Friday, May 08, 2009

"Borders as a Weapon of Censorship"




From time to time we defer to brave and wondrous Kea. She is still blogging from her post at Oxford, despite the silliness of Britain's Home Office. Many scientists have missed appointments because of silly immigration rules. 2 months ago, Send in the Clowns, this blog reported than even circus performers are prevented from joining their tours. What a grave terrorist threat that circus clowns pose to Britain! The real clowns, the real threats to freedom are in government.

Speaking of clowns, California radio personality Michael Savage has been banned from Britain solely for his views. Savage had no plans to visit Britain, and has not done so for at least 20 years. As far as is known, he has never advocated violence nor been conviced of violent acts. Michael Savage is just a funnyman who poses no threat. Though his show is not even broadcast in Britain, the Home Office has singled out a private citizen out for defamation.

How does Home Secretary Jacqui Smith justify this laughable ruling? "I think it's important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have, the fact that it's a privilege to come and the sort of things that mean you won't be welcome in this country," Smith told a GMTV interviewer, "and what's more we will make public those people we have excluded."

Jacqui Smith's dictatorial rules have turned even Labour allies against her. Jameel Jaffer, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, told the San Francisco Chronicle that the UK was prepared to "use their borders as a weapon of censorship. It also deprives the citizens of that country of their ability to hear dissenting views."

The Gurkha Rifles are among Britain's proudest defenders. Recruited from their Himalayan homeland, they are known far and wide for their bravery and trademark curved swords. A new ruling by the aforementioned Home Office strips them of the historic right to settle in Britain. Gurkha Justice Campaign. The Gurkhas have found a spokesperson in the Absolutely Fabulous Joanna Lumley:

"Via a single-page document published on the internet, the Government delivered a wicked blow to loyal and brave British Army Gurkha veterans.

"The bond between the British people and the Gurkhas is paid in the blood of 50,000 of them who died for our freedom. The Gurkhas stood by this country through its darkest hours; now, those Gurkhas call on every Briton in their own hour of need.

"The British people are not fair-weather friends. The Government has miscalculated the depth of support from the public. The new policy is deliberately designed to exclude nearly every Gurkha who retired before 1997. Gurkha Riflemen were limited to a maximum of 15 years’ service in the Brigade, yet the new immigration policy requires that a Gurkha must have served for 20 years before he can live here.

"Ministers now say that Gurkhas can live here if they have family in Britain — but Gurkhas’ families were previously excluded from Britain. They also say that they can live here if they have served in Britain (not in war zones) continuously for three years — yet Gurkhas toured Britain for only two years and their stay here was broken by tours of duties in war zones."

On April 9 Britain's Counterrorism Chief Bob Quick resigned. He was photographed by the press entering 10 Downing Street carrying a document marked SECRET in the open. The paper detailed to the world a plan to round up 11-12 terrorism suspects. 10 of the suspects were Pakistani nationals who had entered the UK on "student" visas. The Home Office let them in but keeps Gurkhas and others out. Bob Quick, who will retire to a million-pound pension, was appointed by the Home Secretary. Jacqui Smith's husband, Richard Timney, is also on the government payroll as Smith's parliamentary aide. Recently Timney confessed to watching adult films in their home, then charging them as expenses.

Innocent people have been locked out of Britain for nothing more than their opinions. This is truly a form of censorship. From entertainers to Gurkha veterans, noone is safe. Who voted for these Orwellian regulations? Who desires a government that has bankrupted the UK while making taxpayers pay for minister's second homes? If Britain's science and democratic government are to advance, the Home Secretary and those around her must be shown the door.

Labels:

11 Comments:

Blogger nige said...

I have to comment about the Gurkhas abuse by the government. It's about money. Last year as you know a recession started.

Gordon Brown the prime minister was previously Chancellor of finances and is reponsible for the money wasting and UK debt over the last 12 years or so (from 1997).

During the global economic boom years from 1997-2008, he squandered taxpayers money on rubbish nobody wanted like the Millenium Dome, and funded the squandering by borrowing money, adding £100 billion to the public debt.

Recently newspapers have exposed that he personally has been claiming thousands of pounds in expenses for having a small flat cleaned. He is a complete s**t.

