Life On The Road

I've ALWAYS paid all my taxes, on time, for decades and have never tried to avoid it. I have absolutely no control over the amount of tax I pay, and neither has my employer, so why should I be penalised for someone else's mistake?

The time has come for the honest citizens of this country to take a stand and JUST SAY NO.

I SHALL, AND I URGE YOU TO DO THE SAME.

Snow started off by deliberately going for the weakest link, Diane Abbot, who of all the potential candidates is, IMHO, the most self-serving, and grade-A Nu Labour material. Can she make gravy or what?! Then the strangely quiet Ed Balls-always watch the quiet ones eh? And did I get it wrong or did Andy Burnham end up criticising the previous government's healthcare policies? Er...

But what struck me overall was the fact that this group of hopefuls could not agree on a unified way to implement policies despite agreeing what needed to be done, and if they can't present an united front now then what chance do they stand as a political party of being able to run the country even if they are elected in the next bun fight?

In the midst of all this sabre-rattling though, the only people to suffer, as usual, are the people of Pakistan, and those that complain of aid shortages might want to ask why some of the money being used as mentioned isn't being channelled into saving the country!

Well, I take issue with this, especially bearing in mind that the over-efficient UK dairy industry has managed to fill its very own EU Milk Surplus Lake, and is having big problems shifting it. According to Packaging Today, "the UK is in the top four of EU milk consumption, and sales of fresh and treated milk are in decline causing a 2% drop from 1996-2001 across the whole of the UK dairy sector. There is currently a surplus of milk in the UK and this translates to lower retail prices than the rest of Europe at below the EU target price of 20.42p per litre".

If this is true - and I've no reason to doubt its validity - then Milton's argument doesn't hold much water. After all, to my simplistic way of thinking, if there's too much milk in the UK, and schools in the UK want some top-quality milk at a good price, then there's a deal to be made, and please don't tell me that we have to import milk from the European mainland: if that's the case then our cowardly politicians need sacking!

Finally, to add insut to injury, to claim that "[school milk] has become increasingly outdated", I'd say that the goal of giving growing children every chance at growing up healthy is vital to building kids with strong teeth and bones will never go out of fashion!

"We are making the choice not only on moral grounds but also on national interest grounds... It is an issue of national interest because many of the problems which make our world much less secure emanate from very poor developing countries often caught up in crisis and conflict".

Well Mr Mitchell, in case you hadn't noticed, the majority of people in Britain are actually living in a poor country - you maybe heard we have a Recession? - and we can ill-afford to pay a country that openly hates us another GBP1 billion! This is a double insult considering we're facing cuts to our own school rebuilding programme. But let's see how Mitchell continues to justify this farce.. According to the DFID web site, he outlined three key areas in which civilian work will be focussed:

• stabilising insecure areas;

• stimulating the economy; and

• improving the effectiveness of the government.

But hang on, couldn't the same be said of Britain? But it gets worse!

• .. encourage private sector growth, including by encouraging foreign investment, through a new GBP6 million Business Challenge Fund;

• ..invest in roads in Helmand, and roads and rail nationally, which will help to provide 20,000 new jobs in transport, mining and other infrastructure;

• ..extend the reach of the National Solidarity programme to bring community-driven development to improve health, education and job creation to 10,300 communities in hard to reach, more insecure areas.

Look.. these are all objectives that we NEED TO ACHIEVE IN BRITAIN, and once we've got this bloody country sorted out, THEN we can deal with the Afghans! This nonsense has got to stop!

Read all about it at http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Media-Room/Press-releases/2010/UKs-Afghan-aid-effort-set-to-increase-by-40-Andrew-Mitchell/.

If, or when I get an update I'll let you know!

Mr Hollobone states "..I do not see why the British taxpayer should pay the bill for the housing and lodging of foreign nationals who have abused our trust by committing crimes so heinous that they have been jailed in this country. I believe that their own countries of origin should pick up the bill". Quite, and I couldn't have put it better myself.

I shall watch the progress of this admirable work with interest, and report back from time to time. Meanwhile, if you want to read about Mr Hollobone, you can do so here, and the Bill in question can be found on the Hansard site, here.

Now that's what I call politics!

So what better way to defuse him than to kick him upstairs, and like the true Socialist he is, he couldn't resist the offer of a leg-up into the aristocracy. Of course, he'll no doubt argue that as a "Lord" he'll be able to give the final nod to any number of Bills that waft their way up from the bear pit of the Commons. But wait: will he have the support he needs when those Bills come in? Will he vote on what are felt to be vital to the Labour Cause only to find that it's all for naught? Well, only time will tell ;-)

In laymans' terms, Section 31 (a) and (b) are concerned with "Law enforcement: Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice (a) the prevention or detection of crime, (b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders".

Now presumably this doesn't refer to Blair himself, so I'm rather intrigued to see how this particular request is fulfilled, or not. As to whether it's in "the public interest" to know whether a man being paid at least GBP 5 million a year just to get by (and that's without Cherie's contributions) is still justified in using taxpayers money to stay safe (for how long?) I'd say yes, it is, especially when we're all being told that we're due a decade or more of financial hardship!

If/when I hear back from the Met I'll report the findings here, but to be honest I don't expect to get the answer I want, or that you, my loyal readers deserve. One can hope though, especially when that's all there is left.

And what will happen when the war in Afghanistan is finally over (notice how Iraq has vanished off the agenda recently)? Will future leaders have to stand there in public and say "we're sorry we spent 20 years blowing your people up"? Yes, they probably will.

What I'm really trying to say I guess is that if you're going to war you're not going to be sorry at a later date: if you are going to be sorry then don't bloody start the war in the first place! Not rocket science is it?

Believe me, the new Government is doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to win my heart or mind - quite the reverse in fact, and this will be reflected in my voting decisions in the coming months.

"How much has Blair's personal protection (for him and his family) cost since he left office, and who exactly is paying for it?". I received an acknowledgement 2 weeks ago and am hoping to find out real soon now. More on this when it happens (although I wouldn't hold your breath).

I felt that out of 3, Cameron came across as the more statesman-like, but Clegg was very forthright and fresh (and perhaps a little nervous). Gordon Brown was odd: yes, he spoke well but the way he described the situation and future plans he made it sound like someone else had been running the country for the past 13 years-perhaps he has an evil/incompetent twin and last night the "good" one was on TV... No matter; I won't vote for Labour-this time or ever again.

Of course, right now the rael winner would be the candidate who could divert the cloud of Icelandic ash and get the planes flying again, but that's as unlikely as getting a decent PM on May 6th!

Maybe the quality of the candidates also has something to do with it: Dave and Gordon are spouting the usual rhetoric which is going to make local candidates jobs' even harder when they come round to canvass. Nick Clegg keeps jumping up and down shouting "it's not a two-horse race", and in some respects it isn't: to be honest, the 3 parties have had their day and its time for these knackered old nags to be put out to pasture: lets have some fresh horses and get this country back into shape!

You see, it annoys me intensely when we've they've only just started the campaign for real and they're already talking about a Hung Parliament: I mean for goodness sake, if you don't have faith in your own ability as politicians, then why bother?! Maybe that's why the Wives are being wheeled out, to try and draw voters attention from their useless husbands.

