The following is taken from the SANDS website.
Seeing and holding your baby – Sands concern over NICE Guidelines
03.12.09
We wanted to make you aware of a difficult situation which we have been trying to overcome over the past few months regarding the choice that parents have to see and hold their baby after their baby has died.
We are very concerned that bereaved parents in the future may not be offered the opportunity to see and hold their baby after death.
This is because current guidelines issued by NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) to midwifery units and to bereaved parents, on seeing and holding a baby after the baby has died, are currently open to misinterpretation.
This guideline (Clinical Guideline 45: Antenatal and postnatal mental health) consists of 4 different documents:
1. The full clinical guidelines
2. Clinical management and service guidance
3. Quick reference guide
4. Information for people who use NHS services
In each of these the wording is slightly but significantly different but the current wording in the quick reference guide, which is specifically aimed at policy makers and staff states: “Do not routinely encourage mothers of infants who are stillborn or die soon after birth to see and hold the dead infant.”
We already have evidence that one Trust in England has adopted this wording as policy for staff. As a result we are deeply concerned that this wording will be used by other Trusts across the UK if confusion over the guidelines continues.
Neal Long, Sands Chief Executive: “The lack of consistency in such influential guidance from NICE and the recommendations that imply removing choice from parents is both shocking and extremely unhelpful to both parents and those caring for them. Not every parent may want to see and hold their baby but for many (certainly every parent we see at Sands) it is simply an act of parenting.”
“We want to see all documentation from NICE, including information for parents, to carry the same information as that laid out in the original Full Clinical Guideline, `that women should not be encouraged to hold their dead baby if they do not wish to’.”
“If the NICE Guidelines continue to be misinterpreted in such a way we will be returning to the Dark Ages of maternity care where health professionals dictate to mothers what is good for them and parents are denied their most basic right to see and hold their baby, spending time with them to say hello and goodbye in their own way. The memories created at this time are the only memories they will have of their baby.”
Sands maintains that parents must continue to be offered choice about what is done when their baby dies, and that in order for choice to be real, it must be informed. Parents have a fundamental right to see their own baby, and no health professional, however well meaning, has the right to deny them this choice.
We are extremely concerned by the inconsistent wording in the NICE guidelines and the implications this may have for bereaved parents. These concerns are highlighted in an article written by Judith Schott and Alix Henley from Sands, published today in the British Journal of Midwifery.
A shortened version of the article can be found below which outlines our position on the issue of the NICE guidelines.
NICE GUIDANCE ON SEEING AND HOLDING A STILLBORN BABY
The practice of offering parents opportunities to create memories and, in particular, to see and hold their babies after death, arose out of the anguish of those who had not been allowed to do so. In response, Sands has worked with health professionals over many years to promote a range of choices that parents can make, including seeing and holding their baby.
However in 2007, NICE published Clinical Guideline 45: Antenatal and postnatal mental health. This consists of four documents, each of which makes different statements about seeing and holding a stillborn infant:
1. The Full Clinical Guideline (369 pages) states, "The findings of [Hughes et al 2002] suggest that women should not be encouraged to hold their dead baby if they do not wish to” (Section 6.2.4 - page 196).
2. Clinical management and service guidance (48 pages) states, "Mothers whose infants are stillborn or die soon after birth should not be routinely encouraged to see and hold the dead infant” (Section 1.3.1.4 – page 16). “…if they do not wish to” has been omitted and “routinely” inserted.
3. Clinical management and service guidance: quick reference guide (21 pages) states, “Do not routinely encourage mothers of infants who are stillborn or die soon after birth to see and hold the dead infant” (Page 9).
NICE (2009) states that a quick reference guide “summarises the recommendations in an easy-to-use format for health professionals”. So this is the document most likely to be read by policy makers and practitioners. Indeed, Sands has evidence that at least one Trust has adopted the wording in the Quick reference guide as policy for staff.
4. Understanding NICE guidance: Information for people who use NHS services (27 pages) reads, “If your baby is stillborn: Although it is a rare event, sometimes babies are stillborn. You should be offered a chance to talk to a healthcare professional if this happens. But it is now considered unhelpful for women to see and hold their babies, unless they particularly wish to do so” (Page 9).
Such inconsistent guidance from an influential organisation is completely unacceptable, as are recommendations that imply removing choice from parents.
It is worth noting that in Postnatal care: Clinical Guideline 37 (2006) NICE states, “The views, beliefs and values of the woman, her partner and her family in relation to her care and that her of baby should be sought at all times…. Women should have the opportunity to make informed decisions about their care and any treatment needed…”.
It is hardly surprising that few newly bereaved parents think of asking for ways to create memories or know what is possible. Sands maintains that parents must continue to be offered choice about what is done when their baby dies, and that in order for choice to be real, it must be informed. Parents have a fundamental right to see their own baby if they want to, and no health professional, however well meaning, has the right to deny them this choice.
References
NICE (2006) Postnatal care Clinical Guideline 37, NICE, London
NICE (2007) Antenatal and postnatal mental health Clinical guideline 45, NICE, London
NICE (2009) How NICE clinical guidelines are developed: an overview for stakeholders, the public and the NHS (Fourth edition) NICE , London
Saturday 12 December 2009
NICE are NASTY (3)
My experience of losing Matthew was made easier by the health proffessionals and guidelines that are available through the Stillbirth And Neonatal Death Society (SANDS) a charity whos core aims are to
* Support anyone affected by the death of a baby;
*To work in partnership with health professionals to improve the quality of care and services offered to bereaved families; and
*To promote research and changes in practice that could help to reduce the loss of babies' lives
Many years ago these guidelines were not available and many parents never had the experience of holding their babies indeed some were not allowed to even see their babies it was a time when midwives sent mothers home with a cheery, "Never mind dear, you can have another one"as if you had lost something you had bought in a supermarket or, "See you in nine months"as if you'd made a mistake this time round.
Linda's baby boy, Jo, died in 1974 she says: "In June 1974, I gave birth to my first born son. I never saw him. Eighteen weeks into the pregnancy problems had started. I was told that I would miscarry, that unless I could hold on to my baby until twenty-eight weeks he had no chance of life. Nothing could be done, I was to carry on as normal. During the following weeks he grew, he moved, he kicked - but we only managed twenty-five weeks.
I went into labour, gave birth, he cried - more of a whimper really - but I heard him. They took him away. Hours later, they told me he had just died. I can remember exactly every word spoken, every action, every feeling, every detail of that day, right up to that point. Then nothing.
I never saw him, never held him. I have no memory of him, nor him of me, this side of birth. He lived and died alone.
I was told to forget, to get on with my life, to get pregnant again. That it was just one of those things. I was told it was best not to talk or even think about him. I learnt later that as he was a live birth he had been registered and buried. But it was thought best that I didn't know. I wasn't told about the funeral of my son.I had to forget. But you don't, do you?
Twenty-four years later various events happened in my life and memories of that baby became very prominent. I told myself that I was being stupid, it was long past. But the thoughts would not go away. The sadness, the aching, would not go away.
Eventually I was persuaded to see a psychologist, Anne, who was compassionate and wise. At last I was able to talk about my baby. It was allowed. It was not silly but quite normal, even necessary.
I found a copy of his birth certificate, there was a blank space where his name should have been. I found the cemetery, the entry in their records. Again, no name. I found the patch of grass that was his unmarked grave where he lay with three other babies. Now he was real, he had lived, he was mine.Anne asked if I wanted to give him a name, maybe write what I wanted to say to him. Yes, oh yes.
I needed to know what he may have looked like, so Anne arranged for me to visit the special care unit at the local hospital. I met another mother and her tiny daughter and the nurses who were caring for them. I listened, I watched and that perfect, beautiful little person held my finger. I found out how things have changed. All the people in that room were special. Individuals - whatever their size. No blank spaces. There was so much love and understanding in that ward. I came way convinced that no-one, but no-one, ever has the right to separate a mother from her baby. Now, at last, this is understood. But there must be so many women of my generation and older who are still trying to forget and not succeeding.
That night I cried, wept for my baby, my son I never held.
Anne says "At 36 weeks they said my baby was small and it would be better if she was born now.
After 36 hours of labour I was finally told my baby was dead and that I needed an emergency Caesarean Section. I remember everything, every detail, every word spoken, every action, every feeling. I thought I was going to die and I wanted to.
Then nothing. A blank space, a void where there should have been a new life starting.
I asked questions which were mostly avoided or went unanswered. I was not allowed to see or to hold her. I was told to forget, get on with my life, to get pregnant again. I was told my daughter had Hydrocephalus and Spina Bifida. When I asked about the funeral was told that she had been 'slipped' in with someone-else. When I tried to give her a name I was told there was no provision to name a stillborn child.
Catherine lost her daughter in April 1968 she says "No-one asked if we would like to see her, hold her or have a photograph. We were not allowed, in those days, to name her. We have no birth or death certificates and it was not thought that she deserved a proper funeral. When I was still in hospital, my husband was paying for her burial.Two weeks after my confinement I found a new job - no maternity leave then - and tried to get back to normal as was expected of me."
Chris lost her daughter in 1973 and started a local group in conjunction with two other mothers, She became chair of the then fledgling 'Stillbirth and Perinatal Death Society', which later became SANDS. "It was such a relief to meet other mothers and be able to talk and share experiences with them. Up till then I had never met anyone else who had been bereaved in this way, and although I knew the statistics, there had been many times when I had felt I was the only one in the whole world."
"Like many others of my generation, I have no memorials - no photos, locks of hair, foot or handprints. The nearest to a real memento is the wrist band which I was wearing when I came out of the hospital and of course her birth and death certificates. On days when I wonder if it was all a bad dream these would have helped to reassure me that she did exist."
"Sometimes it is difficult not to feel jealous of modern parents, but I try to remember that we campaigned all these years ago to make it the way it is in many areas today. Our group bought High Wycombe Hospital their first Polaroid camera, and I made two little gowns, one pink and one blue, so that babies did not have be photographed in a hospital one."
* Support anyone affected by the death of a baby;
*To work in partnership with health professionals to improve the quality of care and services offered to bereaved families; and
*To promote research and changes in practice that could help to reduce the loss of babies' lives
Many years ago these guidelines were not available and many parents never had the experience of holding their babies indeed some were not allowed to even see their babies it was a time when midwives sent mothers home with a cheery, "Never mind dear, you can have another one"as if you had lost something you had bought in a supermarket or, "See you in nine months"as if you'd made a mistake this time round.
