They blame the design of the grounds.
They state that the ‘visitors turnstiles’ were old, decrepit, and continually jammed.
They blame the ground’s owners for not remodelling the entire stadium for better access.
They blame the police for not supervising crowd control.
They blame the police for the lack of co-ordination between gates.
They blame the police and the Sheffield club for anything they had previously forgotten to include in their litany of blame.
Strangely enough, not a word is laid; not a finger pointed; not a single utterance of condemnation is made at the Liverpool ‘fans’ who made their final heave to get in to see their sacred ‘club’ play a game of bloody football; and in doing so helped crush ninety-six of their fellow supporters to death.
Once again, the serial champions of the British Cities Victimhood trophy gather to allegedly mourn those who died; the solemn ‘minute silence’ echoes around their silly minds, the bells toll continnually; and we are supposed to feel; What Exactly?
Not too many journalists’ work makes me pause, and recognise that amongst the millions of words pumped out about the so-called ‘Peace Process’, with all the blind eyes and deaf ears turned away from the truth which just plain refuses to just shut up and go away, there sometimes appears an article, a commentary which rings true; and so from Jenny McCartney:-
A 43-year-old man called Seamus Daly was charged last week in connection with the 1998 Omagh bomb, the worst single republican terrorist atrocity in Northern Ireland’s history. A massive car bomb exploded in the central shopping area of the town on a busy Saturday afternoon: bungled, inaccurate warnings from those responsible meant that civilians were placed at maximum risk. In the explosion, 29 people died, including children, teenagers and one woman who was heavily pregnant with twins.
The attack was carried out by the “Real” IRA, a dissident group in opposition to the strategy pursued at the time by the Provisional IRA. For years, the prosecution went nowhere. Finally, the families of the victims succeeded in 2009 with a landmark civil prosecution against four men linked to the Real IRA, who were ordered to pay compensation of £1.6 million. One of them was Daly, who still denies involvement.
Just a couple of days before Daly’s arrest, another republican once linked to bombing campaigns appeared in the news: Martin McGuinness, the former IRA commander and current Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. He was attending a white-tie banquet with the Queen at Windsor Castle. The long list of atrocities against civilians committed by the Provisional IRA contains details no less searing than those of Omagh – from the 1978 La Mon bombing (in which 12 guests at a hotel dinner dance were burned to death by an IRA napalm bomb) to the 1993 Shankill bomb, which killed nine shoppers. Read the rest of this entry »
Some time back, British Health officials were warning of the approaching ‘Flu’ Pandemic as though it was a guaranteed certainty that a repeat of the 1918 Spanish Flu outbreak, which itself was a true pandemic, was about to hit Great Britain, and decimate the population. I wrote a couple of posts myself, one perhaps a touch more sarcastic than the other, as I, along with about 99.999% of the British population, was convinced that these officials knew even less than anyone else about the risks from the various strains of Bird flu, or Swine flu, or any other variation; but were talking up the advantages of being inoculated with their ever-so expensive Tamiflu drugs which they had chosen without very many trials, or viewed research, or proven statistically-correct and published trials, to back up their doom-laden words.
So it is not too surprising that the Cochrane Collaboration, a group of independent scientists backed, by the British Medical Journal, have, after years of fighting to gain access to ALL the trial data managed and generated by GlaxoSmithKline and Roche, the pharmaceutical giants, finally published their findings after scrutinising the data files. They have discovered that Tamiflu shortened a bout of Flu by about half-a-day from seven days to 6.3 days, which is, when the cost of the stored Tamiflu, noted to be some £424 millions, bought in a panic by the British Government when the advisors went shrieking around that the ‘sky was indeed about to fall’, was interpreted by those Cochrane scientists as a sheer waste of money.
But will any government scientist, or indeed politician, accept responsibility for this financial debacle? You must think I am joking! The graveyards themselves will open up before any of that bunch will even admit that the sun rises in the east, never mind accepting responsibility for the sheer waste of spending half-a-billion pounds on gear which not only didn’t work, the side-effects were down-right dangerous!
Strangely enough, I do not believe that Maria Miller should have resigned. Most of the hue and cry which has pursued this lying, thieving and mendacious woman is based upon two inaccuracies.
The first is the simple fact that her thieving and lying behaviour was based upon rules of behaviour which have been replaced by much sterner equivalents. What she did was no more and no less than some 400 other MPs did before the eruption following the Telegraph’s expenses campaign. Where this thieving bitch went wrong was attempting to browbeat the Parliamentary Commissioner into either dropping or altering the terms of her investigation; and also attempting to place a block on the Telegraph reporter’s legitimate investigation by getting her advisor to quote Miller’s position as a Minister responsible for Press Regulation, to harass or bully the newspaper into dropping the investigation.
