Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Merry Christmas...
Merry Christmas, folks. To those who won't be working but don't celebrate, enjoy your break. Here's a little ditty that was in the charts around Christmas 1987 - and no, it ain't The Fairy Tale Of New York!
Monday, December 22, 2008
Campaign For An English Parliament: The Union Works Against England's Sovereignty And Interests As The Scots Nibble Away At The Border
‘The demand now being made by the Scots to regulate fishing rights in the English section of the River Esk in the county of Cumbria is an invasion of England’s sovereignty’, Mrs Scilla Cullen, Chairman of the Campaign for an English Parliament, has stated. ‘The demand is being made by Mr David Mundell, MP for Dumfrieshire, Clydesdale and Tweedsdale. He is the only Conservative MP in Scotland. Very possibly, come the next general election, he will have a place in history as the very last Conservative Party MP in Scotland. By reason of the 1998 Devolution legislation his demand is unconstitutional.’
‘When the Scotland Act was passed and a Scottish Parliament established in 1998, the Union Government had Scots as Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary and Lord Chancellor and had members of the Scottish Constitutional Convention involved in drafting the actual devolution legislation. A direct constitutional consequence of the Union Parliament giving Home Rule to Scotland in 1998 in the form of a Scottish Parliament was the declaration of the internal sovereignty of Scotland. Scotland now has complete and independent control of its internal affairs. However, the very obvious constitutional implication is of course that its sovereignty is limited to its borders. The constitutional implication of the Devolution legislation is the internal sovereignty of England.
‘The Scots who drove that legislation through the Union Parliament in 1998 had only the advantage of Scotland on their minds. There is now universal acceptance that the legislation, though historic and radical, was rushed and ill-thought-out. Included in it were the regulations of fishing rights and responsibilities on rivers that crossed the Scotland/England border. Unconstitutionally it handed responsibility for the regulation of fishing rights in the River Tweed and all its tributary rivers to the Scottish Parliament, even tributaries like the River Till in Northumberland which flows entirely in England. That constitutes an invasion of English sovereignty.
‘However,the legislation correctly gave to the English Environment Agency responsibility for the English section of the River Esk which flows into the Solway Firth. Now Mr David Mundell, who is also, quite inevitably, Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, is demanding that the control of fishing in the English section is taken from the English Agency and given to the Scottish Parliament To make this concession would be an attack upon England’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. This government has already done this by conceding to Scottish demands to extend their control of the Solway Firth into English waters and by placing the whole of the River Till under Scottish control.
‘It now remains to be seen what response England’s Environment Agency and the Union Government give to Mr Mundell’s demand. The Chairman of the Environment Agency is Lord Chris Smith who is a Scot. However, he has lived all his political life in England and as an MP he represented an English constituency in Islington in London. The Union government however has a Scottish Prime Minister, Mr Gordon Brown, who in March 1989 made the pledge, which is called the Scottish Claim of Right, that ‘in every deliberation and action the interests of the Scottish people will be paramount’.
Contacts
Michael Knowles CEP Media Unit Tel: 01260 271139 email: michael.knowles@tiscali.co.uk
Scilla Cullen Chairman. CEP. Tel: 01438 833155. email: scilla.cullen@thecep.org.uk
‘When the Scotland Act was passed and a Scottish Parliament established in 1998, the Union Government had Scots as Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary and Lord Chancellor and had members of the Scottish Constitutional Convention involved in drafting the actual devolution legislation. A direct constitutional consequence of the Union Parliament giving Home Rule to Scotland in 1998 in the form of a Scottish Parliament was the declaration of the internal sovereignty of Scotland. Scotland now has complete and independent control of its internal affairs. However, the very obvious constitutional implication is of course that its sovereignty is limited to its borders. The constitutional implication of the Devolution legislation is the internal sovereignty of England.
‘The Scots who drove that legislation through the Union Parliament in 1998 had only the advantage of Scotland on their minds. There is now universal acceptance that the legislation, though historic and radical, was rushed and ill-thought-out. Included in it were the regulations of fishing rights and responsibilities on rivers that crossed the Scotland/England border. Unconstitutionally it handed responsibility for the regulation of fishing rights in the River Tweed and all its tributary rivers to the Scottish Parliament, even tributaries like the River Till in Northumberland which flows entirely in England. That constitutes an invasion of English sovereignty.
‘However,the legislation correctly gave to the English Environment Agency responsibility for the English section of the River Esk which flows into the Solway Firth. Now Mr David Mundell, who is also, quite inevitably, Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, is demanding that the control of fishing in the English section is taken from the English Agency and given to the Scottish Parliament To make this concession would be an attack upon England’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. This government has already done this by conceding to Scottish demands to extend their control of the Solway Firth into English waters and by placing the whole of the River Till under Scottish control.
‘It now remains to be seen what response England’s Environment Agency and the Union Government give to Mr Mundell’s demand. The Chairman of the Environment Agency is Lord Chris Smith who is a Scot. However, he has lived all his political life in England and as an MP he represented an English constituency in Islington in London. The Union government however has a Scottish Prime Minister, Mr Gordon Brown, who in March 1989 made the pledge, which is called the Scottish Claim of Right, that ‘in every deliberation and action the interests of the Scottish people will be paramount’.
Contacts
Michael Knowles CEP Media Unit Tel: 01260 271139 email: michael.knowles@tiscali.co.uk
Scilla Cullen Chairman. CEP. Tel: 01438 833155. email: scilla.cullen@thecep.org.uk
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Church Of England Out, Halal Meat In
Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. The smirk says it all.Well, it looks like New Labour is about to bring an end to the centuries old link between the Church of England and the State. Smirking Welshman Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is, of course, no fan of such an English institution and has been working from within to weaken it for years. Another traditional English institution moved off-stage. Mr Williams says: it would be “by no means the end of the world if the Establishment disappears”. And he's the Archbishop of Canterbury! Read more here.
There are of course, complex issues - more than I have time to go into here - but I cannot help feeling uneasy at this move, although I am not myself religious.
I suppose, thinking back to the Christian assemblies and teachings I had at school, I did and do derive some stability from them. And I was not uninfluenced by Christian teachings about how to treat my fellow ... er... person, etc.
Nowadays it's as though Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, etc, are all to be respected and recognised as such, whilst the traditional religion of England, Christianity, is bored down into almost nothingness.
But New Labour, of course, is committed to the destruction of England, whilst wittering on about multiculturalism, etc, and stating that one religion should not take precedent over another.
Is that why some state schools are removing pork from their menus and serving Halal meat, making the change it seems without consulting the parents?
I have nothing against Muslims, the Muslims I know are perfectly nice people.
But I do have a difficulty with State institutions like schools imposing what I and many others regard as inhumanely killed meat on our schoolchildren for the sole benefit of a minority religion.
Wonko reveals that Sikh parents are also unhappy - read it here.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
The Lunatics Are Taking Over The Asylum...
Reading through various blogs and web sites today I was struck once more by just how barmy and utterly sick things are today. Plaid Cymru's Adam Price has been giving his views as Wales Online goes into overdrive, with an article beginning: "huge spending cuts imposed by the UK Government on the Welsh Assembly will seriously damage public services in Wales, it was claimed last night."
But Wales is heavily subsidised by England anyway. And has much higher spending via the Barnett Formula.
And never a murmur or whimper of concern do the Welsh make about the situation in England, with Gordon Brown swiping £2bn from the English NHS budget, the budget then being £2bn underspent and the continuance of huge cutbacks in health and social care by the corporate Primary Care Trusts and the deceitful Supporting People organisation, whilst nursing and care staff are forced to sign secrecy clauses and the public is kept in ignorance.
UNITED Kingdom? What UNITED Kingdom? Where is Welsh concern for its fellow United Kingdomers?
“We already believe that Wales is seriously under-funded, and these cuts will make things even worse." says Mr Price.
So, you want more money from England do you, Mr Price? And then we'll get Rhodri Morgan supplying more luxuries to all and sundry and making further comments like: "We have never actually managed to make the English jealous before... but we have done it!" - as he did about prescription charges, dropped in Wales with the aid of English money via the Barnett Formula (more here).
Just what we need.
Says Mr Price: “Wales is a special case, we are a socially-disadvantaged nation, and it doesn’t seem fair that we should shoulder the same level of cuts seen across the UK.”
Wales disadvantaged? With free prescriptions and loads of other goodies denied the great unwashed in England? Bollocks, Mr Price. And Wales should not be subjected to the "same level of cuts seen across the UK"? Do you mean ENGLAND?
In this instance, the UK exists for the benefit of the Welsh elite. And the Welsh elite have no concern for other "UK" citizens.
Meanwhile, up in Scotland, we get the same situation, with Scots looking to take control of another stretch of English river (details here).
Exactly the same thing. Scotland unfairly takes from England, but there is to be no give and take.
Then we have Gordon Brown writing England out of existence yet again as the prospect of the dreaded "Team GB" football team raises its ugly head. From the BBC:
The challenge, he [Brown] said, was getting a UK team to compete in 2012 without compromising the independence of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish football associations.
Independence from what? The UK? And what about English fans - the majority of whom are just as against Team GB?
The whole UK project is now being run expressly for the so-called "Celtic" elite - and the national bodies in Scotland and Wales appear to be staffed by one-eyed, selfish gits with no idea of what being "United" means. Some, however, have every notion of what it is like to be part of an unhealthy, smug and bigoted clique. Remember SNP member Donald Anderson, so concerned that the odious BNP had members in his own and his fellow "Celtic" nations?
Dear folks,
The entire membership of the BNP has been leaked. While this is illegal (it couldn’t happen to nicer people), it gives us the opportunity to vet our own membership from this list.
There are a large number of BNP members listed in Scotland , Wales , Cornwall and the north of Ireland . I don’t think we want any of them near any of the organisations we are in…
But do it quickly, this may not be up long.
The only reason Mr Anderson could possibly have been appealing to the county of Cornwall, and Northern Ireland and Wales, whilst excluding England, was the exclusive, white tribe Celtic myth. Scotland has no other links with these other areas.
So there you have it.
When I first heard the Fun Boy Three singing "The Lunatics Have Taken Over The Asylum" back in the early '80s, I nodded sagely - convinced that Thatcher, Reagan and their cohorts were mad, bad and in fact the embodiment of evil.
But nowadays the song (minus the cowboy comment!) seems far more appropriate than way back then....
I see a clinic full of cynics
Who want to twist the peoples' wrist
They're watching every move we make
We're all included on the list
The lunatics have taken over the asylum
The lunatics have taken over the asylum
No nuclear the cowboy told us
And who am i to disagree
'Cos when the madman flips the switch
The nuclear will go for me
The lunatics have taken over the asylum
The lunatics have taken over the asylum
I've seen the faces of starvation
But i just can not see the points
'Cos there's so much food here today
That no one wants to take away
The lunatics have taken over the asylum
The lunatics have taken over the asylum
The lunatics have taken over the asylum - take away my right to choose
The lunatics have taken over the asylum - take away my point of view
The lunatics have taken over the asylum
The lunatics have taken over the asylum - take away my dignity,
Take these things away from me
The lunatics have taken over the asylum
The lunatics have taken over the asylum - take away my family,
Take away the right to speak...
Big hat-tips to Toque, The CEP News Blog, and The Witanagemot Club.
But Wales is heavily subsidised by England anyway. And has much higher spending via the Barnett Formula.