Linda's baby boy, Jo, died in 1974 she says: "In June 1974, I gave birth to my first born son. I never saw him. Eighteen weeks into the pregnancy problems had started. I was told that I would miscarry, that unless I could hold on to my baby until twenty-eight weeks he had no chance of life. Nothing could be done, I was to carry on as normal. During the following weeks he grew, he moved, he kicked - but we only managed twenty-five weeks.
I went into labour, gave birth, he cried - more of a whimper really - but I heard him. They took him away. Hours later, they told me he had just died. I can remember exactly every word spoken, every action, every feeling, every detail of that day, right up to that point. Then nothing.
I never saw him, never held him. I have no memory of him, nor him of me, this side of birth. He lived and died alone.
I was told to forget, to get on with my life, to get pregnant again. That it was just one of those things. I was told it was best not to talk or even think about him. I learnt later that as he was a live birth he had been registered and buried. But it was thought best that I didn't know. I wasn't told about the funeral of my son.I had to forget. But you don't, do you?
Twenty-four years later various events happened in my life and memories of that baby became very prominent. I told myself that I was being stupid, it was long past. But the thoughts would not go away. The sadness, the aching, would not go away.
Eventually I was persuaded to see a psychologist, Anne, who was compassionate and wise. At last I was able to talk about my baby. It was allowed. It was not silly but quite normal, even necessary.
I found a copy of his birth certificate, there was a blank space where his name should have been. I found the cemetery, the entry in their records. Again, no name. I found the patch of grass that was his unmarked grave where he lay with three other babies. Now he was real, he had lived, he was mine.Anne asked if I wanted to give him a name, maybe write what I wanted to say to him. Yes, oh yes.
I needed to know what he may have looked like, so Anne arranged for me to visit the special care unit at the local hospital. I met another mother and her tiny daughter and the nurses who were caring for them. I listened, I watched and that perfect, beautiful little person held my finger. I found out how things have changed. All the people in that room were special. Individuals - whatever their size. No blank spaces. There was so much love and understanding in that ward. I came way convinced that no-one, but no-one, ever has the right to separate a mother from her baby. Now, at last, this is understood. But there must be so many women of my generation and older who are still trying to forget and not succeeding.
That night I cried, wept for my baby, my son I never held.
Anne says "At 36 weeks they said my baby was small and it would be better if she was born now.
After 36 hours of labour I was finally told my baby was dead and that I needed an emergency Caesarean Section. I remember everything, every detail, every word spoken, every action, every feeling. I thought I was going to die and I wanted to.
Then nothing. A blank space, a void where there should have been a new life starting.
I asked questions which were mostly avoided or went unanswered. I was not allowed to see or to hold her. I was told to forget, get on with my life, to get pregnant again. I was told my daughter had Hydrocephalus and Spina Bifida. When I asked about the funeral was told that she had been 'slipped' in with someone-else. When I tried to give her a name I was told there was no provision to name a stillborn child.
Catherine lost her daughter in April 1968 she says "No-one asked if we would like to see her, hold her or have a photograph. We were not allowed, in those days, to name her. We have no birth or death certificates and it was not thought that she deserved a proper funeral. When I was still in hospital, my husband was paying for her burial.Two weeks after my confinement I found a new job - no maternity leave then - and tried to get back to normal as was expected of me."
Chris lost her daughter in 1973 and started a local group in conjunction with two other mothers, She became chair of the then fledgling 'Stillbirth and Perinatal Death Society', which later became SANDS. "It was such a relief to meet other mothers and be able to talk and share experiences with them. Up till then I had never met anyone else who had been bereaved in this way, and although I knew the statistics, there had been many times when I had felt I was the only one in the whole world."
"Like many others of my generation, I have no memorials - no photos, locks of hair, foot or handprints. The nearest to a real memento is the wrist band which I was wearing when I came out of the hospital and of course her birth and death certificates. On days when I wonder if it was all a bad dream these would have helped to reassure me that she did exist."
"Sometimes it is difficult not to feel jealous of modern parents, but I try to remember that we campaigned all these years ago to make it the way it is in many areas today. Our group bought High Wycombe Hospital their first Polaroid camera, and I made two little gowns, one pink and one blue, so that babies did not have be photographed in a hospital one."
Friday 11 December 2009
NICE are NASTY (2)
Early moments and the days
I had to make some choices! and that the choices I had to make about what I wanted to happen with Matthew in the early hours and days of his death were the most important choices I would make. I did not want any regrets of 'If only I had done it this way or that way' although it was so extremely difficult and hard to take in the reality of what had happened, I knew that the memories of this short time with my Matthew before I had to say goodbye were the most important to me, and I wanted no regrets to come back and haunt me for the rest of my life.
The choices I made are very personal to me and I needed time to think about it which I had very little of, I knew I needed to create memories not only in my mind but physical memories and I felt I wanted to share the memories with my family.
Fortunately for me I had the best team of midwives and nurses who were experienced in babyloss and were there to help and support me and help me get through the early days and most importantly advise me on the decisions I had to make.'Do I want a burial or cremation?''Do you want to hold him?''Do you want to bathe him and dress him?' 'Do you want photographs of him?'' Do you want footprints?''A lock of his hair?''Do you want him in your room with you?'
The questions are not the questions I was wanting to answer, the 'normal' thing to do when you have just given birth is to celebrate and take your live healthy baby home with you!
I chose to have Matthew in a moses basket in my room with me, when members of my family came to see me it was the most natural thing that they wanted to hold him and I know that sharing the memories of Matthew helped me get through and cope with my loss.
Practical issues and law
The practical things that had to be done in the early days like choosing to have a post mortem?, of course I wanted to know why my beautiful son had died, were the hardest to bear.
If your baby was stillborn after 24 weeks then registering your baby's name is a legal requirement. I felt that by registering Matthew at least his existence is officially acknowledged.
Arranging Matthew's funeral was made easier for me as my brother is a Baptist Minister he took alot of the arrangements with the funeral director away from me as far as I was concerned In the natural, logical order of things, parents are not expected to outlive their children. I should not be burying my son, I should not be burying him!
Holding Matthew was the most precious moments of my life,
*Most people only dream of angels, I got to hold one in my arms.
I had to make some choices! and that the choices I had to make about what I wanted to happen with Matthew in the early hours and days of his death were the most important choices I would make. I did not want any regrets of 'If only I had done it this way or that way' although it was so extremely difficult and hard to take in the reality of what had happened, I knew that the memories of this short time with my Matthew before I had to say goodbye were the most important to me, and I wanted no regrets to come back and haunt me for the rest of my life.
The choices I made are very personal to me and I needed time to think about it which I had very little of, I knew I needed to create memories not only in my mind but physical memories and I felt I wanted to share the memories with my family.
Fortunately for me I had the best team of midwives and nurses who were experienced in babyloss and were there to help and support me and help me get through the early days and most importantly advise me on the decisions I had to make.'Do I want a burial or cremation?''Do you want to hold him?''Do you want to bathe him and dress him?' 'Do you want photographs of him?'' Do you want footprints?''A lock of his hair?''Do you want him in your room with you?'
The questions are not the questions I was wanting to answer, the 'normal' thing to do when you have just given birth is to celebrate and take your live healthy baby home with you!
I chose to have Matthew in a moses basket in my room with me, when members of my family came to see me it was the most natural thing that they wanted to hold him and I know that sharing the memories of Matthew helped me get through and cope with my loss.
Practical issues and law
The practical things that had to be done in the early days like choosing to have a post mortem?, of course I wanted to know why my beautiful son had died, were the hardest to bear.
If your baby was stillborn after 24 weeks then registering your baby's name is a legal requirement. I felt that by registering Matthew at least his existence is officially acknowledged.
Arranging Matthew's funeral was made easier for me as my brother is a Baptist Minister he took alot of the arrangements with the funeral director away from me as far as I was concerned In the natural, logical order of things, parents are not expected to outlive their children. I should not be burying my son, I should not be burying him!
Holding Matthew was the most precious moments of my life,
*Most people only dream of angels, I got to hold one in my arms.
NICE are NASTY
This is my story
I already had 4 children when I was pregnant with my Matthew. My youngest daughter was 6 years old, so my new baby was a bit of a surprise to the husband(now ex)and me. The husband was furious that I could get "yourself pregnant"!! he didnt speak about my baby at all.
In March of 1991 when I was 5 months pg we moved in to my mummy's house,she had had a massive stroke in 1987 and needed 24 hour company. Then the ex started to acknowledge my baby (in company of course).
My mummy had a heart attack and was admitted to hospital on the 24th of May thank god she was ok. We arranged for her to come home on the 3rd of June, as it turned out I had an appointment at the same hosp that morning so I took my mummy's clothes with me and see her after my 36 week anti natal.
I knew there was something not right the evening before! but it was easier to keep thinking "its gonna be ok I got hospital appointment tomorrow" When it was my turn to see the midwife I was thinking "somethings wrong ..... I just know somethings wrong" when she listened for my babys heart my mind was screaming out "somethings wrong!" she didnt say a word to me, she went off and brought back heart monitor,she was feeling my baby to see "what position he is in" she listened again and again my mind was screaming out "somethings wrong!" she didnt say a word she went off again and came back with another monitor to "record his heartbeat".
I was strapped to this monitor and by then I was waiting for her to say "im sorry your baby has died" she didnt say a word!
she went off and came back with a form and another doctor to take me down and have a scan" as I laid there looking at my baby with no heartbeat I noticed the sonographer was much less chatty than usual and all the time my mind was screaming at her "tell me he has died! just say it!" she didnt say a word.
I was escorted up to anti-natal in silence and told to sit in a room, I waited for another midwife who I had never met before to "have a word with you" She came in the room and said "Your baby has died, and you need to go to the labour ward as soon as possible" I thought "there you ....you said it !!!!!"
I told her I had to go and see my mummy now, and they were waffling on about me having to go to the labour ward and I just kept replying "I have to see my mummy now"
I went to the ward where my mummy was and when I arrived a doctor was on the phone talking about this mad woman whos baby had died and she was on her way down to see her mum!!!!!!!!
When I told my mummy what had happened she cried like a child.
I phoned the ex and told him our baby had died and he said "you are joking!"
I said "who in their right mind would 'joke' about something so awful?"
I gave birth to my Matthew at 11am the next day after a long night of hearing 4 other babies being born.It was pure hell knowing after my final push my baby was not going to cry!
I held my son in my arms so close to me. He was the most beautiful baby and looked so peaceful and asleep. All he had to do was breath
discussing my babys funeral was the most painful conversation I have ever had.
I came home the next day and took a picture of my Matthew to show my mum she asked me if I called him Matthew I said "yes mummy, thats the name we chose for him 6 months ago"
I didnt tell mum about Matthews funeral because her health had deteriorated over the next few days and I didnt want her to be laying in the hospital bed thinking of me burying my baby
I stayed at home after my matthews funeral not wanting to go out and feeling an utter failure and more so for letting my children down.
