William and Kate - alternative 'proposal' interview

Indeed.............quite a frank interview I thought !!!!

Oh FFS....AGAIN

My good friend Flick the Lick...........yes subtle I know,,,,, advised me of this little gem.

Of the back of my post here...........and the sheer stupidity of some people..........comes this !!!

Domestic dogs, cats, hamsters or budgerigars should be rebranded as “companion animals” while owners should be known as “human carers”, they insist.

Even terms such as wildlife are dismissed as insulting to the animals concerned – who should instead be known as “free-living”, the academics including an Oxford professor suggest.

The call comes from the editors of then Journal of Animal Ethics, a new academic publication devoted to the issue.


Do What ?????

Are you for real..........we cant call our pets..........pets.

So do we have to now go round and rename the Pet Shops "Companion Animal Shops"?

So I am not a responsible per owner ..........I am now a "Responsible Human Carer"

Guess what................bollocks!!!

Honestly read this here.

This country is literally mental !

And as for some Oxford professor who makes the claim...............get out you twat, go on, get outside and get a life.

Just try it..............there is a whole big wide world out there...........and even a space for a complete cretin such as you.


I said before this country is screwed............it emigration time !!

Oh for "F" Sake!

Christ. So Cameron said something vaguely in touch with the common parlance and now lefties are predictably going off the deep end.

See Here

The faux moral outrage is depressing. Anybody with half a sense of humour would have smiled and moved on. But no, already we're seeing articles about how the Prime Minister's (mis)use of an advertising catchphrase is a gateway to reverting to Victorian attitudes to women and how we can expect a rise in wifebeating and clitorectomies as a result.


She requires double bagged anyway !!!!!!!


Angela Eagle has predictably responded with a chippy article about how she's "been condescended to by better people than Cameron." Well, then, she should be fucking used to it by now and not fucking writing articles in the Guardian about how not upset she fucking is.

On the other side of the coin, I actually read someone criticising Ed Balls for not standing up for Yvette, when it was originally thought that Cameron might have been talking to her.

Christ Almighty. The economy is in the toilet, we're engaged in illegal wars, Libya is shaping up to be another Vietnam, we're taxed for more than half our income, social democrats are chipping away at the handful of freedoms we have left and all we can get exercised about is a fucking throwaway line from an advert.

I need to get out of this shithole. Enough is enough.


Hat tip to the Clown

ANZAC Day

ANZAC Day, 25 April, is probably Australia's most important national occasion. It marks the anniversary of the first major military operation fought by Australian and New Zealand forces during the First World War.

Today Australians will reflect on the many different meanings of war and throughout the country Dawn Services will be observed.

The poem was sent by an Australian friend who shares my view there is no glory in war, only pain and grief. Dialogue is far more valuable. None of our recent leaders has had personal experience of war - more's the pity - because if they had been active participants they may not be so extravagant with the use of our armed forces.




THE FINAL INSPECTION

The soldier stood and faced God,
Which must always come to pass.
He hoped his shoes were shining,
Just as brightly as his brass.

'Step forward now, you soldier,
How shall I deal with you ?
Have you always turned the other cheek ?
To My Church have you been true?'

The soldier squared his shoulders and said,
'No, Lord, I guess I ain't
Because those of us who carry guns,
Can't always be a saint.

I've had to work most Sundays,
And at times my talk was tough.
And sometimes I've been violent,
Because the world is awfully rough.

But, I never took a penny,
That wasn't mine to keep...
Though I worked a lot of overtime,
When the bills got just too steep.

And I never passed a cry for help,
Though at times I shook with fear.
And sometimes, God, forgive me,
I've wept unmanly tears.

I know I don't deserve a place,
Among the people here.
They never wanted me around,
Except to calm their fears.

If you've a place for me here, Lord,
It needn't be so grand.
I never expected or had too much,
But if you don't, I'll understand.

There was a silence all around the throne,
Where the saints had often trod.
As the soldier waited quietly,
For the judgement of his God.

'Step forward now, you soldier,
You've borne your burdens well.
Walk peacefully on Heaven's streets,
You've done your time in Hell.'

Author Unknown





Text words and poem reposted from the lovely Subrosa with thanks!!

Subversion of Due Process: The Death of Dr. David Kelly

Yes I am still going on about it...............because he was murdered!

Because the Government at the time lied to us all.

Blair and his side kicks..........all lied.

David Kelly was a liability to the govenment of the day

See Here and Here
Suffice to say the issue wont go away.
However it no longer gets the air time it deserves.

To that end I will post the open letter sent to David Cameron 26/03/2011..........



