Tuesday, 26 August 2008

Tory Fathead!

If you are winning you don't usually derail your campaign. I feel that if David Cameron, who to be honest I have never liked as Tory Leader anyway, allows this speech to go ahead he will be no better than the Control Freak New Labour Government we now have and will alienate many who would otherwise support him and his party.

I especially dislike the call to use "Peer Group Pressure" on fat children, this is a licence to bully, and we have more than enough of that in schools, and will also encourage anorexia and bulimia particularly in teenage girls.

I would find it difficult to vote for the Tories if they persist with rubbish such as this.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Parents have 'no excuse' for allowing children to become overweight, Tories say

Parents who allow their children to become morbidly obese have "no excuse" for letting them over-eat, the Tories will say.

In a speech which echoes David Cameron's criticism of fat people last month, Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, plans to attack those who attempt to blame obesity on "big bones" or social factors, and call for more individual self-reliance.

As well as parents, youngsters should be encouraged to use "peer pressure" on their overweight friends to educate them of the importance of a healthy lifestyle, and not give in to the temptation to pick up bad habits themselves.

In the speech, called "No Nannying, No Excuses," to Reform, the public sector think tank, he will say: "Tell people that biology and the environment causes obesity and they are offered the one thing we have to avoid - an excuse.

"People who see more fat people around them may themselves be more likely to gain weight.

"Peer pressure and social norms are powerful influences on behaviour and they are classic excuses.

"Our need, and not just in relation to public health issues, is to act on the environment, while fostering positive peer pressure and social norms. We have to take away the excuses.

"Nor is this about telling people what to do. Tackling the environment should not be a licence to lecture people, because they have no excuse not to exercise, or eat their fruit and vegetables."

"Nannying - at least among adults - is likely to be counter-productive. If we are realistic about the impact of social norms and peer influence in affecting behaviour, we must also realise that we should not be nannying people.

"Providing information is empowering, lecturing people is not. So, no excuses, no nannying."

Last month, Mr Cameron received equal measures of praise and criticism after telling those struggling with their weight or other social problems to take more responsibility for themselves.

He said: "We talk about people being 'at risk of obesity' instead of talking about people who eat too much and take too little exercise.

"We talk about people being at risk of poverty, or social exclusion: it's as if these things — obesity, alcohol abuse, drug addiction — are purely external events like a plague or bad weather."

The working group will consider plans for mandatory, EU-wide food labelling, with broad advice on nutrition and healthy eating, rather than the Government's favoured traffic light scheme.

It will also discuss whether the food industry should use agreed standards on portion sizes, government campaigns on healthy eating, and incentives for local councils and small businesses to promote exercise.

Mr Lansley's words are part of an overall Conservative approach designed to address issues which can not be solved through regulation and legislation alone.

The Responsibility Deal will balance some "proportionate" regulation with new incentives for business to help address public health problems such as poor diet, alcohol abuse and lack of exercise.

While the group's findings will not automatically become Conservative policy, they are likely to underpin the party's thinking on public health in the run up to the next election.

Welcome to my world

Welcome to the World's latest two Independent Nations , South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

As with Kosovo , best wishes to them.

A nation of animal lovers?

Tower block dog death pair freed

A Black Country couple who were jailed after admitting throwing a dog from the balcony of a block of flats have been freed on appeal.

Sheena Spence, 62, and her husband Alexander, 60, from Charlemont Farm, West Bromwich, had been jailed for 12 weeks after admitting cruelty.

The court heard they beat the dog before throwing it over the balcony.

But the sentence has been reduced to 10 weeks suspended for a year by a judge at Wolverhampton Crown Court.

Animal ban reduced

Their trial was told they had been looking after Scottish terrier Laddie for 86-year-old Nancy Howells, who was ill in hospital.

The Spences said they had attacked the dog after it bit Sheena Spence on the ankle.

Mrs Howells died weeks later without knowing that her pet had died.

They couple told the hearing on 14 August that they believed the sentence was too harsh.

Their lifetime ban on keeping animals has also been reduced to 12 months.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So much for us being a "Nation of Animal Lovers" frankly what's the point! The punishment for some victimless crimes is far harsher, and to commute the Life Ban on keeping animals to a mere token one year is an insult to the Animal Welfare organisations and all who work for them and those who's charity supports them.

Who do I blame? Obviously the two who killed the dog, but also the Judge who reduced the punishment, he is beneath contempt!


Friday, 22 August 2008

Georgia on my mind? NOT!

Are you really interested in what the Russians are doing in Georgia? I'm not!

This is all a result of US brinkmanship in encouraging Georgia to join NATO. Think back if you can to the Cuban Missile Crisis when the USA was prepared to go to war with the USSR over missiles based in Cuba, right in America's "back yard". Thankfully wiser counsels prevailed in that case.

Now we have an angry Russia, still a nuclear power, resenting the placement of missiles in Poland by the USA. All the more reason not to enrage them over Georgia which is firmly in their sphere of influence. There are also the Gas and Oil pipelines running through Georgia on which the UK is dependent for our energy needs.