I managed to go back to the hospital to visit my mummy on the 23rd of June I had a big cuddle with her and I so wanted to cry in her arms and be comforted and for her to say "it will be ok" but she was still poorly and I didnt want to make a scene and upset her ............ my lovely mummy died the next day.
to be continued >>>>>>>>>>>>
I already had 4 children when I was pregnant with my Matthew. My youngest daughter was 6 years old, so my new baby was a bit of a surprise to the husband(now ex)and me. The husband was furious that I could get "yourself pregnant"!! he didnt speak about my baby at all.
In March of 1991 when I was 5 months pg we moved in to my mummy's house,she had had a massive stroke in 1987 and needed 24 hour company. Then the ex started to acknowledge my baby (in company of course).
My mummy had a heart attack and was admitted to hospital on the 24th of May thank god she was ok. We arranged for her to come home on the 3rd of June, as it turned out I had an appointment at the same hosp that morning so I took my mummy's clothes with me and see her after my 36 week anti natal.
I knew there was something not right the evening before! but it was easier to keep thinking "its gonna be ok I got hospital appointment tomorrow" When it was my turn to see the midwife I was thinking "somethings wrong ..... I just know somethings wrong" when she listened for my babys heart my mind was screaming out "somethings wrong!" she didnt say a word to me, she went off and brought back heart monitor,she was feeling my baby to see "what position he is in" she listened again and again my mind was screaming out "somethings wrong!" she didnt say a word she went off again and came back with another monitor to "record his heartbeat".
I was strapped to this monitor and by then I was waiting for her to say "im sorry your baby has died" she didnt say a word!
she went off and came back with a form and another doctor to take me down and have a scan" as I laid there looking at my baby with no heartbeat I noticed the sonographer was much less chatty than usual and all the time my mind was screaming at her "tell me he has died! just say it!" she didnt say a word.
I was escorted up to anti-natal in silence and told to sit in a room, I waited for another midwife who I had never met before to "have a word with you" She came in the room and said "Your baby has died, and you need to go to the labour ward as soon as possible" I thought "there you ....you said it !!!!!"
I told her I had to go and see my mummy now, and they were waffling on about me having to go to the labour ward and I just kept replying "I have to see my mummy now"
I went to the ward where my mummy was and when I arrived a doctor was on the phone talking about this mad woman whos baby had died and she was on her way down to see her mum!!!!!!!!
When I told my mummy what had happened she cried like a child.
I phoned the ex and told him our baby had died and he said "you are joking!"
I said "who in their right mind would 'joke' about something so awful?"
I gave birth to my Matthew at 11am the next day after a long night of hearing 4 other babies being born.It was pure hell knowing after my final push my baby was not going to cry!
I held my son in my arms so close to me. He was the most beautiful baby and looked so peaceful and asleep. All he had to do was breath
discussing my babys funeral was the most painful conversation I have ever had.
I came home the next day and took a picture of my Matthew to show my mum she asked me if I called him Matthew I said "yes mummy, thats the name we chose for him 6 months ago"
I didnt tell mum about Matthews funeral because her health had deteriorated over the next few days and I didnt want her to be laying in the hospital bed thinking of me burying my baby
I stayed at home after my matthews funeral not wanting to go out and feeling an utter failure and more so for letting my children down.
I managed to go back to the hospital to visit my mummy on the 23rd of June I had a big cuddle with her and I so wanted to cry in her arms and be comforted and for her to say "it will be ok" but she was still poorly and I didnt want to make a scene and upset her ............ my lovely mummy died the next day.
to be continued >>>>>>>>>>>>
Tuesday 17 November 2009
Still Stealing Our Money!
Taxpayers will be forced to pay millions to bail out the gold-plated pension scheme for the parasite mps.
The announcement was made by Commons Leader harriet harm-man yesterday.
While taxpayers will put in an extra £800,000 a year, MPs themselves will be asked to find just an additional £60 a month for what is one of Britain’s most generous schemes
The timing of Miss harm-man’s proposals has prompted bewilderment, coming after days of controversy over MPs’ expenses claims.
Taxpayers already pay 26.8 per cent of an MP’s pensionable salary into their pension pot but that will rise to 28.7 per cent from today.
That means taxpayers will have to fork out an extra £800,000 a year to fund MPs’ final salary pensions – though Miss harm-man made no mention of that in a statement to Parliament.
Like many pension schemes, the MPs’ fund faces a £51million deficit, largely because its members are living longer.
To plug the gap, Miss Harm-man said the Government wanted MPs to hand over an extra 1.9 per cent of their salary, equivalent to around £60 a month.
The Treasury, meanwhile, would increase its annual contribution from £12.4million to £13.2million.
In 2002, MPs voted to increase their pension accrual rate to one fortieth of salary for every year worked.
The result is that after just 20 years’ service, an MP can retire with annual pension of half their £65,000 salary
WORDS FAIL ME!
The announcement was made by Commons Leader harriet harm-man yesterday.
While taxpayers will put in an extra £800,000 a year, MPs themselves will be asked to find just an additional £60 a month for what is one of Britain’s most generous schemes
The timing of Miss harm-man’s proposals has prompted bewilderment, coming after days of controversy over MPs’ expenses claims.
Taxpayers already pay 26.8 per cent of an MP’s pensionable salary into their pension pot but that will rise to 28.7 per cent from today.
That means taxpayers will have to fork out an extra £800,000 a year to fund MPs’ final salary pensions – though Miss harm-man made no mention of that in a statement to Parliament.
Like many pension schemes, the MPs’ fund faces a £51million deficit, largely because its members are living longer.
To plug the gap, Miss Harm-man said the Government wanted MPs to hand over an extra 1.9 per cent of their salary, equivalent to around £60 a month.
The Treasury, meanwhile, would increase its annual contribution from £12.4million to £13.2million.
In 2002, MPs voted to increase their pension accrual rate to one fortieth of salary for every year worked.
The result is that after just 20 years’ service, an MP can retire with annual pension of half their £65,000 salary
WORDS FAIL ME!
Monday 9 November 2009
Blair War Crimes Foundation
THE BLAIR WAR CRIMES FOUNDATION
It is necessary to make leaders hesitate before indulging in “the paramount war crime” to quote the judges of Nuremberg, of “unprovoked aggression against a defenceless country”. Unless leaders fear that they might be tried for their war crimes, we will live in an increasingly violent world, where The Geneva Conventions are treated as a joke, the UN is of no account, and death, destruction, torture, and repressive policing are commonplace. At the moment such leaders enjoy more and more trappings of power, and retire with vast sums of money, houses, medals and lucrative contracts. A group of UK Citizens have therefore set up an organisation, “The Blair War Crimes Foundation”, to initially bring one such leader to justice as an example.
John Pilger, David Halpin, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Ken Loach, Noam Chomsky, Richard Dawkins, Lindsey German, Ben Griffin, Dr Nawal Saadawi, Haifa Zangana, Dr Kamil Mahdi, Bruce Kent, and other citizens of Spain, Argentine, USA, and UK, support a Blair War Crimes Foundation to seek signatures for a petition to the United Nations General Assembly and the UK Attorney General, to uphold the UN Charter, the Geneva and Hague Conventions, and International Law, and to indict Tony Blair for war crimes.
The Letter
THE BLAIR WAR CRIMES FOUNDATION
To The President of The United Nations General Assembly, H.E. Father Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, and The Attorney General of the United Kingdom, and their successors in office.
RE ANTHONY CHARLES LYNTON BLAIR
We, the citizens of the United Kingdom and other countries listed, wish to uphold The United Nations Charter, The 1998 Rome Statute of The International Criminal Court, The Hague and Geneva Conventions and the Rule of International Law, especially in respect of:-
1: 1949 Geneva Convention IV: Article 146
The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention.
2: 1907 Hague Convention IV: Article 3
A belligerent party which violates the provisions of the said regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation. It shall be responsible for all the acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces.
We therefore call on you to indict Anthony Charles Lynton Blair in his capacity as recent Prime Minister of the UK, so long as he is able to answer for his actions and however long it takes, in respect of our sample complaints relating to the 2003 Iraq War waged by the UK as ally to the United States of America.
We are concerned that without justice and respect for the rule of law, the future for us and our progeny in a lawless world is bleak, as revealed by recent US declarations about the use of torture and the events of December 2008 in Gaza show.
The following are our sample complaints relating to the Iraq War 2003-2009:
1: Deceit and conspiracy for war, and providing false news to incite passions for war, causing in the order of one million deaths, 4 million refugees, countless maimings and traumas.
2: Employing radioactive ammunition causing long-term destruction of the planetary habitat.
3: Causing the breakdown of civil administration, with consequent lawlessness, especially looting, kidnapping, and violence, and consequent breakdown of womens’ rights, of religious freedom, and child and adult education.
4: Failing to maintain the medical needs of the populace.
5: Despoliation of the cultural heritage of the country.
6: Supporting an ally that employs ‘waterboarding’ and other tortures.
7: Seizing the assets of Iraq.
8: Using inhumane restraints on prisoners, including dogs, hoods, and cable ties.
9: Using Aggressive Patrolling indiscriminately, traumatising women and children and wrecking homes and property.
10: Marking bodies of prisoners with numbers, writing, faeces and other degrading treatment.
11: The use of cluster bombs and other indiscriminate weapons including white phosphorous on “shake and bake” missions.
12: Supporting indiscriminate rocket attacks from F16 fighter planes on women and children in Fallujah in Nov 2004
13: Supporting the shooting up of ambulances and medical personnel in Fallujah in Nov 2004
14: Supporting the expulsion of the entire population of Fallujah save for young men of military age, for a reprisal attack on that city in Nov 2004.
Copy to the Secretary General of The United Nations, Ban Ki-moon
Petition on line at http://www.petitiononline.com/BWCF/petition.html
It is necessary to make leaders hesitate before indulging in “the paramount war crime” to quote the judges of Nuremberg, of “unprovoked aggression against a defenceless country”. Unless leaders fear that they might be tried for their war crimes, we will live in an increasingly violent world, where The Geneva Conventions are treated as a joke, the UN is of no account, and death, destruction, torture, and repressive policing are commonplace. At the moment such leaders enjoy more and more trappings of power, and retire with vast sums of money, houses, medals and lucrative contracts. A group of UK Citizens have therefore set up an organisation, “The Blair War Crimes Foundation”, to initially bring one such leader to justice as an example.