I'm sad to read in a Hansard Report that in the event of a Hung Parliament being declared, ".. the incumbent 'caretaker' prime minister has first call on forming an administration. Only if the incumbent prime minister fails to put together a deal with one or more of the other parties, or, after having chosen to 'meet' Parliament, he loses a confidence motion, will the leader of the largest opposition party be invited to form a government..". Democracy in action eh? Huh! And would Dave and Nick really want to get together with Gordon to see how they all work together, even if it was for the good of this miserable country?

But it gets worse.. "The politicians' decisions will be dependent upon a confluence of factors including: electoral arithmetic; constitutional conventions; the pressure of the 24‐hour media cycle and blogosphere; the influence of the financial markets; and the perceived direction of public opinion.". So basically, the important part as far as I'm concerned is as underlined: I, along with an army of bloggers allegedly has the power to "influence" the political system to such an extent that I could change the course of history? Hmmm.. I wonder if I interpreted that correctly?

But it may not be all bad: "A hung Parliament will require MPs to spend more time at Westminster than in recent Parliaments. This may have implications for the balance struck by MPs between their local constituency and national parliamentary responsibilities". In other words, MPs might have to start doing the work we're paying them to do!!

But whatever the outcome, unless enough people vote we're not going to get a satisfactory outcome, and no amount of Twittering nor Facebook coercion can achieve that!

But as with all things that the government promises there's a catch. The first seems to be the scope of the scheme: opening the accompanying booklet, it would appear that the scheme only operates in England, so presumably if you were unconscious in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland you'd still be in the same situation you are now. However, they state on the NHS Healthspace web site that "..Summary Care Records have only been created for people living in a small number of areas (known as Early Adopter areas)", so the scope may be extended. In the meantime though its best not to travel outside England if you think you may be ill.

Then, on page 4 of the booklet, "About your SCR", the last paragraph states that ".. If you choose to have an SCR, NHS staff will ask you if they can look at it every time they need to". But hang on - if I'm unconscious, how are they going to ask me? I'd say that they need to think this one through a bit more...

The important part comes on pages 6/7: "How will you control who can see my records?", and the answers make me feel uncomfortable: they..

• must be directly involved in caring for you - so is this solely doctors and nurses or does it include social workers and other governmental organisations?
• must have an NHS Smartcard with a chip 'n pin - but the last time I heard, this system was plagued with problems and not available everywhere?
• will ony see the information they need to do their job - oh, now that is an open-ended statement! Much more clarification needed please!!
• will have their details recorded - who they are and what they did - apparently you can ask to see this information but will this be another FOI-alike request?

Finally, this scheme is opt-out, not opt-in, and given the nature of the information that we're expected to hand over this is totally the wrong approach. The government is still playing the role of Nanny State and is determined to get as much personal information as possible about its' citizens, with no guarantee as to who will ultimately have access to it.

I've declined to have my details recorded.

But the problem is not just one of "should we", but "can we": our troops are already heavily committed capturing hearts and minds in Iraq and Afghanistan and our Navy is but a shadow of its former self, so is unlikely to realistically provide anything other than rescue capability. Back in 2007(!), an independent campaigning web site, savetheroyalnavy.org detailed what they called a "doomesday" scenario in which..

"..Argentina, keen to avenge defeat in 1982 seizes the Falklands again, overpowering the light forces stationed there before they can be re-enforced from the UK. Using the runway (kindly lengthened by the British), their fast jets are able to easily dominate the seas around the islands. The Navy, with less than half the strength it had in 1982, is completely helpless to intervene and the Falklands are ceded to Argentina against the wishes of the islanders".

Well, that was prophetic, and although they haven't occupied the Islands (yet), an emasculated Royal Navy will not be a viable deterrent. Of course, the donkeys that run our defence budget are all concerned with the pointless war in Iraqistan, and hence, our Navy has suffered. Actually, you ought to read the article and comments so the link is here. Simon Weston must be sighing and shaking his head in disbelief right now.

So where do we go from here? Well, no doubt David Miliband will be getting together with Bob Ainsworth to talk about options, but right now, the simple fact is that our defence is overstretched, and the possibility of another conflict war, even though it's a different theatre is the last thing we need as a nation.

In the meantime, if we had a gunboat to send, no doubt we'd send it: sadly we haven't so we can't. More later..

But here's the problem - politicians now just don't seem to inspire, and the Scotsman's performance last night proved my point. The problem is that as soon as a politician starts to speak, many peoplevoters just switch off, mentally or physically: the people in power just don't hold our attention any more, so we ignore them and that's just what the Gravy Trainers don't want.

So what's to be done? Well, in my world it would be very simple - the politicians should sing us a song. Yes, they should write a song consisting of 4 verses, no chorus, and use it as a vehicle to cut the waffle and really tell us what how they intend to lead the country. After all, that's what winning an election's all about isn't it? Lord Lloyd-Webber can write the music, and then we can have our wannabee leaders in a serious version of Britain's Got Talent.

The thing about the song as a device is that there is really no room for waffle as the lyrics have to scan properly, and it would force the author/singer to really consider what they are actually saying. There'd be no room for sniping at the other parties, and it would give them the chance to inspire us, which is something that seems to be conspicuously missing in politics today. So come on Gordon, Dave and Nick - show us what you really think and prove that you can not only inspire us, but lead the country!

And to prove my point, I'm reproducing the lyrics to "Hearts of Oak" (slightly updated for our era), written by the famous actor, David Garrick, in 1759! Inspiring or what? Gentlemen, the floor is yours...

The detention of Binyam Mohamed is a case in point: Ethiopian by birth, he sought asylum in the UK in1994 he arrived in the UK which was initially rejected, but in 2000 he was given "exceptional leave" to remain here for 4 years. I wonder why: maybe that was part of the then ruling Tory party's attempt at a fledgling "diversity" program. In 2001 he converted to Islam , then travelled to Pakistan, and then Afghanistan. Apparently he went there to "kick a drug habit and get away from familiar haunts in London". What utter rubbish! There are any number of places in Britain he could have gone to in order to indulge in a spot of rehab. He says that he also wanted to see whether Taliban-run Afghanistan was a good Islamic country. Then he wonders why, as a British Citizen, he's detained by the security services?!

He stated that "the very worst moment came when I realised in Morocco that the people who were torturing me were receiving questions and materials from British intelligence". Well, again I find that unsuprising: after all, as stated, he's a British Citizen and I'd say that his "holiday" destinations were distinctly un-British in nature.

Despite this, Judge Neuberger has openly criticised MI5 as "having culture of suppression and accused it of failing to respect human rights and of deliberately misleading the ISC and Foreign Secretary David Miliband". Well of course it has a culture of suppression, otherwise everyone would know what was happening, FFS!!! Human rights? Ha! Since when has the pursuit and elimination of terrorists been about human rights? They follow the Other Path and tear up their human rights entitlement as they walk through the door.. Misleading Miliband? No problem - he can't be trusted any more than Blair could. And as if to illustrate that point, it has now been claimed that "a well-placed Whitehall source is suggesting there was a deliberate campaign to undermine the agencies through actions being brought against them in the courts".

With friends like this, who really needs enemies?

And the DFID goes on to say that "..although India has seen strong economic growth over the past few years, the scale of its need remains huge. 76% of the population lives in poverty, and there are more people living on less than $1 a day in India than in sub-Saharan Africa". Well yes, they obviously won't rest until each community has its own helicopter gunship - pity the locals will be too malnourished to operate them.

