy Speaker—[ Interruption. ] My apologies, Mr Speaker. It is elsewhere that the deputies are present today. Study after study shows that it is crucial for older people that NHS services work closely with social care. My primary care trust in Blackpool has been doing that by working alongside the council’s social services in the same set of offices. Why is the Deputy Prime Minister still cheerleading for a Bill that scraps trusts and such co-operation, and that puts the health of older people, including those in my constituency, at risk?  

MY CONSTITUENCY????  Brighton?  It's wonderful how Labour, architects of the biggest monetary default in history, are looking for spin to cover there incompetence.

Did anyone watch Andrew Niell last evening and the Human Rights topic?  If you did the people responsible for this debacle are the Gordon Marsdens and his friends?  Of the 3400 pieces of major legal legislation that they slipped into being during their disastrous years in Government, probably not one was carefully scrutinised. As I am not homosexual, not Lieber and not politically naive then every letter sent to this paragon of intellectual certainty must have gone directly to Room 101.

Kiplings Screw Guns - to the music of the Eton boat song

Screw-Guns To the music of The Eton Boat song, with enormous gratitude to Kipling and in memory of having dinner with the late Col. Mac (Major MacIlwaine of 4th Field Rgt RA and Larkhill, School of Artillery) at the Jameson Hotel, Salisbury, Rhodesia.

SMOKIN’ my pipe on the mountings, sniffin’ the mornin’ cool, I walks in my old brown gaiters along o’ my old brown mule, With seventy gunners be’ind me, an’ never a beggar forgets It’s only the pick of the Army that handles the dear little pets—’Tss! ’Tss! For you all love the screw-guns the screw-guns they all love you! So when we call round with a few guns, o’ course you will know what to do—hoo! hoo! Jest send in your Chief an’ surrender it’s worse if you fights or you runs: You can go where you please, you can skid up the trees, but you don’t get away from the guns! They sends us along where the roads are, but mostly we goes where they ain’t: We’d climb up the side of a sign-board an’ trust to the stick o’ the paint: We’ve chivied the Naga an’ Looshai, we’ve give the Afreedeeman fits, For we fancies ourselves at two thousand, we guns that are built in two bits—’Tss! ’Tss! For you all love the screw-guns the screw-guns they all love you! So when we call round with a few guns, o’ course you will know what to do—hoo! hoo! Jest send in your Chief an’ surrender it’s worse if you fights or you runs: You can go where you please, you can skid up the trees, but you don’t get away from the guns! If a man doesn’t work, why, we drills ’im an’ teaches ’im ’ow to behave; If a beggar can’t march, why, we kills ’im an’ rattles ’im into ’is grave. You’ve got to stand up to our business an’ spring without snatchin’ or fuss. D’you say that you sweat with the field-guns? By God, you must lather with us—’Tss! ’Tss! For you all love the screw-guns the screw-guns they all love you! So when we call round with a few guns, o’ course you will know what to do—hoo! hoo! Jest send in your Chief an’ surrender it’s worse if you fights or you runs: You can go where you please, you can skid up the trees, but you don’t get away from the guns! The eagles is screamin’ around us, the river’s a-moanin’ below, We’re clear o’ the pine an’ the oak-scrub, we’re out on the rocks an’ the snow, An’ the wind is as thin as a whip-lash what carries away to the plains The rattle an’ stamp o’ the lead-mules the jinglety-jink o’ the chains—’Tss! ’Tss! For you all love the screw-guns the screw-guns they all love you! So when we call round with a few guns, o’ course you will know what to do—hoo! hoo! Jest send in your Chief an’ surrender it’s worse if you fights or you runs: You can go where you please, you can skid up the trees, but you don’t get away from the guns! There’s a wheel on the Horns o’ the Mornin’, an’ a wheel on the edge o’ the Pit, An’ a drop into nothin’ beneath you as straight as a beggar can spit: With the sweat runnin’ out o’ your shirt-sleeves, an’ the sun off the snow in your face, An’ ’arf o’ the men on the drag-ropes to hold the old gun in ’er place—’Tss! ’Tss! For you all love the screw-guns the screw-guns they all love you! So when we call round with a few guns, o’ course you will know what to do—hoo! hoo! Jest send in your Chief an’ surrender it’s worse if you fights or you runs: You can go where you please, you can skid up the trees, but you don’t get away from the guns! Smokin’ my pipe on the mountings, sniffin’ the mornin’ cool, I climbs in my old brown gaiters along o’ my old brown mule. The monkey can say what our road was the wild-goat ’e knows where we passed. Stand easy, you long-eared old darlin’s! Out drag-ropes! With shrapnel! Hold fast—’Tss! ’Tss!  For you all love the screw-guns the screw-guns they all love you! So when we take tea with a few guns, o’ course you will know what to do—hoo! hoo! Jest send in your Chief an’ surrender it’s worse if you fights or you runs: You may hide in the caves, they’ll be only your graves, but you can’t get away from the guns!

Army Chief talking rubbish

We Must Stand Firm In Afghanistan Sunday, March 11, 2012 Source: The Sun Online

The head of our Army tells Britain to stand firm in a passionate defence of the fight for peace in Afghanistan. Confidence was hit this week after six soldiers died in the deadliest Taliban attack yet. A Sun survey on Friday found 60 per cent of Brits feel we're not succeeding in our mission.

General Sir Peter Wall, Chief of the General Staff, sounded a rallying cry in The Sun. A time to reflect, but not to lose focus. Success in Helmand is within the Army's grasp. The past week has been a tough one for the British Army. But our determination to play our part in securing the lives of the Afghan people and their future is as strong as ever. Our soldiers are making a huge difference and our plan to hand over to a competent Afghan security force is well on track. Security in Afghanistan is vital to our safety back home. Never again must we be threatened by terrorists from that country. Our soldiers are committed, well-equipped and highly trained. They are professionals and they are more than equal to the challenge of this operation, and ready for whatever is asked of them. But they cannot do this alone. The support we all get from people at home is essential and key to morale. The end of our time in Helmand in 2014 is in sight. We have made tremendous progress but there is still much to do. Seldom does a former soldier ever get the opportunity to contradict a senior officer and never is the time right, now as much as ever because of the disastrous events of recent times.  But the truth must out and what Gen Walls is saying is dishonest and misleading and must be challenged.  For General Walls to come out with this propaganda is a boost to his pension and a smack at honesty and free debate and will go down in history as deceitful as Nazi talk of the Master race and A Thousand Years of...  The instant the troops, be they British, American or Canadian, remove themselves from this awful, backward country, the instant it we revert to the awful backward country it was before we invaded, in the 19th Century.  Woman will have no place in education, science or politics; the War Lords will prevail as they have for several thousand years; and our borders will be open, because of their Human Rights and against ours, to the partially educated fanatical, human bombs that want nothing more than to destroy our culture and civilisation. Remember, it was not true Brits that wrapped bombs to their bodies or packed them in rucksacks and detonated them on 7/7 on the transport system in London. Oh shit!  I will have upset every Liberal in the country with this statement, and the correctional police.

Black Pool on a Hazy Monday

With Blackpool not knowing what to say or write about, the mess on the Promenade, the wonderful new trams that go only as far as the gates of the horrendously ugly shelter, the facts that many former regular soldiers will not be celebrating the death of the Gasjets favourite local hero and that some former charity workers gave a wry smile at the comments of the leader of the council to this last subject, here is a video that angers every Sandgrown'un.

Have you noticed the speed with which politicians can forget that a massive majority of people do not vote for them?  There has been a legal battle between a recently deceased Councillor and a former senior charity worker which will remain forever unsolved.  It is a shame.  Recent litigation has proven that it is not always the Righteous that Prevail, but those with the deepest pockets.  If a Councillor was a self promoting bag of dog dirt in life, can he be converted in death?  According to everything you read, yes.  Whilst on about Councillors, I wonder if that former Councillor has found the correct bank account into which to deposit donated charity money?