John Pilger, David Halpin, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Ken Loach, Noam Chomsky, Richard Dawkins, Lindsey German, Ben Griffin, Dr Nawal Saadawi, Haifa Zangana, Dr Kamil Mahdi, Bruce Kent, and other citizens of Spain, Argentine, USA, and UK, support a Blair War Crimes Foundation to seek signatures for a petition to the United Nations General Assembly and the UK Attorney General, to uphold the UN Charter, the Geneva and Hague Conventions, and International Law, and to indict Tony Blair for war crimes.
The Letter
THE BLAIR WAR CRIMES FOUNDATION
To The President of The United Nations General Assembly, H.E. Father Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, and The Attorney General of the United Kingdom, and their successors in office.
RE ANTHONY CHARLES LYNTON BLAIR
We, the citizens of the United Kingdom and other countries listed, wish to uphold The United Nations Charter, The 1998 Rome Statute of The International Criminal Court, The Hague and Geneva Conventions and the Rule of International Law, especially in respect of:-
1: 1949 Geneva Convention IV: Article 146
The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention.
2: 1907 Hague Convention IV: Article 3
A belligerent party which violates the provisions of the said regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation. It shall be responsible for all the acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces.
We therefore call on you to indict Anthony Charles Lynton Blair in his capacity as recent Prime Minister of the UK, so long as he is able to answer for his actions and however long it takes, in respect of our sample complaints relating to the 2003 Iraq War waged by the UK as ally to the United States of America.
We are concerned that without justice and respect for the rule of law, the future for us and our progeny in a lawless world is bleak, as revealed by recent US declarations about the use of torture and the events of December 2008 in Gaza show.
The following are our sample complaints relating to the Iraq War 2003-2009:
1: Deceit and conspiracy for war, and providing false news to incite passions for war, causing in the order of one million deaths, 4 million refugees, countless maimings and traumas.
2: Employing radioactive ammunition causing long-term destruction of the planetary habitat.
3: Causing the breakdown of civil administration, with consequent lawlessness, especially looting, kidnapping, and violence, and consequent breakdown of womens’ rights, of religious freedom, and child and adult education.
4: Failing to maintain the medical needs of the populace.
5: Despoliation of the cultural heritage of the country.
6: Supporting an ally that employs ‘waterboarding’ and other tortures.
7: Seizing the assets of Iraq.
8: Using inhumane restraints on prisoners, including dogs, hoods, and cable ties.
9: Using Aggressive Patrolling indiscriminately, traumatising women and children and wrecking homes and property.
10: Marking bodies of prisoners with numbers, writing, faeces and other degrading treatment.
11: The use of cluster bombs and other indiscriminate weapons including white phosphorous on “shake and bake” missions.
12: Supporting indiscriminate rocket attacks from F16 fighter planes on women and children in Fallujah in Nov 2004
13: Supporting the shooting up of ambulances and medical personnel in Fallujah in Nov 2004
14: Supporting the expulsion of the entire population of Fallujah save for young men of military age, for a reprisal attack on that city in Nov 2004.
Copy to the Secretary General of The United Nations, Ban Ki-moon
Petition on line at http://www.petitiononline.com/BWCF/petition.html
Saturday 31 October 2009
gORDON bROWN is set to unveil a new drive to name and shame yobs hit with anti-social behaviour orders.
As part of a renewed focus on law and order, the (unelected) Prime Minister is to warn unruly youths that their Asbos will be publicised via leafleting and the internet.
bROWN said, "The public have a right to know what is happening in their areas, and the public have a right to receive information that they want on local individuals who have blighted their communities with anti-social behaviour.
So this week I will set out plans to publicise the names and details of those people subject to anti-social behaviour orders and other orders, using photographs, public leaflets and online. The consequences for committing anti-social behaviour should be clear."
mR bROWN said he was renewing the Government's focus on crime in the weeks ahead as he promised to "make life better for the mainstream majority"
Two things bother me deeply about this article,
Firstly the public are waking up and realising that gORDON'S and call me dAVE'S claw hammer wielding 'useful idiots' of UAF are diplomatically immune from ASBO's
Secondly what exactly does "Mainstream Majority" mean?
As part of a renewed focus on law and order, the (unelected) Prime Minister is to warn unruly youths that their Asbos will be publicised via leafleting and the internet.
bROWN said, "The public have a right to know what is happening in their areas, and the public have a right to receive information that they want on local individuals who have blighted their communities with anti-social behaviour.
So this week I will set out plans to publicise the names and details of those people subject to anti-social behaviour orders and other orders, using photographs, public leaflets and online. The consequences for committing anti-social behaviour should be clear."
mR bROWN said he was renewing the Government's focus on crime in the weeks ahead as he promised to "make life better for the mainstream majority"
Two things bother me deeply about this article,
Firstly the public are waking up and realising that gORDON'S and call me dAVE'S claw hammer wielding 'useful idiots' of UAF are diplomatically immune from ASBO's
Secondly what exactly does "Mainstream Majority" mean?
Give Nick Griffin MEP a fair-hearing on Question Time
Published by Patrick Harrington on Oct 24, 2009
Category: Civil Rights
Region: United Kingdom
Target: The Director General of the BBC
Web site: http://civilliberty.org.uk
Background (Preamble):
Nick Griffin appeared on the BBC1 programme Question Time on 22 October, 2009.
The BBC had been attacked by Labour Government Ministers for inviting the MEP and Leader of the British National Party (BNP) onto the show. Welsh Secretary Peter Hain wrote in the Guardian: "The BBC will be showcasing the BNP on a panel alongside the mainstream parties as an equally legitimate, respectable, democratic political party, when it is nothing of the kind." Hain had called for a meeting to discuss his support for "No Platform" with the BBC but it remains unclear at present whether one took place.
The Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, told David Dimbleby, the host on the show on 15th of October: "You may like to consider your invitation to next week’s Question Time.”
He added: “There isn't a constitutional obligation to appear on 'Question Time'. That gives them a legitimacy they do not deserve.”
The BBC has given reasons for its decisions but these have not been as widely reported as the attacks.
Ric Bailey the BBC's chief political adviser and former executive editor of 'Question Time' from 2000 to 2006 summed it up thus:
"For the BBC, it's quite straightforward. "Due impartiality" means we have to take account of the political context when we're making editorial judgements, day in day out. There isn't one single formula which applies in all circumstances. So how do we decide what are appropriate levels of airtime for the different political parties? Our starting point for that judgement - though not the only factor - is how real people vote in real elections."
"Measuring impartiality is less about mathematics and more about good judgement - but let's just look at the maths for a moment. In the recent European election, the BNP won more than 6% of the vote across Britain - approaching a million people. In some regions it was close to 10%. Like the Greens, they now have two MEPs - far fewer than UKIP - but they also have over 50 local councillors - fewer than the Greens, many more than UKIP.
"Ever since UKIP and the Greens won representation at a national level, they have appeared from time to time on 'Question Time'. Inviting the BNP onto the panel would be a continuation of the approach which recognises that the level of electoral support is a relevant factor in making these judgements.
"The BBC could not apply different standards to different parties because of their particular policies. That would be a breach of our charter, challengeable in the courts.
"But it's not fear of the lawyers or lobbying from the BNP themselves which would prompt an invitation to Nick Griffin. Impartiality is at the core of the BBC's journalism and this is a normal part of the process of constantly asking ourselves how we should be defining that impartiality in a changing political environment."
On the 'Question Time' programme which Johnson appeared other panel members disagreed with his view that Griffin and the BNP should be censored. Norman Baker, the Lib Dem MP, said that they should be "challenged in argument".
Damian Green MP, for the Tory Party, said Nick Griffin should be allowed to have his say on Question Time. He said that mainstream politicians should "confront them in argument". Nigel Farage of UKIP stated “The BBC have not put him on Question Time, the voters have.” Joan Bakewell, the other panelist, expressed no clear view. Johnson was clearly isolated.
Seen in this light, the comments of Labour Ministers can only be an attempt to bully the BBC to act in a partisan way. It's no surprise that the Labour Government want to tell the BBC who to invite, or not to invite and even how to report. That's nothing new. Nor is it a surprise that the Labour Party want to do down their BNP rivals. In many electoral wards the BNP represent their main opposition. Voters have turned to them in desperation at the abandonment of the white working class by an out-of-touch Political Class.
Censorship and abusing one's position to suppress the electoral chances of another political party which may take votes from you is merely political expedience disguised as moral indignation.
Alongside the establishment campaign to bully the Beeb runs implied threats of violence from their far-left street proxies. Fresh from their clashes with the Police and their mirror-image (the English Defence League) in Manchester the misnamed 'Unite Against Fascism' (UAF) have also lined-up to oppose the BBC decision. Writing in the Times, Fiona Hamilton reported UAF's stated intentions for the 22nd of October.
"Unite Against Fascism, which regularly demonstrates against the BNP, has said that it will try to blockade Television Centre to prevent Mr Griffin gaining access next Thursday."
"Unite Against Fascism told The Times that if thousands of protesters turned up there were plans to blockade the BBC building. A rally is also planned for the night before the event in Central London."
Notice the language being used here. The word is "blockade" not "protest" or "picket".
Definitions of "blockade" include:
• obstruct: hinder or prevent the progress or accomplishment of;
• barricade: render unsuitable for passage; "block the way";
• obstruct access to
The stated aim of UAF was to prevent Nick Griffin MEP from entering the building.
In the event Nick Griffin was able to enter the Studio accompanied by over 40 of his own security guards (many of whom are martial arts trained). Only 500-700 counter-demonstrators appeared and they blocked the wrong entrance.
In response to the criticisms from Labour ministers that the format of the programme would not allow "scrutiny" of Mr Griffin the BBC threw the normal format out of the window. Instead they stacked the studio audience with people hostile to the BNP and allowed the panel to gang-up on him. The hatred shown to him was disturbing to watch. He was treated very unfairly and scarcely allowed to answer without interruption. He was continually booed and jeered. Only one question was asked which did not concern the BNP and that was designed to allow further attacks on Mr Griffin. The real issues of the day, the Post strike, MPs arrogance on expenses, bonuses for the bankers etc were not even raised. This was not Question Time - it was a pantomime in which Nick Griffin, MEP, was cast as the villain.
The BBC had been attacked by Labour Government Ministers for inviting the MEP and Leader of the British National Party (BNP) onto the show. Welsh Secretary Peter Hain wrote in the Guardian: "The BBC will be showcasing the BNP on a panel alongside the mainstream parties as an equally legitimate, respectable, democratic political party, when it is nothing of the kind." Hain had called for a meeting to discuss his support for "No Platform" with the BBC but it remains unclear at present whether one took place.
The Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, told David Dimbleby, the host on the show on 15th of October: "You may like to consider your invitation to next week’s Question Time.”