Of course, it's not just the Americans that India is trading arms with - Russia has long been in the bigger picture, and as far back as 2006 (via Novosti Press), "one of the largest contracts stipulated the delivery to India of three Tu-22M3 Backfire aircrafts, two anti-submarine Il-38SD May planes, and 13 modules for licensed assembly of Su-30MKI Flanker multirole fighters". Hmmm.. nice hardware, but there's no mention of any sanitation being factored into the deal, but hey, the good people of the UK will sort that out.

However, if you're thinking that UKP14.5million isn't enough to pay for decent sanitation, you're right! The DFID press release goes on to reassure us that "[this] support will form part of a UKP6billion Indian Government project. As well as providing basic services to the poor in 20 Indian cities, it will help local governments and partners to deliver vital services to a further 43 cities - helping some 45% of the total slum population".

Good news eh, but personally I'd want to see some receipts for all those latrines they'll be buying, especially when the Indian Space Research Agency (ISRO) has proposed starting a human spaceflight program, with the first manned flight taking place by 2014 leading up to landing an Indian national on the Moon by 2020. ISRO stated that "We believe that pushing forward human presence in space may become essential for planetary exploration, a goal we have set for ISRO 20 years from now.. Secondly, with India's booming economy, costs should not be a hurdle. Its project leading to a first manned flight will cost $2.5 billion to $3 billion a year (more than three times the agency's current annual budget).".

Hang on.. so they have a booming economy, they can potentially afford to put a man on the moon, they have WMDs freely available and yet Britain is sending them money for toilets?! What the hell is going on? Roll on the next election!!

Links:

http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Media-Room/Press-releases/2010/New-slum-programme-to-help-eight-million-Indian-poor/

http://www.domain-b.com/defence/general/20100209_equipment.html

http://www.space.com/news/061110_india_mannedspace.html

http://en.rian.ru/search/?query=india+defence

Y'know, it makes me bloody annoyed that on the one hand there are legions of sane, intelligent and extremely ill people who know their own bodies well enough to determine not only that they want to die, but exactly when or at what point they want to die. And does the NHS let them have their wish? Well no, and repeats the same tired mantra that states that "they know the patient best". And so inevitably the patient is subjected to a long, and increasingly uncomfortable decline.

Then contrast this with patients who have a potentially terminal illness but who might just be saved if a particular drug was made available. One such person is Jed Alexander who has been diagnosed with a highly-resistant leukaemia - CML, or Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia - that could possibly be helped with 2 relatively new drugs; Dasatinib or Nilotinib. Apparently these could increase his life expectancy by decades, otherwise he'll be dead in just 5 years. Ironically these drugs are available in Scotland, as well as in Europe, USA, Australia, New Zealand and the rest of the developed world: basically everywhere except England where Mr Alexander lives. The cost is said to be some UKP30,000 a year; a lot less than is spent on needless cosmetic surgery (on the NHS) or NHS tourism.

In fact, NICE have a pretty poor track record of supporting needy patients, and in fact I wrote a series of postings back in April 2006(!) about a young lady, Tamar Bailey, who was terminally ill with advanced bowel cancer. She needed a then-new drug called Avastin (bevacizumab), but again, the mandarins at NICE decided that the drug was "unsuitable", and sadly Tamar died. Here's a quote from drugdevelopment-technology.com:

"The UK National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) issues guidance on the use of drugs every year. The institute released its guidance on the use of Avastin, Sunitinib, sorafenib and temsirolimus for renal cell carcinoma in early 2009. Avastin was at an obvious competitive disadvantage when the final guidance issued by NICE in March 2009 recommended Pfizer's Sunitinib for the first-line treatment of renal cancer.

NICE also suspended the recommendation of bevacizumab for use in lung cancer when Genentech did not submit evidence for the appraisal earlier in 2007–2008. The appraisals by NICE have been therefore postponed to be issued in October 2010, which would delay Avastin's approval in the UK market.

Further, in 2007, Avastin lost ground when NICE turned down the use of bevacizumab in combination with 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid, with or without irinotecan for curing metastatic colorectal cancer in people never treated previously. All of these developments have put Genentech's drug at a disadvantage over its competitors.". But they then go on to say that "Avastin is now seen as having the potential to be incorporated into a range of treatment regimens for patients with a variety of solid tumours."

and therefore this may have helped Tamar. See this article at http://www.drugdevelopment-technology.com/projects/avastin/.

To return to Mr Alexander's problem though, the same site (above) has some information on Dasatinib: "Preclinical experience with dasatinib suggests that it possesses potent antileukaemic activity" and, "When it was still in relatively early-stage development, both the US FDA and European EMEA granted accelerated approval for the use of dasatinib in adult patients with CML (all stages) that are resistant or intolerant to prior therapy, including treatment with imatinib mesylate. In addition, the drug was approved for use in the treatment of Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in adult patients resistant or intolerant to prior therapy. The marketing authorisation for the EU region was obtained in November 2006".

And since then, in the UK also, but not at a price that NICE feel is justified for use on the NHS. I'm sincerely hoping that a change of government will mean the abolition of NICE, and a return to a more humane approach to prescribing medicines.

In the meantime though, those that want to die, can't, and those that want to live, can't: isn't there something seriously wrong here?

After the biker protest the other day, I walked past the Houses of Parliament, and noticed all the Police dutifully guarding the entrances. I'd previously walked along the South Bank before crossing Westminster Bridge to get to Millbank and again, I noticed many, many PCSOs watching passers-by, presumably in case they suddenly whipped out a surface-to-surface missile and blasted the shit out of Parliament. What a sad day. Why are they bothering to guard these witless fools and usurpers?

Make no mistake dear reader - if we don't get rid of the MPs who are dragging us down into a quicksand of poverty and bankruptcy we won't have a life, except one of subservience and misery on a scale we don't even want to think about.

The current crop of MPs have proved time and time again, publicly, on the record, that they have NO TRACE OF MORAL FIBRE WHATSOEVER: let us do the right thing and vote a new party in - the great Lib-Lab Con has had its day and its up to us to change it. This IS your final warning.

Oh, but what an election victory that would be: solving the country's power supplies at a stroke, getting all those unemployed miners back to work, delighting the Unions, and all with the knowledge that they won't be damaging the environment.

What amazing timing!

The answer isn't straightforward and I'll be examining possible options in the weeks to come. In the meantime, as a homework exercise, see if you can detect any real commitment to solving the real issues in all the manifesto waving-and leave a comment.

Then it was time to sign on using my re-issued userID, which, although I didn't have the password for I could at least use to request either a password reset, or a reminder. I duly entered my userID and email address that I registered with as prompted, clicked "Forgotten password", and waited...

Problem: We are unable to find this user. Please contact the Help desk.

AAAAAAAAARRRRGGGGHHHHHH!!!!! FFS, they only just REISSUED the farking thing, so it MUST know about me! Again, if we weren't busy setting up Job Centres for the fucking Taliban or establishing para-legals in Nepal we'd have a government computer system that worked. I've had enough. I'm going to phone the helpdesk and get this sorted, although not today.

Is this any way to run an online country? Is it FUCK!

You may be surprised to know that you've invested UKP 17 million in buying toilets for Vietnam. Yes! The DFID excitedly reveals that "..we will participate in a Vietnamese government-led programme to tackle a chronic shortage of latrines in the country through a UKP 17 million grant. The money will also help spread good hygiene practices such as regular hand washing with soap". Ok, so I can accept the need for clean water, but when we have to start buying toilets and soap for Asia I start to get rather annoyed. Do they already sell soap in Vietnam? Anyway, no-one has mentioned toilet rolls to go with the toilets but I'm sure that's been factored in somewhere.

