Jacqui Smith - Hitler In Knickers, And The DNA Database Again...

Despite the European Court of Human Rights ruling against the UK DNA Database, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has decided that thousands of innocent people will remain on the Database. See the Guardian article here.

Just to give some comfort and joy, here's how one man ended up on the Database.

A good friend of ours, in his 40s, and like ourselves a care worker with a totally clean police record, was accused of "hitting" a neighbour on the arm. Nobody witnessed it. No marks were left. Of course, our friend denied the charge - and the neighbour is well known in his local community as a trouble maker.

But our friend was arrested. He denied the accusation, no further action was taken, but our friend's DNA was taken and is now on the Database.

And that's just one example of how innocent people find themselves on the Database. In a democracy, there can be no excuse for arresting people and retaining their DNA on hearsay. And anybody could find themselves in exactly the same situation. Just accuse somebody you dislike of hitting you on the arm and see what happens to them. This should not be happening. And there is no excuse for retaining DNA already taken. If anything, victims of this abomination should be granted compensation for the trauma they have been put through.

All this is at the behest of Jacqui Smith, whose own good character was recently called into question.

Democracy in England is dead. And we are ruled by people, like Ms Smith, who are evil. No more. No less.

Jade Goody - Unfair "NHS" Screening - England Suffers Again

Speaking of reality TV star Jade Goody, Max Pemberton wrote in The Telegraph of another facet of the mockery which is the NHS, and how once again it differs between England and the so-called Celtic nations:

But what she also did last week was to expose the inconsistencies in healthcare in the UK, which make a mockery of the NHS founding principle of equality. On the back of Jade's high-profile case, the sexual health charity Marie Stopes International called on the NHS to lower the age at which women are first offered a smear test to 20. This had been the age when they first began screening until 2003 when it was raised by NHS cancer screening services to 25, after research suggested a negative effect.

This was because experts said that in their early 20s, there was evidence that women had natural changes in their cervical cells, which could be mistaken for pre-cancerous changes. This would lead to unnecessary treatment, which can lead to complications in later life, including difficulties carrying a baby to term. But on closer examination, the debate that Jade has sparked is concerned with the NHS in England only, because the rest of the UK screens at the age of 20. Since devolution within the NHS, there have been numerous examples of inconsistency and unfairness.

Prescription charges, access to medication, waiting times, hospital parking charges; the NHS is no longer consistent across the nation. In a nationalised service, there is something fundamentally wrong if such discrepancies exist. There remains debate about the appropriate age at which screening should begin, with no consensus across other European countries. But it seems ludicrous that people who are served by the same institution receive different treatment based on where they live, when the very ideological underpinning of that institution is the abolition of inequity within healthcare.

Whatever the correct age is to begin screening, young women somewhere in the UK are being let down by the devolved NHS. Either it is those in England, who should be offered it at a younger age and are therefore being exposed to an increased risk of a potentially fatal disease. Or, it is those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, who are risking unnecessary, invasive treatment that can result in them miscarrying in the future.

As we often parrot on this blog, it must be remembered that Scotland and Wales have democratic devolved governing bodies, and that England is ruled by the UK Parliament, headed by Gordon Brown, a man who represents a Scottish constituency and is therefore unaccountable to his constituents for around 75% of legislation his government passes - as they have their own parliament.

Aided and abetted by his Scottish Raj and MPs supposedly representing English constituencies, who spurn any recognition of England as a nation, Gordon Brown makes a mockery of democratic representation in England - and if you speak up, he and his cohorts are likely to accuse you of racism.

Whatever your background, WAKE UP to the abuse you are suffering as a citizen of England and the lies that are being spun, the smoke and mirrors employed by the UK Government and the Opposition parties, to keep intact the "UK", which now works against every man, woman and child resident in England. England is being broken up, regionalised out of existence - and we, the electorate across England, are the losers.

David Williamson, Wales On Sunday, Thatcher Multi-Election Winning from '79 to '90? What A Load Of Cobblers!

David Williamson writes in Wales on Sunday: "From May 1979 to November 1990, Mrs Thatcher led a multi-election-winning Conservative administration which divided Britain between those who considered the first female Prime Minister a crusading hero and others who believed she was the enemy of the vulnerable."

Rubbish! Mrs T was not multi-election-winning from 1979 onwards. In fact she didn't win her second election until 1983 and her third until 1987. Sorry to be pedantic, but the Wales On Sunday article is a piece of very bad - and potentially highly misleading - writing! Once again, defining events of the 1980s seem to have slipped down the back of the sofa! And surely Thatcher was only the UK's first female Prime Minister, not simply "the first"?

George Monbiot: Great Article - But Smelling Slightly Of Inaccurate Priggishness...

"England, that great colonising land, has itself become a colony," chirrups George Monbiot here - fascinating article, well worth a read. Unfortunately, it contains more than a whiff of PC priggishness and inaccuracy. Firstly, BRITAIN was the great colonising land, surely? The Scots were disproportionately involved in the British Empire.