He added: “There isn't a constitutional obligation to appear on 'Question Time'. That gives them a legitimacy they do not deserve.”
The BBC has given reasons for its decisions but these have not been as widely reported as the attacks.
Ric Bailey the BBC's chief political adviser and former executive editor of 'Question Time' from 2000 to 2006 summed it up thus:
"For the BBC, it's quite straightforward. "Due impartiality" means we have to take account of the political context when we're making editorial judgements, day in day out. There isn't one single formula which applies in all circumstances. So how do we decide what are appropriate levels of airtime for the different political parties? Our starting point for that judgement - though not the only factor - is how real people vote in real elections."
"Measuring impartiality is less about mathematics and more about good judgement - but let's just look at the maths for a moment. In the recent European election, the BNP won more than 6% of the vote across Britain - approaching a million people. In some regions it was close to 10%. Like the Greens, they now have two MEPs - far fewer than UKIP - but they also have over 50 local councillors - fewer than the Greens, many more than UKIP.
"Ever since UKIP and the Greens won representation at a national level, they have appeared from time to time on 'Question Time'. Inviting the BNP onto the panel would be a continuation of the approach which recognises that the level of electoral support is a relevant factor in making these judgements.
"The BBC could not apply different standards to different parties because of their particular policies. That would be a breach of our charter, challengeable in the courts.
"But it's not fear of the lawyers or lobbying from the BNP themselves which would prompt an invitation to Nick Griffin. Impartiality is at the core of the BBC's journalism and this is a normal part of the process of constantly asking ourselves how we should be defining that impartiality in a changing political environment."
On the 'Question Time' programme which Johnson appeared other panel members disagreed with his view that Griffin and the BNP should be censored. Norman Baker, the Lib Dem MP, said that they should be "challenged in argument".
Damian Green MP, for the Tory Party, said Nick Griffin should be allowed to have his say on Question Time. He said that mainstream politicians should "confront them in argument". Nigel Farage of UKIP stated “The BBC have not put him on Question Time, the voters have.” Joan Bakewell, the other panelist, expressed no clear view. Johnson was clearly isolated.
Seen in this light, the comments of Labour Ministers can only be an attempt to bully the BBC to act in a partisan way. It's no surprise that the Labour Government want to tell the BBC who to invite, or not to invite and even how to report. That's nothing new. Nor is it a surprise that the Labour Party want to do down their BNP rivals. In many electoral wards the BNP represent their main opposition. Voters have turned to them in desperation at the abandonment of the white working class by an out-of-touch Political Class.
Censorship and abusing one's position to suppress the electoral chances of another political party which may take votes from you is merely political expedience disguised as moral indignation.
Alongside the establishment campaign to bully the Beeb runs implied threats of violence from their far-left street proxies. Fresh from their clashes with the Police and their mirror-image (the English Defence League) in Manchester the misnamed 'Unite Against Fascism' (UAF) have also lined-up to oppose the BBC decision. Writing in the Times, Fiona Hamilton reported UAF's stated intentions for the 22nd of October.
"Unite Against Fascism, which regularly demonstrates against the BNP, has said that it will try to blockade Television Centre to prevent Mr Griffin gaining access next Thursday."
"Unite Against Fascism told The Times that if thousands of protesters turned up there were plans to blockade the BBC building. A rally is also planned for the night before the event in Central London."
Notice the language being used here. The word is "blockade" not "protest" or "picket".
Definitions of "blockade" include:
• obstruct: hinder or prevent the progress or accomplishment of;
• barricade: render unsuitable for passage; "block the way";
• obstruct access to
The stated aim of UAF was to prevent Nick Griffin MEP from entering the building.
In the event Nick Griffin was able to enter the Studio accompanied by over 40 of his own security guards (many of whom are martial arts trained). Only 500-700 counter-demonstrators appeared and they blocked the wrong entrance.
In response to the criticisms from Labour ministers that the format of the programme would not allow "scrutiny" of Mr Griffin the BBC threw the normal format out of the window. Instead they stacked the studio audience with people hostile to the BNP and allowed the panel to gang-up on him. The hatred shown to him was disturbing to watch. He was treated very unfairly and scarcely allowed to answer without interruption. He was continually booed and jeered. Only one question was asked which did not concern the BNP and that was designed to allow further attacks on Mr Griffin. The real issues of the day, the Post strike, MPs arrogance on expenses, bonuses for the bankers etc were not even raised. This was not Question Time - it was a pantomime in which Nick Griffin, MEP, was cast as the villain.
Give Nick Griffin MEP a fair-hearing on Question Time
Wednesday 5 August 2009
Phatz Bar in Maidenhead
Phatz Bar is a modern bar with a lean towards funky soul music. It offers many different flavoured vodkas, cocktails and shooters. The bar, also stocks draught and bottled beers and conventional spirits. The bar attracts a wide range of people, but is aiming to attract those who are 21 and over. BUT NOT IF YOU ARE A SERVING SOLDIER.
Grieving soldiers who attended the funeral of a comrade killed in Afghanistan were stopped from entering a bar because they were wearing military uniform. The three soldiers and one Royal Marine were not allowed into the Phatz bar in Maidenhead after they attended the funeral of fallen Rifleman Daniel Hume, 22. The bar's door staff adamantly refused to lift their "No uniforms" policy, despite the fact that the group was accompanied by Rfn Hume's distraught father.
Rfn Hume was killed by a roadside bomb on July 9 while on foot patrol with 4th Battalion The Rifles at Nad e-Ali, in Afghanistan's Helmand province, just weeks into his first operational tour and only months after passing out as the best cadet at his training regiment.
His body was flown back to Britain and his funeral took place last Thursday afternoon at All Saint's Church, in the Humes' home town of Maidenhead, Berkshire.
Members of the public applauded spontaneously as the coffin was brought into the church, which contained hundreds of mourners including over 50 servicemen and women in uniform. Rfn Hume was given an honour guard of riflemen.
Afterward, a group of around 50 mourners went for a commemorative drink in Maidenhead town centre. It was around midnight when 12 members of the group - which included three soldiers in fatigues and a Royal Marine in full dress uniform headed to the late night Phatz bar, which normally remains open until 2.30am.
Rfn Hume's father Adrian said "They arrived at the Phatz bar, which Daniel had been to on occasion when he was on home leave, before me. When I got there they appeared a bit upset.
"They said the guy on the door had told them 'you can all come in, apart from the squaddies'. He refused to let the four who wearing uniform into the bar because they were wearing their uniform."
Mr Hume added that the servicemen were resigned to the situation, having experienced similar situations in the past.
Grant Page, manager at Phatz, said he turned the men away because "he had been told that there were 100 soldiers had been drinking all day and that some of them would be heading for his bar and I have to protect my customers' interests" (but not if its 100 people out on a stag or hen night)
Now im not a spiteful person and I wish no ill on any decent person and im sure any decent person would agree with me when I say to the people of Maidenhead and those that choose to visit Maidenhead for a night out to boycott this is the place which employs *Grant Page
*A Traitor and Jobsworth who is not fit to lick these soldiers boots.
Grieving soldiers who attended the funeral of a comrade killed in Afghanistan were stopped from entering a bar because they were wearing military uniform. The three soldiers and one Royal Marine were not allowed into the Phatz bar in Maidenhead after they attended the funeral of fallen Rifleman Daniel Hume, 22. The bar's door staff adamantly refused to lift their "No uniforms" policy, despite the fact that the group was accompanied by Rfn Hume's distraught father.
Rfn Hume was killed by a roadside bomb on July 9 while on foot patrol with 4th Battalion The Rifles at Nad e-Ali, in Afghanistan's Helmand province, just weeks into his first operational tour and only months after passing out as the best cadet at his training regiment.
His body was flown back to Britain and his funeral took place last Thursday afternoon at All Saint's Church, in the Humes' home town of Maidenhead, Berkshire.
Members of the public applauded spontaneously as the coffin was brought into the church, which contained hundreds of mourners including over 50 servicemen and women in uniform. Rfn Hume was given an honour guard of riflemen.
Afterward, a group of around 50 mourners went for a commemorative drink in Maidenhead town centre. It was around midnight when 12 members of the group - which included three soldiers in fatigues and a Royal Marine in full dress uniform headed to the late night Phatz bar, which normally remains open until 2.30am.
Rfn Hume's father Adrian said "They arrived at the Phatz bar, which Daniel had been to on occasion when he was on home leave, before me. When I got there they appeared a bit upset.
"They said the guy on the door had told them 'you can all come in, apart from the squaddies'. He refused to let the four who wearing uniform into the bar because they were wearing their uniform."
Mr Hume added that the servicemen were resigned to the situation, having experienced similar situations in the past.
Grant Page, manager at Phatz, said he turned the men away because "he had been told that there were 100 soldiers had been drinking all day and that some of them would be heading for his bar and I have to protect my customers' interests" (but not if its 100 people out on a stag or hen night)
Now im not a spiteful person and I wish no ill on any decent person and im sure any decent person would agree with me when I say to the people of Maidenhead and those that choose to visit Maidenhead for a night out to boycott this is the place which employs *Grant Page
*A Traitor and Jobsworth who is not fit to lick these soldiers boots.
Supporting Our Soldiers
As our Traitor government are hell bent on keeping illegal foreign wars going and setting up our Soldiers to be easy targets and most importantly will not provide our troops with the equipment they need to survive out there,so it is vital that we as Nationalists do our moral duty to support our boys and girls out there.
So what can we do as British National Party members and supporters we can show our support to BNP activist Dianne Leech who has for some time been collecting and sending the equivalent of Red Cross Parcels to our troops in Afghanistan, we are very proud of you Dianne.
Dianne is going to be at this years Red, White and Blue and is asking all those who plan on attending to remember Our Boys and Girls and take along something from the list below for Dianne and her team to send out to the illegal war zone. No Aerosols please for obvious reasons
Toiletries eg:
Toothbrush Toothpaste, Shampoo, Conditioner, Shampoo, Shower Gel, Roll on Deodrant, Razors, Shaving Gel, Talcum powder, Medicated Foot Powder, Cotton Buds, Wet or Moist Wipes,
Eye Lens Cleanser, Tissues, Travel Wash, Sanitary Protection, Face Cleanser and Moisturizer for Face and Body
Savoury Snacks:
Pringles, Various Crisps, Nuts, Pork Scratchings, Beef Jerky,
Savoury Rice, Pot Noodles,Oat Cakes, Crackers, Marmite, Stock Cubes, Pkt Soups,
Sweet Snacks:
Fruit or Cereal bars, Friut Flakes, Dried Fruits, Shortbread, also various biscuits eg: Digestive, Custard Creams ect. Various cakes, include Fruit cakes, Jam Sponge cakes ect.