This government's also big on Gender Equality - in Asia and Africa. Back in November 2009, the DFID "established a new South Asia gender equality fund which will bring together the best policy, research and evidence in South Asia to tackle the root causes of gender inequality across the region". Somewhat simplistically, they state that "Entrenched attitudes and behaviours and womens' unequal access to social, political or economic opportunities are similar across the whole region" - in other words, women have traditionally had a subservient role in the region and the existing regimes obviously see no reason to change that. So our government has decided that ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, and are going to send the troops in? Er, no, not exactly: they're going to create "800 new para-legal committees to combat violence against women and other legal issues throughout Nepal. The UKP 6.5 million grant to UNICEF will deliver trained legal support to women and girls who would otherwise not have access to justice". Well, I'm sure that's going to make a truckload of difference, and I'll bet the allegedly oppressed women of Nepal are jumping for joy that they'll soon have access to legal representation when they sue their husbands. Isn't it great to know we're making a difference?

And never let it be said that the government is mean when it comes to lending other people your money: you'll be delighted to hear that " International Development Secretary Douglas Alexander announced an additional UKP 5 million to the Government of Afghanistan's microfinance scheme. This brings the UK's total investment in the scheme to UKP 35 million. The scheme has provided small loans to over 400,000 people so far - 280,000 of whom are women. By the end of next year, the scheme will have benefited some 400,000 women. These loans are giving women the chance to start or expand small businesses, engage in the economy, and gain a degree of financial independence that would otherwise be unattainable". I'm assuming that this will be achievable in the region bearing in mind the Taliban are now looking so entrenched we're now talking about bribing them to disarm. From what I read, the Taliban want to keep women where they've always kept them: as possessions and slaves, so why don't we just write the debt off now?

So now you know: these are just 3 examples of long-term aid to the poor nations of the world, but when you read that in the UK an extra 36,700 deaths of pensioners occurred between December 2008 to March 2009 - an increase of 49 per cent on the previous year. This was the highest number since the winter of 1999/2000, according to the Office of National Statistics. Andrew Harrop, head of policy at Age Concern and Help the Aged, described the figures - higher than even colder countries such as Sweden - as a 'national disaster'. What the government fail to realise, or perhaps are in denial about is that we in the UK are now an acknowledged poor country, and while in many cases our situation is not as bad as those mentioned, they simply have to realise we are not in a position to keep handing out aid like this. I would say that they need to get our house, the UK, in order, especially when you consider that in 2008 we were reading headlines stating that "Nearly 1.3million children are living in severe poverty in the UK and there is a relatively high likelihood of severe poverty among children living in London, Wales and Northern Ireland". Charity begins at home - not in Vietnam. Visit the DFID's toilet project at http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Media-Room/Press-releases/2010/UK-announces-major-support-for-sanitation-project-in-Vietnam, and "Lawyers for Nepal" at http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Media-Room/Press-releases/2009/UK-launches-programme-to-tackle-violence-against-women-in-South-Asia/

What they need to do in my opinion is this. Phase 1 would see the immediate withdrawal of Western forces: just get them out. Phase 2 would be a message to the rapidly-expanding Muslim world telling them that "Afghanistan is now yours. You broke it, so you can fix it. You have the money and the People love you. Enjoy". Simples!

In the meantime, we can attempt to put a stop to this lunatic policy by not voting NuLiebour next time. Go on, you know it makes sense!

What gets me is that the conspirators seem so willing to shift the blame onto each other - talk about loyalty (not)! Straw's already bleating that he told his bosses that an invasion would not be warranted nor viable; now Paymaster Brown's coming under pressure for allegedly writing blank cheques to bankroll the war machine, and no, of course Broken Britain couldn't afford it.

The question on my mind is that if these politicians are found guilty, and I so hope they are, what will be their punishment? Well, if this was China or some parts of Europe, they'd be shot: sadly, we're too civilised for that, so what about life imprisonment, as was done with Rudolf Hess? Sorry, the jails are too full, partly due to the inept "Justice" Minister Straw's inept alleged management (wonder if he did it on purpose?), and the prospect of a taxpayer-funded permanent house arrest is just too much to bear, especially as the 3 are renowned Champagne Socialists. So how about if we do it the British Way, and just let them off with a slap on the wrist and make them promise they won't do it again?

As to whether Labour's fears that Brown's pre-election appearance will damage the party? They have got to be fucking joking!? Brown's mismanagement of his sleazy and corrupt government following on from Blair starting it off is akin to the Labour Party putting the gun to its head and pulling the trigger. Heck it's already damaged beyond repair, so this should be the least of their worries. Next week should be very interesting..

More of the same at http://mydavidcameron.com/

As to who M.Rompuy actually is and what he stands for is another matter, but suffice to say that thanks to Nu Labour it actually doesn't matter. The country's all but washed up and thanks in part to the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty we're effectively ruled from Brussels anyway. Who knows, we might even see a reversal of some of the crazy policy that Brown et al have foisted upon us.. Stranger thngs have happened, so watch this space....

Actually, looking at pictures at reports of the Queen's Speech on the various news sites this morning, it made me realise just what a different world we live in: this quote gives a hint: "My Government’s overriding priority is to ensure sustained growth to deliver a fair and prosperous economy for families and businesses, as the British economy recovers from the global economic downturn. Er, excuse me? What is this sustained growth that one is talking about? Hasn't one realised that we're still in the depths of a bleedin' recession, or so Management keeps telling Unions.. And since when has the economy ever been fair: one has obviously failed to notice the little storm in a teacup over the banks conduct. There's more of course, and what appear at first sight to be noble aspirations (A new law binding a future government to halve the deficit by 2014, new measures to combat youth unemployment, guarantees on quality of schooling, with extra tuition for struggling pupils and help for 400000 of the neediest elderly with care in their own homes) look like just the sort of idealistic crap pumped out just before an election, but knowing the way Labour work there'll be a high price to pay. And guess who'll be paying? Well, the other headline "Further tax rises to plug the black hole in Britain's public finances were signalled yesterday.. (via the Daily Mail) gives me a worrying suspicion that it might actually be me, and my fellow workers.

Although a change of government is desperately needed it looks inevitable that it'll be a painful transition; not only for the incoming party but also the so-called middle-class majority who will end up financing it all. And that my dear readers is one thing that I'm not looking forward to.

No, we won't forget..

The audience was actually something very special: as stated, they'd been "carefully selected" by the programme organisers, although no-one actually stated where they were selected - Socialist Worker HQ perhaps? I got the impression that it was composed largely of the politically correct of the Nanny State, with a token presence of the type of electorate that the BNP is courting, and recruiting in droves. If you want my honest opinion, I suspect that the mob that were violently demonstrating outside the BBC earlier were simply roped in to be the studio audience. The audience behaviour actually reminded me of the Jerry Springer programme featured in "The Spy Who Shagged Me" - you know, the one where they have a carefully selected, representative audience, including a member of the KKK. Of course, Question Time didn't dissolve into Fight Club as it did with Austin Powers, but I wouldn't have been surprised if it had done. I'm tempted to watch another episode of QT and see if they can have a more balanced audience: if they do, then shame on the BBC for allowing such a thing to take place, but would you expect anything less from the government's mouthpiece?