And never a murmur or whimper of concern do the Welsh make about the situation in England, with Gordon Brown swiping £2bn from the English NHS budget, the budget then being £2bn underspent and the continuance of huge cutbacks in health and social care by the corporate Primary Care Trusts and the deceitful Supporting People organisation, whilst nursing and care staff are forced to sign secrecy clauses and the public is kept in ignorance.
UNITED Kingdom? What UNITED Kingdom? Where is Welsh concern for its fellow United Kingdomers?
“We already believe that Wales is seriously under-funded, and these cuts will make things even worse." says Mr Price.
So, you want more money from England do you, Mr Price? And then we'll get Rhodri Morgan supplying more luxuries to all and sundry and making further comments like: "We have never actually managed to make the English jealous before... but we have done it!" - as he did about prescription charges, dropped in Wales with the aid of English money via the Barnett Formula (more here).
Just what we need.
Says Mr Price: “Wales is a special case, we are a socially-disadvantaged nation, and it doesn’t seem fair that we should shoulder the same level of cuts seen across the UK.”
Wales disadvantaged? With free prescriptions and loads of other goodies denied the great unwashed in England? Bollocks, Mr Price. And Wales should not be subjected to the "same level of cuts seen across the UK"? Do you mean ENGLAND?
In this instance, the UK exists for the benefit of the Welsh elite. And the Welsh elite have no concern for other "UK" citizens.
Meanwhile, up in Scotland, we get the same situation, with Scots looking to take control of another stretch of English river (details here).
Exactly the same thing. Scotland unfairly takes from England, but there is to be no give and take.
Then we have Gordon Brown writing England out of existence yet again as the prospect of the dreaded "Team GB" football team raises its ugly head. From the BBC:
The challenge, he [Brown] said, was getting a UK team to compete in 2012 without compromising the independence of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish football associations.
Independence from what? The UK? And what about English fans - the majority of whom are just as against Team GB?
The whole UK project is now being run expressly for the so-called "Celtic" elite - and the national bodies in Scotland and Wales appear to be staffed by one-eyed, selfish gits with no idea of what being "United" means. Some, however, have every notion of what it is like to be part of an unhealthy, smug and bigoted clique. Remember SNP member Donald Anderson, so concerned that the odious BNP had members in his own and his fellow "Celtic" nations?
Dear folks,
The entire membership of the BNP has been leaked. While this is illegal (it couldn’t happen to nicer people), it gives us the opportunity to vet our own membership from this list.
There are a large number of BNP members listed in Scotland , Wales , Cornwall and the north of Ireland . I don’t think we want any of them near any of the organisations we are in…
But do it quickly, this may not be up long.
The only reason Mr Anderson could possibly have been appealing to the county of Cornwall, and Northern Ireland and Wales, whilst excluding England, was the exclusive, white tribe Celtic myth. Scotland has no other links with these other areas.
So there you have it.
When I first heard the Fun Boy Three singing "The Lunatics Have Taken Over The Asylum" back in the early '80s, I nodded sagely - convinced that Thatcher, Reagan and their cohorts were mad, bad and in fact the embodiment of evil.
But nowadays the song (minus the cowboy comment!) seems far more appropriate than way back then....
I see a clinic full of cynics
Who want to twist the peoples' wrist
They're watching every move we make
We're all included on the list
The lunatics have taken over the asylum
The lunatics have taken over the asylum
No nuclear the cowboy told us
And who am i to disagree
'Cos when the madman flips the switch
The nuclear will go for me
The lunatics have taken over the asylum
The lunatics have taken over the asylum
I've seen the faces of starvation
But i just can not see the points
'Cos there's so much food here today
That no one wants to take away
The lunatics have taken over the asylum
The lunatics have taken over the asylum
The lunatics have taken over the asylum - take away my right to choose
The lunatics have taken over the asylum - take away my point of view
The lunatics have taken over the asylum
The lunatics have taken over the asylum - take away my dignity,
Take these things away from me
The lunatics have taken over the asylum
The lunatics have taken over the asylum - take away my family,
Take away the right to speak...
Big hat-tips to Toque, The CEP News Blog, and The Witanagemot Club.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Campaign For An English parliament Press Release: Will The Lords Committee Of Inquiry Into The Barnett Formula Be Fair To England?
The House of Lords has set up an Inquiry to look into all the issues surrounding the Barnett Formula. The Formula is a Treasury device set up in the Harold Wilson government under the direction of Joel Barnett by which extra expenditure is made to the populations of Scotland, N.I., and Wales in excess per head of what it makes to England. Wilson brought in the measure at the urging of Scottish Labour MPs who were very worried by the increasing popularity of the SNP. It was in effect a measure to secure support both for Labour and for the continuation of the Union. After 40 years of operation it is creating all sorts of problems, and that is why the Lords Inquiry has been set up.
‘The main problem about the Formula,’ Mrs Scilla Cullen Chairman of the Campaign for an English Parliament has stated in a message to the House of Lords, ‘is the injustice it is inflicting upon the people of England. We in England pay for it, to the tune of an extra £280 per English person per annum, while being denied its benefits. The disparity is gross. Each person in Scotland, N.I., and Wales receives £1500 more per year than people in England for such important areas of expenditure as education, social services and health care. Whatever was the situation in the 1960s, in the year 2008 there are areas of poverty and deprivation in England as great, possibly greater, than any in Scotland and Wales. That fact reveals the Formula’s basic flaw, that it allows increased expenditure based not on need but on nationality. The Scots, the Northern Irish, the Welsh gain, the English lose out. That contradicts the very basis on which the Union was founded.'
‘There is also a problem with the Lords Inquiry itself. It is essential that it is so constituted that it inspires confidence. But does it?’ Mrs Cullen asks. ‘There are 12 members on it. Two have credentials to represent Welsh interests; one being knighted for services to Wales and the other ex Chairman of the Commission on the Welsh Assembly. Three have credentials to represent Northern Irish interests being an ex NI Minister, a current NI spokesman and the ex First Minister of the NI Assembly. Four have credentials to represent Scottish interests; two being ex MPs for Scottish constituencies & former Secretaries of State for Scotland, one is a Scottish Peer and the fourth signed the Claim of Right for Scotland which included the intention of putting Scotland's interests first. That leaves three Peers, two are former British MPs for English constituencies and one a former British civil servant. Who then of these noble Lords has the express credentials to represent and protect the interests of the English taxpayer?
Contacts:
Scilla Cullen: tel: 01438 833133 email: scilla.cullen@thecep.org.uk
‘The main problem about the Formula,’ Mrs Scilla Cullen Chairman of the Campaign for an English Parliament has stated in a message to the House of Lords, ‘is the injustice it is inflicting upon the people of England. We in England pay for it, to the tune of an extra £280 per English person per annum, while being denied its benefits. The disparity is gross. Each person in Scotland, N.I., and Wales receives £1500 more per year than people in England for such important areas of expenditure as education, social services and health care. Whatever was the situation in the 1960s, in the year 2008 there are areas of poverty and deprivation in England as great, possibly greater, than any in Scotland and Wales. That fact reveals the Formula’s basic flaw, that it allows increased expenditure based not on need but on nationality. The Scots, the Northern Irish, the Welsh gain, the English lose out. That contradicts the very basis on which the Union was founded.'
‘There is also a problem with the Lords Inquiry itself. It is essential that it is so constituted that it inspires confidence. But does it?’ Mrs Cullen asks. ‘There are 12 members on it. Two have credentials to represent Welsh interests; one being knighted for services to Wales and the other ex Chairman of the Commission on the Welsh Assembly. Three have credentials to represent Northern Irish interests being an ex NI Minister, a current NI spokesman and the ex First Minister of the NI Assembly. Four have credentials to represent Scottish interests; two being ex MPs for Scottish constituencies & former Secretaries of State for Scotland, one is a Scottish Peer and the fourth signed the Claim of Right for Scotland which included the intention of putting Scotland's interests first. That leaves three Peers, two are former British MPs for English constituencies and one a former British civil servant. Who then of these noble Lords has the express credentials to represent and protect the interests of the English taxpayer?
Contacts:
Scilla Cullen: tel: 01438 833133 email: scilla.cullen@thecep.org.uk
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Jacqui Smith And The DNA Database - Hitler In Knickers
From the BBC, here is the judgement of the European Court Of Human Rights regarding the UK DNA Database keeping DNA and fingerprints of two men unconvicted of any crime:The court found that the police's actions were in violation of Article 8 - the right to respect for private and family life - of the European Convention on Human Rights.
It also said it was "struck by the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the power of retention in England and Wales".
The judges ruled the retention of the men's DNA "failed to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests," and that the UK government "had overstepped any acceptable margin of appreciation in this regard".
Sub-Fuhrer Jacqui Smith is determined that some innocent people will remain on the DNA Database no matter what. Say I accused you of punching me on the arm this year - and you ended up on the DNA Database because I said that, although there was no evidence and you were not charged or convicted with any crime. Well, you may or not stay on the Database - it all depends on what Dictator Jacqui and her pals decide.
In all these situations, where it's the word of one party against another, the DNA should be removed from Database. There is no excuse for keeping DNA on accusation and hearsay. Think of the dreadful possibilities that opens up - DNA being kept on accusation alone - and be careful not to make any enemies!
Jacqui Smith is stunningly arrogant, thick, and an out-and-out dictator. She really is sick. How on earth did she get to become Home Secretary?
Read more about Ms Smith and her Database here.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
1992 Is The 1980s When It's Negative News From That Year...
Sean Farrell, writing in The Independent:
HOUSE PRICES TUMBLE 1980s STYLE
NOVEMBER'S FALL IS THE BIGGEST DROP SINCE 1992
House prices are plunging at their fastest pace since the last recession as banks ration credit and nervous buyers stay away, Halifax reports.
Britain's biggest mortgage lender revealed a 2.6 per cent fall in prices for November, the biggest drop since 1992.
1992?! So, negative events of the 1990s we refer to it as "1980s" do we?
It would seem that whilst events perceived as being positive which occurred during the 1980s are transplanted (wherever possible) to the adjacent decades (read my theory here), negative events of the adjacent decades are transplanted into the 1980s wherever possible.
Don't be daft, Chris, it's a printing error! you may say. But there's too much of that kind of thing around for me to feel convinced.
A lot of people will skim that headline and come away thinking how awful the 1980s were. They may well have a point. But not for the reason The Independent has lodged in their minds.
Strange, lying, unreal, scapegoating, smug present day...
HOUSE PRICES TUMBLE 1980s STYLE
NOVEMBER'S FALL IS THE BIGGEST DROP SINCE 1992
House prices are plunging at their fastest pace since the last recession as banks ration credit and nervous buyers stay away, Halifax reports.
Britain's biggest mortgage lender revealed a 2.6 per cent fall in prices for November, the biggest drop since 1992.
1992?! So, negative events of the 1990s we refer to it as "1980s" do we?
It would seem that whilst events perceived as being positive which occurred during the 1980s are transplanted (wherever possible) to the adjacent decades (read my theory here), negative events of the adjacent decades are transplanted into the 1980s wherever possible.
Don't be daft, Chris, it's a printing error! you may say. But there's too much of that kind of thing around for me to feel convinced.
A lot of people will skim that headline and come away thinking how awful the 1980s were. They may well have a point. But not for the reason The Independent has lodged in their minds.
Strange, lying, unreal, scapegoating, smug present day...
Friday, December 12, 2008
From 1960s Invention To 1980s Glory - Happy Birthday To The Computer Mouse!
