Tickets please? All change!

We are told by ‘a senior Government source’ that  MPs will for the first time be asked to back an explicit statement that offenders’ human rights should not outweigh the interests of society and law-abiding citizens.  This is to supposedly stem the ‘outrage’ in Parliament that offenders routinely use their ‘Human rights’ to escape deportation. We are also told that Ministers are preparing to back a ‘strongly-worded’ statement to the Judges who give these criminals the right to stay in Britain, that they should ‘take notice’ of the public anger and annoyance over criminals’ rights being given sway over the right of Britain to deport those it wishes to.

Now just let us ponder on those few sentences.

  • Strange, is it not, that the name of the ‘source’ is not revealed. If I wish to say something, I put it forth under my own name. It is a symptom of weak and vacillating government to place projects or plans on an anonymous basis to check how they might be accepted or otherwise by a gullible public!
  • It is a fact, a truth; that laws are passed in our Parliaments, but reviewed, interpreted and sometimes even modified by the Judiciary. If the Ministers and Parliamentarians have a problem with the decisions of the Judiciary, whether it be on matters of criminal justice or matters esoteric, such as the sacred area of ‘Rights’ legislation, they have only themselves to blame. For the Judges are only doing their jobs, much as it pains me to say. They are interpreting the Law which has been handed to Her Majesty for her signature and approval. Those same laws which have passed through both Houses of Parliament, through committee after committee, and remembering all the while that a vast number of M.P.s are also lawyers!
  • So why the outbursts? Why the feigned anger against the Judiciary, who, as I repeat, are only judging within the Law? Well, folks, it is simply because of one word, one organisation, one club whose employees have written Laws which cannot be picked apart, cannot be reviewed; cannot even be re-negotiated. And that one word, organisation? EUROPE!
  • Parliament, along with the blustering Cabinet Ministers who fulminate, and gesticulate, cannot do anything about areas of our life which have been passed to Europe because we would have to get all 27 Union members to agree to a change, and do you honestly believe that we, as the ‘Odd Man Out’ of Europe; we as the ‘outsider’ who wanted into the Club, and then decided that we did not like the Club rules, wanted to change them to suit us, would even get a hearing?
  • We have only two options over the whole farrago of Human Rights legislation as it has been imported from Brussels. We can either pipe down, keep going as we are, with no further ‘noises off’; or we can get out! We would not be allowed, as some fevered minds within the Tory Party state, to re-negotiate our Membership, to repatriate certain areas of European Legislation. we cannot do it, because the Europeans would not allow it
  • So which path do we go down? Shall we stay forever like a sulking teenager, leaning against a lamp-post, shouting the odds with his parents who are sitting cosy and warm in their home? Or shall we strike out on our own again, and see what is before us on our own, with only our native wit and intelligence to guide us?

I know which path I would choose; do you?

Banking for old people!

Subject: Banking for the Older Generation . . . . how we should get back at the Banks

 Dear  Sir:

I am writing to  thank you for bouncing my check with which I endeavoured to pay  my plumber last month. By my calculations,  three nanoseconds must have elapsed between his presenting the  check and the arrival in my account of the funds needed to honour it…

I refer, of course,  to the automatic monthly deposit of my entire pension, an arrangement which, I admit, has been in place for only eight  years.You are to be  commended for seizing that brief window of opportunity, and also for debiting my account $30 by way of penalty for the  inconvenience caused to your bank.

My thankfulness  springs from the manner in which this incident has caused me  to rethink my errant financial ways. I noticed that whereas I personally answer your telephone calls and letters, — when I  try to contact you, I am confronted by the impersonal,  overcharging, pre-recorded, faceless entity which your bank  has become.    From now on, I, like  you, choose only to deal with a flesh-and-blood person.. My mortgage and loan  repayments will therefore and hereafter no longer be automatic, but will arrive at your bank, by cheque, addressed  personally and confidentially to an employee at your bank whom  you must nominate.

Be aware that it is  an OFFENCE under the Postal Act for any other person to open  such an envelope. Please find attached  an Application Contact which I require your chosen employee to  complete. I am sorry it runs  to eight pages, but in order that I know as much about him or  her as your bank knows about me, there is no  alternative.  Please note that all  copies of his or her medical history must be countersigned by  a Notary Public, and the mandatory details of his/her financial situation (income, debts, assets and liabilities)  must be accompanied by documented proof.