Small tins of fruit in natural juice (with ring pull lid on) Jellies, Condensed and Evaporated Milk, packets of readymade Custard.
Confectionery:
Travel Sweets, Toffee Fudge, Energy Sweets, Love Hearts, Friut Pastels, Starbursts, Lollipops, Mints, Chewing Gum ect but no Chocolate, apart from Mars bars or Snickers (MARATHON)
Clothing:
Socks, T shirts, Underwear
Activities:
Paperback Books, Magazines for Male and Female, Puzzle Books, Sport Programes, Playing Cards, Jigsaws, Notebooks, Black Pens (only) Sketch Books, Batteries, CD (to watch or listen to) Pharmacy:
Imodium, Rennies, Paracetomals, Plasters, Lip Salve, Insect Repellent, Ant Powder, Sun Cream, Drinks to include Energy drinks,Friut Juices (high vitamins)
Personally I love a bit of Retail Theraphy and I sure as hell will enjoy ticking some things off the shopping list above
These donations may be left at the British Patriots stand which will be in the BNP Wales Marquee.
Dianne will also be on hand:"I can advise how to send parcels, please do not send aerosols or alcohol, we need items until soldiers finally leave Afghanistan so we need thousands of items to come through every day to keep parcels on the go also donations accepted to buy items. Please support our soldiers and let them know we care".
Thank you. Dianne.
Now im off to my address book to send the shopping list to send to everyone on it and I trust you will do the same?
So what can we do as British National Party members and supporters we can show our support to BNP activist Dianne Leech who has for some time been collecting and sending the equivalent of Red Cross Parcels to our troops in Afghanistan, we are very proud of you Dianne.
Dianne is going to be at this years Red, White and Blue and is asking all those who plan on attending to remember Our Boys and Girls and take along something from the list below for Dianne and her team to send out to the illegal war zone. No Aerosols please for obvious reasons
Toiletries eg:
Toothbrush Toothpaste, Shampoo, Conditioner, Shampoo, Shower Gel, Roll on Deodrant, Razors, Shaving Gel, Talcum powder, Medicated Foot Powder, Cotton Buds, Wet or Moist Wipes,
Eye Lens Cleanser, Tissues, Travel Wash, Sanitary Protection, Face Cleanser and Moisturizer for Face and Body
Savoury Snacks:
Pringles, Various Crisps, Nuts, Pork Scratchings, Beef Jerky,
Savoury Rice, Pot Noodles,Oat Cakes, Crackers, Marmite, Stock Cubes, Pkt Soups,
Sweet Snacks:
Fruit or Cereal bars, Friut Flakes, Dried Fruits, Shortbread, also various biscuits eg: Digestive, Custard Creams ect. Various cakes, include Fruit cakes, Jam Sponge cakes ect.
Small tins of fruit in natural juice (with ring pull lid on) Jellies, Condensed and Evaporated Milk, packets of readymade Custard.
Confectionery:
Travel Sweets, Toffee Fudge, Energy Sweets, Love Hearts, Friut Pastels, Starbursts, Lollipops, Mints, Chewing Gum ect but no Chocolate, apart from Mars bars or Snickers (MARATHON)
Clothing:
Socks, T shirts, Underwear
Activities:
Paperback Books, Magazines for Male and Female, Puzzle Books, Sport Programes, Playing Cards, Jigsaws, Notebooks, Black Pens (only) Sketch Books, Batteries, CD (to watch or listen to) Pharmacy:
Imodium, Rennies, Paracetomals, Plasters, Lip Salve, Insect Repellent, Ant Powder, Sun Cream, Drinks to include Energy drinks,Friut Juices (high vitamins)
Personally I love a bit of Retail Theraphy and I sure as hell will enjoy ticking some things off the shopping list above
These donations may be left at the British Patriots stand which will be in the BNP Wales Marquee.
Dianne will also be on hand:"I can advise how to send parcels, please do not send aerosols or alcohol, we need items until soldiers finally leave Afghanistan so we need thousands of items to come through every day to keep parcels on the go also donations accepted to buy items. Please support our soldiers and let them know we care".
Thank you. Dianne.
Now im off to my address book to send the shopping list to send to everyone on it and I trust you will do the same?
Tuesday 4 August 2009
A soldier who refuses to return to active duty in Afghanistan has indicated he will plead not guilty to the charge of desertion.
Lance Corporal Joe Glenton faced court martial at Bulford Military Court Centre in Salisbury, Wiltshire.
He did not enter a formal plea, but defence lawyer Hugh O'Donoghue said the soldier would deny the single charge against him.
Mr O'Donoghue also told the court he may call an expert witness to give evidence on the lawfulness of service and current operations in Afghanistan.
L Cpl Glenton handed in a letter to the Prime Minister to explain why he believes politicians are wasting soldiers' lives in an unjustified war. He is the first British soldier to speak out publicly against the war in Afghanistan.
L/Cpl Joe Glenton's letter to the PM
Dear Mr Brown,
I am writing to you as a serving soldier in the British Army to express my views and concerns on the current conflict in Afghanistan.
It is my primary concern that the courage and tenacity of my fellow soldiers has become a tool of American foreign policy.
I believe this unethical short-changing of such proud men and women has caused immeasurable suffering not only to families of British service personnel who have been killed and injured, but also to the noble people of Afghanistan.
I have seen qualities in the Afghan people which have also been for so long apparent and admired in the British soldier. Qualities of robustness, humour, utter determination and unwillingness to take a step backwards.
However, it is these qualities, on both sides, which I fear will continue to cause a state of attrition. These will only lead to more heartbreak within both our societies.
I am not a general nor am I a politician and I cannot claim any mastery of strategy. However, I am a soldier who has served in Afghanistan, which has given me some small insight.
I believe that when British military personnel submit themselves to the service of the nation and put their bodies into harm's way, the government that sends them into battle is obliged to ensure that the cause is just and right, i.e. for the protection of life and liberty.
The war in Afghanistan is not reducing the terrorist risk, far from improving Afghan lives it is bringing death and devastation to their country. Britain has no business there.
I do not believe that our cause in Afghanistan is just or right. I implore you, Sir, to bring our soldiers home."
Yours sincerely,
Joe Glenton
Lance/Corporal, Royal Logistics Corps.
L/Cpl Glenton has since joined the Stop The War Coalition and Chris Nineham from the STW Coalition said "There is no question there is a lot of dissatisfaction and discontent among the armed forces about Britain's involvement in Afghanistan and L/Cpl Glenton is the first serving soldier to express these views."
*Since the war in Afghanistan began eight years ago, 191 UK service personnel have died.
Lance Corporal Joe Glenton faced court martial at Bulford Military Court Centre in Salisbury, Wiltshire.
He did not enter a formal plea, but defence lawyer Hugh O'Donoghue said the soldier would deny the single charge against him.
Mr O'Donoghue also told the court he may call an expert witness to give evidence on the lawfulness of service and current operations in Afghanistan.
L Cpl Glenton handed in a letter to the Prime Minister to explain why he believes politicians are wasting soldiers' lives in an unjustified war. He is the first British soldier to speak out publicly against the war in Afghanistan.
L/Cpl Joe Glenton's letter to the PM
Dear Mr Brown,
I am writing to you as a serving soldier in the British Army to express my views and concerns on the current conflict in Afghanistan.
It is my primary concern that the courage and tenacity of my fellow soldiers has become a tool of American foreign policy.
I believe this unethical short-changing of such proud men and women has caused immeasurable suffering not only to families of British service personnel who have been killed and injured, but also to the noble people of Afghanistan.
I have seen qualities in the Afghan people which have also been for so long apparent and admired in the British soldier. Qualities of robustness, humour, utter determination and unwillingness to take a step backwards.
However, it is these qualities, on both sides, which I fear will continue to cause a state of attrition. These will only lead to more heartbreak within both our societies.
I am not a general nor am I a politician and I cannot claim any mastery of strategy. However, I am a soldier who has served in Afghanistan, which has given me some small insight.
I believe that when British military personnel submit themselves to the service of the nation and put their bodies into harm's way, the government that sends them into battle is obliged to ensure that the cause is just and right, i.e. for the protection of life and liberty.
The war in Afghanistan is not reducing the terrorist risk, far from improving Afghan lives it is bringing death and devastation to their country. Britain has no business there.
I do not believe that our cause in Afghanistan is just or right. I implore you, Sir, to bring our soldiers home."
Yours sincerely,
Joe Glenton
Lance/Corporal, Royal Logistics Corps.
L/Cpl Glenton has since joined the Stop The War Coalition and Chris Nineham from the STW Coalition said "There is no question there is a lot of dissatisfaction and discontent among the armed forces about Britain's involvement in Afghanistan and L/Cpl Glenton is the first serving soldier to express these views."
*Since the war in Afghanistan began eight years ago, 191 UK service personnel have died.
Sunday 26 July 2009
Deranged and Dangerous Doctor? or Just Angry!
An Iraqi doctor who has been suspended for four years following a vicious road rage attack on a pregnant woman can return to work!
Dr May Arnaot, 52, rammed nurse Sarah Chambers with her 4x4 at a petrol station in Erith. Arnaot pinned Ms Chambers, 25, against a no entry sign when asked for her insurance details following a road rage incident, Arnaot then yelled "racist" abuse at the nursery nurse, saying: "You're Tony Blair's b**ch, all you white people are the same - you all vote for Tony Blair." (HaHa! Got that wrong didnt ya!!)
Ms Chambers was hospitalised by the incident amid fears that she would miscarry and Dr Arnaot later received a suspended prison term. Thankfully Ms Chambers later gave birth to a healthy baby boy.
In 2005, Arnaot was given a suspended sentence for calling a rail worker a 'black b*****d' and spitting in his face.
The Baghdad-born doctor had angrily interrupted GMC panel chairman Professor Kevin Dalton at her a fitness to practise hearing last week but despite her outburst, she can now return to work under supervision after the GMC ruled last Wednesday that this might be 'constructive'!!
But Professor Dalton told her: "The panel is concerned that you have shown limited insight into the seriousness of your convictions and into your professional misconduct, and that issues relating to your anger management are still apparent."
Arnaot told the hearing: "All convictions were related to issues of anger and being angry. These matters are entirely anger management matters or it was combined with gynaecology health issues which have now with time been surpassed."
Arnaot claimed menopausal disorder was responsible for her rages and has said she will refuse to work with British patients when she returns to work.
Will somebody please tell me how this racist menopausal mad woman is allowed to continue to work in Britain? when she "refuses to work with British patients"
Just what gos on in the minds of the GMC ?