I've been reading up on the history of the computer mouse. And, like the vast majority of us who first encountered such a thing in the 1980s, I am amazed that its evolution stretches back to 1963! The following clipping from macworld.com provides fascinating information about the mouse's invention in the 1960s and development in the 70s and 80s:
1963: Bill English constructs first mouse prototype based on Douglas Engelbart’s sketches. This mouse uses two perpendicular wheels attached to analog potentiometers to track movement. The first mouse has only one button, but more are to come.
1968: Douglas Engelbart gives a 90-minute demonstration on December 9 at the Fall Joint Computer Conference in San Francisco. Among other things, it showcases a refined SRI mouse with three buttons.
1972: Jack Hawley and Bill English, inspired by Engelbart’s work, design a digital mouse for Xerox PARC. This new mouse does not require an analog-to-digital converter but instead sends digital positional information directly to the computer. It also contains the first mouse ball, a metal ball bearing pressed against two rollers to track movement. A similar tracking design (albeit with a few drastic modifications), would be used in most mice for the next 27 years.
1981: Xerox produces a commercial mouse for its expensive 8010 Information System (aka the “Star”). It features two buttons and ball tracking. However, the entire Star system sells for over $20,000, dooming it and its mouse to relative obscurity.
Under contract, design firm Hovey-Kelley creates the first inexpensive, mass-producible, reliable mouse for Apple. Its key components include optical encoder wheels, a free-moving tracking ball, and a precision injection-molded inner frame. This design breakthrough sets the stage for cheap, reliable consumer mice that everyone can afford.
Richard Lyon invents the first optical mouse at Xerox PARC. This mouse requires a special dot-covered pad for tracking.
Click on red text to read the the full story - it's fascinating! Happy Birthday, Mr Mouse!
1963: Bill English constructs first mouse prototype based on Douglas Engelbart’s sketches. This mouse uses two perpendicular wheels attached to analog potentiometers to track movement. The first mouse has only one button, but more are to come.
1968: Douglas Engelbart gives a 90-minute demonstration on December 9 at the Fall Joint Computer Conference in San Francisco. Among other things, it showcases a refined SRI mouse with three buttons.
1972: Jack Hawley and Bill English, inspired by Engelbart’s work, design a digital mouse for Xerox PARC. This new mouse does not require an analog-to-digital converter but instead sends digital positional information directly to the computer. It also contains the first mouse ball, a metal ball bearing pressed against two rollers to track movement. A similar tracking design (albeit with a few drastic modifications), would be used in most mice for the next 27 years.
1981: Xerox produces a commercial mouse for its expensive 8010 Information System (aka the “Star”). It features two buttons and ball tracking. However, the entire Star system sells for over $20,000, dooming it and its mouse to relative obscurity.
Under contract, design firm Hovey-Kelley creates the first inexpensive, mass-producible, reliable mouse for Apple. Its key components include optical encoder wheels, a free-moving tracking ball, and a precision injection-molded inner frame. This design breakthrough sets the stage for cheap, reliable consumer mice that everyone can afford.
Richard Lyon invents the first optical mouse at Xerox PARC. This mouse requires a special dot-covered pad for tracking.
Click on red text to read the the full story - it's fascinating! Happy Birthday, Mr Mouse!
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
BBC Radio 1 - The Surgery's Anti-English Special - One Last Thought...
Anna Bowman, executive producer of The Surgery:
It [The Surgery ] was never intended to discuss the complex political issues that you suggest should have been raised.
Aled, speaking on the programme: “Is it that the Regions of England are stronger than the country as a whole?”
The modern day "regions" are an artificial political construct of recent years which were roundly voted against by 78% of voters in the North East (the only area allowed a referendum) and still have no mandate from voters. All modern day regionalisation in England has, in effect, been done against the will of, and without any mandate from, the people of England. Yet, Aled suggests that the regions are an established fact, perhaps stronger than the country of England itself?
This would be good news from the viewpoint of:
1) A Little Walesian
2) The BBC - keen to see the abolition of England through Balkanisation.
So, complex political issues (and dictated regionalisation is a little complex, isn't it - much as the BBC toadies to the Government and follows its dictates to the letter?) are allowed so long as they are presented as being good, wholesome, and in all ways better than equality for England? Oops, sorry, I mean any recognition of that monstrous place beginning with an 'E'?
It [The Surgery ] was never intended to discuss the complex political issues that you suggest should have been raised.
Aled, speaking on the programme: “Is it that the Regions of England are stronger than the country as a whole?”
The modern day "regions" are an artificial political construct of recent years which were roundly voted against by 78% of voters in the North East (the only area allowed a referendum) and still have no mandate from voters. All modern day regionalisation in England has, in effect, been done against the will of, and without any mandate from, the people of England. Yet, Aled suggests that the regions are an established fact, perhaps stronger than the country of England itself?
This would be good news from the viewpoint of:
1) A Little Walesian
2) The BBC - keen to see the abolition of England through Balkanisation.
So, complex political issues (and dictated regionalisation is a little complex, isn't it - much as the BBC toadies to the Government and follows its dictates to the letter?) are allowed so long as they are presented as being good, wholesome, and in all ways better than equality for England? Oops, sorry, I mean any recognition of that monstrous place beginning with an 'E'?
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Anna Bowman, BBC Radio 1's The Surgery, Returns To Why England Needs A Parliament...
It's amazing. Two replies from the BBC regarding its anti-English stance in two days! Anna Bowman, executive producer of the Radio 1 show The Surgery , is persistent. In the latest instalment, we learn that the "Cross-of-St-George-is-racist" stance on a recent The Surgery programme apparently originates from a debate amongst football fans FOUR YEARS AGO.
Following is Ms Bowman's latest e-mail and my reply:
Dear Chris
The football tournament I'm referring to is the 2004 European Cup and there are many articles online referring to the St George's flag debate.
This programme was about investigating how listeners describe themselves and how they feel about where they are from. It was never intended to discuss the complex political issues that you suggest should have been raised.
Whilst I appreciate you continue to have concerns with this particular programme, if you wish to pursue this complaint further, you can contact the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit who will independently investigate your complaint. You can write to them at the following address:
Editorial Complaints Unit
Room 5168
White City
201 Wood Lane
London
W12 7TS
Alternatively you can email the Unit at the address: ecu@bbc.co.uk
Please note that any complaints submitted via email must include your postal address as all responses will continue to be issued via letter.
Whether or not you choose to pursue your complaint with the ECU please be assured your further concerns have been registered.
Regards
Anna Bowman
My reply:
Dear Ms Bowman, So, you believe that besmirching the England flag by going back to a debate in 2004 (FOUR years ago) amongst football fans, of which many of us were unaware, justifies the stance your programme took? What about featuring this story from the BBC, dated this year - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/7631733.stm to balance things?
The BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit will independently investigate my complaint? The BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit? How can an arm of the BBC independently investigate the BBC? No, Ms Bowman, I don't believe that is logical or probable.
Following is Ms Bowman's latest e-mail and my reply:
Dear Chris
The football tournament I'm referring to is the 2004 European Cup and there are many articles online referring to the St George's flag debate.
This programme was about investigating how listeners describe themselves and how they feel about where they are from. It was never intended to discuss the complex political issues that you suggest should have been raised.
Whilst I appreciate you continue to have concerns with this particular programme, if you wish to pursue this complaint further, you can contact the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit who will independently investigate your complaint. You can write to them at the following address:
Editorial Complaints Unit
Room 5168
White City
201 Wood Lane
London
W12 7TS
Alternatively you can email the Unit at the address: ecu@bbc.co.uk
Please note that any complaints submitted via email must include your postal address as all responses will continue to be issued via letter.
Whether or not you choose to pursue your complaint with the ECU please be assured your further concerns have been registered.
Regards
Anna Bowman
My reply:
Dear Ms Bowman, So, you believe that besmirching the England flag by going back to a debate in 2004 (FOUR years ago) amongst football fans, of which many of us were unaware, justifies the stance your programme took? What about featuring this story from the BBC, dated this year - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/7631733.stm to balance things?
The BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit will independently investigate my complaint? The BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit? How can an arm of the BBC independently investigate the BBC? No, Ms Bowman, I don't believe that is logical or probable.
Correspondence is probably now closed. Unless Ms Bowman thinks differently? She's always very welcome here. And I appreciate her taking the time to engage in quite lengthy e-mail conversation about my grievance. It's not what I've come to expect from BBC staff.
Monday, December 08, 2008
Anna Bowman, BBC Radio 1's The Surgery - Excuses For Anti-English Bigotry...
The long-running saga of BBC Radio 1 programme The Surgery continues here with an e-mail from the show's executive producer, Anna Bowman. I must add, that after a week's waiting, the statement that I was taking the matter through the BBC's official complaints procedure last night seems to have worked wonders. Ms Bowman does not apologise. She has her own agenda, of course, and seems to think that of course it's right to question the morality of flying the Cross Of St George. Read her e-mail and my inserts [..] below and then my reply.
Dear Chris
Thank you very much for your feedback about Radio 1's Surgery Show. I really do appreciate the time you have taken to comment, and your input as a listener to the show is invaluable to us.
I'm sorry you're not happy with the speed of response to your original email - as you can imagine we receive a lot of correspondence which can take a while to process and our policy is to respond to anyone requesting a reply within 10 days.
I'm also sorry that you think the show 'came across as pure anti English' because I can assure you this was far from the intention and in my view, far from the case [that's all right then, isn't it? I'm just being silly aren't I?].
What is essential with any debate show is for the presenters to ask questions and raise issues in order to encourage discussion and comment from listeners. The comments from the presenters that you refer to in your email are examples of this:
“Wow people just don’t say English do they [many do!]? I’ve never noticed this before" and “Is it that the Regions of England are stronger than the country as a whole?” [a referendum found 78% of those polled in the North East, the only area ALLOWED a referendum, AGAINST regionalisation. The people have spoken. What the fuck did Aled think he was on about?]
These are important observations [who says so?] and questions Aled threw out to listeners in order to encourage them to get in touch, discuss and potentially agree or disagree with.
They are certainly not statements of fact - there is no point in making any definitive statements during a show like this as it immediately closes down a discussion which is the absolute reverse of what we are trying to do. With regard to Charlotte Ashton's question as to whether the St George's Cross has racist connotations - again this was an important issue to raise and ask for comment. I'm sure you remember the national debate during the last European Cup as to whether English people were proud or ashamed to fly the St George's flag [I do not recall this at all]. This is the basis on which Charlotte asked this question [Rubbish!].
With regard to the comments in your second email: You seem to have ignored my previous e-mal voicing my concerns about the The Surgery inciting hatred against English flag wavers by stating - incorrectly - that it is the flag of the hateful BNP - and by anti-English bigot Aled hosting a show in which the Welsh and Scots were portrayed as perfect and the English as racist heathens. At no time during the show did either presenter suggest that the St George's flag was associated with the BNP.
In fact I have listened back to the show and the BNP [the BNP is the only racist organisation in the UK which flies a flag - the Union Flag] isn't mentioned at any point during the two hour show.
I can also assure you that Aled is certainly not anti-English bigot [he disguises it well!]. Ultimately this show was about providing our listeners with a platform for their opinions to be heard and I believe Aled and Charlotte did a great job doing this [As long as YOU'RE happy, eh, Ms Bowman? Basically, there was no need to besmirch the English or their flag at all, but you won't admit THAT] .
I'm not sure if you listened to the whole hour of debate on the subject of identity, but if you did you'll have heard a wide variety of listener opinion, including those who are proud to be English as well as Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish etc [But did we hear any thoughts on negative aspects of Scottishness and Welshness - English bashing, for instance?]. Regards Anna Bowman Executive Producer of Radio 1's Surgery
I replied:
No, I'm sorry this reply is completely unacceptable. The flag with racist connotations, is the Union flag, and there was no need to tell lies. I do not recall a national debate about whether or not people are proud or ashamed to fly the St George's flag during any football tournament. This is BBC bias.