As Chancellor, he a decade ago deregulated the banks in the UK, enabling them to lend vast amounts to risky debtors and thus cause the banking crisis in the UK recently.

Worse than that, he got rid of UK gold when it was at its lowest value, just before the value of gold shot up... a fantastic loss for the taxpayer but he didn't worry because he increased his own salary (or his expenses) whenever he put up taxes a lot.

I won't mention how much he spent on wars during the past 12 years because I don't want to be sick right now, but it was many, many, many times more than the retired Gurkhas would have cost us.

The man is a complete s*it. I hate him. I hate everybody who praises him, and loves him.

See the wonderful U-tube attack on him to his face in the European Parliament by Daniel Hannan MEP:

"The truth, Prime Minister, is that you have run out of our money. The country as a whole is now in negative equity. Every British child is born owing around £20,000. Servicing the interest on that debt is going to cost more than educating the child. ... it is true that we are all sailing together into the squall – but not every vessel in the convoy is in the same dilapidated condition. Other ships used the good years to caulk their hulls and clear up their rigging – in other words, to pay off debt – but you used the good years to raise borrowing yet further. As a consequence, under your captaincy, our hull is pressed deep into the water line, under the accumulated weight of your debt. We are now running a deficit that touches almost 10% of GDP – an unbelievable figure. More than Pakistan, more than Hungary – countries where the IMF has already been called in.

"Now, it’s not that you’re not apologising – like everyone else, I’ve long accepted that you’re pathologically incapable of accepting responsibility for these things – it’s that you’re carrying on, wilfully worsening the situation, wantonly spending what little we have left. Last year, in the last twelve months, 125,000 private sector jobs have been lost – and yet you’ve created 30,000 public sector jobs. Prime Minister you cannot go on forever squeezing the productive bit of the economy in order to fund an unprecedented engorging of the unproductive bit.

"You cannot spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt. And when you repeat, in that wooden and perfunctory way, that our situation is better than others, that we’re well place to weather the storm, I have to tell you, you sound like a Brezhnev-era Apparatchik giving the party line. You know, and we know, and you know that we know that it’s nonsense. Everyone knows that Britain is the worst placed to go into these hard times. The IMF has said so. The European Commission has said so. The markets have said so, which is why our currency has devalued by 30% – and soon the voters, too, will get their chance to say so.

"They can see what the markets have already seen: that you are a devalued Prime Minister, of a devalued Government."
I think that this is very honest, true and clear. Gordon Brown is now worth his own weight in horseshit.

Don't expect his government to act efficiently over Kea's passport, all the civil servants are too busy polishing Gordon's shoes. Don't expect the government to ever help the Gurkhas, because they have already brought the country to the brink of bankrupcy and sinking in debt, and with elections coming up, they're now resolute to try to reduce further debt. The best thing for the rest of the world now to do is just to write Britain off as a waste of space, a country run by corrupt, immoral, incompetent, useless thugs who should be ashamed but are actually "proud" of their horseshit and deluded into believing that they're brilliant statesmen.

Even Lubos Motl's self delusion over string theory pales into insignificance compared to the British government self delusion.

4:44 AM  
Blogger nige said...

Additional facts about evil Prime Minister Gordon Brown:

1. His multibillion pound 'New Deal' for the young unemployed has failed just as predictable (he made no effort to make it work, it was just a back-of-the-envelope media spin idea to waste money): there are now 850,000 young people who are 'NEET': Not in Employment, Education, or Training. What a failure!

2. His tax credits system has rewarded single mothers for having as many children by different men as they can, fuelling dependency, juvenile delinquency and family breakdown.

3. He blocked Frank Field's attempts for welfare reform, allowing alcoholics and drug addicts to live on premium-rate incapacity benefit.

4. He threw tens of billions of pounds into the unreformed National Health Service where it was poured down the drain, while he was reducing the freedoms to be offered to foundation hospitals.

5. He frustrated Tony Blairs plans to give more freedom to head teachers and more choice to parents while he was Chancellor.

6. He sunk the country into debt to make the powerful Labour Party backers (the public sector unions and the left wingers) support his leadership ambitions. It was the personal greed of one man for power and glory as a leading statesman which sank Britain into crisis.

7:32 AM  
Blogger nige said...

7. "Mr Brown’s expenses claim receipts, part of a batch of ministerial claims obtained by The Daily Telegraph, show that he paid his brother, a senior executive of EDF Energy, £6,577 over 26 months for cleaning services. Downing Street said that the brothers had shared a cleaner for a number of years." - Philippe Naughton, 'No 10 releases Gordon Brown's cleaning contract', From Times Online, May 8, 2009. This shows how evil Prime Minister Gordon Brown is: squandering vast sums of public expenses money from taxpayers on cleaning his flat after adding £100 billion to the British national debt as Chancellor and Prime Minister.

7:56 AM  
Blogger nige said...

See the You-Tube video of Joanna Lumley ambushing Immigration Minister Phil Woolas over his government's shameful tratment of the Gurkhas.

8:32 AM  
Blogger nige said...

Immigration Minister Phil Woolas who (together with Prime Minister Gordon Brown) is responsible for the shameful treatment of the Gurkhas is today exposed in the Daily Telegraph article by Chris Hastings, Public Affairs Editor, 10 May 2009:

'Phil Woolas in row over shoes and nail polish on MPs' expenses; Phil Woolas was at the centre of a fierce row over MPs' expenses last night over a £23 pair of women's shoes and a £5.75 bottle of nail polish. Phil Woolas, the Immigration Minister, denied a report in yesterday's Daily Telegraph that he had claimed for the cost of women's clothing and other impermissible items on his House of Commons expenses.

'He called the allegation "disgusting" and he insisted that he had only claimed for food, which he was entitled to do. But further analysis of the receipts submitted by Mr Woolas in support of his expenses claims appeared to undermine his assertion.

'In a statement issued on Friday night, the minister, who is also embroiled in a row over the right of former Gurkha soldiers to live in Britain, said: "It is untrue that I claimed these things. It misunderstands the system. The receipts are there, but I never asked for or got money for these items. To suggest otherwise is disgusting."

'Yesterday, Mr Woolas told the BBC that the details of the allegation did not stand up to investigation.
'However, analysis of the receipts does not support his version of events. In August 2004, Mr Woolas, the Labour MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth, claimed £210.31 for what was described on his expenses form as "food". He was reimbursed in full from the public purse.

'The claim was backed by receipts from Tesco, for £69.30; Marks and Spencer, for £16.69; Sainsbury's, for £27.33; and two from Somerfield for a total of £96.99. The five receipts come to £210.31.

'However, not all of the items purchased are permissible as expenses under House of Commons rules. The Tesco bill, dated Aug 12, included a pair of women's shoes for £23, two packets of disposable bibs priced £2.98 each, a bottle of nail polish at £5.75, three comics for £5.14, two packs of babies wipes at £1.44 each and a ladies' jumper at £5. The cost of these impermissible items comes to £47.73, which makes the food part of the total claim only £162.58.

'Mr Woolas insisted that his receipts exceeded the sums he claimed; but in this case they matched exactly.

'Under the rules at the time, every MP could claim back food bills of up to £400 a month without the need to submit receipts; had Mr Woolas taken advantage of this system, the impermissible items would not have been revealed.

'Asked last night whether his claim for precisely £210.31 indicated that he had put the shoes and nail varnish on expenses, Mr Woolas replied: "I take your point and I understand the extrapolation." However, he insisted he had done nothing wrong and added: "The original accusation is untrue. I am being hung out to dry for being honest. The key points to remember is that I don't need to submit receipts to back the claims and I could have actually claimed £400 for the food.

'"The claim is one document and the receipts are another. The fact that they both add up to the same amount doesn't prove anything. It doesn't mean that the fees office paid for the non-food items on the receipt."

'Other claims submitted by Mr Woolas showed that on a number of occasions, Commons officials had to remind him that the maximum claim for items classed as food was £400.

'In July 2004, he tried to claim £503.29 for food. A letter of reply to Mr Woolas, dated July 2, reads: "Unfortunately, I am unable to make a full payment of £503.29 claimed for food as each member is only allowed a maximum £400 per month by the Speaker's Advisory Committee. Your total claim has therefore been reduced by £103.29 accordingly."