Dr May Arnaot, 52, rammed nurse Sarah Chambers with her 4x4 at a petrol station in Erith. Arnaot pinned Ms Chambers, 25, against a no entry sign when asked for her insurance details following a road rage incident, Arnaot then yelled "racist" abuse at the nursery nurse, saying: "You're Tony Blair's b**ch, all you white people are the same - you all vote for Tony Blair." (HaHa! Got that wrong didnt ya!!)
Ms Chambers was hospitalised by the incident amid fears that she would miscarry and Dr Arnaot later received a suspended prison term. Thankfully Ms Chambers later gave birth to a healthy baby boy.
In 2005, Arnaot was given a suspended sentence for calling a rail worker a 'black b*****d' and spitting in his face.
The Baghdad-born doctor had angrily interrupted GMC panel chairman Professor Kevin Dalton at her a fitness to practise hearing last week but despite her outburst, she can now return to work under supervision after the GMC ruled last Wednesday that this might be 'constructive'!!
But Professor Dalton told her: "The panel is concerned that you have shown limited insight into the seriousness of your convictions and into your professional misconduct, and that issues relating to your anger management are still apparent."
Arnaot told the hearing: "All convictions were related to issues of anger and being angry. These matters are entirely anger management matters or it was combined with gynaecology health issues which have now with time been surpassed."
Arnaot claimed menopausal disorder was responsible for her rages and has said she will refuse to work with British patients when she returns to work.
Will somebody please tell me how this racist menopausal mad woman is allowed to continue to work in Britain? when she "refuses to work with British patients"
Just what gos on in the minds of the GMC ?
Friday 24 July 2009
This is England!
I found this song some time ago on You Tube and I want to share the Lyrics with you.
If you find the words offensive then I say "Tough" and I ask you a question "Why are you living in my country?"
This is England.
Lyrics (Marsden/Hudson)
This a land of Kings & Queens
Cobbled streets, rivers & streams
This is the land of Hope & Glory
This is a land of beautiful places
Fields of green & open spaces
This is the land of Hope & Glory
This is England.... This is England
Wreaths of poppy’s on Armistice Day
What a price they had to pay
They spilled their blood on Flanders Field in the morning
Our Grandfathers fought in World war two
They gave their lives for me and you
All for the land of Hope & Glory
This is England…. This is England
War torn streets & riot shields
Petrol bombs & how do you feel
Look in your heart and you will find the answer
Take this as a wake up call
See the writing on the wall
Is this the land you want to leave to your children
They bleed the state and ask for more
It’s time Britannia closed the door
They crossed these shores for thirty pieces of silver
They took the passport, they took the pound
And now they’ve bombed the underground
They’ll never destroy the land of Hope & Glory
This is England……This is England
This is England......This is England
The Land that gave us Shakespeare & Keats
Churchill , Lennon & the Mersey Beat
How can we let their memory fade to the distance
No turning back, No place for fear
It’s been this way for a thousand years
Seek the truth, Don’t let them silence your feelings
You breathe the land and feel the pain
When the cross of St.George runs through your veins
The time has come to dry the tears of Britannia
Its never too late to save this land How can we make them understand
This is the land of Hope & Glory
This is England......This is England
This is England.......This is England.
It can be viewed here
Wednesday 8 July 2009
My Space
So much has happened since my last blog the election of 2 British National Party MEP's being the greatest news in my top ten! Of course the best news was the birth of my beautiful grandaughter
I'm not writing about all that has happened because I will be here for a very long time, but I do want to write my thoughts about to one or two things that really get my goat!
I find it rather amusing when reading 'news' stories in the msm or news websites (not that I buy or watch the trash) that they have a quite disgusting attitude and that they can print what lies they like about the British National Party, their members or supporters and then refuse to publish truthful or positive comments towards the British National Party or disable comments completely, and I think it's very distasteful and immoral when they choose to black out important news that we have a right to know.
So, as this is My Blog, My Space and My part of the www I am choosing to use this as a place where I can write My thoughts and My opinions without the fear of censorship
I'm not writing about all that has happened because I will be here for a very long time, but I do want to write my thoughts about to one or two things that really get my goat!
I find it rather amusing when reading 'news' stories in the msm or news websites (not that I buy or watch the trash) that they have a quite disgusting attitude and that they can print what lies they like about the British National Party, their members or supporters and then refuse to publish truthful or positive comments towards the British National Party or disable comments completely, and I think it's very distasteful and immoral when they choose to black out important news that we have a right to know.
So, as this is My Blog, My Space and My part of the www I am choosing to use this as a place where I can write My thoughts and My opinions without the fear of censorship
Friday 17 April 2009
A dear friend of mine informed me that I havent updated my blog for over a month and I am 'slacking!' So with a prick of my conscience I need to rectify my 'slacking'
My daughter has been quite poorly since the beginning of this month, what started off with a trip to the dentist, antibiotics and persistant sickness, still feeling sick she did a pregnancy test which showed a positive result, a trip to our local hospital and an early scan confirmed she is indeed nearly 7 weeks pregnant, so now she can look forward to another 7 months of sickness the poor love.
My middle daughter is well into her pregnancy, I accompanied her to the other local hospital for her 36 week check-up and Im relieved to say all is well.
While waiting for what seemed like half the day at the hospitals a cup of tea was called for so I thought a walk to the nearest WVS for a nice cuppa would suffice. To my extreme dissapointment I discovered the WVS have been thrown out and taken over by the 'Costa' chain of coffee houses, at £1.95 for a cup of spew churned out of a machine and served in a paper cup which Costa purport to be a cup of tea, in my opinion they can stick it where the sun doesnt shine! How greedy are they to make money at the expense of someone needing to visit a hospital ? How obscene that they take advantage of our NHS ? and what about the dear pensioners who are more likely to want a cup of tea? £1.95 is nothing but daylight robbery. Costa Coffee is certainly on my boycott list
So I ask............. Will Mcdonalds be the next chain ? or maybe Burger King? KFC? or Dominos Pizza?
My daughter has been quite poorly since the beginning of this month, what started off with a trip to the dentist, antibiotics and persistant sickness, still feeling sick she did a pregnancy test which showed a positive result, a trip to our local hospital and an early scan confirmed she is indeed nearly 7 weeks pregnant, so now she can look forward to another 7 months of sickness the poor love.
My middle daughter is well into her pregnancy, I accompanied her to the other local hospital for her 36 week check-up and Im relieved to say all is well.
While waiting for what seemed like half the day at the hospitals a cup of tea was called for so I thought a walk to the nearest WVS for a nice cuppa would suffice. To my extreme dissapointment I discovered the WVS have been thrown out and taken over by the 'Costa' chain of coffee houses, at £1.95 for a cup of spew churned out of a machine and served in a paper cup which Costa purport to be a cup of tea, in my opinion they can stick it where the sun doesnt shine! How greedy are they to make money at the expense of someone needing to visit a hospital ? How obscene that they take advantage of our NHS ? and what about the dear pensioners who are more likely to want a cup of tea? £1.95 is nothing but daylight robbery. Costa Coffee is certainly on my boycott list
So I ask............. Will Mcdonalds be the next chain ? or maybe Burger King? KFC? or Dominos Pizza?
Friday 13 March 2009
Domestic Violence The Hidden Truth
Theres has been quite a bit about Domestic Violence in the news this week.
Mori have completed a poll that found many Britons have an 'unacceptable' attitude to domestic violence, with one in five saying a woman deserves to be hit for wearing revealing clothes in public. I suspect many of those polled were Muslim The poll also revealed that almost one in seven said women who nagged their husbands deserved to be hit. One in ten said it was a woman's fault that she was sexually or violently assaulted if she flirted beforehand. More than a third said female rape victims who were drunk were at least partially responsible for the attack, the survey found.
Mori failed to say if the poll was men, women or both participating My thoughts would be the latter.
In response to the poll Jackboots Smith held a breakfast in Westminster with women's groups to outline plans for police to keep detailed records of men with a history of abuse, women would then be informed if they start a relationship with such a man!
Where does that woman get off?
Most women dont inform the police anyway so how are they to keep a register? and what of the men that are abused? shouldnt men also be informed before starting a relationship with a pre menstral or a post menopausal nut case?
Men have the raw deal once again. Unfortunately there is still a belief among some that men simply cannot be victims of domestic violence. This makes it even more difficult for male victims to confide in anyone about what is happening which can lead to the same depression, despair, low self esteem, feelings of hopelessness and isolation that women feel.
6.4% of men in England and Wales between the ages of 20 and 24 say they were victims of abuse in 2008
5.4% of women in the same age group reported being victims of domestic violence
Two in 10 men have experienced domestic abuse since the age of 16
Three in 10 women have experienced the same abuse
One in six men will be abused by their partner in their lifetime
There are 500 refuges for female victims of DV and only 12 for men....... I ask why ?
Please take a look at Mankind
Mori have completed a poll that found many Britons have an 'unacceptable' attitude to domestic violence, with one in five saying a woman deserves to be hit for wearing revealing clothes in public. I suspect many of those polled were Muslim The poll also revealed that almost one in seven said women who nagged their husbands deserved to be hit. One in ten said it was a woman's fault that she was sexually or violently assaulted if she flirted beforehand. More than a third said female rape victims who were drunk were at least partially responsible for the attack, the survey found.
Mori failed to say if the poll was men, women or both participating My thoughts would be the latter.
In response to the poll Jackboots Smith held a breakfast in Westminster with women's groups to outline plans for police to keep detailed records of men with a history of abuse, women would then be informed if they start a relationship with such a man!
Where does that woman get off?
Most women dont inform the police anyway so how are they to keep a register? and what of the men that are abused? shouldnt men also be informed before starting a relationship with a pre menstral or a post menopausal nut case?
Men have the raw deal once again. Unfortunately there is still a belief among some that men simply cannot be victims of domestic violence. This makes it even more difficult for male victims to confide in anyone about what is happening which can lead to the same depression, despair, low self esteem, feelings of hopelessness and isolation that women feel.
6.4% of men in England and Wales between the ages of 20 and 24 say they were victims of abuse in 2008
5.4% of women in the same age group reported being victims of domestic violence
Two in 10 men have experienced domestic abuse since the age of 16
Three in 10 women have experienced the same abuse
One in six men will be abused by their partner in their lifetime
There are 500 refuges for female victims of DV and only 12 for men....... I ask why ?
Please take a look at Mankind
Thursday 12 March 2009
I'm Back :-)
When I set up this Blog I didn't really know how I was going to make the best use of 'my space' I wanted a place where I could write my thoughts and opinions. These last few weeks have been particularly hard for me in many ways and I have been too angry to write anything that would make sense. My mummy taught me "If you cant say anything nice, don't say anything at all" so I have chosen not to say anything.