Also, why the regional agenda? The BBC backs this to the hilt, yet the North East, the only area allowed a referendum, voted 78% against regionalisation. Why were devolution issues, discrimination against the people of England, particularly health apartheid and the West Lothian Question, not mentioned? Racism in the UK usually involves the BNP. Please don't split hairs.
Why put a call on air about Scots sports participators being called "British" and English sports participators "English" - when a quick glance around quickly proves the reverse - I refer you particularly to the BBC's on-line coverage of the Olympics, where, it seemed that the Scots, Welsh and British were competing. Surely the The Surgery presenters should have been better versed on this matter and the phone call should have been excluded or challenged?
And if we need balance, why no mention of the supposed connection of the Scottish saltire with the Klu Klux Klan?
Dear Chris
Thank you very much for your feedback about Radio 1's Surgery Show. I really do appreciate the time you have taken to comment, and your input as a listener to the show is invaluable to us.
I'm sorry you're not happy with the speed of response to your original email - as you can imagine we receive a lot of correspondence which can take a while to process and our policy is to respond to anyone requesting a reply within 10 days.
I'm also sorry that you think the show 'came across as pure anti English' because I can assure you this was far from the intention and in my view, far from the case [that's all right then, isn't it? I'm just being silly aren't I?].
What is essential with any debate show is for the presenters to ask questions and raise issues in order to encourage discussion and comment from listeners. The comments from the presenters that you refer to in your email are examples of this:
“Wow people just don’t say English do they [many do!]? I’ve never noticed this before" and “Is it that the Regions of England are stronger than the country as a whole?” [a referendum found 78% of those polled in the North East, the only area ALLOWED a referendum, AGAINST regionalisation. The people have spoken. What the fuck did Aled think he was on about?]
These are important observations [who says so?] and questions Aled threw out to listeners in order to encourage them to get in touch, discuss and potentially agree or disagree with.
They are certainly not statements of fact - there is no point in making any definitive statements during a show like this as it immediately closes down a discussion which is the absolute reverse of what we are trying to do. With regard to Charlotte Ashton's question as to whether the St George's Cross has racist connotations - again this was an important issue to raise and ask for comment. I'm sure you remember the national debate during the last European Cup as to whether English people were proud or ashamed to fly the St George's flag [I do not recall this at all]. This is the basis on which Charlotte asked this question [Rubbish!].
With regard to the comments in your second email: You seem to have ignored my previous e-mal voicing my concerns about the The Surgery inciting hatred against English flag wavers by stating - incorrectly - that it is the flag of the hateful BNP - and by anti-English bigot Aled hosting a show in which the Welsh and Scots were portrayed as perfect and the English as racist heathens. At no time during the show did either presenter suggest that the St George's flag was associated with the BNP.
In fact I have listened back to the show and the BNP [the BNP is the only racist organisation in the UK which flies a flag - the Union Flag] isn't mentioned at any point during the two hour show.
I can also assure you that Aled is certainly not anti-English bigot [he disguises it well!]. Ultimately this show was about providing our listeners with a platform for their opinions to be heard and I believe Aled and Charlotte did a great job doing this [As long as YOU'RE happy, eh, Ms Bowman? Basically, there was no need to besmirch the English or their flag at all, but you won't admit THAT] .
I'm not sure if you listened to the whole hour of debate on the subject of identity, but if you did you'll have heard a wide variety of listener opinion, including those who are proud to be English as well as Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish etc [But did we hear any thoughts on negative aspects of Scottishness and Welshness - English bashing, for instance?]. Regards Anna Bowman Executive Producer of Radio 1's Surgery
I replied:
No, I'm sorry this reply is completely unacceptable. The flag with racist connotations, is the Union flag, and there was no need to tell lies. I do not recall a national debate about whether or not people are proud or ashamed to fly the St George's flag during any football tournament. This is BBC bias.
Also, why the regional agenda? The BBC backs this to the hilt, yet the North East, the only area allowed a referendum, voted 78% against regionalisation. Why were devolution issues, discrimination against the people of England, particularly health apartheid and the West Lothian Question, not mentioned? Racism in the UK usually involves the BNP. Please don't split hairs.
Why put a call on air about Scots sports participators being called "British" and English sports participators "English" - when a quick glance around quickly proves the reverse - I refer you particularly to the BBC's on-line coverage of the Olympics, where, it seemed that the Scots, Welsh and British were competing. Surely the The Surgery presenters should have been better versed on this matter and the phone call should have been excluded or challenged?
And if we need balance, why no mention of the supposed connection of the Scottish saltire with the Klu Klux Klan?
The Conservative Party - Don't Say England!
Like NuLabour, the Tories are dedicated to not saying "England". Under David Cameron, how could it possibly be otherwise? And relations with the similarly "Celtic" fringe biased Labour are actually pretty cordial, with all sorts of discrimination against the people of England played down or allowed to slip through the net uncommented on by Dave and his loyal crew.
Trumpeting the usual off-target nonsense, the Tories now tell us once more what they are going to do for "Britain" and "across the UK".
But the reality is that much of what follows will only apply to England or England and perhaps occasionally to Wales. However the word "Britain", meaning England, Scotland and Wales is substituted, highly misleading though that word is, because it suits the Tories, just as it suits New Labour and the Lib Dems, to lie to us. Read the following Conservative Party propaganda - and spot the lies - please note my inserts [...].
Radical policy changes are needed to help "socially immobile" families get out of a cycle of benefit dependency and educational failure, the Tories are due to say.
The Conservatives will accuse the Government of a "wasted decade" of policies and warn that in deprived areas people no longer do better than their parents did.
In a report - Through The Glass Ceiling - the party will call for early intervention when babies are born into "families with problems", and in primary school to make sure children do not fall behind with their reading.
The Tories will also set out major reforms in secondary education [applies to England only - education is devolved outside England], ensuring that schools stop abandoning many subjects that top universities are looking for, such as sciences and modern languages.
Shadow work and pensions secretary Chris Grayling is expected to say: "Britain is now a country [Britain is NOT a country, it is a union of three countries] where it is more and more difficult for young people to do better than their parents did.
"Worse still, we have generations of the same family trapped in a dependency culture. For 10 years the Government has been telling us it has the policies to solve the problem. But it hasn't worked. Britain really now needs a fresh direction." [Chris Grayling does not have the remit to talk about Britain in this way.]
The Tories will announce a new "whole family" approach to ending benefit dependency and generational worklessness. This is based on work being done in Germany, where entire families including children struggling at school are given support to deal with the challenges their household faces.
The report is the result of 18 months' analysis by the Conservatives. This was partly carried out by the Social Justice Policy Commission, headed by former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith.
Early intervention proposals will include 4,000 more health visitors across the UK [nonsense - Scotland looks after its own health service so, increasingly does Wales - both are far better funded than England's] to help parents with babies and young children.
So, the Tories are as anti-England/anti-English as New Labour? Not quite. But, like the Lib Dems, the so-called "Union" comes before little things - like equality and honesty for the electorate in England.
Read about Jim Fitzpatrick - England's Transport Minister, who insists on pretending his authority extends to Scotland and Wales here.
Trumpeting the usual off-target nonsense, the Tories now tell us once more what they are going to do for "Britain" and "across the UK".
But the reality is that much of what follows will only apply to England or England and perhaps occasionally to Wales. However the word "Britain", meaning England, Scotland and Wales is substituted, highly misleading though that word is, because it suits the Tories, just as it suits New Labour and the Lib Dems, to lie to us. Read the following Conservative Party propaganda - and spot the lies - please note my inserts [...].
Radical policy changes are needed to help "socially immobile" families get out of a cycle of benefit dependency and educational failure, the Tories are due to say.
The Conservatives will accuse the Government of a "wasted decade" of policies and warn that in deprived areas people no longer do better than their parents did.
In a report - Through The Glass Ceiling - the party will call for early intervention when babies are born into "families with problems", and in primary school to make sure children do not fall behind with their reading.
The Tories will also set out major reforms in secondary education [applies to England only - education is devolved outside England], ensuring that schools stop abandoning many subjects that top universities are looking for, such as sciences and modern languages.
Shadow work and pensions secretary Chris Grayling is expected to say: "Britain is now a country [Britain is NOT a country, it is a union of three countries] where it is more and more difficult for young people to do better than their parents did.
"Worse still, we have generations of the same family trapped in a dependency culture. For 10 years the Government has been telling us it has the policies to solve the problem. But it hasn't worked. Britain really now needs a fresh direction." [Chris Grayling does not have the remit to talk about Britain in this way.]
The Tories will announce a new "whole family" approach to ending benefit dependency and generational worklessness. This is based on work being done in Germany, where entire families including children struggling at school are given support to deal with the challenges their household faces.
The report is the result of 18 months' analysis by the Conservatives. This was partly carried out by the Social Justice Policy Commission, headed by former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith.
Early intervention proposals will include 4,000 more health visitors across the UK [nonsense - Scotland looks after its own health service so, increasingly does Wales - both are far better funded than England's] to help parents with babies and young children.
So, the Tories are as anti-England/anti-English as New Labour? Not quite. But, like the Lib Dems, the so-called "Union" comes before little things - like equality and honesty for the electorate in England.
Read about Jim Fitzpatrick - England's Transport Minister, who insists on pretending his authority extends to Scotland and Wales here.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
Kenny Farquharson Of Scotland On Sunday & Jonathan Freedland Of The Guardian Make My Point About Priggish Revisionist Activity Regarding The 1980s...
A little while ago, I wrote:
It's a strange fact but "nice" people don't like the 1980s. And that dislike runs so deep that things perceived to be good or groundbreaking which happened in the 1980s are often transported to adjacent decades by the likes of the BBC and on-line revisionists.
It's as though nothing of positive importance is allowed to have happened in the 1980s, the scapegoat decade which enables us lovely people to feel better about ourselves now.
Over at The Guardian, Jonathan Freedland writes today:
"A convention, much like the one that met in Scotland in the 1990s, could draw up a written constitution setting out how we govern ourselves."
The emphasis is mine. The Scottish Claim of Right was launched in Edinburgh in July 1988 and the Convention first met in March 1989, and signed the claim.
Just a one-off mistake?
Ah, I beg to differ - witness Kenny Farquharson in Scotland On Sunday:
"Calman's approach seems in marked contrast to that of the Scottish Constitutional Convention's Claim of Right in the 1990s, which simply stated what Scotland wanted and then challenged the UK Government to deliver it."
Two separate pieces, both published on the same day in separate publications, and both containing the same inaccurate information.
So, the Scottish Constitutional Convention and The Scottish Claim Of Right are moved from the 1980s to the 1990s.
The correct information is freely available all over the web. Jonathan Freedland and Kenny Farquharson are not, as far as I know, famous for poor research. So how come 1988 and 1989 have become something as inaccurate and downright vague in their articles as "the 1990s"?
For the correct information, start here: http://www.alba.org.uk/devolution/claimofright.html
It's all so easy.
My own belief is that the constant revising of history and the tendency to airbrush the real 1980s out of existence are dangerous. We do not examine the truth about that decade nor what we are now. We simply revise - tell lies - from the BBC's I Love... TV series to political journalists. It's not just down to personal opinions or biases, history is actually rewritten. Facts are changed.
It all feels fragmented. Unreal. Disjointed. And very dishonest.