The questions that were asked were fairly predictable, and Griffin's answers naturally proved unpopular with the audience: he was in the situation where he would be demonised whatever his answers were, and demonised he was. But what about the questions that weren't asked? What about "Mr Griffin, why are you appearing on Question Time: why are you here?". And the answer would have been that the BNP represents the only hope for a large, and growing group of badly unrepresented people in this country: the lower-class whites, who've been all but ignored by a succession of governments who's agenda seems to have been to cater for every other minority that shouts loud enough; and I'm naming no names - that's for you to research if you care to. To quote the Guardian, "A poll for the Daily Telegraph published yesterday suggested that 22% of the electorate would "seriously consider" voting BNP, while the party claimed thousands had registered for information following Griffin's appearance. By the end of the night 9,000 new people had signed up as registered potential members or on our mailing lists, Simon Bennett, the BNP's webmaster, declared". Is this because they saw Griffin as a victim and decided to take sides against the aggressor? Unlikely: I'd say it was the realisation that the representatives of the mainstream political parties on the programme finally revealed their true colours, and the fact that Griffin has been consistently unafraid to speak his mind in public all had a direct bearing. Isn't this all the more ironic though as Socialism, the doctrine around which Labour is built (I think), " ...refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labour expended", and isn't this what the BNP advocates to a large degree in its "Workfare" manifesto?

As I close this posting, it seems that Griffin may well be invited back onto the programme again: this because the BNP's electoral support and two European Parliament seats mean it fulfils the criteria necessary to warrant an invitation. In my view, Question Time is not the right programme: I'd suggest the Andrew Marr programme, simply because it allows more in-depth discussion by an intelligent presenter, unhindered by an honestly unrepresentative audience. Marr would have the knowledge and depth of character to ask the right question, and Griffin would still have the chance to explain his party's manifesto. If it does happen, then let's have a fairer discussion - after all, we're supposed to be a democracy, and freedom of speech is what that is founded on. Freedom, without exception.

As for the date of this momentous broadcast, I'm not sure, but rest assured I'll be recording it and analysing in some depth later on.

Other people have stronger objections though, and on Friday September 11th a significant moment in British social politics took place and at the same time my attitude to the media changed as well. The original plan was for members of a protest group, "Stop the Islamification of Europe" (SIOE) had sought and obtained permission to stage a peaceful (and I stress the word peaceful) protest against the building of the mosque. The organiser, Steve Gash was interviewed by the mainstream media prior to the event and stated that SIOE are against the building of any mosques in the UK, at least until the problem of the radicalisation of muslims was "sorted out". He further stated that they wanted existing mosques to be turned back into the places of worship that they claimed to be: not an unreasonable request given the increasing publicity given to muslim clerics preaching hate.

On the day though, Stephen Gash was told by a senior sergent of the police to call off the demonstration in Harrow. He was then arrested to prevent a breach of the peace, no doubt "for his own safety", despite the fact that in the UK we still allow the freedom of speech and the right to protest, at least in principle. At the same time, a number of SIOE demonstrators were detained, "kettled" by riot police before they reached the demo, resulting in a very small number of protestors arriving at the actual event: some put the figure as low as 20. At the same time, more than 1000 mainly muslims gathered in front of the SIOE demonstration where they stopped people to attend the demonstration. SIOE stated that ".. the police could not handle the muslim counter demonstrators. The senior sergent said that he didn't want any of his policemen killed". The resulting demo, much of which was not shown on TV is currently available on YouTube, and makes disturbing viewing but in the interests of balanced journalism should be shown. I have to ask though, why are the mainstream TV media stations not reporting any of this? Why is an e-coli outbreak on a Surrey Farm being given a ludicrous amount of air time?

What it shows is a Police Force completely hopelessly outnumbered and obviously unable to keep control of an increasingly nasty situation. At the same time, we have muslim leaders expressing "concern and dismay" at what they describe as a disturbing number of young muslims willing to interpret the [violent] verses of the Quran literally in order to promote violence". Incidentally, that's not a racist remark by me, it was actually stated on the BBC's "Big Question" by a leading member of Britain's Muslim Council, Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra.

However, I think the reason that Friday September 11th 2009 was significant was that the authorities have finally woken up and smelled the coffee. We're no longer (were we ever?) living with a peaceful minority and the scale and ferocity of the protest by 1000 militant muslim protestors appeared to have the police genuinely worried about their ability to cope with such a situation. In this case it seemed easier to arrest the minority and let the majority run riot - literally. This incident doesn't bode well for future, similar protests of which there are likely to be an increasing number, and personally, the apparent inability of the police to cope worries me greatly.

In closing, a comment by "Halima" on another web site sums it up quite nicely:

And yes, you should click on the above link..

Oil Production: 0 barrels/day (2007)
Oil Exports: 0/barrels/day (2007)
Oil Imports: 4534 barrels/day (2007)
Oil Consumption: 5036 barrels/day (2006)
Oil, proved reserves: 0 barrels (2007)

So if this is true, we seem to have missed the point about what we can usefully get out the country, and in fact we seem to have a country that is not only importing oil but using it all as well, plus a bit more (also see this link). Is that a sound basis for military action? But when you consider that various countries want to route an oil pipeline across Afghanistan, the situation becomes more interesting, and indeed a trans-Afghanistan pipeline has been mooted to transport alleged huge hydrocarbon reserves from the Caspian region which apparently has proven natural gas reserves equal more than 236 trillion cubic feet. The region's total oil reserves may well reach more than 60 billion barrels of oil, possibly up to 200 billion barrels. If the pipeline was built by 2010, Western companies could potentially increase production to about 4.5 million barrels a day, representing about 5 percent of the world's total oil production. Of course, this depends on a stable region, and in 1998, one of the main proponents of the project, Unocal told the US Senate that ".. the construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company". Now that is a big ask, and one that is highly unlikely to happen given the region's history:

But to come back to my original question, I'd suggest that once again, Britain is squandering energy and resource fighting in a war that will give us no direct benefit. This war is being engineered by a unelected government who, as usual will not clearly state why we're involved. Is that the basis for a war? I think not. Lets get out while we can.

Israel however has a different view of the situation: according to the Israel National News, Israel seems to have already decided that "time has run out" and they're prepared to "defend themselves through preemptive action". Oh dear, its that old paranoia creeping back in again, but are they right to be paranoid this time? If they're right, and Iran's nuclear programme is advanced enough to support weapons-grade then they could, in theory be justified in taking action, but at what cost? Certainly a strike against what would be seen as Iran's nuclear infrastructure would be an option, but does anyone know where it is? Would we see a return to the Bad Old Days where an unscrupulous government would site potential military targets in areas of dense civilian population?

But I digress, and Israel's President Netanyahu is sceptical of Obama's one year timeline for Iran sorting itself out. He's claiming that opting for diplomatic negotiations is tantamount to time wasting, but surely this is what the whole election process is about, and why the people of Iran are so indignant that the process appears to have been rigged? I sincerely hope the situation in Iran will stabilise over the next few weeks: not only so that the country can continue a programme of reform but it may defuse Israel's bellicose attitudes. I actually wonder if Iran is but a distraction while Israel should be the one to watch? Comments please!