The second inaccuracy is of course that Miller was just doing her job by piloting through Parliament the disgusting and disgraceful Cameron-inspired Homosexual Marriage Act’s debasement of Marriage, and also controlling and pushing for the Leveson Royal Charter against Press Freedom; which pales into insignificance beside the fact that this Government, and the Labour bunch before it has given into Terrorism’s demands so that our own Queen Elizabeth was forced to accept into her presence one of the main leaders of SinnFeinIRA when Martin McGuiness sat down as a guest at Windsor Castle. A man who undoubtedly knew of the planned terror murder of her own dear Uncle, and the murder of well over two thousand other British subjects. So if he and his ilk can sit at Stormont and eat their fill at Windsor with Her Majesty, why should Miller have been eventually forced to fall on her sword to protect the Prime Minister, who was about to receive an almighty shellacking during Questions to the Prime Minister early this afternoon.
I note that the pair of slappers jailed in Peru for attempting to smuggle 11 Kgs. of cocaine into the UK are actively being considered for early transfer back to this country ‘to serve their time in prison near to their families” ATW readers unfamiliar with this phrase within judicial language must realise that this phrase is short for ‘upon arrival in Great Britain, they will be imprisoned for about three weeks, then carefully let out the back door to rejoin the cess-pits from whence they emerged’.
11 Kgs. That, folks is about 24 pounds in ‘old money’. After judicious cutting with ideal cheap materials such as baking powder or milk sugar, estimates of aound half-a-million quidsworth of a deadly hard drug were due to hit Britain’s streets if this criminal pair had not been stopped.
And now they propose to repatriate them from Peru to their ‘loved ones’.
What was that phrase again; the one about ‘tough on crime’ or something? Must have been just another soundbite!
Letter to my MP…………………
I write as a very concerned Constituency resident to oppose, point blank, the liberalisation of the Abortion Law of this Country without those same liberal interpretations of that Law being exposed and tested within both Houses of Parliament; and wish to ascertain if you, as my M.P., support my opposition and hopefully raise your concerns in Parliament?
When the Abortion Act was first made law in 1967, there were guides covering both the judgement under which abortions could be allowed, and the rules which allowed those same abortions to be carried out. Under the Act an abortion could only be performed by a ‘registered medical practitioner’ (ie. a doctor) and only when two registered medical practitioners were of the opinion, ‘formed in good faith’, that certain conditions applied.
About 97% of all abortions are currently performed on grounds ‘that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family’. The two certifying doctors are required to carry out this balancing of medical risk and it is implicit in the legislation that they would meet with the woman to make an assessment about whether these medical conditions applied. How otherwise could they carry out their statutory duties ‘in good faith’?
The Labour Government clarified these procedures in 1999, when they stated ‘Under the Abortion Act 1967, pregnancies are terminated to protect health. Other than in an emergency to save a woman’s life, medical practitioners must give their opinions on the reasons under the Act for the termination following consultation with the woman.’
In other words, two individual doctors must confer with the woman seeking the ending of her pregnancy. At no time since has any Health Secretary approached Parliament to ask, require debate or even approve alteration to this requirement.
I now learn that Shadow Health Minister Andrew Lansley, speaking on the 12th May 2008, wished to remove the need for the two doctors rule when he said “ I therefore hope that the House will consider whether the requirement for two doctors to consent to an abortion being performed, and the restrictions on nurses providing medical abortions, need to be maintained” but this departure from the strict interpretation of the law was never debated or repeated. However, four years later as a member of the Co-alition Cabinet, he secretly issued new ‘interim arrangements’ to independent abortion providers which dispensed with the two doctor’ requirement. Under Lansley’s new arrangements, it was no longer necessary for two doctors to see and examine the woman. One apparently would do (that being the natural reading of ‘not both’). The re-issued Code of Practice states ‘We consider it good practice that one of the two certifying doctors has seen the woman, though this is not a legal requirement’; and further states ‘Members of a multidisciplinary team (MDT) can play a role in seeking information from the woman.’ So, one interpretation of the new Guidance would be that neither doctor need to have spoken to the prospective abortee, and information may even be accepted from a nurse, as member of the Team!
The Department of Health is just about to issue the new advice to both NHS and Independent abortion providers, and Parliament has never been asked if they like what they see laid before them!
I ask if you, as my MP, can sit easily while a Cabinet Minister rewrites the Law, without those same re-written passages being subject to scrutiny on such a delicate and contentious issue?
h/t to christian medical comment
I recall watching a film named ‘Class Action’ years ago with Gene Hackman and Mary Elisabeth Mastrantonio. The plot concerned an American law class action against a car manufacturing company, and the victims were all supposed to have been killed by a manufacturing defect, which placed an unshielded electrical connection hard up against the petrol tank, so that in the event of a rear-end collision, the fuel leaking from the ruptured tank would splash over the sparking electrical connection; and hence the fire, the deaths, and the law suit.
One particular scene has always stuck in my memory, when Hackman, taking the part of a lawyer, asks the ‘Risk Management Accountant’ about the fact that the problem had been discovered, the engineer had stated that the solution was both elegant and easily achieved; but the cars were never recalled for the ‘fix’. The ‘Risk Accountant’ stuttered out the reply that the decision was taken that the costs of paying for the deadly problem to be fixed was too large, and, if the car crashed and then caught fire, it was cheaper to fight the cases through the courts.
And then I read these headlines about General Motors , and once more realised that there is nothing new, especially in ‘big business’; nothing new under the sun, indeed!