Dear Prime Minister,


SUBVERSION OF DUE PROCESS AND INSUFFICIENCY OF INQUIRY IN THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE DEATH OF DR DAVID KELLY


When Lord Hutton reported on 28 January 2004, many said "whitewash”. The Hutton Report was indeed a "whitewash", not so much because Lord Hutton wrongly found the BBC and not the Government responsible for Dr Kelly's "suicide" but much more importantly because Lord Hutton failed adequately to address the cause of death itself and the manner of death. The invocation by Lord Falconer, in his role as Lord Chancellor, of Section 17a of the 1988 Coroners Act to replace the statutory inquest by a non-statutory ad hoc judicial inquiry was highly irregular, as was the Coroner’s decision not to re-open the inquest following Hutton’s report. Not only did Lord Falconer, in his role as Minister for Constitutional Affairs, commission the Hutton Inquiry and determine its very narrow remit but he also decided, in his role as Lord Chancellor, that it would be an adequate replacement for a statutory inquest, when it was clearly no such thing. Given all this meddling with due process of the law it is perhaps not surprising that the death itself was not properly investigated.

Thus, not only was the form of inquiry inappropriate but the inquiry itself was clearly insufficient. There can be little doubt now that Lord Hutton presided over a blatant insufficiency of inquiry and the evidence to support that view is overwhelming. Some of that evidence, but for practical reasons not all, has been presented to Dominic Grieve QC, the present Attorney General.

Lord Hutton's finding of suicide is clearly unsafe and may, especially given the extraordinary context of Dr Kelly's death, represent one of the gravest miscarriages of justice to occur in this country. Many people in our country have known to a greater or lesser degree that that was the case but it was left to a few doctors, and latterly one journalist, to pick up the pieces of a huge jigsaw puzzle and to assemble a picture clear enough to present to the Attorney General. The doctors are requesting that an inquest be ordered through their lawyers, Frances Swaine and Merry Varney of the London law firm Leigh Day & Co. and Dr Michael Powers QC, in the form of a formal application to the Attorney General for his "fiat" to apply to the High Court to order an inquest as allowed under Section 13 of the 1988 Coroners Act.

Under Section 13 there are six reasons why the Attorney General may grant such "fiat". These are:

1) insufficiency of inquiry
2) irregularity of proceedings
3) rejection of evidence
4) new facts or evidence
5) fraud (in this context deception)
6) refusal or neglect to hold an inquest when one ought to be held


The doctors have provided abundant evidence to satisfy all six of these reasons; the Attorney General needs evidence of only one reason to grant his "fiat".

Further, the Attorney General is not required to satisfy himself that the verdict of suicide would change, only that it might change.

Accordingly, in September 2010, Leigh Day & Co. delivered a 34 page legal document called the Memorial to the Attorney General. On 28 February 2011, an Addendum to the Memorial was also provided to and at the request of the Attorney General. Both documents may be viewed in full on the BBC Online website. The doctors and Leigh Day & Co. have had sight of many other submissions to the Attorney General. It seems to the doctors and their lawyers that the case for an inquest is unanswerable.

It is surely in the public interest, and in the interests of justice, that an inquest into this death now takes place. The laws of this country, and indeed of Europe, require that the death of any British citizen dying in the manner in which Dr David Kelly is said to have died is investigated at an inquest, at which the Coroner possesses statutory powers. These include the power to hear evidence under oath, the power to subpoena witnesses, the power to have witnesses aggressively cross-examined and the power to call a jury. Lord Hutton possessed none of these powers, but the public was led to believe that Lord Hutton was better equipped to investigate Dr Kelly's death than was the Coroner. Further, Lord Hutton heard medical evidence for just one half of one day out of twenty four days of evidence, and found that Dr Kelly had committed suicide; no coroner in the land would have reached a suicide verdict on the evidence which Lord Hutton heard. The level of proof required for a coroner to reach a verdict of suicide is very high, since a suicide verdict closes the case for ever and automatically stops any murder investigation, in addition to permanently smearing the deceased (when he can no longer argue back) and his family. The Coroner is required to hear evidence which constitutes proof beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased killed himself and that he intended to kill himself, before he may return a verdict of suicide. Lord Hutton did not hear evidence which came near to satisfying that test.

We write to you asking that you endorse the request that an inquest be ordered. You will be aware that this important death, especially in the context in which it occurred, and the long subsequent fight for an inquest has been observed with mounting interest worldwide. Many will regard the response to the request for an inquest as a litmus test as to the good intentions and credibility of your government.