In due course, at MY  convenience, I will issue your employee with a PIN number  which he/she must quote in dealings with me.I regret that it  cannot be shorter than 28 digits but, again, I have modeled it  on the number of button presses required of me to access my account balance on your phone bank service.  As they say,  imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.  Let me level the  playing field even further.


When you call me,  press buttons as follows:


#1.  To make an  appointment to see me

#2. To query a  missing payment.

#3. To transfer the  call to my living room in case I am there.

#4  To transfer the  call to my bedroom in case I am sleeping.

#5. To transfer the  call to my toilet in case I am attending to  nature.

#6. To transfer the  call to my mobile phone if I am not at home.

#7. To leave a  message on my computer, a password to access my computer is required. Password will be  communicated to you at a later date, to that Authorized Contact  mentioned earlier.

#8.  To return to the  main menu and to listen to options 1 through 9

#9. To make a  general complaint or inquiry.The contact will  then be put on hold, pending the attention of my automated answering service.

#10. This is a  second reminder to press* for English.


While this may, on  occasion, involve a lengthy wait, uplifting music will play  for the duration of the call. Regretably, but  again following your example, I must also levy an establishment fee to cover the setting up of this new  arrangement.


May I wish you a  happy, if ever so slightly less prosperous New  Year?


Your Humble  Client


And remember:     Don’t make old people  mad.    We don’t like being old  in the first place,    so it doesn’t take much  to piss us off.

Timeline of a crime

The scene pictured is that of a small lake near Cheshire, Connecticut. It is a peaceful quiet view of part of a peaceful, almost bucolic area of Connecticut. The items under discussion in that sleepy town range from the work of a local artist to the farmers’ market at Spring Glen church. It is a microcosm of small town America, and those words are definitely not used in any belittling sense, but rather as an acknowledgment of America’s strengths. But Cheshire was also the scene of a violent invasion of a family home which ended in the deaths of four members of that family.

As a police officer approached the home of the Petit family in Cheshire, Conn., on the morning of July 23, 2007, two men ran from the scene as flames poured out of the house. They were quickly apprehended.

When officers returned to the house they found Dr. William A. Petit Jr., 50, who had been severely beaten, and the bodies of his wife, Jennifer Hawke-Petit, 48, and their daughters, Hayley, 17, and Michaela, 11. The police said that the victims had been tied up in separate rooms, and that Ms. Hawke-Petit and one of the daughters were sexually assaulted before the house was set on fire.

Stephen Hayes was sentenced to death last year for his part in these crimes, but the focus of the judicial process now swings to Joshua  Komisarjevsky. Having been found guilty of capital felony killing, kidnapping, arson and sexual assault, the jury must now determine whether he face the death sentence, or long years in prison.

The reason why I write of this crime which shattered a family, and left a husband and father in morning for his wife and daughters, brutalized, raped, strangled and finally burnt is that it was mentioned on the BBC Today Programme as evidence that Connecticut still retains the Death Penalty, and how abhorrent that is to most ‘progressive thinking’ people! I sometimes wonder if any BBC employee has ever looked beyond the pearlescent skies of the world they alone seem to inhabit, and get down into the grubby and sometimes violent world where the rest of us live?

Speak your mind!

Colour me as in total agreement with Adrian Smith, who was demoted for expressing himself freely on a subject which is anathema to him.

I too would state that : ‘No, not really. I don’t understand why people who have no faith and don’t believe in Christ would want to get hitched in church.

‘The Bible is quite specific that marriage is for men and women. If the State wants to offer civil partnerships to the same sex then that is up to the State; but the State shouldn’t impose its rules on places of faith and conscience.’

Good on you Adrian; I wish I had known you earlier, so I could have e-mailed you and offered my unconditional support!

and THIS young lady got it just right!

When I check out American newspapers, I tend to do a little ‘speed-summarising’. I tend to click the links within the e-mailed digest which intrigue me, and sometimes my search is rewarded by a superb op-ed or article.

So it was when I happened upon this little treasure, which gives the inside track from a young African-American lady on who the Obama Administration and Congress deems fit to teach in schools such as the one she attended. Seems as though unruly students, classrooms in turmoil and incessant truanting are not the preserve of British schools.

So take a few minutes, and read this well-written and -argued piece by Candice Johnson, and then see if you agree with her when she states that good education mainly emerges from good, well-trained teachers!