The survey, which I believe to be representative has all the hallmarks of what used to be a democratic system in tatters. We no longer believe in our elected representatives and the marginal parties are now being looked at as potential saviours, but in my opinion this is because we have to vote for someone: what could potentially happen though is that if enough voters stay away or spoil ballot papers in protest we're going to be left with a party in power that's there simply because there's no-one else. Surely this isn't a recipe for success and I'd say that the quality of the politicians that we elect under these circumstances would be poorer than the sleazy bunch we have in now. Is that possible? On the other hand, perhaps a marginal party such as the Greens could get in, but are they ready for office? Are they now scurrying round their Central Office hastily preparing plans for how to run a Government?

But what about the BNP? They've traditionally been a marginal party, but have come up from behind very quickly. They seem to be in a position where they could substantially build on a following that's been in the process of being cultivated, quietly but successfully, for some time now. Judging by the perceived Muslim threat that's publicly held by many private citizens (and almost certainly held privately by many MPs), the BNP stand to make significant gains in many key areas. What the implications of that would be is anybody's guess, but I suspect they would be very similar to UKIP's stated intention to re-evaluate our position in the European Union, and sort out the lunatic immigration laws that Nu-Labour have foisted upon us.

Let's see what happens in this week's elections..

Anyway, enough of all this - it's April, and as Chaucer so eloquently, if obscurely put it:

Err, quite .. So that's me signing off for a while: don't forget out downtime which will occur later today and probably come into full force by tomorrow. See you soooon!

The campaign poster goes on to warn us that "TERRORISTS USE CHEMICALS: Do you know someone buying large or unusual quantities of chemicals for no obvious reason?". Oh dear, well, I wish I'd seen that yesterday as I was standing behind a fat girl with an odd accent in the Sainsbury's checkout queue wondering why someone with such obviously black hair would want to buy 6 packs of (different) hair colour? After all, one of the main ingredients of that stuff is hydrogen peroxide, the well-known terrorist favourite! As the Met want us to "use our discretion" in such matters I can honestly say that there are some people that would call the Police to report such an event. I couldn't actually place the accent: it was halfway between Scots and Polish but she'd already started eating the 6-pack of KitKat fingers that she'd yet to buy and was trying to talk to the checkout girl as well so it's hard to say...

But all this aside, it's other events that are taking place, largely in the background that worry me more. Apparently, Hazel Blears has suspended official links with the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) over allegations that its deputy general secretary endorsed a Hamas call for attacks on foreign troops, including possibly British troops, if they try to intercept arms smuggled into Gaza. I guess you could commend the government for taking such decisive, publicly-visible action, but in a country with an unstable political climate it also looks to alienate the government with an increasingly sizeable, powerful and influential group. If this is NuLabour's Brontosaurus moment when it finally realises what the potential problems with the Muslim lobby are, let me just say that it's too fucking late! It wouldn't be complete without a quote from Jacqui Smith, who said yesterday that "the government had no intention of outlawing these views or criminalising those who held them: `Freedom of thought and speech are rights which are fundamental to our society. But we will not hear these views in silence. We should all stand up for our shared values and not concede the floor to those who dismiss them`". Good grief! Now that's something I'd never thought I'd hear, but again I fear it's too late. And just for good measure, Smith also stated that this opinion "also extended to those who voiced homophobic views in public". It seems there's never been a better time to be a gay terrorist..

But what the government's really concerned about is the spectre of a dirty bomb, and that they're concerned that terrorists now have better access to technology and the means to assemble weapons made from everyday chemicals. They actually mention that "counter-measures are being taken in Britain in anticipation of the possible importation of the use of roadside bombs and other improvised explosive devices from Iraq and Afghanistan". Now does this take paranoia to a whole new level, or are they really, really trying to tell us something? When the 2012 Olympics are mentioned in conjunction with these statements I begin to wonder if we're going to see a much bigger, bloodier version of the notorious Munich Olympics, only this time they'll be gunning for the crowd, not the athletes. Lets face it - this government with its open-doors, extreme tolerance policy has got exactly what it asked for, allegedly on our behalf, and is now standing by to reap the rewards. When you read statements like "And I think that comes from a partnership between the police,communities and the public.." and then you consider how much has been done to place an enormous gap between those 3 parties, you begin to realise how desperate the situation is. There are very few real (urban) communities any more: they've been dispersed and divided by fear, prejudice and crime. The public are trusting the Police less and less on a daily basis because of the heavy-handed attitudes to citizens. How can they expect us to cooperate willingly, and at a time when a level of trust really needs to be there?

I'll write more when I have time, but if you want to read the government's full strategy, the link is here, or the dumbed-down version here.

According to a senior police officer, the so-called "Real IRA" is just one of many groups known to be involved in this type of crime: "They lack public support, they lack finance, they lack personnel and they lack munitions and equipment. What they can do is sporadic murder, sporadic bombing attacks and, in their terms, be successful in that". Okay, so if you compare that to other alleged terrorist groups operating in the UK right now, the traits seem to be very similar, and to be honest, when has lack of "real" equipment ever bothered the IRA? The officer went on to state that "They do not have a political wing which contests elections, and evidently prefer killing to voting. What they do have in common with the Provisional IRA of the 1970s and 1980s is ruthless gunmen, prepared to be involved in mass murder". Well, I'd say that was a pretty fair assessment of the situation: if you strike a deal, lay down your arms, join in a peace process and then get spied on you're not going to really trust anyone are you?

What concerns me as a UK citizen is that we now have another potential terrorist group to worry about, and will they cross the water to launch attacks over here if they feel that the government isn't listening? Based on how much the government listens to its electorate I'd say I had every right to be worried! And what would be the attitude of our terrorists incumbent to the new kids on the block? Well, maybe they'd see them as Kuffars and leave them alone, or maybe they'd supply the money that the authorities seem to think is missing. What happens after that is anyone's guess, but I suspect that a Kuffar will still be a Kuffar whatever their political leanings and they'll be topped along with the rest of us after they've outlived their usefulness.

NuLabour are expecting a Summer of Rage™, and if they continue with this foolhardy course of action that's exactly what they'll get, only instead of a mass of white-collar protestors, or should I say supplicants they'll get something a lot more hard to handle. You just see if it happens!

Of course, it's not the first time that foodstuffs have been thrown at Labour politicians - John Prescott was famously pelted with egg and made history by punching out the culprit. He stated afterwards that he "regretted" his action, but it made the media's day at the time. We'll wait and see what our intrepid protester is charged with though - more on this as it happens!

Visit Plane Stupid here..

The problem as I see it though, is that Brown, as the representative of the Nouveau Poor is surely asking the US for aid but in a very circuitous manner: he wouldn't have the balls to come right out and ask for a loan as this would be a gaffe of global proportions. Obama in turn is obviously acutely aware of the US's own financial crisis and I hope will ignore such arse-licking remarks like "never before have I seen a world so willing to come together ... never before has that been more needed, and never before have the benefits of co-operation been so far reaching", leaving Brown to haul himself out of his own mess. Even without my italics you can surely smell the desperation in this speech.

But what of the implications of simply printing more money? Well apparently it's a first for the UK as it's never been tried here before. I'll quote from an excellent write-up about a similar situation in 1920's Germany: "By 1924 the inflation had radically redistributed the wealth of Germany. The segment of society that was hit the hardest seems to have been the middle class. The poor had little wealth to lose while the rich were often able to get their wealth into forms not adversely affected by inflation. Wealth held in foreign bank accounts, gold and precious metals, and land maintained value". Now does this sound like history repeating itself, or what? Of course, what happened next is, as they say is history, and aren't we more than half way there already?

Links:

"That Speech" .. Peter Brookes
"Crufts Week" .. Peter Brookes
"The Embrace" .. Peter Brookes
"Hoping for a Transfusion .. Scarfe

What I can't understand is that the legal bods are saying things like "a judge described his texting as "prolonged, deliberate, repeated and highly dangerous", even though it was not directly linked to the accident". Eh? And an even more bizarre statement comes from Chief Inspector Andy Male, head of the South Yorkshire police road team, who said that the peer's sentence "reflects the seriousness with which the courts, the Crown Prosecution Service and the police view this offence". Ehhhh?????!!!! So 12 weeks for disobeying a law and killing someone is acceptable to the CPS and Police? What utter bollocks!

So if he's so obviously such a blatant threat, how come he only got sent down for 12 weeks?! Well, the answer apparently is that "[Lord Ahmed] provided an important function for the country both nationally and internationally, particularly in the field of inter-faith relations" (via the BBC). So that's it then? Well apparently it is because he's got off lightly. This is definitely a case of "one law for the rich".

Anyway, read some classic media brown-nosing here, (and stay away from South Yorkshire if you've got any sense!)

Maybe this country should have a Summer of Rage, with the option of an Autumn of Rage. Maybe this really is time to take back the streets.

U.K.: Only one Islamic "preacher of hate" deported in past 3 years

Smiling preacher of hate Abu Qatada enjoying an UKP800,000 home and a life of benefits

Christian preachers face arrest in Birmingham

An earlier article by the BNP about this subject

In the meantime, the Labour Cabinet should be made to take a Citizenship Test and be deported if they fail.

This is of course all speculation, and knowing the way in which energy-related products cause situations to change overnight it could all be different this time next week or next month. What is clear right now though is that Ukraine must be feeling very isolated and without any clear allies in the so-called "Gas War". Come back soon for more updates..

The second option is that "EU will finance gas pipelines bypassing Russia" - I think they actually mean "bypassing Ukraine", and if this is the case it could get very interesting indeed. After all, the Affluent West™ is in the depths of a swingeing recession and surely cannot afford the cost of building a new pipeline, but really, this is strictly necessary as far as Russia is concerned. Look at it this way: if there was an EU pipeline direct from Russia, Russia could then annex Ukraine completely, no longer having to worry about this troublesome customer. What's left of Ukraine could then renew applications to join the EU and would no longer be part of Russia's big picture. But think of this - if they annexed part of Ukraine after repossessing Eastern territories, they could then legally install a missile/radar shield close to the border, which would effectively cancel out the effect of the proposed Czech-hosted American one. Maybe this is a gas war, but perhaps there's a hidden agenda also..

Anyway, that aside, at the same time Europe could continue to receive the increasingly important gas supplies that it depends on, and for the time being at least, Russia could be assured that this customer would pay up, on time. This whole affair is simmering on a slow burner and is not due to boil over anytime now: however, it's in Russia's interest to play the waiting game, and when it happens I'll be covering it - see you there!

What's more interesting is that the Eastern European Gas Analysis site has now published some new maps showing "Ukraine: Transit flows of Jan-6-2009" and "Gazprom pipelines and export capacity": although the legends are in Russian, it's interesting viewing, but it's not until you examine the situation from the UK's point of view that the implications start to become clearer.

According to the EEGA map showing gas pipeline routeing, it appears that UK gas comes via Belarus, not Ukraine, which services countries such as France and Germany, hence Chancellor Fr. Merkel's agitation at the failure to resolve the crisis. The text accompanying the map also states "If the flow via Belarus is cut, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium [and the UK by implication] can receive gas via Ukraine. There is enough gas stored in underground storage facilities of Ukraine and Germany". That statement was written in 2006, so there's already an issue here as Ukraine's been removed from the equation.

Now, what's significant about the routeing is that although supplies could be routed via Ukraine if there was a problem with the Yamal-Europe (Torzhok-Kondratki-Frankfurt/Oder) link, there's a real capacity limit on what the pipelines can actually carry, so it may not be possible to increase capacity enough to meet the increased demand. Presently, this pipeline carries 35 bcm/year compared with 143 bcm/year via Ukraine. In addition, EEGA state that "Underground gas storage facilities of Poland have maximum withdrawal rate of about 7 million cubic meters per day. It is not enough to replace the flow from Belarus. On top of that, storage gas is needed to meet regular peak-load demand in winter period", and bear in mind that we're talking about a normal winter, not the current one as described in the previous post. Watch out for more developments as they happen.

Data and maps courtesy of Eastern European Gas Analysis.

At the moment though, the UK and West is quite safe, but please spare a thought for those mainland European countries such as Turkey who are now without their supply of imported gas: many of them seem to be well prepared for an emergency such as this and are starting to switch from gas to oil as a heating fuel. Such a shame then that the price of oil is also going up. In some ex-Eastern Bloc countries the situation is even worse, with whole communities receiving gas-powered heat from central boiler houses. This Soviet-style initiative was very popular during the aptly-named cold war period and indeed, I remember my own home town in the UK installing such a scheme to heat a whole London-overspill estate, to good effect. Right now, this looks to be an exceedingly bad idea and one can only hope that Russia and Ukraine can iron out their differences on 8th January.

Of course, there are many suggestions that this whole affair is not about the gas. For some time now, Ukraine has not only been applying to join the EU gravy train, but has also applied to become part of NATO. In Russian eyes, this would represent a major threat to Russian security, especially with the recent decision by the Czech government to agree to hosting an American missile/radar shield "somewhere near Prague". Logic says that if this goes ahead, then Russia would be quite within its' rights to ask for similar access, and who is to say what would happen if this request is declined. After all, the Russians are entitled to protect their border too, especially with a now very unstable United States so close to their doorstep.

The political ramifications are for another posting though, and I'll continue to monitor the siutuation. For now, if you want more information you can read the excellent Energy Bulletin article on "Ukraine-Russia: some background and context", and it might also be worth looking at a couple of gas pipeline maps from East European Gas Analysis. Also see how Cantaxx are planning to convert an old salt mine in Lancashire into gas storage.

In the meantime, keep warm!

BBC link, and here's what the people say!

The project is already causing controversy as environmental campaigners continue to push to reduce Britain's heavy dependency on fossil fuels for its power. One of the selling points though is that Dong have an emissions-cleaning system that will allegedly reduce pollution by up to 25%, but in my opinion this will only slow down the problem, not eliminate it. They also plan to prepare Hunterston for carbon capture which apparently pumps emissions for storage in emptying oil wells (North Sea oil wells?) resulting in claimed cuts in emission by 90%. However, it seems that the technology's only known to work on paper and is not necessarily commercially viable. In addition, isn't it a bit of a risk to try it out on British soil, especially when Dong already admit that "DONG Energy accounts for around one-third of Danish CO2 emissions, primarily due to our power and heat generation plants based on coal and other fossil fuels". There's an admission of this in their Carbon Capture and Storage page: "Technically, it is possible to capture CO2, but it is still a very energy-intensive process. Today, power plants use 5% of the energy they produce to clean for sulphur and NOx. Cleaning for CO2 as well using the existing technologies would require 15%-25% of the energy produced. That is why research currently centres on developing processes that are a lot less energy-intensive". So in reality, the process is still at the working model stage and it consumes up to 30% of the total energy produced?

As for the plant itself, they state that "..when our coal-fired units are operating at their most efficient, we are able to utilise around 45% of the fuel’s energy content. On a global scale, the average energy utilisation is only around 31%". This is a very poor return on energy investment in my opinion, but it's likely that Dong will go ahead with it.

Dong is is proposing a joint venture company with Peel Energy, a sister company of Clydeport which operates the Hunterston port. Peel's talking head, Owen Michaelson, states: "It makes perfect sense to build a new power station there, avoiding the need to transport millions of tonnes of coal a year across the country". Maybe, but it's no coincidence surely that Peel is a large stakeholder in UK Coal who I'm sure would be only too pleased to have that quantity of coal transported across the country, perhaps even by ship? Is it also coincidence that Owen Michaelson is a non-executive director of UK Coal?

What really intrigues me about all this though is that according to the power-industry web site, powertechnology.com are featuring an article on Hunterston in its nuclear role, and state that the life of the plant has been extended to 2016 while at the same time "generating enough power to supply 50% of Scottish homes". It's also been working at just 60% efficiency but there are plans to spend GBP 90 million to increase this to 70%+ along with a sister plant, Hinkley Point B. At this point in time the economic don't seem to add up, and the easy option that will also be the worst for the environment appears to be the course being followed. Even the government said that "Nuclear power was declared 'safe and affordable' in January 2008 ( business secretary John Hutton)", so the government's obviously convinced that nuclear power is the way to go for the foreseeable future: its not perfect of course, but given that the fossil fuel coal is getting such bad press and is such a threat it would be foolhardy not to adopt it.

So there are some very mixed messages coming out of all this - I'll wait and see what happens over the next few weeks and post again.

Does this sound like we've learned or remembered anything, or have we just forgotten that politicians are powerless after all? It's very hard to forget that...

Really???? Are these people living in the same country as the rest of us Brits? As far as I can tell, Blair's fragmented the Met into another quango, with police spending more time on paperwork and PR than catching villains. Add to that the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes in 2005, followed by the recent allegations that non-Asian sections of the service had been actively spying on Asian colleagues, currently for reasons best known to themselves. And the issues of knife and gun crime? Well, according to the statistics it's actually getting worse. Interestingly though, the Met's own statistics only include robbery, theft and burglary, which to my mind is kinda convenient.

With this in mind, it was surely going to be sooner rather than later that Blair had to go, and what better time to go than when the intelligent section of the country recognise that we're in a Police State (but without the Police to back it up) and the force in general is in disarray? The only worrying question now is who will take Blair's place?

So I don't know a lot about the recently-elected but still I believe unpopular President Sarkozy of France but it seems he seems to be cuddling up to Mr Putin lately. They are involved in "'thorough' economic discussions" in Moscow, "discussing key regional and global issues, major bilateral problems, praising progress in political, humanitarian and economic cooperation between the two countries". Well both countries have the same problems so the two men are well suited to talk about such matters and I left it at that bland newspeak until I read that "Sarkozy said French investors were seeking to buy into Russian energy giant Gazprom. French investors are ready to buy into large Russian companies, such as Gazprom, Sarkozy told the press, pledging that France would refrain from protectionism".

Okay, so now it seems to make a bit more sense. Let's look at France's situation. According to the CIA World Factbook, France is a significant producer and exporter of both natural gas (a la Gazprom) and electricity: I don't know how much gas (if any) we get from France but I know that we depend heavily on the French National Grid equivalent to top us up in times of need. I'd originally thought that France was running out of gas but it now looks as though the economy in France is subtley changing, and perhaps doing a deal with Gazprom at the right price may mean that France can sell on Russian gas at a profit. To quote the CIA again; "France is in the midst of transition from a well-to-do modern economy that has featured extensive government ownership and intervention to one that relies more on market mechanisms". I would see that as France following a UK transition in which state subsidised industries which ran tolerably well are being replaced by PPPs which as we're finding out to our cost are inevitably an expensive disaster (railways anyone?). At the same time, and I can't imagine this being the case at all, if France wanted to top up our own gas reserves because we've all but exhausted the North Sea reserves, they'd be in a position to make a handsome profit.

More clues as the two men discuss passage of nationals between the countries: "Sarkozy said France was also ready to take measures to cut visa issuance time for Russian nationals. 'We are ready to take all measures to enable students, tourists and businessmen to visit [France],' Sarkozy said. In response, Putin reported that Russia had enhanced security at its borders, paving the way for the introduction of visa-free travel". Now that is interesting, and given that France is on a Eurostar route straight to the UK, how easy will it be for Russians to enter this country. Sarkozy's generosity will surely force this government's hand in allowing similar access, and Gordon Brown would be risking another diplomatic snub to Russia by lowering barriers. Not a good situation for Britain, and I hope that Sarkozy knows what he's up to. Really.

But back to the two politicians meeting and time for some picture analysis. In what is supposed to be a friendly encounter I'd like to surmise that the body language in the photographs does not match the headlines. Yes, I know that meeting Putin must be a sobering experience but these are practised politicians.. In Exhibit 1 when the two men meet and pose for a picture, Sarkozy's eyes are looking down (Putin's straight ahead), and Putin is having to extend his arm and hand to "meet" Sarkozy. Defensive? I think so. Then at a later economic meeting, both men seated with Putin once again extending his reach to shake Sarkozy's hand: Exhibit 2: the expression on Sarkozy's face suggests that he's straining to achieve this and I'd say that he's crossed his legs but I can't quite see this in the picture. if he has, then this would signify that he had no intention of standing up to shake Putin's hand which I'd say was bad manners. So Putin would appear to have the upper hand at both these meetings and when you bear in mind (pun!) who is asking the favours at this meeting that kinda reinforces it. Now check out Exhibit 3 and see what the body language says..

More on this as it develops, which it surely will..
Images and some text sourced from RIA Novosti, BBC News.

...Removal of night shifts in delivery units - Increasing levels of automation and low levels of indoor efficiency have created an opportunity to make better use of indoor time in delivery units. The standard is to cease all night shifts in delivery offices, although a small number of exceptions may be required in city centre units with very high proportions of firms deliveries.

Okay, so there's the problem identified but what about the solution?

4.1 Employees will have the opportunity to enhance their earnings through an office-based lump sum bonus scheme, which will run for financial year 07/08, based on the success of their local unit (delivery office, mail centre, distribution centre or distribution hub). . 4.2 This scheme will not operate with pre-determined targets. It simply relies on the local parties considering if there are any pragmatic and realistic opportunities to make their office more efficient, whilst ensuring that all mail is cleared to workplan. If savings are achieved beyond the budget the staff will receive a 50% share...

Wow! Nice work if you can get it. You work so slowly that management feel obliged to offer you what I'd consider to be an economically unsound productivity scheme. In addition there are no predefined targets so it's going to be hard to quantify the results, but that doesn't matter because you'll get a generous cut if economies are achieved. Of course, someone has to pay for this crazy scheme and in the absence of government help this will naturally fall to the paying customers: you and me. In fact I've already paid over the odds to send strike-sensitive mail over the past week and instead of costing maybe the usual $5 I've spent $20. To make matters worse this one strike day may be one of many: I understand that an agreement mooted in 2006 has still not been resolved and that the CWU may be forced to stand up for their rights. Whether its all down to (mis)management as some of the postal "workers" are claiming is unclear but whatever happens, someone needs to step in and sort the problem out before the service that we know and love is no longer operating.