It is unfortunate that your government inherited this case from the preceding three governments, all of which did all they could to stop thenecessary inquest. But, now surely is the time to begin the attempt to restore the tarnished reputation of our country around the world by holding a full, frank and fearless inquest into Dr David Kelly's death, so that “the truth, pure and simple”, of what happened can finally be established “however complex, painful or unacceptable to whomsoever that truth may be” (Christopher Clarke QC, in his opening statement as Leading Counsel to the Saville “Bloody Sunday” Inquiry).

If an inquest is denied, despite all the evidence carefully provided to the Attorney General, there is a real and grave risk that your government will be seen as continuing, and being complicit in, an enormous conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

Further, any “no” decision will be vigorously contested in the courts via judicial review by the doctors’ lawyers.

Finally, while the wishes of the family may be taken into account by the Coroner as to whether or not an inquest should be held, those wishes are not determinative in law. The Coroner's primary duty is to the deceased, not to the family of the deceased. Similarly, the Attorney General's primary duty, under Section 13 of the 1988 Coroners Act, is to the deceased.not to the family of the deceased. The Coroner speaks for the dead to protect the living.


This letter, addressed to you, is an open letter and it will be made available to the Press Association for onward publication.


Yours sincerely,

Dr Christopher Burns-Cox MD FRCP

Dr Stephen Frost BSc MB ChB

Dr Andrew Rouse MB BS MPH FFPHM



The truth will come out on this subject 1 day............however that will be once a certain ex-PM is long gone to his next life..........in fact that certain squeeky clean ex-PM will be taking rather a lot of secrets away with him no doubt.

Do i think Cameron will do anything..............NO. Because he is a spineless twat !!
The family have fromally requested this subject comes to an end........I respect that and as a result this is the last post on the subject. The pain of a loved ones name being harranged about like this is too much I suspect. Despite the fact the questions remain open.
Blair must be breathing easier now!!!!!!!!!

Do Leopards Ever Change Their Spots...............errrr No!

Menachem Begin was a terrorist and we should have hung him for his crimes at the time - as he deserved. But no, we miss our chance and like every bastard who puts on a suit and becomes a "revered international statesman" we're stuck being polite to him for a few decades.

This is what comes of it...as usual.



Israel secretly supplied arms and equipment to Argentina during the Falklands War due to Prime Minister Menachem Begin's personal hatred of the British, a new book discloses.


"He [Begin] hated the English above all; everyone had forgotten the British occupation, but not him" according to Lotersztain.

His colleague Jaime Weinstein agreed, saying: "He did all that was possible to help Argentina, selling her weapons during the Malvinas [the Argentine name for the Falklands] conflict." Israel needed a third party to help with the deal so that the British would not know that it was helping Argentina and this is where Peru, despite the fact that it had tried to broker a peace plan which Argentina rejected, came in.

Fine. That's one to remember when the chips are down next time in the Middle East.

My dad was put through the wringer on this wee island conflict, as a result I soooo look forward to all the Israel loving Brits to start banging on about how persecuted they are next time it kicks off..............feel free to email when it does and give me your thoughts.

Hat tip to The Eye

So is the law applied the same...............Don't think so !

I wrote a piece last November about an incident where a group you young Muslim chaps burned poppies infront of people commemoration Remembrance Sunday............as a mark of a protest against British troops involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Well the chief burner so to speak was up in court and well guess what....The moron who burned the poppies at the Remembrance Day service gets a £50 fine and outraged a nation.



Emdadur Choudhury



London Evening Standard wrote:- The Prime Minister told the Commons that a "stronger statement" should have been made to show public disgust at the man's action.
"I think to many of us, you look at something like that and feel that we should be making a stronger statement that the sort of behaviour is out of order and has no place in a tolerant country," he said.



Now a guy who burns a Koran in protest gets a 70 day prison sentence.


Cumberland News - A man who burned a copy of the Koran in Carlisle city centre was today jailed for 70 days.

Andrew Ryan, 32, of Summerhill, off London Road, was accompanied to Carlisle Magistrates' Court by supporters carrying a St George's Cross flag who were chanting "We love you England".


Ryan had pleaded guilty to racially aggravated harassment and theft of the Koran holy book from Carlisle Library at an earlier hearing.

Ok it wasn't his Koran, he stole/borrowed it from the library, however that normally involves just a fine not a custodial sentence, but 70 days for outraging Muslims whilst the moron who burned a poppy and outraged the nation gets only a £50 fine?


The word disproportionate seems to apply here. After all if some idiot artist can put on display a bible to be defaced and has nothing done to them. Then this guy should surely have expected the same, save I suppose that he didn't call it art.

I suspect Andrew Ryan will end up a hero in some quarters, despite the theft, I have to admit I don't like the idea of burning books, but I can see his motives, sadly though I now know the cost of freedom of expression and that's 70 days in jail.



Tips Hat to the Quiet Man