And the Union was "forged by a dominant England"? - not so, the Scots elite were as eager as could be.

George is, apparently, a "global citizen" - lucky him - sophisticated and well-travelled enough to be instantly a part of things wherever he may go. Sounds a bit arrogant and cocky to the likes of us, because, sadly, we can't even afford to take a weekend break outside of England. We could visit Scotland and Wales, of course, but we don't want to run the risk of getting beaten up.

Still, Mr Monbiot has woken up to some of the realities and his article may do some good. In fact it's a great achievement for somebody who comes across (to our tiny, working class minds) as a snobbish, upper middle-class English git.

Yvonne Davies of Sandwell Council - A Problem With St George - Is She A Racist (And Sexist) Herself?

Racist and sexist? - Yvonne Davies.

Oh no! Another anti-England English council emerges! Councillor Yvonne Davies, representing Hateley Heath on Sandwell Council, West Bromwich, has deemed the area's St George's Day celebrations "racist". The event apparently creates an "unhealthy atmosphere" and causes young boys to be racist (note - not girls - in Ms Davies' eyes girls seem to be above reproach so she's obviously highly sexist).

"It is not only the parade which is the problem, but the tribal excitement it creates," she chirrups. But it appears problems have been minimal and surely it's the job of the local police to keep order? But Ms Davies' colleagues have backed her and financial support has been withdrawn. There are other plans afoot, but there is no doubt that getting rid of England's biggest St George's Day parade is something of a coup for the "let's enforce regionalisation and break England into pieces - and bugger the electorate" New Labour crowd.

Actually this event, which has been running since 1998, is totally inclusive and all English citizens, regardless of race, origin, creed or colour are most welcome to attend. In fact, some of the organisers say that the event has helped to claim the Cross of St George from racists. But actually it was never in their hands. The BNP flies the Union Flag and is British. The Scots, English and Welsh flags all feature at their rallies, but the Union flag is always the centre piece and is part of their logo.

The odious British National Party logo features the Union flag. Yvonne Davies has no problems with this flag - but she is totally opposed to the Cross of St George.

What's Ms Davies' problem? Does she see the anti-English attacks in Scotland and Wales - as we witnessed most recently with Lucy Newman - as a problem? No, apparently not. Does she see health apartheid, the West Lothian Question and the Barnett Formula as a problem? No. She simply sees large numbers of people, of any race or colour, gathering together to celebrate England as a problem.

And let's face it - that threatens the Divide And Rule tactics of New Labour and the very existence of the gravy train Ms Davies and her undemocratic kind ride.

Yvonne Davies, you are the one with the problem. You appear to be racist, self-serving, patronising and dictatorial. Just four of the words which spring to mind.

Lucy Newman attacked in Scotland by a Scot for being and sounding English. Yvonne Davies is also determined to stamp out any manifestations of Englishness in her area of England.

More Snooping...

A DNA Database, containing the DNA of millions of innocent people. CCTV cameras following our every move. Alarming new powers for the police. Databases to watch our travelling arrangements. And now our e-mails, web activity and phone calls are also to be studied. Even your local town hall will have access. Which makes things rather alarming for sites like this, which campaign against the dishonest capers of Government organisations like these. What excuses will be found to close down blogs like this, and persecute their owners?

Welcome to Orwell's 1984.

I had a very disturbed night last night - sometimes things get to me, and last night, in the wee, small hours, I was frightened. Frightened of this dishonest and authoritarian government. Frightened of the lack of an effective Opposition. Terrified by the EU monster. Scared witless by CCTV and Databases.

I slept a broken, fitful sleep. When I awoke this morning, I stepped into the garden to breathe the air and try to restore some sense of well being. My neighbour appeared, on her way to work, and stopped for a word. Feeling it my duty to spread the word, I told her about my disturbed night, my fears about the Government and the surveillance state.

She looked at me with polite interest, then said:

"Ooh, it's terrible to have a bad night. I had this dream the other week - I was on this coach in Great Yarmouth and Jerry Springer was sitting right behind me..."

CEP: Protection Alive, Well And Legal In Scotland

Protectionism is alive and well and legal in Scotland, but denounced as xenophobic and illegal in England.

‘If ever proof was needed that this Government under Gordon Brown, the MP for Scotland’s Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath constituency, operates double standards in Scotland’s favour, one of his own Scottish Labour MPs has provided it.’ This information has been revealed in the columns of The Scotsman newspaper. Michael Connarty, the Labour MP for Linlithgow and East Falkirk accused the English protesting against their exclusion from applying for jobs at the Lindsey refinery in Lincolnshire of ‘xenophobia and protectionism’. Yet at the same time in that newspaper he made the stunning revelation that there are "long-standing working practices in Scotland that allow workers living within 40 miles of a plant to be prioritised for work”.