I always had the most utmost respect for my mummy and I'm sure if she was alive today she would know that although sometimes when things are said they may sound 'not nice' the truth is, the truth hurts sometimes.
So getting back to my Blog (my space) I have decided I will use 'my space' to write my thoughts and opinions whether I please or offend, I do believe that bottling things is a bad thing one thing for sure is that in 'my space' it will always be the truth.
I always had the most utmost respect for my mummy and I'm sure if she was alive today she would know that although sometimes when things are said they may sound 'not nice' the truth is, the truth hurts sometimes.
So getting back to my Blog (my space) I have decided I will use 'my space' to write my thoughts and opinions whether I please or offend, I do believe that bottling things is a bad thing one thing for sure is that in 'my space' it will always be the truth.
Friday 13 February 2009
Apologies, Keith Vaz and Freedom of Speech
First of all please accept my apologies for not returning yesterday, I was busy trawling the Internet for the truth and we all know the truth hurts at times.
As many of you will now know Geert Wilders was banned from our country yesterday and I was busy finding new articles to find out what happened. There is no way that I will write any article that I can't backup with the truth or make false statements that deceive people.
I found some interesting articles and news stories about Labour MP for Leicester East Keith Vaz. This pompous, self-righteous, racist will jump on any bandwagon for a little self-indulgence. His appearance on last nights BBC's Newsnight might teach him a lesson that if you are going to appear on national television to join a discussion about why the banning of Geert Wilders was justified, be sure you have the answers to obvious questions, how can anybody debate about something they know nothing about? Keith Vaz made a total fool of himself and was truly 'owned' by Kirsty Wark and Maajid Nawaz of the Quilliam Foundation. If you click on the link and fast forward to 6:50 to the start of the discussion Keith Vaz admits "We don't have absolute freedom of speech in the United Kingdom"
................. So now you know!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00hm5dt/Newsnight_12_02_2009/
As many of you will now know Geert Wilders was banned from our country yesterday and I was busy finding new articles to find out what happened. There is no way that I will write any article that I can't backup with the truth or make false statements that deceive people.
I found some interesting articles and news stories about Labour MP for Leicester East Keith Vaz. This pompous, self-righteous, racist will jump on any bandwagon for a little self-indulgence. His appearance on last nights BBC's Newsnight might teach him a lesson that if you are going to appear on national television to join a discussion about why the banning of Geert Wilders was justified, be sure you have the answers to obvious questions, how can anybody debate about something they know nothing about? Keith Vaz made a total fool of himself and was truly 'owned' by Kirsty Wark and Maajid Nawaz of the Quilliam Foundation. If you click on the link and fast forward to 6:50 to the start of the discussion Keith Vaz admits "We don't have absolute freedom of speech in the United Kingdom"
................. So now you know!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00hm5dt/Newsnight_12_02_2009/
Wednesday 11 February 2009
Geert Wilders and Fitna
Following on from my last blog it appears that Mr. Wilders will be arrested if he comes to England. I do believe this government should hang their heads in shame for this blatant dictatorship of our rights. We all have the right know the truth of what is happening in our country. The conservatives and libdems are keeping rather quiet about this, which in my view shows their full support for the labour government and they are all clearly one party.
For those of you reading this, may I suggest you take a look at the film (its only about 17 minutes long) and judge for yourselves. Does Mr. Wilders really deserve to be charged with 'discrimination and hate speech' ??
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3369102968312745410
I'll be back later
* The Truth Will Prevail
For those of you reading this, may I suggest you take a look at the film (its only about 17 minutes long) and judge for yourselves. Does Mr. Wilders really deserve to be charged with 'discrimination and hate speech' ??
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3369102968312745410
I'll be back later
* The Truth Will Prevail
Tuesday 10 February 2009
Will Geert Wilders Be Arrested at Heathrow?
It never ceases to amaze me how hypocritical some people are especially our own government (Not my choice I hasten to add ..... I never voted for them)
This morning Lord Malcolm Pearson, a member of the House of Lords announced that he has invited Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch Parliament, to show the movie Fitna in a committee room of the House of Lords next Thursday.
Mr. Wilders has been asked to address a private meeting with members of the House of Lords to explain to Peers and MPs why he made the film Fitna and to engage in an open and frank discussion with them.
Today Mr. Wilders received a letter from the British Embassy in The Hague saying that he is a "persona non grata" in the United Kingdom. On the orders of the Home Secretary Cheating the Taxpayer Jaqui Smith, The ambassador told Mr. Wilders that he is a threat to public security and public harmony because of the controversy created by Fitna.
Mr.Wilders intends to come to London anyway. "Let them arrest me in Heathrow," he says.
If Mr. Wilders is denied entry to the UK, it will be the first time that Britain refuses entry to an elected politician from another member state of the European Union.
The Dutch government has protested to the British government over the unprecedented barring of an EU parliamentarian by another EU country.
The meeting of Mr. Wilders and members of the British Parliament had originally been planned for 29 January but was cancelled when Lord Ahmed a Muslim member of the House of Lords (Labour) had threatened to mobilize 10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr. Wilders from entering the House of Lords.
Lord Ahmed boasted in the Pakistani press that the cancellation of Mr.Wilders' visit was "a victory for the Muslim community."
Lord Pearson could not bear the thought that the "mother of all parliaments" might be perceived as giving in to threats so he decided to reinvite Mr.Wilders.
In the press release issued this morning, Lord Pearson writes:
Depite threats of demonstration from a British Peer and Muslim community leaders, the meeting will go ahead. Wilders' film Fitna features verses from the Quran alongside images of the terrorist attacks in the US on 11 September 2001, Madrid in March 2004 and London in July 2005. The film equates Islam's holy text with violence and ends with a call to Muslims to remove 'hate preaching' verses from the Quran.
Mr. Wilders currently faces prosecution in Holland for incitement to hatred and discrimination. The charges are based on his film Fitna and comments he made in the Dutch press last year in which he argued that as Mein Kampf has been banned in Holland, the Quran should similarly be banned under Dutch incitement laws.
Mr.Wilders called the Dutch Court of Appeal's decision to prosecute an attack on freedom of expression. "Participation in the public debate has become a dangerous activity. If you give your opinion, you risk being prosecuted," he said.
It seems that in England the public debate has already been gagged to the extent that a democratically elected politician from another EU country is not allowed to come to Britain to address a private meeting with British politicians in the Palace of Westminster.
Below is a copy of the letter that was sent on the orders of Jackboot ummmm Jaqui Smith the Secretary of State for the Home Department, commonly known as the "HOME SECRETARY" !!
Dear Mr Wilders
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Secretary of State is of the view that your presence in the UK would pose a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society.The Secretary of State is satisfied that your statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in your film Fitna and elsewhere, would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK. You are advised that should you travel to the UK and seek admission an Immigration Officer will take into account the Secretary of State's view.If, in accordance with regulation 21 of the immigration (European EconomicArea) Regulations 2006, the Immigration Officer is statisfied that your exclusion is justified on grounds of public policy and/or public security,you will be refused admission to the UK under regulation 19. You would have a right of appeal against any refusal of admission, exercisable from outside the UK.
Yours sincerely,Irving N. Jones On behalf of Secretary of State for the Home Department
This morning Lord Malcolm Pearson, a member of the House of Lords announced that he has invited Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch Parliament, to show the movie Fitna in a committee room of the House of Lords next Thursday.
Mr. Wilders has been asked to address a private meeting with members of the House of Lords to explain to Peers and MPs why he made the film Fitna and to engage in an open and frank discussion with them.
Today Mr. Wilders received a letter from the British Embassy in The Hague saying that he is a "persona non grata" in the United Kingdom. On the orders of the Home Secretary Cheating the Taxpayer Jaqui Smith, The ambassador told Mr. Wilders that he is a threat to public security and public harmony because of the controversy created by Fitna.
Mr.Wilders intends to come to London anyway. "Let them arrest me in Heathrow," he says.
If Mr. Wilders is denied entry to the UK, it will be the first time that Britain refuses entry to an elected politician from another member state of the European Union.
The Dutch government has protested to the British government over the unprecedented barring of an EU parliamentarian by another EU country.
The meeting of Mr. Wilders and members of the British Parliament had originally been planned for 29 January but was cancelled when Lord Ahmed a Muslim member of the House of Lords (Labour) had threatened to mobilize 10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr. Wilders from entering the House of Lords.
Lord Ahmed boasted in the Pakistani press that the cancellation of Mr.Wilders' visit was "a victory for the Muslim community."
Lord Pearson could not bear the thought that the "mother of all parliaments" might be perceived as giving in to threats so he decided to reinvite Mr.Wilders.
In the press release issued this morning, Lord Pearson writes:
Depite threats of demonstration from a British Peer and Muslim community leaders, the meeting will go ahead. Wilders' film Fitna features verses from the Quran alongside images of the terrorist attacks in the US on 11 September 2001, Madrid in March 2004 and London in July 2005. The film equates Islam's holy text with violence and ends with a call to Muslims to remove 'hate preaching' verses from the Quran.
Mr. Wilders currently faces prosecution in Holland for incitement to hatred and discrimination. The charges are based on his film Fitna and comments he made in the Dutch press last year in which he argued that as Mein Kampf has been banned in Holland, the Quran should similarly be banned under Dutch incitement laws.
Mr.Wilders called the Dutch Court of Appeal's decision to prosecute an attack on freedom of expression. "Participation in the public debate has become a dangerous activity. If you give your opinion, you risk being prosecuted," he said.
It seems that in England the public debate has already been gagged to the extent that a democratically elected politician from another EU country is not allowed to come to Britain to address a private meeting with British politicians in the Palace of Westminster.
Below is a copy of the letter that was sent on the orders of Jackboot ummmm Jaqui Smith the Secretary of State for the Home Department, commonly known as the "HOME SECRETARY" !!
Dear Mr Wilders
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Secretary of State is of the view that your presence in the UK would pose a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society.The Secretary of State is satisfied that your statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in your film Fitna and elsewhere, would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK. You are advised that should you travel to the UK and seek admission an Immigration Officer will take into account the Secretary of State's view.If, in accordance with regulation 21 of the immigration (European EconomicArea) Regulations 2006, the Immigration Officer is statisfied that your exclusion is justified on grounds of public policy and/or public security,you will be refused admission to the UK under regulation 19. You would have a right of appeal against any refusal of admission, exercisable from outside the UK.
Yours sincerely,Irving N. Jones On behalf of Secretary of State for the Home Department
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