And it worries me.
It's a strange fact but "nice" people don't like the 1980s. And that dislike runs so deep that things perceived to be good or groundbreaking which happened in the 1980s are often transported to adjacent decades by the likes of the BBC and on-line revisionists.
It's as though nothing of positive importance is allowed to have happened in the 1980s, the scapegoat decade which enables us lovely people to feel better about ourselves now.
Over at The Guardian, Jonathan Freedland writes today:
"A convention, much like the one that met in Scotland in the 1990s, could draw up a written constitution setting out how we govern ourselves."
The emphasis is mine. The Scottish Claim of Right was launched in Edinburgh in July 1988 and the Convention first met in March 1989, and signed the claim.
Just a one-off mistake?
Ah, I beg to differ - witness Kenny Farquharson in Scotland On Sunday:
"Calman's approach seems in marked contrast to that of the Scottish Constitutional Convention's Claim of Right in the 1990s, which simply stated what Scotland wanted and then challenged the UK Government to deliver it."
Two separate pieces, both published on the same day in separate publications, and both containing the same inaccurate information.
So, the Scottish Constitutional Convention and The Scottish Claim Of Right are moved from the 1980s to the 1990s.
The correct information is freely available all over the web. Jonathan Freedland and Kenny Farquharson are not, as far as I know, famous for poor research. So how come 1988 and 1989 have become something as inaccurate and downright vague in their articles as "the 1990s"?
For the correct information, start here: http://www.alba.org.uk/devolution/claimofright.html
It's all so easy.
My own belief is that the constant revising of history and the tendency to airbrush the real 1980s out of existence are dangerous. We do not examine the truth about that decade nor what we are now. We simply revise - tell lies - from the BBC's I Love... TV series to political journalists. It's not just down to personal opinions or biases, history is actually rewritten. Facts are changed.
It all feels fragmented. Unreal. Disjointed. And very dishonest.
And it worries me.
BBC Radio 1 - "The Surgery" - Another E-Mail - Will THIS ONE Be ignored, too?
Here I go again, if at first I don't succeed...
You seem to have ignored my previous e-mail voicing my concerns about the The Surgery inciting hatred against English flag wavers by stating - incorrectly - that it is the flag of the hateful BNP - and by anti-English bigot Aled hosting a show in which the Welsh and Scots were portrayed as perfect and the English as racist heathens.
It was a show which also ignored the many acts of discrimination passed against the people of England by the UK Government - including health apartheid and the continued ignorance of calls in England for a national parliament on a par with Scotland. A BBC poll proved the majority demand this - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6264823.stm
The BBC, with its demonisation of the English and England, and continued "British" brainwashing in England (but not in Scotland and Wales) is now far from democratic. I have written about your attitude - http://englandparliament.blogspot.com/2008/12/bbc-radio-1-surgery-anti-english-show.html and request some coherent reasoning and an apology for your behaviour.
Inciting hatred against a UK sub-nationality is surely not part of your remit?
Don't forget, you can write to The Surgery at:
thesurgery@bbc.co.uk
You seem to have ignored my previous e-mail voicing my concerns about the The Surgery inciting hatred against English flag wavers by stating - incorrectly - that it is the flag of the hateful BNP - and by anti-English bigot Aled hosting a show in which the Welsh and Scots were portrayed as perfect and the English as racist heathens.
It was a show which also ignored the many acts of discrimination passed against the people of England by the UK Government - including health apartheid and the continued ignorance of calls in England for a national parliament on a par with Scotland. A BBC poll proved the majority demand this - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6264823.stm
The BBC, with its demonisation of the English and England, and continued "British" brainwashing in England (but not in Scotland and Wales) is now far from democratic. I have written about your attitude - http://englandparliament.blogspot.com/2008/12/bbc-radio-1-surgery-anti-english-show.html and request some coherent reasoning and an apology for your behaviour.
Inciting hatred against a UK sub-nationality is surely not part of your remit?
Don't forget, you can write to The Surgery at:
thesurgery@bbc.co.uk
BBC Radio 1 - The Surgery Anti-English Show - Concerns Raised Ignored!
We published this on 1/12/2008:
"From For England:
Channel hopping on the radio last night driving back from the cinema I stumbled across a show called “The Surgery” on BBC Radio 1 - ostensibly it’s an advice show for young people but last night it was in full blown British Brainwashing Corp propaganda mode. Where the topic of conversation was nationality and national identity.
Presented by Welsh chap called Aled who identified with being Welsh and a young lady and BBC careerist called Charlotte Aston who firstly described herself as English through and through but later denied her Englishness and identified herself as primarily British because her mates came from all over the “UK”.
This show stinks to high heaven - it is purest stinking anti-English racist bile!
Currently, the UK Government discriminates against every resident of England via the Barnett Formula and the lack of a dedicated national parliament for England is the reason that non-representative MPs can foist legislation onto England like top-up fees and foundation hospitals - both decided by MPs from outside of England whose own constituents will not be affected.
“Wow people just don’t say English do they? I’ve never noticed this before," said presenter Aled. “Is it that the Regions of England are stronger than the country as a whole?”
The only area of England allowed a referendum on regionalisation was the North East - which voted 78% against. And the people of England are force fed "Britishness" by the UK Government and the likes of the BBC. There is no chance of an inclusive, civic English identity being developed.
And yet people can die in England for want of medication available on the NHS in Scotland - where spending is so much higher. And prescriptions are free to everybody, including millionaires in Wales, but poor folk in England struggle to pay the rising costs here.
The largest, most cosmopolitan country of the so-called UK is demonised and its electorate treated as second class citizens by the UK Government and the BBC. Just who are the racists?
Regionalisation - the Balkanisation - of England is a beloved project of the BBC and the UK Government.
Did you know that around 75% of the legislation passed by Gordon Brown's Government does not affect his own constituents in Scotland - which has its own national parliament? Is this democracy?
Back to The Surgery: Charlotte Aston falsely stated that the Cross of St George had racist connotations! This is a myth. The flag of the odious BNP is the Union Flag, this is part of their logo, and ALL the other flags of the UK are also flown at their rallies.
Charlotte Aston, having disowned Englishness, basically seemed to be inciting hatred against anybody defining themselves as English and flying that country's flag - obviously "racist"!
A caller claimed that Scots are referred to as "British" at sporting events and the English as "English". Have you looked at the BBC's own on-line material regarding the Olympics? The absolute reverse is true! This is brainwashing.
The BBC itself has reported on anti-English attacks in Scotland and Wales in recent years, and programmes like these which scapegoat the English as racist and spread anti-English propaganda should not be happening.
The BBC is racist. And charges of racism can be brought against those vilifying any particular nationality. The BBC is anti-English.
The Corporation also fails to address the various inequalities that devolution has heaped on England. I would like to make this a formal complaint. And all replies will be published on-line.
Yours sincerely,
Chris Abbott (half Scots/half English with a dash of German and probably various other influences but every inch an English citizen!)
You can hear the show here for the next week and For England also has it in rough .mp3 format.
Anti-English bile? Regionalist propaganda? The BBC continues to excel. If you wish to write to The Surgery the e-mail address is:
thesurgery@bbc.co.uk
I'll keep you posted on any replies I get. And a big hat tip to For England! "
And so far the BBC has totally ignored us. We just don't count, do we? We're simply there to provide the vast majority of the funding so that their anti-English "Brits", Little Waleans and Little Scotlanders can hiss venom at us.
"From For England:
Channel hopping on the radio last night driving back from the cinema I stumbled across a show called “The Surgery” on BBC Radio 1 - ostensibly it’s an advice show for young people but last night it was in full blown British Brainwashing Corp propaganda mode. Where the topic of conversation was nationality and national identity.
Presented by Welsh chap called Aled who identified with being Welsh and a young lady and BBC careerist called Charlotte Aston who firstly described herself as English through and through but later denied her Englishness and identified herself as primarily British because her mates came from all over the “UK”.
This show stinks to high heaven - it is purest stinking anti-English racist bile!
I fired off an e-mail:
I was completely stunned at The Surgery piece on Englishness, Scottishness and Welshness yesterday. This came across as pure anti-English hatred.
Currently, the UK Government discriminates against every resident of England via the Barnett Formula and the lack of a dedicated national parliament for England is the reason that non-representative MPs can foist legislation onto England like top-up fees and foundation hospitals - both decided by MPs from outside of England whose own constituents will not be affected.
“Wow people just don’t say English do they? I’ve never noticed this before," said presenter Aled. “Is it that the Regions of England are stronger than the country as a whole?”
The only area of England allowed a referendum on regionalisation was the North East - which voted 78% against. And the people of England are force fed "Britishness" by the UK Government and the likes of the BBC. There is no chance of an inclusive, civic English identity being developed.
And yet people can die in England for want of medication available on the NHS in Scotland - where spending is so much higher. And prescriptions are free to everybody, including millionaires in Wales, but poor folk in England struggle to pay the rising costs here.
The largest, most cosmopolitan country of the so-called UK is demonised and its electorate treated as second class citizens by the UK Government and the BBC. Just who are the racists?
Regionalisation - the Balkanisation - of England is a beloved project of the BBC and the UK Government.
Did you know that around 75% of the legislation passed by Gordon Brown's Government does not affect his own constituents in Scotland - which has its own national parliament? Is this democracy?
Back to The Surgery: Charlotte Aston falsely stated that the Cross of St George had racist connotations! This is a myth. The flag of the odious BNP is the Union Flag, this is part of their logo, and ALL the other flags of the UK are also flown at their rallies.
Charlotte Aston, having disowned Englishness, basically seemed to be inciting hatred against anybody defining themselves as English and flying that country's flag - obviously "racist"!
A caller claimed that Scots are referred to as "British" at sporting events and the English as "English". Have you looked at the BBC's own on-line material regarding the Olympics? The absolute reverse is true! This is brainwashing.
The BBC itself has reported on anti-English attacks in Scotland and Wales in recent years, and programmes like these which scapegoat the English as racist and spread anti-English propaganda should not be happening.
The BBC is racist. And charges of racism can be brought against those vilifying any particular nationality. The BBC is anti-English.
The Corporation also fails to address the various inequalities that devolution has heaped on England. I would like to make this a formal complaint. And all replies will be published on-line.
Yours sincerely,
Chris Abbott (half Scots/half English with a dash of German and probably various other influences but every inch an English citizen!)
You can hear the show here for the next week and For England also has it in rough .mp3 format.
Anti-English bile? Regionalist propaganda? The BBC continues to excel. If you wish to write to The Surgery the e-mail address is:
thesurgery@bbc.co.uk
I'll keep you posted on any replies I get. And a big hat tip to For England! "
And so far the BBC has totally ignored us. We just don't count, do we? We're simply there to provide the vast majority of the funding so that their anti-English "Brits", Little Waleans and Little Scotlanders can hiss venom at us.
Why Should Your Trade Union Use Your Money To Support New Labour Against Your Will?
Saturday, December 06, 2008
David Cameron Champions The "Union" - Which Is Lovely For Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland... But NOT For England...
David Cameron, he of the "Scottish blood" in his veins, champions the "Union" - and not a whisper about enforced regionalisation in England, the West Lothian Question, health apartheid, the Barnett Formula, etc. I can't help thinking that the Tories would be a lot better off without such an anti-England/anti-English leader.
Apart from chucking us in England the occasional insult ("sour little Englanders!") and doing nowt about our suffering, David Cameron is hideously biased towards the so-called "Celtic" fringe.
Apart from chucking us in England the occasional insult ("sour little Englanders!") and doing nowt about our suffering, David Cameron is hideously biased towards the so-called "Celtic" fringe.
UNISON - The Anti-England Union On Devolution...
A friend writes:
Recently, I received my copy of the latest "U" magazine, which all of us subscribers to the UNISON public employees trade union receive periodically.
I'm a member of UNISON simply for my own protection. Under New Labour, the social care organisation I am employed by has become an absolute nightmare - interests of its staff and tenants seemingly off the agenda.
I've not been that impressed by UNISON. They've "dealt" with a couple of queries of mine, but I found the district organisers I have spoken to out of date, patronising, and, in one case, definitely sexist. I was a middle aged woman with a work based issue. So I was a neurotic.
Politically, it smells like it's still the 1980s within the UNISON Empire. I'm concerned about the effects of devolution, about the more Tory than Tory countenance of New Labour, but UNISON blithely goes on, supporting our undemocratic Government and basically keeping a completely outdated and inappropriate Red Flag flying at UNISON Towers, whilst backing a Government which is anything but Socialist.
Having received my copy of "U" recently, I decided to have a look through. The cover promised articles on:
Interview with new president Sue Highton,
UNISON at conference,
10 years of devolution,
pay matters
The "10 years of devolution" article interested me, so I found it and within minutes was tearing "U" into tiny pieces, absolutely outraged.
Of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, UNISON croons: "Devolution has proven to be a success, particularly for public services in these countries."
No mention of the Barnett Formula. No mention of health apartheid against the English.
There is a straightforward assumption that Scotland's culture is collective and England's is competitive. But corporate competition in England's NHS and social care services was foisted upon it by Scots MPs at Westminster, who voted in Foundation Hospitals for England against the wishes of English MPs. And just where is the constituency of "our" Prime Minister? And just what governing body regulates the Scots NHS and social care services?
The article also states that the Welsh Assembly "has to live with" the English introduction of student tuition fees. Once again, these were foisted on England by Scots MPs at Westminster, against the wishes of English MPs.
The article continued in similar vein, basically lying, scurrilous, absolutely anti-England/anti-English and frankly poisonous. England, which in reality has no constitutional existence at all, emerges as the baddie.
What on earth is UNISON doing? People can die in England for want of medication available on the NHS in Scotland. Welsh residents have free prescriptions, regardless of wealth. And all this is made possible by the Barnett Formula, which basically ensures taxpayers in England have to pay more so that residents of the other nations receive more public spending than we do!
UNISON is no longer fit for purpose.
It's time to go back to basics - a new public employees' union, dedicated to equality and fair provision for all.
UNISON is a bloated, anti-England bigot of the highest order.
So, the magazine was shredded and soon resided in the recycling box under the previous week's Radio Times.
And I'm seriously considering letting my UNISON membership card go the same way.
“When our members are finding it difficult to put food on the table, petrol in the car and heat their homes, they want to know the government doesn’t just feel their pain, but is acting to alleviate their pain,” said UNISON general secretary Dave Prentis.
Labour has got to start remembering what it stands for, he said. Because, he stressed, “we want a Labour government, we want to win the next election, and we want to keep the Tories out.”
My goodness - did these sickeningly priggish individuals get dropped on their heads as babies or something? The Labour Party you visualise is long dead, you wallies!
Recently, I received my copy of the latest "U" magazine, which all of us subscribers to the UNISON public employees trade union receive periodically.
I'm a member of UNISON simply for my own protection. Under New Labour, the social care organisation I am employed by has become an absolute nightmare - interests of its staff and tenants seemingly off the agenda.
I've not been that impressed by UNISON. They've "dealt" with a couple of queries of mine, but I found the district organisers I have spoken to out of date, patronising, and, in one case, definitely sexist. I was a middle aged woman with a work based issue. So I was a neurotic.
Politically, it smells like it's still the 1980s within the UNISON Empire. I'm concerned about the effects of devolution, about the more Tory than Tory countenance of New Labour, but UNISON blithely goes on, supporting our undemocratic Government and basically keeping a completely outdated and inappropriate Red Flag flying at UNISON Towers, whilst backing a Government which is anything but Socialist.
Having received my copy of "U" recently, I decided to have a look through. The cover promised articles on:
Interview with new president Sue Highton,
UNISON at conference,
10 years of devolution,
pay matters
The "10 years of devolution" article interested me, so I found it and within minutes was tearing "U" into tiny pieces, absolutely outraged.
Of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, UNISON croons: "Devolution has proven to be a success, particularly for public services in these countries."
No mention of the Barnett Formula. No mention of health apartheid against the English.
There is a straightforward assumption that Scotland's culture is collective and England's is competitive. But corporate competition in England's NHS and social care services was foisted upon it by Scots MPs at Westminster, who voted in Foundation Hospitals for England against the wishes of English MPs. And just where is the constituency of "our" Prime Minister? And just what governing body regulates the Scots NHS and social care services?
The article also states that the Welsh Assembly "has to live with" the English introduction of student tuition fees. Once again, these were foisted on England by Scots MPs at Westminster, against the wishes of English MPs.
The article continued in similar vein, basically lying, scurrilous, absolutely anti-England/anti-English and frankly poisonous. England, which in reality has no constitutional existence at all, emerges as the baddie.
What on earth is UNISON doing? People can die in England for want of medication available on the NHS in Scotland. Welsh residents have free prescriptions, regardless of wealth. And all this is made possible by the Barnett Formula, which basically ensures taxpayers in England have to pay more so that residents of the other nations receive more public spending than we do!
UNISON is no longer fit for purpose.
It's time to go back to basics - a new public employees' union, dedicated to equality and fair provision for all.
UNISON is a bloated, anti-England bigot of the highest order.
So, the magazine was shredded and soon resided in the recycling box under the previous week's Radio Times.
And I'm seriously considering letting my UNISON membership card go the same way.
“When our members are finding it difficult to put food on the table, petrol in the car and heat their homes, they want to know the government doesn’t just feel their pain, but is acting to alleviate their pain,” said UNISON general secretary Dave Prentis.
Labour has got to start remembering what it stands for, he said. Because, he stressed, “we want a Labour government, we want to win the next election, and we want to keep the Tories out.”
My goodness - did these sickeningly priggish individuals get dropped on their heads as babies or something? The Labour Party you visualise is long dead, you wallies!
Friday, December 05, 2008
Spreading The Word About Uncaring New Labour In England...
We're trying to spread the word about just what New Labour is doing to England with its corporate free market NHS and social care provision - entailing cut back after cut back - which go well beyond the levels demanded by your stingiest sat-at-home Tory.
A reply to our e-mail at Socialist Unity:
Maria….”These are frightening times”… I agree entirely…. in my area the organisation that took over Council Housing in a stock transfer also took over council run residential care homes….. a few weeks ago they made redundant 70% of the staff and all in house catering and housekeeping services…. The Elderly residents protested and no one came to their aid…. New Labour locally were silent.
The catering services were privatised and friend of the local Tory MP got the contract…. The residents wrote to the Queen…. and eventually got a sympathy visit from the Bishop of Worcester and a photo in the local paper. [everyone looked miserable in the photo]
Nothing changed…. these elderly working class people have had their quality of life destroyed….. I went down to the Residential Home to try and speak to the residents to see if RESPECT could do anything to help.
The Housing Trust had changed the door entry system…. and I got through to a remote operator at the CCTV control room…. When I explained that I just wanted to talk to the residents the controller denied me access.
I could see… through the small wired safety glass window… I could see through the gloom some residents alone in their ‘Day Room’. Imprisoned.
It doesn't matter WHERE you stand politically - what is happening in England now under the auspices of Foundation Hospitals, Supporting People, Mental Health Commissions and Primary Care Trusts is unacceptable. These UK Government organisations are actually reducing people's quality of life to an unacceptable level. And taking away their right to protest. To be heard. In a large number of cases, vulnerable people are being placed at severe risk.
This is one of the worst manifestations of the UK Government's flawed devolution programme and undemocratic, uncaring attitude towards the people of England.
Please spread the word!
A reply to our e-mail at Socialist Unity:
Maria….”These are frightening times”… I agree entirely…. in my area the organisation that took over Council Housing in a stock transfer also took over council run residential care homes….. a few weeks ago they made redundant 70% of the staff and all in house catering and housekeeping services…. The Elderly residents protested and no one came to their aid…. New Labour locally were silent.
The catering services were privatised and friend of the local Tory MP got the contract…. The residents wrote to the Queen…. and eventually got a sympathy visit from the Bishop of Worcester and a photo in the local paper. [everyone looked miserable in the photo]
Nothing changed…. these elderly working class people have had their quality of life destroyed….. I went down to the Residential Home to try and speak to the residents to see if RESPECT could do anything to help.
The Housing Trust had changed the door entry system…. and I got through to a remote operator at the CCTV control room…. When I explained that I just wanted to talk to the residents the controller denied me access.
I could see… through the small wired safety glass window… I could see through the gloom some residents alone in their ‘Day Room’. Imprisoned.
It doesn't matter WHERE you stand politically - what is happening in England now under the auspices of Foundation Hospitals, Supporting People, Mental Health Commissions and Primary Care Trusts is unacceptable. These UK Government organisations are actually reducing people's quality of life to an unacceptable level. And taking away their right to protest. To be heard. In a large number of cases, vulnerable people are being placed at severe risk.
This is one of the worst manifestations of the UK Government's flawed devolution programme and undemocratic, uncaring attitude towards the people of England.
Please spread the word!
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Supporting People, The Mental Health Commission And Primary Care Trusts
Caring in England is out of date.
Take the case of one particular housing society, based in Cambridgeshire, which, a few years ago, persuaded vulnerable tenants in residential schemes to become de-registered - promising them more staff and better support standards if they did so.
The tenants then found themselves in the hands of an odious Government organisation called “Supporting People”.
Now, December 2008, a residential home for the elderly is to be axed - by orders of the Primary Care Trust, whilst in other establishments, under the auspices of "Supporting People", staffing has been slashed, "sleep-in" cover has been abolished or is under threat (Supporting People, the "Mental Health Commission", the Primary Care Trust and certain members of the housing Society office staff collude so that tenants are not even consulted, whilst spouting nonsense about "social involvement/inclusion" and “recovery”) and residential staff are in terror of speaking out, having been forced into signing secrecy clauses.
It should be pointed out that Supporting People has no real interest in tenant welfare. For all their waffle and jargon, the organisation is simply interested in cutting budgets.
Sleep-in cover is basically a staff member sleeping at an establishment so as to be on hand throughout the night in case of problems.
In some of the housing society's schemes where staff sleep-in cover has been abolished, residents have fallen and broken bones and suffered severe mental breakdowns.
Vulnerable tenants are also at risk from burglars and drug abusers. Most are on medication for their conditions and some of these drugs are highly sellable amongst the criminal fraternity.
To recap - Supporting People cuts budgets and tells lies about "recovery" and "social inclusion", and some housing society office staff are in cahoots - gleefully pursuing money and promotion - selling the tenants up the river and bullying residential staff who question what is happening.
One of the saddest things is that one of the axe swingers at Supporting People began as a volunteer in the housing society's residential homes many years ago, saying he wanted to do something caring and relevant to the lives of others worse off than himself.
The housing society's supported tenants are vulnerable people with histories of severe mental illness.
These are frightening times.
It should also be noted that the present system of social care in England is heavily based on "regions" (78% voted NO to regionalisation in the referendum in the North East, the only area allowed a referendum) and is heavily tied in with various unelected UK Government quangos across England.
UPDATE:
E-mail from SARA:
You're quite right of course. The UK Government has taken a corporate attitude to health and social care provision in England. And that is why we have "Supporting People". The very name of the organisation is a lie.
It's all competition and tenders. We all want value for money, but with Supporting People the game is to save money and disregard the residents wishes entirely.
Is a service necessary? It doesn't matter - Supporting People will cut it if they can to save money. COMPETE, COMPETE! Your service is crap? Your residents unsafe? It doesn't matter - we'll call it "enabling", we'll call it "recovery", we'll call it "social inclusion", we'll call it "choices".
It must be remembered that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are pursuing other, better ways.
And it must also be remembered that the likes of Foundation Hospitals were foisted onto England by non-representive MPs from Scotland whose own constituents will not be having them, and that "our" Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, is not accountable to his own constituents in Scotland for 75% of the legislation his government passes, as they have their OWN parliament!
So, in England, secrecy clauses are forced on care staff, and swinging cut backs enforced whilst the likes of Supporting People tell bare faced lies for the reasons.
And residents are not given a say in much of what happens - despite Supporting People's pledge to offer choice and to empower them!
I have no time for this evil Government and nothing it does surprises me. But I do wonder how Supporting People, Mental Health Commission and PCT staff sleep at night.
Take the case of one particular housing society, based in Cambridgeshire, which, a few years ago, persuaded vulnerable tenants in residential schemes to become de-registered - promising them more staff and better support standards if they did so.
The tenants then found themselves in the hands of an odious Government organisation called “Supporting People”.
Now, December 2008, a residential home for the elderly is to be axed - by orders of the Primary Care Trust, whilst in other establishments, under the auspices of "Supporting People", staffing has been slashed, "sleep-in" cover has been abolished or is under threat (Supporting People, the "Mental Health Commission", the Primary Care Trust and certain members of the housing Society office staff collude so that tenants are not even consulted, whilst spouting nonsense about "social involvement/inclusion" and “recovery”) and residential staff are in terror of speaking out, having been forced into signing secrecy clauses.
It should be pointed out that Supporting People has no real interest in tenant welfare. For all their waffle and jargon, the organisation is simply interested in cutting budgets.
Sleep-in cover is basically a staff member sleeping at an establishment so as to be on hand throughout the night in case of problems.
In some of the housing society's schemes where staff sleep-in cover has been abolished, residents have fallen and broken bones and suffered severe mental breakdowns.
Vulnerable tenants are also at risk from burglars and drug abusers. Most are on medication for their conditions and some of these drugs are highly sellable amongst the criminal fraternity.
To recap - Supporting People cuts budgets and tells lies about "recovery" and "social inclusion", and some housing society office staff are in cahoots - gleefully pursuing money and promotion - selling the tenants up the river and bullying residential staff who question what is happening.
One of the saddest things is that one of the axe swingers at Supporting People began as a volunteer in the housing society's residential homes many years ago, saying he wanted to do something caring and relevant to the lives of others worse off than himself.
The housing society's supported tenants are vulnerable people with histories of severe mental illness.
These are frightening times.
It should also be noted that the present system of social care in England is heavily based on "regions" (78% voted NO to regionalisation in the referendum in the North East, the only area allowed a referendum) and is heavily tied in with various unelected UK Government quangos across England.
UPDATE:
E-mail from SARA:
You're quite right of course. The UK Government has taken a corporate attitude to health and social care provision in England. And that is why we have "Supporting People". The very name of the organisation is a lie.
It's all competition and tenders. We all want value for money, but with Supporting People the game is to save money and disregard the residents wishes entirely.
Is a service necessary? It doesn't matter - Supporting People will cut it if they can to save money. COMPETE, COMPETE! Your service is crap? Your residents unsafe? It doesn't matter - we'll call it "enabling", we'll call it "recovery", we'll call it "social inclusion", we'll call it "choices".
It must be remembered that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are pursuing other, better ways.
And it must also be remembered that the likes of Foundation Hospitals were foisted onto England by non-representive MPs from Scotland whose own constituents will not be having them, and that "our" Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, is not accountable to his own constituents in Scotland for 75% of the legislation his government passes, as they have their OWN parliament!
So, in England, secrecy clauses are forced on care staff, and swinging cut backs enforced whilst the likes of Supporting People tell bare faced lies for the reasons.
And residents are not given a say in much of what happens - despite Supporting People's pledge to offer choice and to empower them!
I have no time for this evil Government and nothing it does surprises me. But I do wonder how Supporting People, Mental Health Commission and PCT staff sleep at night.
Monday, December 01, 2008
Supporting People, The Mental Health Commission And Primary Care Trusts
Caring in England is out of date.
Take the case of one particular housing society, based in Cambridgeshire, which, a few years ago, persuaded vulnerable tenants in residential schemes to become de-registered - promising them more staff and better support standards if they did so.
The tenants then found themselves in the hands of an odious Government organisation called “Supporting People”.
Now, December 2008, a residential home for the elderly is to be axed - by orders of the Primary Care Trust, whilst in other establishments, under the auspices of "Supporting People", staffing has been slashed, "sleep-in" cover has been abolished or is under threat (Supporting People, the "Mental Health Commission", the Primary Care Trust and certain members of the housing Society office staff collude so that tenants are not even consulted, whilst spouting nonsense about "social involvement/inclusion" and “recovery”) and residential staff are in terror of speaking out, having been forced into signing secrecy clauses.
It should be pointed out that Supporting People has no real interest in tenant welfare. For all their waffle and jargon, the organisation is simply interested in cutting budgets.
Sleep-in cover is basically a staff member sleeping at an establishment so as to be on hand throughout the night in case of problems.
In some of the housing society's schemes where staff sleep-in cover has been abolished, residents have fallen and broken bones and suffered severe mental breakdowns.
Vulnerable tenants are also at risk from burglars and drug abusers. Most are on medication for their conditions and some of these drugs are highly sellable amongst the criminal fraternity.
To recap - Supporting People cuts budgets and tells lies about "recovery" and "social inclusion", and some housing society office staff are in cahoots - gleefully pursuing money and promotion - selling the tenants up the river and bullying residential staff who question what is happening.
One of the saddest things is that one of the axe swingers at Supporting People began as a volunteer in the housing society's residential homes many years ago, saying he wanted to do something caring and relevant to the lives of others worse off than himself.
The housing society's supported tenants are vulnerable people with histories of severe mental illness.
These are frightening times.
It should also be noted that the present system of social care in England is heavily based on "regions" (78% voted NO to regionalisation in the referendum in the North East, the only area allowed a referendum) and is heavily tied in with various unelected UK Government quangos across England.
UPDATE:
E-mail from SARA:
You're quite right of course. The UK Government has taken a corporate attitude to health and social care provision in England. And that is why we have "Supporting People". The very name of the organisation is a lie.
It's all competition and tenders. We all want value for money, but with Supporting People the game is to save money and disregard the residents wishes entirely.
Is a service necessary? It doesn't matter - Supporting People will cut it if they can to save money. COMPETE, COMPETE! Your service is crap? Your residents unsafe? It doesn't matter - we'll call it "enabling", we'll call it "recovery", we'll call it "social inclusion", we'll call it "choices".
It must be remembered that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are pursuing other, better ways.
And it must also be remembered that the likes of Foundation Hospitals were foisted onto England by non-representive MPs from Scotland whose own constituents will not be having them, and that "our" Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, is not accountable to his own constituents in Scotland for 75% of the legislation his government passes, as they have their OWN parliament!
So, in England, secrecy clauses are forced on care staff, and swinging cut backs enforced whilst the likes of Supporting People tell bare faced lies for the reasons.
And residents are not given a say in much of what happens - despite Supporting People's pledge to offer choice and to empower them!
I have no time for this evil Government and nothing it does surprises me. But I do wonder how Supporting People, Mental Health Commission and PCT staff sleep at night.
Take the case of one particular housing society, based in Cambridgeshire, which, a few years ago, persuaded vulnerable tenants in residential schemes to become de-registered - promising them more staff and better support standards if they did so.
The tenants then found themselves in the hands of an odious Government organisation called “Supporting People”.
Now, December 2008, a residential home for the elderly is to be axed - by orders of the Primary Care Trust, whilst in other establishments, under the auspices of "Supporting People", staffing has been slashed, "sleep-in" cover has been abolished or is under threat (Supporting People, the "Mental Health Commission", the Primary Care Trust and certain members of the housing Society office staff collude so that tenants are not even consulted, whilst spouting nonsense about "social involvement/inclusion" and “recovery”) and residential staff are in terror of speaking out, having been forced into signing secrecy clauses.
It should be pointed out that Supporting People has no real interest in tenant welfare. For all their waffle and jargon, the organisation is simply interested in cutting budgets.
Sleep-in cover is basically a staff member sleeping at an establishment so as to be on hand throughout the night in case of problems.
In some of the housing society's schemes where staff sleep-in cover has been abolished, residents have fallen and broken bones and suffered severe mental breakdowns.
Vulnerable tenants are also at risk from burglars and drug abusers. Most are on medication for their conditions and some of these drugs are highly sellable amongst the criminal fraternity.
To recap - Supporting People cuts budgets and tells lies about "recovery" and "social inclusion", and some housing society office staff are in cahoots - gleefully pursuing money and promotion - selling the tenants up the river and bullying residential staff who question what is happening.
One of the saddest things is that one of the axe swingers at Supporting People began as a volunteer in the housing society's residential homes many years ago, saying he wanted to do something caring and relevant to the lives of others worse off than himself.
The housing society's supported tenants are vulnerable people with histories of severe mental illness.
These are frightening times.
It should also be noted that the present system of social care in England is heavily based on "regions" (78% voted NO to regionalisation in the referendum in the North East, the only area allowed a referendum) and is heavily tied in with various unelected UK Government quangos across England.
UPDATE:
E-mail from SARA:
You're quite right of course. The UK Government has taken a corporate attitude to health and social care provision in England. And that is why we have "Supporting People". The very name of the organisation is a lie.
It's all competition and tenders. We all want value for money, but with Supporting People the game is to save money and disregard the residents wishes entirely.
Is a service necessary? It doesn't matter - Supporting People will cut it if they can to save money. COMPETE, COMPETE! Your service is crap? Your residents unsafe? It doesn't matter - we'll call it "enabling", we'll call it "recovery", we'll call it "social inclusion", we'll call it "choices".
It must be remembered that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are pursuing other, better ways.
And it must also be remembered that the likes of Foundation Hospitals were foisted onto England by non-representive MPs from Scotland whose own constituents will not be having them, and that "our" Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, is not accountable to his own constituents in Scotland for 75% of the legislation his government passes, as they have their OWN parliament!
So, in England, secrecy clauses are forced on care staff, and swinging cut backs enforced whilst the likes of Supporting People tell bare faced lies for the reasons.
And residents are not given a say in much of what happens - despite Supporting People's pledge to offer choice and to empower them!
I have no time for this evil Government and nothing it does surprises me. But I do wonder how Supporting People, Mental Health Commission and PCT staff sleep at night.
The BBC: Radio 1 - Anti-English Hatred Prescribed At The Surgery
From "For England":
Channel hopping on the radio last night driving back from the cinema I stumbled across a show called “The Surgery” on BBC Radio 1 - ostensibly it’s an advice show for young people but last night it was in full blown British Brainwashing Corp propaganda mode. Where the topic of conversation was nationality and national identity.
Presented by Welsh chap called Aled who identified with being Welsh and a young lady and BBC careerist called Charlotte Aston who firstly described herself as English through and through but later denied her Englishness and identified herself as primarily British because her mates came from all over the “UK”.
Currently, the UK Government discriminates against every resident of England via the Barnett Formula and the lack of a dedicated national parliament for England is the reason that non-representative MPs can foist legislation onto England like top-up fees and foundation hospitals - both decided by MPs from outside of England whose own constituents will not be affected.
“Wow people just don’t say English do they? I’ve never noticed this before," said presenter Aled. “Is it that the Regions of England are stronger than the country as a whole?”
The only area of England allowed a referendum on regionalisation was the North East - which voted 78% against. And the people of England are force fed "Britishness" by the UK Government and the likes of the BBC. There is no chance of an inclusive, civic English identity being developed.
And yet people can die in England for want of medication available on the NHS in Scotland - where spending is so much higher. And prescriptions are free to everybody, including millionaires in Wales, but poor folk in England struggle to pay the rising costs here.
The largest, most cosmopolitan country of the so-called UK is demonised and its electorate treated as second class citizens by the UK Government and the BBC. Just who are the racists?
Regionalisation - the Balkanisation - of England is a beloved project of the BBC and the UK Government.
Did you know that around 75% of the legislation passed by Gordon Brown's Government does not affect his own constituents in Scotland - which has its own national parliament? Is this democracy?
Back to The Surgery: Charlotte Aston falsely stated that the Cross of St George had racist connotations! This is a myth. The flag of the odious BNP is the Union Flag, this is part of their logo, and ALL the other flags of the UK are also flown at their rallies.
Charlotte Aston, having disowned Englishness, basically seemed to be inciting hatred against anybody defining themselves as English and flying that country's flag - obviously "racist"!
A caller claimed that Scots are referred to as "British" at sporting events and the English as "English". Have you looked at the BBC's own on-line material regarding the Olympics? The absolute reverse is true! This is brainwashing.
The BBC itself has reported on anti-English attacks in Scotland and Wales in recent years, and programmes like these which scapegoat the English as racist and spread anti-English propaganda should not be happening.
The BBC is racist. And charges of racism can be brought against those vilifying any particular nationality. The BBC is anti-English.
The Corporation also fails to address the various inequalities that devolution has heaped on England. I would like to make this a formal complaint. And all replies will be published on-line.
Yours sincerely,
Chris Abbott (half Scots/half English with a dash of German and probably various other influences but every inch an English citizen!)
You can hear the show here for the next week and For England also has it in rough .mp3 format.
Anti-English bile? Regionalist propaganda? The BBC continues to excel. If you wish to write to The Surgery the e-mail address is:
thesurgery@bbc.co.uk
I'll keep you posted on any replies I get. And a big hat tip to For England!
Channel hopping on the radio last night driving back from the cinema I stumbled across a show called “The Surgery” on BBC Radio 1 - ostensibly it’s an advice show for young people but last night it was in full blown British Brainwashing Corp propaganda mode. Where the topic of conversation was nationality and national identity.
Presented by Welsh chap called Aled who identified with being Welsh and a young lady and BBC careerist called Charlotte Aston who firstly described herself as English through and through but later denied her Englishness and identified herself as primarily British because her mates came from all over the “UK”.
This show stinks to high heaven - it is purest stinking anti-English racist bile!
I fired off an e-mail:
I was completely stunned at The Surgery piece on Englishness, Scottishness and Welshness yesterday. This came across as pure anti-English hatred.
Currently, the UK Government discriminates against every resident of England via the Barnett Formula and the lack of a dedicated national parliament for England is the reason that non-representative MPs can foist legislation onto England like top-up fees and foundation hospitals - both decided by MPs from outside of England whose own constituents will not be affected.
“Wow people just don’t say English do they? I’ve never noticed this before," said presenter Aled. “Is it that the Regions of England are stronger than the country as a whole?”
The only area of England allowed a referendum on regionalisation was the North East - which voted 78% against. And the people of England are force fed "Britishness" by the UK Government and the likes of the BBC. There is no chance of an inclusive, civic English identity being developed.
And yet people can die in England for want of medication available on the NHS in Scotland - where spending is so much higher. And prescriptions are free to everybody, including millionaires in Wales, but poor folk in England struggle to pay the rising costs here.
The largest, most cosmopolitan country of the so-called UK is demonised and its electorate treated as second class citizens by the UK Government and the BBC. Just who are the racists?
Regionalisation - the Balkanisation - of England is a beloved project of the BBC and the UK Government.
Did you know that around 75% of the legislation passed by Gordon Brown's Government does not affect his own constituents in Scotland - which has its own national parliament? Is this democracy?
Back to The Surgery: Charlotte Aston falsely stated that the Cross of St George had racist connotations! This is a myth. The flag of the odious BNP is the Union Flag, this is part of their logo, and ALL the other flags of the UK are also flown at their rallies.
Charlotte Aston, having disowned Englishness, basically seemed to be inciting hatred against anybody defining themselves as English and flying that country's flag - obviously "racist"!
A caller claimed that Scots are referred to as "British" at sporting events and the English as "English". Have you looked at the BBC's own on-line material regarding the Olympics? The absolute reverse is true! This is brainwashing.
The BBC itself has reported on anti-English attacks in Scotland and Wales in recent years, and programmes like these which scapegoat the English as racist and spread anti-English propaganda should not be happening.
The BBC is racist. And charges of racism can be brought against those vilifying any particular nationality. The BBC is anti-English.
The Corporation also fails to address the various inequalities that devolution has heaped on England. I would like to make this a formal complaint. And all replies will be published on-line.
Yours sincerely,
Chris Abbott (half Scots/half English with a dash of German and probably various other influences but every inch an English citizen!)
You can hear the show here for the next week and For England also has it in rough .mp3 format.
Anti-English bile? Regionalist propaganda? The BBC continues to excel. If you wish to write to The Surgery the e-mail address is:
thesurgery@bbc.co.uk
I'll keep you posted on any replies I get. And a big hat tip to For England!
Campaign For An English Parliament Press Release: The Arrest Of Damian Green
Is it the case that Prime Minister Brown and the Commons speaker Martin have no understanding and feeling for the English democratic tradition?
'Speaker Michael Martin MP for Glasgow North East, in flagrant defiance of the historic role and meaning of the office he holds, allowed police to enter the House of Commons, raid the office of one of its members, Damian Green, Shadow Immigration Minister, leading to his arrest and beingheld in custody for nine hours. Prime Minister Gordon Brown MP for Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath not only did not protest and not only did not defend the historic constitutional rights of Members of Parliament but instead used his office to express his support for the police action as an indication, so he described it, of their independence from government.
'These things which these two Scottish MPs have done,' Michael Knowles Head of the CEP Media Unit has informed the Campaign membership, 'defy and betray the very heart, meaning and role of what England's democractic achievements are essentially about. England's Parliament was founded 800 years ago to defend the people of England against the excesses of the Crown and the Executive. For all those 800 years the Commons has been both heart and symbol of what England stands for: parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary democracy was achieved by the people of England, not the people of Britain which did not exist until 1707, through centuries of struggle and evolution. The independence of the Members of Parliament from the Crown and the Executive and their freedom and their right to put information before the people of England, and since 1707 before the peoples of Wales and Scotland too, lie at the very heart of the model of democracy which England gave to the world and which is admired the world over.'
'We now have to ask whether or not it is the case that Prime Minister Brown and Speaker Martin have no understanding and no feeling for the model of democracy which is distinctly England's historic achievement and tradition. No one should shy away from that very fundamental question. It is a very uncomfortable one but no less necessary for that. How else can their actions be explained? Martin's predecessor Speaker John Pym 60 years before England's Parliament became the British Parliament risked his very life to defend the freedoms of the members of his House. How does Michael Martin understand his office? As the agent of the incumbant government and nothing else? So it might seem. What Damian Green did was his parliamentary and democratic duty. In matters of immigration he exposed lawbreaking by officialdom and the reluctance of ministers to admit it in public. He has upheld with honour the memory and example of every English 'village Hampden', this time on a national scale. He blew the whistle in a matter of the greatest public interest. In return he has been treated by the executive arm of Mr Brown's Goverrnment like he was a dissident in Russia or Burma or Zimbawe or China or Saudi Arabia.
'It was England's Parliament that gave parliamentary democracy to the world. That is our English inheritance. Absolutely essential to it is the freedom of MPs to speak out. Absolutely essential is the ancient presumption that matters brought to an MP by members of the public and his constituents are protected from any form of Executive interference. Without that basic presumption there can be none of the trust between Members of Parliament and the public on which democratic government depends. That historically is our English inheritance. We have therefore to ask the question: Was the flagrant defiance and betrayal of that inheritance by the Member for Glasgow's North East and the Member for Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath done out of ignorance and indifference concerning what England is about?
Contact:
Michael Knowles
Head of CEP Media Unit.
Tel: 01260 271139 Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
'Speaker Michael Martin MP for Glasgow North East, in flagrant defiance of the historic role and meaning of the office he holds, allowed police to enter the House of Commons, raid the office of one of its members, Damian Green, Shadow Immigration Minister, leading to his arrest and beingheld in custody for nine hours. Prime Minister Gordon Brown MP for Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath not only did not protest and not only did not defend the historic constitutional rights of Members of Parliament but instead used his office to express his support for the police action as an indication, so he described it, of their independence from government.
'These things which these two Scottish MPs have done,' Michael Knowles Head of the CEP Media Unit has informed the Campaign membership, 'defy and betray the very heart, meaning and role of what England's democractic achievements are essentially about. England's Parliament was founded 800 years ago to defend the people of England against the excesses of the Crown and the Executive. For all those 800 years the Commons has been both heart and symbol of what England stands for: parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary democracy was achieved by the people of England, not the people of Britain which did not exist until 1707, through centuries of struggle and evolution. The independence of the Members of Parliament from the Crown and the Executive and their freedom and their right to put information before the people of England, and since 1707 before the peoples of Wales and Scotland too, lie at the very heart of the model of democracy which England gave to the world and which is admired the world over.'
'We now have to ask whether or not it is the case that Prime Minister Brown and Speaker Martin have no understanding and no feeling for the model of democracy which is distinctly England's historic achievement and tradition. No one should shy away from that very fundamental question. It is a very uncomfortable one but no less necessary for that. How else can their actions be explained? Martin's predecessor Speaker John Pym 60 years before England's Parliament became the British Parliament risked his very life to defend the freedoms of the members of his House. How does Michael Martin understand his office? As the agent of the incumbant government and nothing else? So it might seem. What Damian Green did was his parliamentary and democratic duty. In matters of immigration he exposed lawbreaking by officialdom and the reluctance of ministers to admit it in public. He has upheld with honour the memory and example of every English 'village Hampden', this time on a national scale. He blew the whistle in a matter of the greatest public interest. In return he has been treated by the executive arm of Mr Brown's Goverrnment like he was a dissident in Russia or Burma or Zimbawe or China or Saudi Arabia.
'It was England's Parliament that gave parliamentary democracy to the world. That is our English inheritance. Absolutely essential to it is the freedom of MPs to speak out. Absolutely essential is the ancient presumption that matters brought to an MP by members of the public and his constituents are protected from any form of Executive interference. Without that basic presumption there can be none of the trust between Members of Parliament and the public on which democratic government depends. That historically is our English inheritance. We have therefore to ask the question: Was the flagrant defiance and betrayal of that inheritance by the Member for Glasgow's North East and the Member for Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath done out of ignorance and indifference concerning what England is about?
Contact:
Michael Knowles
Head of CEP Media Unit.
Tel: 01260 271139 Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)