Lazy, scrounging bastards

A report this week highlighted by the Daily Telegraph reveals that the number of households in this country where no adult has ever worked has increased to the highest level since the Office of National Statistics started keeping records 16 years ago.

There are now a staggering 370,000 households in the UK where no-one has ever worked, so this raises some simple questions :

(1) Are these people actually unable to find work or is it simply that they don't feel the need to bother?

(2) Is our benefits culture so out of control that people actually better off staying at home?

(3) How did these people get a home to lounge around in when hard working people can't get a mortgage?

To find the answers, look at the statistics. The number of these households has doubled in the last 15 years. That's 15 years predominantly under a Labour government. A Labour government that believes in redistribution of wealth.

Look at the number of people who decided to come off disability benefit when they were told that they would have to be medically assessed.

Look at the ridiculous Human Rights legislation that promises so much to those that know how to exploit it.

Look at the recent case of Moira Pearce in Gillingham who is hawking herself round local charities begging for handouts because she can't support her 10 children by four different men in her four bed roomed house in Kent on the paltry £31,200 a year she gets in benefits.

Yes, there are people out there with problems that genuinely deserve a helping hand. People who are trying their best.

And then there are people like Moira...

Lazy, scrounging bastards

A report this week highlighted by the Daily Telegraph reveals that the number of households in this country where no adult has ever worked has increased to the highest level since the Office of National Statistics started keeping records 16 years ago.

There are now a staggering 370,000 households in the UK where no-one has ever worked, so this raises some simple questions :

(1) Are these people actually unable to find work or is it simply that they don't feel the need to bother?

(2) Is our benefits culture so out of control that people actually better off staying at home?

(3) How did these people get a home to lounge around in when hard working people can't get a mortgage?

To find the answers, look at the statistics. The number of these households has doubled in the last 15 years. That's 15 years predominantly under a Labour government. A Labour government that believes in redistribution of wealth.

Look at the number of people who decided to come off disability benefit when they were told that they would have to be medically assessed.

Look at the ridiculous Human Rights legislation that promises so much to those that know how to exploit it.

Look at the recent case of Moira Pearce in Gillingham who is hawking herself round local charities begging for handouts because she can't support her 10 children by four different men in her four bed roomed house in Kent on the paltry £31,200 a year she gets in benefits.

Yes, there are people out there with problems that genuinely deserve a helping hand. People who are trying their best.

And then there are people like Moira...

EHRC - Another worthless crock

As my regular reader will testify, every time the phrase 'human rights' is used, by blood pressure goes through the roof!

Now it seems that some common sense is finally permeating into this area of politically correct bullshit. The independant think tank Civitas says that if it were disbanded, not only would taxpayers be saved millions but proper ways could be found to tackle unfairness.

The scathing report by academic Jon Gower Davies says the Commission looks at issues the wrong way. It blames British unfairness for differences in people’s lives that are beyond the Government’s control and too narrowly focuses on “rights” while ignoring responsibilities.

He goes on to criticise the gravy train of pay and perks within the organisation. In support of the call to disband the organisation, the Taxpayers Alliance director, Matthew Sinclair, said: “The EHRC has mismanaged millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money too many times. It has shown that it can’t be trusted to use its budget properly and should be wound up. There are much better uses for the millions of pounds it spends every year than this politicised and wasteful quango.”

Conservative MP Dominic Raab said: “The EHRC is costly and counter-productive. Its fixation on positive discrimination and quotas is socially divisive, anti-meritocratic and out of touch with the aspirations of modern young Britons.”

Fellow Tory MP Priti Patel said: “I am not surprised by this report as I went through the EHRC annual reports and the waste is unbelievable."

The watchdog has continually been in the news for its controversial judgments. In March it was criticised after saying children should be asked from age 11 if they were gay, with records kept of any who were “questioning” their sexuality in case they fell victim to discrimination.

Football fans were furious when the quango backed Bath City club in offering Polish supporters an 80 per cent discount on match tickets.

It also warned full-body security scanners at British airports could be illegal and would be impossible to monitor if there were discrimination in the way passengers were selected for the checks.

The Coalition has already reduced funding for the EHRC, from £70 million in 2007 to £55 million in 2010-11 and plans further cuts to £26 million in 2014-15.

Frankly that's £26 million too much for something which seems to do more to stir up inequalities than to reconcile them...

(You can read more in the Daily Express by clicking here)

EHRC - Another worthless crock

As my regular reader will testify, every time the phrase 'human rights' is used, by blood pressure goes through the roof!

Now it seems that some common sense is finally permeating into this area of politically correct bullshit. The independant think tank Civitas says that if it were disbanded, not only would taxpayers be saved millions but proper ways could be found to tackle unfairness.

The scathing report by academic Jon Gower Davies says the Commission looks at issues the wrong way. It blames British unfairness for differences in people’s lives that are beyond the Government’s control and too narrowly focuses on “rights” while ignoring responsibilities.

He goes on to criticise the gravy train of pay and perks within the organisation. In support of the call to disband the organisation, the Taxpayers Alliance director, Matthew Sinclair, said: “The EHRC has mismanaged millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money too many times. It has shown that it can’t be trusted to use its budget properly and should be wound up. There are much better uses for the millions of pounds it spends every year than this politicised and wasteful quango.”

Conservative MP Dominic Raab said: “The EHRC is costly and counter-productive. Its fixation on positive discrimination and quotas is socially divisive, anti-meritocratic and out of touch with the aspirations of modern young Britons.”

Fellow Tory MP Priti Patel said: “I am not surprised by this report as I went through the EHRC annual reports and the waste is unbelievable."

The watchdog has continually been in the news for its controversial judgments. In March it was criticised after saying children should be asked from age 11 if they were gay, with records kept of any who were “questioning” their sexuality in case they fell victim to discrimination.

Football fans were furious when the quango backed Bath City club in offering Polish supporters an 80 per cent discount on match tickets.

It also warned full-body security scanners at British airports could be illegal and would be impossible to monitor if there were discrimination in the way passengers were selected for the checks.

The Coalition has already reduced funding for the EHRC, from £70 million in 2007 to £55 million in 2010-11 and plans further cuts to £26 million in 2014-15.

Frankly that's £26 million too much for something which seems to do more to stir up inequalities than to reconcile them...

(You can read more in the Daily Express by clicking here)

Choosing to die

The picture above shows Peter Smedley as he took the lethal drug that ended his life in the Dignitas facility in Zurich. God bless you, Peter.

I have just watched a recording of Terry Pratchett's BBC documentary 'Choosing to die'. By any standards this was a remarkable piece of television and if you have not watched it then I urge you to do so. It is not an easy watch. The subject matter is difficult and I defy you not to be emotionally effected by it.

71 year old Peter was terminally ill with a deteriorating disease and no hope of recovery. He took the decision to end his life at a time of his choosing whilst he was still able to cope to a degree and before he became a burden on his family. His wife supported his decision, even though she wished to care for him as long as possible. She sat beside him and stroked his hand as he drifted off to sleep, never to wake up.

His death and Pratchett's own situation coping with Alzheimers has brought home to me that there is a very distinct difference between euthanasia and assisted death, and that this is an important distinction.

Peter was in full possession of his mental faculties and took the decision to end his life in the manner and at the time of his choosing. The European Convention of Human Rights, for all its many faults, conveys the right of self determination. In Belgium, assisted death is legal. But not in the UK.

It is a matter of shame, in my opinion, that people like Peter are forced to travel to Switzerland in order to end their days peacefully in a building on an industrial estate.

Pratchett's situation is different. He seems to want to end his days with the same dignity afforded to Peter Smedley, but he recognizes that this can only be done whilst he is in possession of his abilities to take that decision. He must confirm that that he knows what he is doing, is mentally competant to take that decision and able to administer the fatal dose to himself. As an Alzheimers suffer, he knows that the disease will rob him of the ability to make that choice if he leaves it too long. And therein lies the quandry...

Assisted death is a self determination. Euthanasia is someone taking that decision for you.

The former is something that should clearly be considered for legalisation in this country, whereas the latter is something that requires considerably more thought. I don't know the answer, but I know that the debate needs to happen.

I salute your courage, Peter, and if his program raises public awareness of the issue then your death will not have been in vain.

Choosing to die

The picture above shows Peter Smedley as he took the lethal drug that ended his life in the Dignitas facility in Zurich. God bless you, Peter.

I have just watched a recording of Terry Pratchett's BBC documentary 'Choosing to die'. By any standards this was a remarkable piece of television and if you have not watched it then I urge you to do so. It is not an easy watch. The subject matter is difficult and I defy you not to be emotionally effected by it.

71 year old Peter was terminally ill with a deteriorating disease and no hope of recovery. He took the decision to end his life at a time of his choosing whilst he was still able to cope to a degree and before he became a burden on his family. His wife supported his decision, even though she wished to care for him as long as possible. She sat beside him and stroked his hand as he drifted off to sleep, never to wake up.

His death and Pratchett's own situation coping with Alzheimers has brought home to me that there is a very distinct difference between euthanasia and assisted death, and that this is an important distinction.

Peter was in full possession of his mental faculties and took the decision to end his life in the manner and at the time of his choosing. The European Convention of Human Rights, for all its many faults, conveys the right of self determination. In Belgium, assisted death is legal. But not in the UK.

It is a matter of shame, in my opinion, that people like Peter are forced to travel to Switzerland in order to end their days peacefully in a building on an industrial estate.

Pratchett's situation is different. He seems to want to end his days with the same dignity afforded to Peter Smedley, but he recognizes that this can only be done whilst he is in possession of his abilities to take that decision. He must confirm that that he knows what he is doing, is mentally competant to take that decision and able to administer the fatal dose to himself. As an Alzheimers suffer, he knows that the disease will rob him of the ability to make that choice if he leaves it too long. And therein lies the quandry...

Assisted death is a self determination. Euthanasia is someone taking that decision for you.

The former is something that should clearly be considered for legalisation in this country, whereas the latter is something that requires considerably more thought. I don't know the answer, but I know that the debate needs to happen.

I salute your courage, Peter, and if his program raises public awareness of the issue then your death will not have been in vain.

Powell was (almost) right!

Enoch Powell was a great man. Possibly the greatest politician this country ever had not to become Prime Minister.

Like Winston Churchill before him, he was cast into the political wilderness. He was a vehoment campaigner against immigration and against the erosion of our sovereignty by the Fourth Reich. He was right - almost!

In 1968, he blew his political carreer with his infamous 'Rivers of Blood' speech. Now 43 years later, the general timbre has come to pass. Only this week Britain was branded as a 'safe haven for terrorism'. Let's look at what Powell actually said :

There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction.

But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

Powell is right to be concerned. Here, of course, he is talking about Commonwealth immigrants - black in particular, which is where he went wrong.  No-one could have seen the threat from Islamic extremists all those years ago, but he should certainly have seen the insurge from the then Common Market countries as it took in more and more countries. Colour is not the issue; it is culture which is the problem.

He is right that the vast majority of immigrants want to be part of this country and are law abiding. They should be embaced and welcomed - space permitting. But more worryingly he seems to hint at the threat from within that gave rise to the 7/7 attacks in London. Here his foresight is almost miraculous.

He goes on :

...we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population.

Well, not so much racial, Enoch, but certainly religious differences have become one of the greatest menaces we have ever had to deal with. Enoch was right about the threat but wrong about the source, but then it is easy to say this from our perspective in his future. Let's close with his most famous words...

As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood."

You can read the full text of Powell's speech by clicking here.
(Please note that I do not support violent demonstration, racism, the EDL or the BNP)

Powell was (almost) right!

Enoch Powell was a great man. Possibly the greatest politician this country ever had not to become Prime Minister.

Like Winston Churchill before him, he was cast into the political wilderness. He was a vehoment campaigner against immigration and against the erosion of our sovereignty by the Fourth Reich. He was right - almost!

In 1968, he blew his political carreer with his infamous 'Rivers of Blood' speech. Now 43 years later, the general timbre has come to pass. Only this week Britain was branded as a 'safe haven for terrorism'. Let's look at what Powell actually said :

There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction.

But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

Powell is right to be concerned. Here, of course, he is talking about Commonwealth immigrants - black in particular, which is where he went wrong.  No-one could have seen the threat from Islamic extremists all those years ago, but he should certainly have seen the insurge from the then Common Market countries as it took in more and more countries. Colour is not the issue; it is culture which is the problem.

He is right that the vast majority of immigrants want to be part of this country and are law abiding. They should be embaced and welcomed - space permitting. But more worryingly he seems to hint at the threat from within that gave rise to the 7/7 attacks in London. Here his foresight is almost miraculous.

He goes on :

...we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population.

Well, not so much racial, Enoch, but certainly religious differences have become one of the greatest menaces we have ever had to deal with. Enoch was right about the threat but wrong about the source, but then it is easy to say this from our perspective in his future. Let's close with his most famous words...

As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood."

You can read the full text of Powell's speech by clicking here.
(Please note that I do not support violent demonstration, racism, the EDL or the BNP)

Piss boiler of the week

I am forced to borrow a phrase from my good friend the Grumpy Old Twat because this one nearly made me burst a blood vessel...

Basildon council has been given leave by the Courts to evict 'travellers' from an illegal site - in fact , the largest illegal traveller site in Europe - because of flagrant contravention of planning laws.

Actually, let's rephrase that. They didn't contravene planning laws, they just pretended they didn't exist and carried on anyway. Sort of stuck two fingers up to the law, really.

Now these delightful people who consider themselves above the law are to be evicted. So what do they do? Believe it or not, the cheeky fuckers write to the United Nations who, even more unbelievably, take them seriously and write to the British government accusing them of 'ethnic cleansing'!

Let's also point out at this stage that Basildon Council has offered them council housing - bet the ratepayers really love that one! However, this infringes their inalienable human rights because it does not offer them a  'culturally acceptable' alternative. Because they live in caravans not houses!

Just yesterday, they had a representative from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission come down to advise them of their 'rights'. Needless to say, she a was a foreigner.

And, apparently, they have also asked the Pope to intervene as they are all staunch catholics and are being discriminated against on religious grounds!

Christ all bloody mighty! Find me a darkened room!

You broke the planning laws. You are supposed to be travellers, so why don't you fuck off and go travelling? Preferably in another country as you feel this one treats you so badly...

Piss boiler of the week

I am forced to borrow a phrase from my good friend the Grumpy Old Twat because this one nearly made me burst a blood vessel...

Basildon council has been given leave by the Courts to evict 'travellers' from an illegal site - in fact , the largest illegal traveller site in Europe - because of flagrant contravention of planning laws.

Actually, let's rephrase that. They didn't contravene planning laws, they just pretended they didn't exist and carried on anyway. Sort of stuck two fingers up to the law, really.

Now these delightful people who consider themselves above the law are to be evicted. So what do they do? Believe it or not, the cheeky fuckers write to the United Nations who, even more unbelievably, take them seriously and write to the British government accusing them of 'ethnic cleansing'!

Let's also point out at this stage that Basildon Council has offered them council housing - bet the ratepayers really love that one! However, this infringes their inalienable human rights because it does not offer them a  'culturally acceptable' alternative. Because they live in caravans not houses!

Just yesterday, they had a representative from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission come down to advise them of their 'rights'. Needless to say, she a was a foreigner.

And, apparently, they have also asked the Pope to intervene as they are all staunch catholics and are being discriminated against on religious grounds!

Christ all bloody mighty! Find me a darkened room!

You broke the planning laws. You are supposed to be travellers, so why don't you fuck off and go travelling? Preferably in another country as you feel this one treats you so badly...