Thursday, 28 April 2011
Wednesday, 27 April 2011
Sadly, my lovely old uncle passed away many years ago in the days when finding somewhere to park your car was nowhere near as problematic as it is these days, especially in my town of Walsall where an army of enforcement officers, heavily armed with machines for issuing fines, lurk and prowl in every corner of the town.
Unsuspecting drivers are getting hit at an appalling rate, especially since Walsall’s Conservative Council went completely bonkers and erected on-street parking charges. People pull up outside shops around the town to dash in for their newspapers or a few necessary items, they can’t be bothered to rummage around for a bit of loose change to feed the machine – that’s if they have change to rumage for, and in the few minutes they have dashed in and out causing no problems to anyone, wallop – gotcha! Another notch goes on the enforcement officer’s belt and another poor sucker has just found his 42p newspaper has cost over thirty quid, as long as he pays his Walsall Council extortion money promptly.
Naturally, that driver won’t return to that shop which in turn sees its trade plummet placing its business and jobs in peril. Not to worry though, the hard hit shopkeepers in Walsall are being told by Council officers that this vicious campaign against the town’s motorists is being done for their benefit!
I was told this in one of the badly affected shops on bank holiday Monday, when it was safe to venture out with my car as there are no parking charges on bank holidays. Naturally, the shopkeepers and business owners in Walsall are not happy at all, neither are the electorate I meet on their doorsteps as I go around the Paddock Ward dishing out my leaflets.
When I mention what I am campaigning on in the election, and touch on my opposition to the constant attack against anyone who wants to park their car in Walsall, for once I have not met one single person who disagrees. Last night as I went around with my leaflets I met one chap who did not seem that interested in the local elections or my campaign to be elected, but when I touched on the parking issue it was as if I had lit a fuse. From then on we spoke about the harm being done to Walsall and the inconvenience, he too has stopped using the shops and businesses where just a short time ago you could park your car and pop in for the things you need. It is inconvenient for him and a loss in trade for the business owner.
This is a topic that cannot be parked up and forgotten about, not for those of us who care about the well being of Walsall and the prosperity of the town. If you run a business in Walsall I will be pleased to hear from you, it’s time to get organised.
Tuesday, 26 April 2011
At a time when all British families are struggling to make ends meet, and possibly having to cut their own pension contributions so they can pay other essential bills, British taxpayers who have had their pips squeaked so hard all they can now emit is a hoarse groan, are now expected to fork out a further £170 million next year towards EU pensions, even though they are struggling to pay their own.
While the plebs suffer with rising costs for just about everything, the EU’s elites are being pandered to and cared for, so much so an average EU official can expect to retire on a pension of more than £60,000 a year – no money worries for them.
EU pensions are rising by four per cent in 2012 which will take the total cost of paying the pensions of EU civil servants to £1.2 billion.
While average British pensioners will be lucky if they can afford bucket and spade holiday by the pond in their back garden (they won’t be able to afford the bucket and spade!), no doubt they will be comforted by the thought of our dearly beloved Eurocrats sunning themselves on the Cote d’Azur which they will have paid for. To update an old saying, I’m alright Jacques!
Thursday, 21 April 2011
Then you attend the count and see the votes pile up, or not, depending on the mood of the electorate, and you wonder what happened as you leave in the early hours of the morning. Unless you are standing in a marginal ward or constituency the outcome most times is a foregone conclusion as people vote the way they have always voted no matter what.
If an area is rock solid Labour or Tory the size of the turnout and the number of votes each candidate gets will vary from election to election, but the usual suspects will be voted in and in reality, for most candidates and voters any election is a regular ritual we all go through to say that democracy has seen to be done and is still alive and kicking – even though the people who really make the big decisions and rule our lives these days, which is our master race in the EU, are not elected or accountable to anyone.
So, here we are, the local elections loom and we are all going through the usual ritual, myself included as a Council candidate in the Paddock Ward in Walsall. However, I am not sure if its me and wishful thinking, or if the mood of the electorate is shifting.