As a side issue the South Ossetians wish to join with their ethnic brethren in Russian North Ossetia. If this was good enough for Kosovo to secede from Serbia then why not for them?

Are you bothered about the Russians action in Georgia? Let me know. For my part I echo the words of Neville Chamberlain that "It is a far away country of which we know little"

Gadd Fly

So Paul Gadd, (Garry Glitter) convicted paedophile is back in Britain. This should NOT have been allowed to happen.

When one thinks that there are plenty of decent people who apply for UK citizenship and are refused, some even having lived and worked here for years but are deported. Why do we let the likes of Gadd back into the UK?

The Government ought to have cancelled his Passport and stripped him of his British citizenship when he was still in Vietnam. Then when he turned up airside at Heathrow he would have been refused entry to Britain and left to wander the world until either some country let him in or he died.

As things go we will now have the costs of watching him for years to come

What say you?

Saturday, 9 August 2008

You couldn't make this up!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1043027/Councillors-vote-comfort-armchair.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Councillors could vote from the comfort of their armchair

By Steve Doughty
Last updated at 12:41 AM on 09th August 2008


Blears

Hazel Blears has come under fire in light of plans whereby councillors will be excused from turning up at town hall meetings

Councillors will be excused from turning up at town hall meetings under Labour plans.

They will be allowed to debate and vote on vital decisions affecting local people while watching television at home or drinking in a pub.

The only limits would be that at least one councillor must be in the town hall chamber and others must be in 'audio contact', such as with a mobile phone or internet link.

Councillors not at meetings would still be able to claim their allowances, which average nearly £10,000 a year but can reach £60,000.

The scheme to allow 'remote attendance and voting' is in a consultation document from the Communities Department run by Hazel Blears.

It will be included in a new law this autumn and aims 'to help overcome the barriers of time, circumstance and distance' that may stop councillors from attending meetings.

But the idea has provoked anger.

Tory local government spokesman Eric Pickles said: 'Most councillors are hard-working but this will demean the position and open the doors to abuse.

'This makes a mockery of Hazel Blears's promise to make councils more accountable.

'First we had the gimmick of free doughnuts for voters, now we have vital decision making being reduced to an X Factor telephone vote.'

Christine Melsom, of the council tax protest group Is It Fair?, said: 'This is an incredible idea.

'These people are elected to represent us and we should make sure they do that properly.'

Details of how the scheme operates will be left to individual councils.

Ministers want to increase election turnouts and are considering an idea from California to give out free doughnuts to electors as well as offering prizes worth up to £1,000 to those who go to polling stations.

Read later

Yes folks, even if they can't even be bothered to turn up for Council Meetings if these ridiculous proposals go ahead, they will be able to decide matters in our Towns and Cities from the pub or their homes and still of course claim thousands of pounds in Attendance Allowance and other perks for which of course ordinary mugs such as you and I pay in our Council Tax every year.

If I stayed at home and could not be bothered to turn up at work, I'd soon be shown the door and be on the dole with no benefit for 6 months as I would have made myself unemployed.

You have the answer at your own hands. Kick them out at the next Elections.

I salute this brave woman

http://www.christian.org.uk/news/20080710/christian-registrar-wins-discrimination-case/


A Christian registrar from Islington who was bullied and threatened with the sack because of her religious beliefs on same sex unions has succeeded in her claims of unlawful discrimination by the council.

In its unanimous judgement, the employment tribunal found that Miss Lillian Ladele was directly discriminated against by Islington Council after she asked to be allowed not to perform civil partnership registrations.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Unfortunately, owing to the nature of our Legal System where nothing is cut and dried, Islington Council are likely to appeal this judgement, backed to the hilt by various Interest Groups and a gaggle of MPs, Councillors and others who oppose Freedom of Conscience. This is not asking for a special favour as such an exemption already exists as part of the Abortion Act where medical staff who have a Conscientious Objection to Termination of Pregnancy need take no part in any such procedure and cannot be disciplined nor sacked by their employers. This could AND SHOULD be extended to those who's religious and moral beliefs would prevent them for performing Civil Partnership Ceremonies for those of the same sex.

The Law on Civil Partnerships is flawed as it does not extend the benefits regarding Inheritance, Tax etc to siblings living together, obviously in a non-sexual situation for example in the family home after the death of their parents, or be available to Heterosexual couples who do live as Man and Wife but for various reasons do not get married. It is discriminatory against Heterosexuals, the majority of people in the UK and I would say in the World.

There are those amongst the Liberal Intelligentsia who say, "If you are employed by the State then you MUST obey and carry out State Policy or get another job!" This reasoning has been used to try to justify various atrocities, but was dismissed when used at the post war trials at Nuremberg. Carrying out State Orders when employed by the State, did not exonerate people from their actions.

I salute Miss Lillian Ladele and only wish that more people would take such a stand.

Let us hope that Islington lose any Appeal they may make and have to pay the costs for themselves and Miss Ladele.