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!
Tuesday, 17 November 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