The reason I say this, during all elections you meet people and they are always nice and usually polite, although from time to time you come across someone who is a bit rude – but that is a rarity. Usually these people have a brief chat as you meet them, and usually they remain none committal and when I ask them to vote for me they usually say: ‘I will give it some thought’, which means they are going to stick to their usual voting instincts and not me. The other one I hear, which is the most frustrating thing of all, is the reply: ‘I like what you are saying and standing for, but I don’t think I can vote for you because you can’t win’. Inside I am going AGHHHH, outside I calmly smile and grit my teeth and reply, well if you don’t for me I won’t win but if you do then I will stand a chance – what’s the point of voting for a candidate whose policies you don’t want on the basis they may win? It’s a wonder some of these people haven’t been strung up by me, I find the lunacy of what they are saying so frustrating.
However, the one thing I am hearing more of this year, which I can’t say I have noticed in years and elections gone by, which is: ‘Yes, UKIP, you know I think I might give you my vote, the others have done nothing for us.' Now this is music to my ears and when I smile sweetly it is for real.
After standing in four general elections and lord knows how many Council elections (I’ve lost count), this change is, without doubt, encouraging. But none the less I have to remind myself I am standing in a safe Tory ward where even the proverbial donkey with a blue rosette would win – all the Tory candidate has to do is turn up, so I must not get too carried away. However, most years I beat the Liberal Democrat vote, so it would be quite nice if get enough votes this year and I began to worry the Labour Party in the ward. Who knows, one day when I’m old and ancient, if I keep at it long enough, I may yet still be elected - there is always hope.
Wednesday, 20 April 2011
Yet, from August 2011, a new EU law will allegedly become active to end protectionism in defence markets by setting out specific rules regarding procurement of military materiel. It forces EU Governments (meaning also our UK Government) to open more defence tenders to foreign competition on penalty of Court action and the directive will also allegedly help to smooth the way for military pooling and sharing across EU Borders.
When/if this EU Directive comes into being, am I right in thinking that our alleged sovereign Government cannot chose where it buys-if it can ever afford to buy-essential equipment and the best and most reliable equipment, for our forces? Or buy British if we want to? Am I really correct in thinking that an outside "body" (The EU) has the right to tell the Government we pay and elect where it may or may not buy equipment to DEFEND THIS OUR OWN COUNTRY AND TO PROTECT ITS CITIZENS? For goodness sake tell me I am totally wrong for if I am not, this is the ultimate betrayal by those in whom we have placed our trust because they are paying FAR TOO MUCH OF OUR MONEY TO THE EU in EU contributions and far too much to the many EU Agencies, particularly to the EU Defence Agency which the UK Government has been contributing to since 2004, and this at a time when our own Forces were being killed because of lack of protective equipment. One Soldier gave his flack jacket to another-and in that generous action, the former soldier paid with his own life. The death of ONE British Solder through lack of essential equipment is too high a price to pay.
Sadly present British Governments are doing exactly what Government's did in the 1930-39 leaving this country completely unable to defend itself and unready for what was to come. We may be the first Country to leave the EU, and leave it we must, but we will not be the last.
Defence of this, our Country and its people is, and always will be the first and foremost important priority of any British Government. Not to be able to and not to do so is not only incompetent, but sheer treachery.
We do not even have one Air-Craft Carrier at the ready, for the only one we have is HMS ILLUSTRIOUS (currently in refit) where it will remain until 2014 and
if it came out of dock tomorrow it could only carry Helicopters. Ark Royal had three more years to go, there was no need to cut its ‘life’ short. We are to “SHARE” allegedly an Aircraft Carrier with France. It is a tragedy, an absolute outrage. Where is the pride in your Country eh? The laughing stock of the World.
I can’t believe I have had to write that! To admit that this Island nation that depends on its once magnificent Sea Defences is to SHARE an Aircraft Carrier with a foreign Nation!
If we were not in the wasteful, dictatorial European Union, a Community which this Country should never have signed any Treaty with, we could have had a whole fleet of ships. We are wasting Billions and Billions of British pounds in EU Contributions and have been doing so for all the years we have been in it. What a waste! What a dreadful waste not only through lack of ships and ‘planes but of the Forces, the Navy, the Air-Force that should be training NOW, and instead of which essential equipment is being destroyed, and its vital personnel, cut.
How dare the EU give us any kind of orders on what we should do as regards any part of the defence of our own Country? How dare any British MP place this Country in such a position that it cannot defend itself? Something the people after the last war were promised faithfully by those in Parliament that swore that this Country would never be allowed to ever find itself in such a position again. There is no doubt what-so-ever that foreigners are making sure this Country will always be vulnerable and open to attack, and no longer able to defend itself on its own. I grieve that we have had weak Governments that have allowed that to happen.
The EU has even decided if we do not obey what THEY say, it will be on penalty of Court action and fines and it reckons the proposed Procurement Directive will also help to smooth the way for military pooling and sharing across EU borders. We the people, can never allow that to happen. We have a Government that must never allow that to happen either.
How could any one of our MP’s or Government Ministers even think the British people would agree or accept what their temporary Governments seem to want to happen to their Country? This is something that the people should have had a say on because it is all their lives that are at risk. It is their once free sovereign Country that is at risk. The Country that so many of the previous generation gave their lives for in saving from foreign rule. Sadly, not one person in Government has had the guts to tell the people about these proposals, or the guts to tell the people the real facts that our defences have been deliberately run down in order to blend in with EU proposals for the melding together into EU Forces?
To ratify Treaties and/or agreements without telling the people its contents, other than saying we cannot afford to keep all our forces, ships and ‘planes, yet strangely there is always the money coming from some-where for EU needs and EU contributions. There is money for the EU’s proposals for the High Speed Rail and for the EU’s proposals to divide ENGLAND up via the Localism Bill with the added expense of elected Mayors and all the regalia and entourage that goes with it, followed by the break up into the ‘local Regions’ the NHS, the Police, the Fire Service etc. Then it will be money for the EU’s Motorway in the Sea with the probable loss of our 12 mile limit, the Single European Sky where we lose sovereignty over our air-space. A never ending list none of which the people of this Country want, or want to pay for. We seem to have no money for the Defence of our Country, which is without doubt the most important matter for any British Government. It took us 60 years to pay off our debt to the USA for the Lend-Lease in the last War, friends indeed. Governments since then entered into millions of pounds of debt through PPP/PFI, debts that even our Great Grand-children may be still paying off. Governments have sold off “Crown Land” for money to spend, even selling off School playing fields, until it is doubtful there is much left to sell.
This Government entered into the war in Iraq under dubious questionable reasons and then Afghanistan and has recently taken part in the bombing of Libya and seemingly will continue to do so until its leader has stood down. Is that also questionable?
The very recent deliberate reduction of our Forces, touching on all three services including our police, the reduction of our ‘planes, ships, is what many may see as sheer treachery, for Governments have put the EU before allegiance to our Monarch, for these are Her Majesty’s Forces. The Monarch is also the Head of the Armed Forces as well as our Head of State. They are not the Governments forces to decide that they may be put under the Command of any foreigners, particularly permanently. Our Monarch is the only person who can declare war and when war is over, although she must take advice from the Government first. Never before in the history of this Country has any temporary elected Government ever thought of allowing British Forces become involved in amalgamating into what would be permanent with those on the Continent. Working with them, fighting along side of them if need be but never as I have so recently read in recent articles or what is proposed by the European Union.
The Military Covenant reads--
“Soldiers will be called upon to make personal sacrifices – including the ultimate sacrifice – in the service of the Nation. In putting the needs of the Nation and the Army before their own, they forego some of the rights enjoyed by those outside the Armed Forces. In return, British soldiers must always be able to expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as individuals, and that they (and their families) will be sustained and rewarded by commensurate terms and conditions of service. In the same way the unique nature of military land operations means that the Army differs from all other institutions, and must be sustained and provided for accordingly by the Nation. This mutual obligation forms the Military Covenant between the Nation, the Army and each individual soldier; an unbreakable common bond of identity, loyalty and responsibility which has sustained the Army throughout its history. It has perhaps its greatest manifestation in the annual commemoration of Armistice Day, when the Nation keeps covenant with those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives in action”. End of Quote.
These three paragraphs below are from page 37 “The Case for a new approach to EU military collaboration” by Thomas Valasek.
“Regarding the New EU defence procurement directive which is due to commence in August 2011, a new EU law will make it difficult for governments to shield national defence companies from outside competition. The EU’s directive aims to end protectionism in defence markets by setting out specific rules for procurement of military materiel. At present, the defence sector is in practice largely exempt from the EU’s single market rules, on national security grounds.
The EU has countered by setting out new procurement procedures for defence goods, which take into account the specificities of the sector (such as the need for guaranteed supplies in times of war). Under the new law, governments will find it more difficult to justify exemptions from these new rules. If the European Commission enforces its new rules – and it may have to resort to the European Court of Justice because many member-states will be tempted to drag their feet on implementation – defence and security sectors will see much more cross border competition.
By forcing EU governments to open more defence tenders to foreign competition on penalty of court action and fines, the directive will also help to smooth the way for military pooling and sharing across EU borders. At present, protectionism often thwarts co-operation. By opening markets, the defence procurement directive will help level the playing field”. (END of Quotes)
Our own British Government is allowing this Country to sink once more into exactly the same position it was in, in the 1930-1939, totally and utterly unprepared for the full scale war that was to come. No foreign Government or EU should be allowed to know what armaments we have nor how many forces we have in operation, or where we buy defence goods from. Our own Government should make their own decisions what armaments they want and where from which is preferably from our own British Companies. Our Forces should have the best equipment available and no person outside our Country should have anything what so ever anything to do with our defences at all. Neither to know what we have got-the cost-our quantity etc.
In time of war or actions for the prevention of war, the Defence of our Realm is purely a matter for our own Government Ministers, AND NO ONE ELSE. Such information given to foreigners in time of war-and are we not at war at this present moment in time at least in two areas- would be an act of treason- which would have even been a hanging offence if found guilty in the last war.
No one can possibly predict whether there will be another war or not and the way things are at present, there may well be another full scale war sooner than anyone thinks.
While you are reading this around about the 19th or 20.4.2011, our Prime Minister and would be Prime Ministers are very busy trying to get the people to either vote for FPTP or AV. This apparently is THE most important matter to all of them. They are devoting their time appearing on television and going round to various meetings as if their very lives depend on the out come. All for a new way of voting for a Government that, because of the treacherous EU Treaties Political Parties have ratified since 1972, can only obey EU Orders like the rest of the British people. It will always be thus as long as we remain in the EU and the longer we remain in it the less important the UK becomes until we have nothing left to have British Governments for, whether our “vote” be given via AV or FPTP.
The people of course cannot continue to contribute financially towards foreigners to govern them because that is contrary to the oaths of allegiance that anyone born here owes to the Monarch from that moment they are born here in the UK.
So WHY exactly do our MP’s think the people should continue to vote for them any more when all the MP’s they vote for is debate EU legislation yet cannot alter any major part of it? What does it matter which method the people choose to vote for any MP, for they certainly cannot make all our laws. Violation of the Solemn Oath of Allegiance to the Crown and through the Crown to all the people in this Land of ours, is without doubt the greatest betrayal of all. Without doubt, the EU Commission take their Oaths very seriously indeed.
The Government’s Strategic Defence Review October 2010. Given by the Prime Minister “Securing Britain in an Age of Uncertainty” 75 Pages.
For exactly what we have lost in forces and equipment read:- UKNDA-Nationwide pages 5 and 6.
“The Case for a new approach to EU military collaboration” by Thomas Valasek
Defence Procurement Directive
Further explanation of the Directive
DIRECTIVE 2009/81/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of procedures for the award of certain works contracts, supply contracts and service contracts by contracting authorities or entities in the fields of defence and security, and amending Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC
On 23 May 2011, the European Commission will hold a high-level conference on Defence and Security Industries and Markets.
Tuesday, 19 April 2011
So, what do you suggest your local authority should do who are responsible for spending money raised in taxes, from your labours. Do they A: borrow the money they need to build the new schools, hospitals etc and repay the loan with normal interest, which leaves them with the ownership of the building and its contents which is an asset that accrues value? Or, B: hand over the complete project to an outside company, who will own the land and the property, and who will then lease the building and its contents to the local authority, which will end up costing taxpayers many times the cost of taking out a loan? This second option, known to one and all as the ‘Private Finance Initiate’ (PFI), also means the authority never owns the property as an asset.
For normal people such as thee and me it don’t take a lot of thinking about, after a quick ‘Doh’, any half sane person would opt for option A. But we are not thinking like our pro-EU politicians and their willingness to put up with the cost of any EU madness, for which we, the poor taxpaying sods, stump up for.