‘What a display of double standards!” Michael Knowles speaking for the CEP has declared. ‘The number of Portuguese or Italian workers who meet the specified criteria is rather limited to say the very least. The brutal undeniable fact is that they were brought to England, they are being housed in floating hotels by their employment agents and it is can only be suspected therefore that they got their jobs, not on merit, but because they are prepared to accept a rate of pay below Englsh, even local Lincolnshire, rates.

‘How can a Labour Prime Minister allow a situation where the jobs of his own Scottish countrymen and women are protected against foreign competition while those of the people of England are not? How can the Leader of the Conservative Party stand up in Parliament at PMQT and denounce protectionism and say not a word in support of the right of English workers to apply for work in their own country against unfair foreign competition while workers in Scotland operate regulations which protect them from foreign competition?

‘The only conclusion to draw from the revelations made by Mr Connarty is that there is one law for the Scottish workforce in the United Kingdom and another law for the English workforce. As this Campaign asks again and again: Who is there in the UK Parliament who speaks up for England?

Contacts

Michael Knowles. CEP Media Unit. Tel@ 01260 271139. Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk

Jeremy Clarkson's Gordon Brown Insult - An Outrage - Anti-English Scots' Attack On Lucy Newman - Ignored!

There's absolute "outrage" today as motormouth Jeremy Clarkson has described Prime Minister Gordon Brown as "a one eyed Scottish idiot"! Watch the Great and the Good rise up in righteous fury, screeching "RACIST!", etc.

The same Great and the Good who ignored the recent physical attack on Englishwoman Lucy Newman in Scotland, which left her in possible need of facial surgery.

It's all a matter of priorities, isn't it?

More here.

The Recovery Approach, The Audit Commission, Supporting People And Primary Care Trusts

Our recent posts about the Supporting People organisation, and "The Recovery Approach" to care and support, have aroused much interest.

Carol writes:

The Audit Commission, Supporting People and various business-orientated so-called charitable care providers have been having a field day with "The Recovery Approach" for about five years! It's a pretty nebulous set of ideas to assist in enabling people with mental health problems to live happy, and as far as possible, independent lives.

All well and good, but our dreadful UK Government, acting in England only, sees it as a means to make cutbacks. And "The Recovery Approach" is basically loosely interpreted and used as an excuse and a cover to remove services, such as 24 hour care, without consulting the service users.

The Recovery Approach as practised in England is an outright con. It's all about money, and all to do with abusing vulnerable people, unable to speak-up for themselves.

CEP: Heathrow third runway: Flying in the face of English democracy

The Campaign for an English Parliament has noted that last Wednesday's vote on a third runway at Heathrow Airport was won for the Government by MPs elected outside England. English constituency MPs rejected the third runway by a margin of 20 votes but a phalanx of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs trooped through the lobby to win the day for the Government, overturning, in the process, the democratic will of England.

According to one Labour rebel a “tearful and dewy eyed” Prime Minister had called wavering Labour MPs into his office to tell them that losing this vote would “de-stabilise the Government and de-stabilise the markets”. In the event 52% of English MPs voted against the Government, 48% with the Government. But MPs elected outside England were a different matter altogether, of these MPs only 29% voted against the Government, with a whopping 71% supporting the building of a new £13bn runway on top of the ancient English village of Sipson.

Across the country the general public opposed the third runway by a margin of 13% (YouGov), so English MPs appear to be better reflecting public opinion than non-English MPs who fly in the face of it. So why the disparity? The Constitution Unit at University College London may have the answer. Between May 2005 and June 2007 CU researchers analysed data from almost 500 votes in the House of Commons. It revealed that Scottish Labour backbenchers rebelled in an average of 1.8% of votes, compared to an average of 3.4% for their English counterparts and 1.9% among Welsh MPs.

According to the Constitution Unit the “most significant factor” in explaining this phenomenon is that Scots MPs vote through unpopular Government measures that do not apply north of the Border because they face no external pressure from their constituents or local party.

“It would be wrong to suggest that Scottish electors do not care about the issues surrounding the Heathrow debate”, said Gareth Young, in a message to CEP members, “but we have to recognise that they elect a Minister to the Scottish Parliament to represent them on Transport, Planning and the Environment (planning is a devolved matter); so a Scottish Westminster MP looking to advance his career by voting with the Government can be reasonably sure that his constituents will disregard his voting record on these matters.

“There is the small matter of the Barnett consequentials too, Scotland stands to rake in up to £130 million from this, to spend on whatever they want without the interference of English MPs.
“The presence of non-English MPs in the parliament that governs England not only allows them to foist unpopular measures on England, but also helps to stabilise an unpopular and unwanted government; compromising England's right to pick the government of its choosing, and lessening our chances of kicking out a government that we don’t want.”

Contacts:

Gareth Young CEP: email - gpy1973@yahoo.co.uk

Michael Knowles:

CEP Media Unit

Tel: 01260 271139

Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk