McConnell - just one of more than 50 new Peers foisted on us by Brown

Labour-apparatchik, former First Minister of Scotland and currently MSP for Motherwell and Wishaw, Jack McConnell, has taken his seat in the House of Lords, following his ennoblement in Gordon Brown's 'Dissolution Honours' on departing as Prime Minister.

Just one of more than 50 people who will be on the public payroll 'til they die. That's bad enough, but these 'numpties' will be influencing legislation in the UK for decades. Other 'worthies' whom Gordon Brown has foisted upon us as life-long legislators include John Reid, Helen Liddell and Des Browne. Thanks for nothing, Gordon!

Belgian authorities raid meeting of Catholic Bishops

The Vatican has made an official complaint about a raid carried out last Thursday by Belgian police on a meeting of Catholic Bishops there in connection with allegations of paedophilia by priests.

According to the Brussels prosecutor the raid followed a string of accusations "denouncing abuse of minors committed by a certain number of Church figures". Justice Minister Stefaan De Clerck [...] defended the raid in television interviews on Sunday, describing the Vatican's reaction as "a bit excessive" and based on false information, adding: "We must not turn this into a diplomatic incident. The bishops were treated completely normally... and it is false to say that they received no food or drink".

According to the linked report, police confiscated phones, computers and the archdiocese's accounting system in a search for documents including any correspondence between alleged victims and the Catholic authorities. It is also reported that Italy's Corriere della Sera said Belgian authorities acted out of frustration with the Church, which under a 1990s agreement was supposed to refer abuse cases to prosecutors to pursue. (my emphasis - Ed).

In a letter written by the Pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI, and released by the Vatican, he wrote, inter alia:

"I have myself repeated numerous times that these serious facts must be dealt with by civil law and by canon law, in reciprocal respect of the specificity and autonomy of each."

With the deepest and most sincere respect to Il Papa and with no intention to offend any of the followers of the Roman Catholic religion, I am obliged to state plainly that I find this statement deplorable, shocking and completely unacceptable. I would imagine that within the territory of Belgium, just as we do in the United Kingdom, that the supreme law is considered to be that of Belgium and that any implication that 'Canon Law' has an autonomous, equal status with national law is roundly, and rightly, rejected. It is high time that the Catholic Church realised that it is no longer going to be allowed to get away with its traditional tactics of denial and when that no longer works, delaying tactics. It has to accept that civil law in the countries where it operates is supreme and show that it is complying fully and without reservation. Then, perhaps unfortunate and embarrassing, but necessary, incidents such as the raid in Belgium last Thursday will no longer be required.

Diane Abbott MP, Labour's 'joke' leadership candidate

I don't share many (if any) of her views on life, or politics, or anything at all really, from what I have been able to gather from her many media appearances, but I have always liked her and found her good value on television - she has got charisma, is usually a good and confident TV performer, and she comes across as being quite a likeable character. When it was first revealed some years ago that she was sending her child to a fee-paying school, however, whilst being politicially-opposed to the very concept of private education, and she was questioned about it on an edition of This Week at the time by Andrew Neil, the flaws in her character and her stance on politics were thrown into particularly high relief. Still, she was always good for a laugh - she has a good sense of humour most of the time, except when questionned on her 'socialism' and her 'hypocrisy'.

Now, when I heard her seemingly off-the-cuff announcement on the Today programme several weeks ago that she was going to stand as a candidate for the leadership of the Labour Party, like many people I was monentarily slack-jawed with amazement (even though I was still lying in bed at the time), but after a few moments I thought, well why not? She is an articulate woman (with impractical ideas, granted), she is from an ethnic minority - and she would certainly be a breath of liveliness and jollity, compared with the other candidates who were mostly from the same, boring 'party apparatchik' mould.

Over the past few weeks, since her leadership candidacy was announced she has, however, been given a relatively easy ride. As a regular commentator on the This Week programme for a number of years I think she must have accepted last evening's invitation to appear, after an 'hiatus' there of several weeks because of the General Election and her own subsequent Labour leadership candidacy, under the fond illusion that her 'grilling' by Andrew Neil would somehow be more gentle. I am very glad to say that this was definitely not the case! Andrew Neil asked her some very tough questions, to some of which she waffled in making a poor attempt at giving convincing replies, whilst with others she simply refused to make any sensible response at all. I 'tweeted' about this extensively last night whilst the programme was being broadcast (this is just one of my many 'tweers' about it last night). Diane Abbott was well and truly 'kippered' on last night's show and I'd say her leadership candidacy is not now just unlikely to succeed (as it always was), but a complete joke! Watch it and see for yourself:



(By the way, it was highly instructive to catch occasional camera-shots of Michael Portillo remaining completely silent and attempting to keep his face devoid of expression during Neil's verbal evisceration of his couch-mate.)

How the supposedly 'neutral' Civil Service acts illegally to protect its political masters

We pay for the Civil Service, through our taxes, just as we pay for the Government and every other public service function in this country. However, this shocking report reveal how the Civil Service is prepared flagrantly to manipulate the information it reveals to the public, NOT in order to protect (far less inform) the public, but to protect the political party which happens to be in government, in this case the former Labour government.

The much-touted Freedom of Information Act (FOI) is supposed to allow for publication of information in response to requests submitted. But as with much legislation there are 'get out' clauses and the preamble to the FOI reads:
"The Freedom of Information Act gives you the right to obtain information held by public authorities unless there are good reasons to keep it confidential."
- the key part of this 'soft soap' is of course the bit that reads:
" ... unless there are good reasons to keep it confidential."

And so we come to the nub of this shocking report, which inadvertantly revealed the motivations behind the way in which a particular FOI request was processed:

Annex D Potential issues arising from release of report The release of the report entails the risk of Transform(*), or other supporters of legislation, using information from the report to criticise the Government's drug policy, or to support their call for the legalisation of drugs and the introduction of a regulated system of supply. These risks should be considered in reaching a decision on whether to release the report, as requested.

- so the clear aim of the Civil Service here is to manipulate the information it releases in order to support the policies of the Government and to thwart legitimate requests for information under the FOI. As Danny Kushlick from Transform (*) is quoted as saying:

"Writing that down is fairly dumb. Sending it to you is even sillier."

- indeed it is, but let us be thankful for this oversight, which has shone a light into the sometimes murky relationship between our Civil Service and our Government. Just because this occurred during the period in office of our just-ousted Labour government, I am not naive enough to believe that a Conservative or a ConLib government would not try to influence our 'neutral' Civil Service in a similar way if it thought it might be advantageous to its policy agenda and if it thought it could keep this secret.

Please note that my reaction to this scandal has nothing whatsoever to do with whatever I may think of the views of Transform (*) with regard to drugs policy, it has everything to do with the obviously-flawed impartiality/objectivity of our Civil Service when dealing with FOI requests.

(*) Transform is the organisation which submitted this particular FOI request.

"Government to axe hundreds of 'unnecessary' websites"

The savings envisaged in this plan to ditch many of the wasteful, little-visited 'vanity' websites set up under the previous Labour government's time in office are not very large, when compared with the huge level of government spending (and waste), but they are nonethelsss a welcome step in the right direction.

It is to be hoped that the new ConLib coalition government will not be thwarted in its aim to cut down the size and cost of the 'State', by the colossus that is the Civil Service (as epitomised in Yes Minister by that master of obfuscation Sir Humphrey Appleby).

Currency markets react positively to our new sensible government

For the first time in a couple of years the currency markets are beginning to realise we have a sensible grown-up government in charge of our destiny again, after more than a decade of having an incompetent crowd of Labour losers sending the country into the poor-house - the Pound is today at its highest against the Euro since November 2008, having reached the heady height of 1.2222. Life for the next several years is not going to be particularly easy, but I find myself beginning to feel mild optimism that the future is going to be rather better without the false promises and dissimulations that Labour specialised in.

France - from the defeat of June 1940 to the liberation beginning May 1944

Today is the 70th anniversary of the day in June 1940 when General Charles de Gaulle made his historic radio broadcast from the BBC Broadcasting House in London; unfortunately that speech was not recorded, although the text was re-recorded by him later. The original broadcast, although not heard by very many in France, spread by word of mouth. It may genuinely be said to have been the 'spark' which showed French people that their country was not necessarily definitively defeated and gave many of them the courage to continue their struggle for liberation. Here is a recording of a similar, but lengthier, speech made by General de Gaulle from london, just a few days later on 22nd June 1940. It is a powerful speech which reveals his determination that France would one day again be free:


Luckily we can now look back on this period of 65-70 years ago as history. We know what happened, that the allies achieved ultimate victory after over five years of hard struggle and much loss of life. However, in 1940 no-one knew what the outcome would be, not General de Gaulle, not British Prime Minister Winston Churchill who made one of the most powerful speeches ever made in the English language just a month later, in the wake of the French capitulation, with the Battle of Britain about to reach a perilous stage, with Britain being obliged to struggle on alone and with few resources:


The reward for four years of fighting began to be seen when allied troops were able to establish a beach-head on the Normandy coast of France on 6th May 1944, at the cost of further dreadful loss of life, beginning the process that would lead to the liberation of Paris just 3 months later and the defeat of Nazi Germany in May 1945 and Japan in August of that year. The final recording below is of General de Gaulle announcing to France that the liberation of their country had begun, on 6th May 1944:



(Indicidentally, the drum-roll near the beginning is the Morse code for V - for 'victory' - used in all broadcasts from London to occupied-Europe for most of the war; it is also the first four notes of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony; the Roman numeral for five is also 'V'; the fact that Beethoven was a German composer is also significant in the context of the war. Parts of this original recording are badly distorted unfortunately)

Just to remind, no part of this happy outcome was in any way certain in June 1940; the courage and determination of de Gaulle and Churchill and those who heard their original broadcasts in both France and Britain at the time is almost beyond my comprehension. I salute them all.

"You May Now Kiss The Groom"

The gentleman in the centre of the composition below will be visiting Britain later this year on what is, in this instance deplorably, called a "State Visit", as he is 'Head of State' of the Catholic enclave in Rome known as the Vatican City State - not some ancient entity as might be imagined, but a political development dating from as recently as 1929 - you can read more about the origins of what can best be described as an 'historical anomaly', not to mention an historic outrage, here. The practical effect of this designation for the visit of the current 'chieftain' of the Roman Catholic 'tribe' is that much of it will be paid for by British taxpayers, whether they are followers of the Roman Catholic 'sky fairy' religion or not, as the bulk of the cost of the visit of a Head of State is normally paid for by the host country.

The official stance of the Roman Catholic Church is that homosexuality is "intrinsically disordered". I'd like to throw this back at the Roman Catholic Church - it is genuinely "intrinsically disordered"; it is an organisation which enforces celibacy on its paid officials (of both sexes), but which nevertheless actively covered up the sexual deviancy of a large number of said paid officials in many countries over several DECADES, until forced by legal threats and financial sanctions by the civil legal authorities in a number of countries to begin to admit its wrongdoing and mend its ways.


A painting created by
Kevin Sharkey,Allesadro Tesei and Amo 2010
@ 80 Francis Street Dublin 8

Maybe one day the Holy Father, or a successor, will repent of his evil ways and officiate at a same-sex marriage, in acceptance of the fact that love can conquer all. I'm not holding my breath though!

Finally, unlike some, I attribute my sources - here and here.

Middle-class areas 'must police themselves'

This is the basis of an amazing new 'policy' announced by Patrick Shearer, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (Acpos) and chief constable of Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary.

Mr Shearer says police forces need to target their efforts where they are most required. That sounds reasonable enough in itself, but there is more, much more, to this pernicious policy. Mr Shearer is quoted as saying:

"The idea of the universal police service for all belongs to a time when resources were plentiful. "We have to accept that a lot of the public can look after themselves. When times get hard you really have to target resources. "A gold-plated service is no longer appropriate and we’ll have to stop doing some of the things we are doing at the moment or have done in the past. "For us to continue to be effective we have to very much target our resources where the need is and not necessarily where the demand is."

As I mentioned above, this may sound reasonable, but it does seem to make a number of highly dubious assertions. For example, when Mr Shearer opines "We have to accept that a lot of the public can look after themselves", I have no doubt that many people (and not just 'middle-class' people) could look after themselves if allowed to do so, but the reality is that home-owners are actively discouraged from 'helping themselves' and may very well suffer severe legal consequences if they dare to do so! A case in point, a relative and his wife, returning home some years ago (they lived then in a very nice part of Dundee, in what by any standards would be described as a 'middle-class' area) to see a man - a burglar - exiting an upstairs window across the roof of a rear extension, with a bag of 'loot'. Other bags of 'loot' were later discovered in a back corner of the garden, indicating that he had made at least three trips into the house to steal prior to my relatives' return home. Coming off the roof of the rear extension he fell badly and so it was easy for my even then quite elderly uncle to detain the man until the police responded to the telephone call that my aunt made for assistance. No violence was used by either the man or my uncle. Nevertheless, for several months, until the case came to court, my uncle was under threat of police prosecution for 'illegal detention'. Luckily that threat was removed just before the trial - the burglar having withdrawn his spurious claim, when it became clear his lengthy prior record of theft would be an issue.

So, if what Mr Shearer is proposing is that if some ned/chav/ne'er do well invades my home intent on theft, that I may stop that person by ANY MEANS AVAIALBLE, then I might be prepared to go along with him. And I think the means I should be allowed to have available, should I so wish, should include for example a baseball bat or a gun. Why should I have to afford a robber ANY rights whatsoever?! And why should I be at risk of criminal proceedings for defending my home? However, I very much doubt that this is what Mr Shearer proposes.

In summary, the scope of police duties should be for elected officials to decide, not for the police to set arbitrarily. Given the fact, too, that it is highly probable that middle-class people pay the vast bulk of the taxes that pay for public services like the police, it is bare-faced effrontery for some jumped-up policeman to make this kind of policy statement. Mr Shearer should get on with doing his policing job and not interfere with policy matters way above his pay grade!

Margaret Thatcher at No 10 - what a difference almost three years makes!

This visit today is a vastly more pleasing sight:


- than was this bizarre visit in September 2007:


in my humble opinion.

In today's photograph, both participants look reasonably happy. In the photograph from 2007 the impression given is not one of 'joy' on either side, or so it seems to me.