'Other receipts submitted by Mr Woolas showed that he spent £3.49 on a bottle of red wine from Tesco, in breach of the rules, and even put through a receipt that suggested he received a 10 per cent staff discount at the supermarket.

'A Tesco receipt for £110.20, showed he spent £1.48 on panty liners, £1.19 on tampons, £2.99 on nappies and £15 on a ladies' blouse.

'Mr Woolas has described the expenses records as "stolen property", and insisted that only the redacted versions of receipts, with key details blanked out by the Commons authorities, should be put in the public domain.'

9:00 AM  
Blogger nige said...

The online link to that article about Woolas' expenses is here.

9:04 AM  
Anonymous Tony Smith said...

Maybe Wacky Jacqui Smith is trying to start a controversy
(against alien Michael Savage with no UK constitutency)
to distract the public from such things as
(reported 30 March 2009 by Jon Ozimek of the Register):

"... Home Secretary ... Wacky Jacqui ... has admitted getting the taxpayer to pick up the bill for ... porn films watched by her husband ...
El Reg dug a little deeper into just what "him indoors" might have been viewing ... Virgin Media ... broadcast Red Hot TV ... which offers ... titles such as The Domineering Wife ...".

Tony Smith

PS - To be fair, I should say that the article went on to say "... Sources within the Home Office ... gave assurances that the channel watched was NOT Red Hot TV and that ... It was, in common parlance, "vanilla" ...".

5:26 PM  
Blogger nige said...

"How does Home Secretary Jacqui Smith justify this laughable ruling? "I think it's important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have, the fact that it's a privilege to come and the sort of things that mean you won't be welcome in this country," Smith told a GMTV interviewer, "and what's more we will make public those people we have excluded." - Louise's posting

"... Home Secretary ... Wacky Jacqui ... has admitted getting the taxpayer to pick up the bill for ... porn films watched by her husband ... El Reg dug a little deeper into just what "him indoors" might have been viewing ... Virgin Media ... broadcast Red Hot TV ... which offers ... titles such as The Domineering Wife ... Sources within the Home Office ... gave assurances that the channel watched was NOT Red Hot TV and that ... It was, in common parlance, "vanilla" ...". - quotation from Tony Smith

I have Virgin media myself but only pay for it to get the broadband internet, phone, and Paramount Comedy channel ("Two and a Half Men" is really funny, about two brothers in California and their attempts to find decent women, but it is clean and has no nudity). But I think Home Secretary Jacqui Smith and her family appear to be guilty of hypocrisy on the subject of immorality and exposing it (according to the following from a Daily Telegraph article about her claim for pornography at the taxpayer's expense):

"The revelation is an embarrassment to Ms Smith, who last month faced criticism for claiming taxpayer-funded allowances for a second home while living with her sister.

"Ms Smith said she had "fully abided" by the rules by designating her sister's house as her "main" residence, allowing her to claim payments on the Redditch constituency home she shares with her husband and children.

"The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, John Lyon, accepted a complaint about Ms Smith's claims and has called on her to explain the £116,000 which she has claimed since becoming an MP."

11:23 PM  
Blogger L. Riofrio said...

Thank you for your support, nige and Tony! In the morning's paper I read that Gordon Bronw's makeup tips were found in a taxicab! He uses Clinique Super-Balanced. This is beyond silly!

4:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you for your support, nige and Tony! In the morning's paper I read that Gordon Bronw's makeup tips were found in a taxicab! He uses Clinique Super-Balanced. This is beyond silly!Reminds me of the film "Citizen Kane"

11:46 AM  
Anonymous Tony Smith said...

It is indeed beyond silly, and maybe tonight I have too much time on my hands, but, anyway (from the Telegraph):
"... The make-up instructions [for Gordon Brown] were as follows:
1. Transparent Brush. Foam all over.
2. Small pot under eyes, dimple, creases, blend in.
3. Clinique. Super balanced make-up. All over again, like painting a wall, and ears. Shut eyes over lids then with make-up pad smooth over liquid.
4. Powder (dark brush) terracotta Guerlain, all over. ...".

I particularly like the "painting a wall" analogy, and the specific attention to ears and eye lids,
including
the necessity to tell him to shut his eyes before using the make-up pad on the eye lids.

Tony

4:27 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page