What our politicians have to account for, in their willingness to cow-tow to everything EU, is a little thing called the ‘Growth and Stability Pact’. ‘Wotsat?’ you say. The Growth and Stability pact was the very thing the EU set up at the insistence of the Germans in the days when preparations were being made for the EU’s euro. Every single EU nation signed up to it, including the UK which had opted out, so as to ensure the poorer countries in the EU, such as Greece, Ireland, Portugal and others did not get into debt thus creating massive problems for the more stable euro countries. This is where you say: ‘Well, that didn’t work did it’. You may be inclined to also ask, if it didn’t work and the euro is creating all kinds of fiscal havoc across the whole of the EU, with richer countries going into debt to bail out poorer countries, why on earth are we allowing PFI to add to our fiscal burdens here?
Under the EU’s growth and stability rules, which we meekly comply with, the nation is restricted to some stringent fiscal rules; we have limits on borrowing and spending, so in order to remain within these rules to ensure the euro does not get into the mess it already has, of which we are not part of other than the massive bailout bit, PFI is the only way we can get what we need for the well being of the British people and remain complaint little EU souls.
If borrowing and spending too much in one go to build that new hospital offends the EU, then the only option is to let a private company borrow and spend the money instead, and then pay them an annual lease for the hospital and all its equipment. Naturally, the company wants to make large profits from such a large investment, so we finish up with large tax bills to pay for it. At the end of all this, our mentally strange politicians praise such schemes to the hilt and the resulting headlines about our wonderful new hospital, in our local daily rags, inform us what a fantastic success such a PFI schemel is. These stories are usually accompanied with photos of a few insignificant local councillors shaking hands with the multi millionaire boss of the company, whose about to become even richer, thanks to his PFI bonus. No mention is ever made of the EU’s growth and stability pact.
Last year in the run up to the 2010 general election, Conservatives everywhere were informing the electorate of young Dave’s Euro-scepticism and how he would sort the EU out. He’s a pretty odd Euro-sceptic, he has been quite happy to remain submissive to the EU and appointed some well known Euro fanatics to high places, not least Ken Clarke and Chris Patten. On top of this, he and his two-tone coalition Government have given the go ahead to even more PFI projects, around 39 in total.
Considering Cameron was slagging off the previous Labour Government for being wasteful, and pointed out that in one hospital, because of PFI, it cost £333 to change a light bulb, he seems to have had a ‘road to the EU Damascus’ moment regarding his once opposition to PFI. He has even suggested he was still keen to use PFI because it ‘won’t immediately show up on budgets’. In other words we are still complying with the EU’s growth and stability pact.
As I stated, it is our strange politicians and their strange ways that see such things a benefit, David Cameron has proved he is just as strange as the rest of them.
Monday, 18 April 2011
Friday, 15 April 2011
Thursday, 14 April 2011
Wednesday, 13 April 2011
Monday, 11 April 2011
In reponse to European Commission report today calling for more national implementation of European Arrest Warrant (EAW).
UKIP MEP for London, Gerard Batten said: "The Commission cannot fail to register that the European Arrest Warrant has resulted in many miscarriages of justice across Europe. But their report fails completely to get the point. They say it is 'an important tool to catch criminals'. Not it isn't, it is a device for transferring suspects from one EU state to another. The police 'catch' criminal suspects, the courts should decide on the quality of evidence against them.
The Commission says that the EAW should not be used for not very serious crimes such as 'bicycle theft'. That is a complete red herring. If someone faces judicial surrender from one country to another it is an equally serious matter for them whether it is for bicycle theft or murder. The whole point of the EAW is that is has stripped the courts of considering the prima facie evidence against the suspect and the power to decide if there is a proper case to answer.
The British courts now have no power to protect their own citizens from unjust extradition, even when they know a grave injustice is being done. That is the fundamental problem with the EAW. Extradition (judicial surrender) has been reduced to a mere bureaucratic formality.
The Commission says the EAW is an 'efficient way to extradite suspects in a border-free EU'. Yes, that is the point the EU considers itself one political state which should have one legal system. The EAW is based on the idiotic doctrine of 'mutual recognition' that says that all EU legal systems are equally valid, whether they be a corrupt court in Romania or Bulgaria or the Old Bailey or Royal Courts of Justice in London.
Out of 54,689 arrest warrants issued so far the Commission can only quote a handful against serious criminal or terrorist suspects. These people could have been extradited under national systems that protected the entire population who are now unprotected from unjust extradition.
We have thrown the baby out with the bathwater in the name of relentless European integration."