One should not keep digging up the dead, but the report on 25/27 Crystal Road is well worth re visiting.   http://www.blackpool.gov.uk/democracy/members/admin/files/8e1690b4-1597-4250-86ce-2e85ec6e14fc.pdf 

This document is in an uncommon format (pdf) but... it contains the verbiage on the above address whose valuation makes you wonder who did the valuing?  The property was valued at £180k but was unfit for human habitation, and strangely the council says the subsequent report into the report is not available for public scrutiny as it is not "in the public interest".  So why not waste more money and have a report into the report about the report into which you are not allowed to air a view?

Let's hope Tuesday gets better.  Would be going to Fleetwood, but the trams have gone.  Not to Fleetwood, but gone.

Bailiff Reform Open Letter

Bailiff special part 1

Dear Notyetavet                              Consultation Paper on Bailiff Reform. In May 2011, I wrote a Newsletter concerning the proposed Consultation Paper on bailiff reform which was due to be released in July 2011. Unfortunately this was delayed and it was not until February 17th 2012 that this Consultation Paper was finally published and there will now be a statutory 12 week period in which public responses can be made. This Consultation has been ongoing for around 5 years and a few days ago, I was reminded of the infamous “witching hour” speech in the House of Commons by Austin Mitchell MP in March 2007 where he was claimed that the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order was “producing a huge extortion racket” with local authorities “colluding with cheating bailiffs to impose huge and excessive charges that are then justified by lies and enforced by bullying”. Interestingly, he also said that the present structure is based on the old fashioned view that bailiffs should distrain on goods and that the emphasis should instead be on getting the debt paid. On the matter of a regulator...he said that “cowboys need a sheriff” .....“the mafia cannot be regulated by the mafia” and that “crooks need a rule maker” He also confirmed that the government had begun a consultation process in January (2007). Five years have passed since then and frankly, this delay should never have been allowed to happen. From the many questions raised on the Consumer Action Group forum it is clear that many bailiffs are acting in a deplorable manner and charging fees that are not in accordance with statue law. On 13th January 2012, the advice and enforcement sector were surprised to receive notification that the Ministry of Justice had updated their National Standards for Enforcement Agents. The changes appeared to have been rushed and personally, I believe that the revised Standards are not sufficient.   The original National Standards from 2002 had been introduced after consulting with 16 organisations. In considering the recent changes, it would seem that the Ministry of Justice sought views from just 2 organisations!! Since its release there has been a lot of criticism from both the advice and enforcement sectors and thankfully, the Ministry of Justice have realised that this was wrong and the first part of the Consultation Paper is seeking suggestions for proposed changes!!  This Consultation is of vital importance if there is to be real change to this industry and the public cannot let this opportunity be lost. Consumer Action Group intends to respond formally to the Consultation in May and in doing so; will be taking into consideration comments made by the public on the forum. We would therefore urge you to visit the link at the end of this Newsletter. The Consultation Paper consists of 203 pages. It has been split into 9 Chapters and I will be writing a weekly Newsletter regarding each Chapter as follows: Chapter 3: Non regulatory options: Questions 1-3 This Chapter deals mainly with the National Standards for Enforcement Agents (NSEA) and the Government are seeking views on the contents of the NSEA and in particular; whether you agree with the contents and if not, to supply proposals for inclusion or argument against inclusion. A separate Newsletter has been issued today regarding this Chapter and views and comments would be welcome. A link can be found at the end of this newsletter. Chapter 4: Clarifying the law: Questions 4-32 This Chapter is of vital importance and can be demonstrated by the following headings and the numbers of questions!!   Force against a person Forced Entry General Power of Force Prior Judicial authority to force entry Entry into property Goods which may be taken. Exempt Goods Controlled Goods agreement Notices Inventory Vulnerability Proposed fee scale Thankfully, under this Chapter, the Government have confirmed that a bailiff may not use force against a person for the purpose of conducting a levy against goods for a civil debt. However, this Chapter needs to be read very carefully indeed. In the meantime, on the forum there are sub headings where views would be welcome regarding Exempt Goods and Defining Vulnerability.  Chapter 5: Costs of Enforcement Rated Services: Questions 33-45 Unless the fees are set at a fair rate, complaints will continue. For the collection of council tax, it must be understood that a 1st visit fee of £24.50 was set many years ago and common sense alone would dictate that this low figure cannot in any way cover the cost involved and inevitably, fees must rise. Once again, this Chapter is vitally important and a Newsletter dedicated to Chapter 5 will be issued shortly Chapter 6: Regulatory Regime: Questions 46-49 This Chapter will be very disappointing to many as the Government confirm that they do not wish to place burdens upon the enforcement industry and therefore, they will not be appointing an independent regulator. Under the fee structure review paper Alex Dehayen has commented that “careful and considered implementation of the proposed fee structure, supported by appropriate regulation is vital to the fee structure’s success”. Again, a separate Newsletter regarding the Chapter will be issued shortly. In the meantime; views and comments from the public would be welcome on the forum and the link to the sub heading regarding regulation of the bailiff industry can be found below. Chapter 7: Competence requirement: Questions 50-52 This short Chapter addresses the matter of professional qualifications, training etc and at this moment in time, I cannot see that there is anything further to add to the recommendations as outlined. Chapter 8: Remedies and Complaints Handling: Question 53 Again, this Chapter is a very important one and without an independent regulatory body, concerns must be raised as to how complaints are to be handled. There is currently the provision that a debtor may make a complaint about a certificated bailiff by way of a Form 4 Complaint. However, such complaints are fraught with difficulty and it has been known for large costs orders to be made against the complainant by the court.  A separate Newsletter will also be issued shortly regarding this important Chapter. Chapter 9: High Court and County Court Jurisdiction: Question 54. At present, all county court judgements under £600 may only be enforced by a county court bailiff and the amount of the judgement increases by £100 if the creditor requests a warrant. Judgements over £600 can be “transferred up” for a High Court Enforcement Officer (HCEO) to enforce. The consultation paper is seeking views on whether all judgements....irrespective of the value....should be enforced by an HCEO. This will be discussed at a later stage but it is important to note that if the proposed fee scale for high court debts is imposed, this would add a fee of not less than £750 to a CCJ. Personally, I have very serious concerns at this proposal and although a Newsletter will be issued shortly regarding this last Chapter, a sub heading is already on the forum where views and comments would be welcome. Once again, this Consultation is of vital importance and Consumer Action Group will be responding formally to the Consultation in May and in doing so; will be taking into consideration comments made by the public on the forum. We would therefore urge you to visit the links below: Thank you for taking the time to read this Newsletter. A further newsletter regarding Chapter 3 of the consultation paper will be issued next week.  Tomtubby There will not be another opportunity to have good bailiff law and to protect vulnerable debtors from aggressive bailiffs and this consultation will give the public the opportunity to influence change. You can submit your response to the consultation on-line HERE There is a new forum to discuss the  implications of the new proposals  and how we should respond to the consultation HERE There are 6 sub-forums under the following headings: Amendments to the National Standards for Enforcement Agents Discussions regarding the proposed fee scales Vulnerable groups and defining "vulnerability" Discussions regarding "exempt items" and time and dates of visits Proposals regarding High Court Enforcement debts Discussions regarding a Regulatory Body/Complaints procedure If you want more help, advice or even just some moral support then come to The Consumer Action Group website where we offer help on pretty well every consumer problem COMPLETELY FREE.

If Britain was Greece

If Britain was Greece, according to the BBC  just click on the play

MoJ fit for Purpose?

A government commissioner asked to advise on a British Bill of Rights is expected to resign in protest later after accusing the commission of ignoring the wishes of the prime minister and most Conservative MPs.

Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky is one of eight commissioners brought together in March last year by the government to fulfil a pledge in the Coalition Agreement to "investigate" a British Bill of Rights "incorporating and building on the European Convention on Human Rights".
A month previously, Prime Minister David Cameron had said it "was about time we started making sure decisions are made in this Parliament rather than in the courts".
The issue of who has the final say over rulings of the European Court of Human Rights - Parliament or the court - has divided the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats for a number of years.
But after 12 months of deliberation, Conservative commissioner Dr Pinto-Duschinsky sent an e-mail to the chairman of the Commission on a Bill of Rights, Sir Leigh Lewis, in which he raised his concerns that the views of Mr Cameron and the "overwhelming majority of Parliamentarians" were being ignored.

The MoJ called to London a group of victims of Bailiff illegality, promised to listen to them and promised to close the loop-hole that allows massive and now rich bailiff companies to obstruct, break and completely ignore the laws that govern the ordinary citizen.
It appears that Ken Clark is getting it wrong on everything from RAPE to the MURDER of a VETERAN.  Our MP's are still unsuitably silent on these illegal actions and are showing the backbone that pacifists showed to this nation just before WWII.  Every excuse under the Sun is being offered and now even the MoJ staff are abandoning their posts, like Italian cruise ship captains, to get more money from Bailiff companies for their expertise.
If you walk down any street and walk into the doggie dooh, you tread it all over your best carpet.  This is what the MoJ is doing with the law, rights and legitimacy of ordinary peoples legal rights.  Dr Pinto-Duschinsky has experienced what others from the Hillsborough Families to the relatives of Andy Miller are enduring with this insidious sinecure.

IS IT NOT A CRIMINAL OFFENCE TO SELL, GIVE CIGARETTES TO UNDER AGE KIDS?  I wonder if any senior politicians cum lawyers do this?  Answers please on an email to your local MP.

New Counter at Supermarkets

New sign for local Supermarkets.

















"We're DOOMED!  All DOOMED!"

Black poet threats to Englishman - BBC thinks it is OK

The Big Questions

This week we're in York at Manor Church of England School. We're asking: Should we champion a united British identity? Eric Pickles has said we should. Is Iran a real threat? And, should we listen to the angels? We have the best-selling author Lorna Byrne taking part in the last debate who says she has been seeing angels since childhood. Amongst those contributing to the other debates are the poet Benjamin Zephaniah; the former ambassador to the IAEA, Peter Jenkins; Douglas Murray from the Henry Jackson Society; Rev Canon Sam Randall from Bradord Diocese; Haras Rafiq from Centri, the counter-terrorist think tank; Kiran Bali from the Hindu Council UK; the journalist, Afshin Rattansi; international relations expert, Dr Kamran Matin; Diana Nammi from the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation; Jamil Ahmed, diversity and enterprise worker from Leeds, and Rev Steve Redman from York's Ark Church

In this morning's programme, we, the indigenous British, were subjected to the worst example of anti-British hatred by an immigrant privileged individual.  The threat of violence was obvious and instant and the presenter of the programme did nothing  tangible to reinforce our ancient right of speech, language and dialect.  Had the irate poet confronted Morecambe and Wise with his petulant outburst, it would have resulted in their earlier exit for the Beeb.  I shall be writing to the Executive, as I pay my license and therefore employ the BBC, to express my distaste at this intellectual fraud using threatening behaviour against an Englishman.  Who the Hell does he think he is, Lancastrian?

Just look at those invited to take part.  Not many Britons amongst them!  I don't want to be lectured at by foreigners.  In fact I have difficulty with the sad so-called Britons such as Salmond, Brown, Blair, Cameroon cremes et al.

"Bring me Sunshine,..."  If a black Briton finds that word offensive then all we Real British should emigrate to a country that has not heard of Blacks. As usual the apologists for mass immigration will blame the British for not being...well British.

Murder or what?

The following has been taken from http://cryptome.org/2012/01/mark-burby.htm  and is left for the reader to decide the merits.  As one who is trying to get Justice from a system that appears only to support the rich and powerful, this piece asks a library of unanswered questions.

I've included links to Burby's submission, the Telegraph articles, and supporting older news articles below.
Naming the names:
The "Asian head of state" is Hassanal Bolkiah, the Sultan of Brunei (ostensibly a close ally of the UK).
The claimant is the Sultan's first ex-wife Mariam Aziz (recipient of the "world's largest divorce settlement" in 2003).
The murdered businessman is Michael McGurk (shot to death in Sydney in 2009).
Main links:
Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions - Oral and written evidence (see Burby pages 50-79)
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/Privacy_and_Injunctions/JCPIWrittenEvWeb.pdf
[Cryptome mirror: http://cryptome.org/2012/01/mark-burby-doc.pdf (2.9MB)]
"Head of state 'funded al-Qaeda and knew of 7/7 terror attacks'" (Telegraph, 25/02/2012)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9104424/Head-of-state-funded-al-
Qaeda-and-knew-of-77-terror-attacks.html
"Exclusive: Lawyers order Parliament to stop publishing super-injunction document" (Telegraph, 28/02/2012)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9111931/Exclusive-Lawyers-order-
Parliament-to-stop-publishing-super-injunction-document.html
2003 Divorce:
"The world's largest divorce settlement" (Scotsman, 04/02/2003)
http://www.scotsman.com/news/international/the_world_s_largest_divorce_settlement_1_544213
"Sultan of Brunei to divorce his second wife" (Hello, 06/02/2003)
http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2003/02/06/sultanofbrunei/
2007 Mariam Aziz and the fortune teller (previous injunction attempt):
"Sultan of Brunei's bid to 'protect dignity' fails" (Telegraph, 11/07/2007)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1557122/Sultan-of-Bruneis-bid-to-protect-dignity-fails.html
"Sultan of Brunei's ex-wife and the £2m con" (Telegraph, 12/07/2007)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1557227/Sultan-of-Bruneis-ex-wife-and-the-2m-con.html
2009 Michael McGurk murder and link to Burby:
"Claims that slain businessman wanted to blackmail Sultan" (ABC, 10/09/2009)
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2009/s2682461.htm
"McGurk 'planned to blackmail' Sultan of Brunei" (ABC, 11/09/2009)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-09-10/mcgurk-planned-to-blackmail-sultan-of-brunei/1425082
"British property developer claims police protection after Sydney murder" (Guardian, 09/09/2009)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/09/mark-burby-police-protection-australia
Hassanal Bolkiah, Sultan of Brunei (Wikipedia entry)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassanal_Bolkiah

Misquote and maligned speaker. A Puff of Reason

'We should never have liberated France': David Starkey courts yet more controversy by claiming nations should be left to free themselves from oppression

• Dr Starkey says nations 'don't like to be freed' and says they mistake their 'liberator' for their 'conqueror'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2109273/David-Starkey-courts-controversy-claiming-nations-left-free-oppression.html#ixzz1o3YHQWam

The cacophony of hate against the truth, as this academic sees it, illuminated exactly that it is not what this soft minded selected audience wanted to hear.  Three senior politicians on the panel and they all avoided the questions. Even a loaded union official could not frighten a courageous Dr Starkey's attempts to reply, educate and give reason.  Can they - the stooges from the political parties - honestly compare their immoral contributions of well trodden sound bites to everything that the entrepreneurs, educators and scholars have achieved?  

Compare facts as witnessed in history to the politicians demented imputs!  Labour had nothing do do with ruining the economy?
Those demanding the withdrawal of a small voice of honest reason should look at the centres of our once great cities and reflect on John Cleese's observations, to his foreign friends, that London is no longer England.

The repetition of history is easily recognisable to all those, as the erudite scholar suggested, can take their noses out of their prompt sheets and listened to the answer. A loud guffaw does not an argument make.  The banal and idiotic statements by members of this overly thick audience was rightly treated with the disdain, by Dr Starkey, that it required.

New Olympic Sport proposed

Sheep shearing should be Olympic sport, says All Blacks legend

Scot Gavin Mutch hopes to be first overseas competitor to win

By Jane Bradley
Published on Saturday 3 March 2012 00:00

IT is like a cross between a woolly wrestling match and a trip to the hair salon.
But now All Blacks rugby legend Sir Brian Lochore has backed calls for sheep shearing to be recognised at the Olympics as an official sport.

Sir Brian’s comments came as Scottish competitor Gavin Mutch was ranked among the 12 semi finalists at the prestigious Golden Shears World Sheep Shearing Competition in Masterton, New Zealand.

My famous Isle of Mull former inhabitant the Wee Alchy reckons the Aberdons would win hands down at sheep shaggin', whatever that is in Jockland.  It is said that the Taffs would give them a run for their money but seeing the smiles on the Kiwi's faces, one never knows :).