Feb 24 2013
You can all sleep easy now in the knowledge that we have five of the best looking out for us. What men of integrity they are too.
First off we have an article about our beloved leader Uncle Dave. Well, the story is more about his family and how they made millions out of slavery… A bit like the cunt is doing now really. I would image however, that the article is referring to his in-laws the Astors. I told you all about the lovely Satanic, opium dealing Astor family in my article ‘Camerons Closet’.
Next up we have a story about that lovable chap Nicky Smegg. He is more like a big brother than a deputy PM, isn’t he. Never lacking in loyalty, it would seem that Smeggy’s been covering up for his sex pest mates… Then again, when in Rome.
After Smegg, we have a story about Gideon Bean, the eccentric Chancellor who was rogered senseless at boarding school – only to find that he loved it. Seem’s Mr Bean has a penchant for prostitutes and Coke. Nothing wrong with that is there? I don’t imagine that Mrs Bean will let the little snot drop anywhere near her lady garden so the man needs to get his scrawny leg over somewhere. As for his fondness for Coke! Well, it is the real thing after all. And by that, I really do mean the real thing and not the Cola drink.
The penultimate story is about Silly Willie Hague. He’s reminds me of that cringy uncle everyone tries to avoid at family party’s. The one who always gives you a nudge, nods his head towards your girlfriend and says “Phwoor, bet she’s a goer”. Seems Willie has been taking the piss with our money… Then again, the multi millionaire probably deserves it, what with his busy job and all. How he has time to rake in thousands and thousands of pounds a year by moonlighting, I will never know. Good old Silly Willie.
Finally, we have a tale about Ian Dickhead Smith, the stern, father in law type who always smiles at you, yet leaves you feeling like he secretly despises you. Having said that, it doesn’t matter whether he’s busy driving the disabled to suicide, starving the poor or just spending the day falsifying his portfolio, you can be sure that Dickhead Smith will always give it 100 %. Fuck you Iain… Fuck you very much indeed.
Lucky you, lucky me, lucky all of us.
Slave trade served Brits, PM family
According to a study by Dr Nick Draper who has examined 46,000 compensation papers in three years, one fifth of wealthy Victorian Britons obtained all or part of their fortunes from the slave economy, as they were given equivalent of billions of pounds in compensation from the government when slave ownership was abolished in Britain.
Hence, it is now very likely to have wealthy families all around the country, indirectly enjoying the proceeds of slavery passed to them.
Not surprisingly, among those who benefited from slavery were the PM’s ancestors who were given £4,101, equal to more than £3 million today, for the 202 slaves they forfeited on the Grange Sugar Estate in Jamaica.
According to the reports, parts of the money received by the rich in Britain after abolition was invested in the railways and other aspects of the industrial revolution, so it would not be hyperbolic to say that slavery had a significant role in the formation of modern Britain.
British Deputy PM Nick Clegg implicated in sex scandal
According to the reports, the private office of Nick Clegg, the head of Lib Dems, had been made aware of the claims as long as five years ago that former party chief Chris Rennard had been sexually abusing several female activists, while in office.
Amid mounting claims of a cover-up, evidence was growing that senior party officials ran an organised campaign to silence the women and shut down an internal investigation in a bid to bury the crime altogether, British media reported.
Senior authorities at the Liberal Democratic Party, which is junior partner to the UK’s coalition government, had dismissed a female activist and forced her to ink a gagging order after she tried to blow the whistle on Lord Rennard, The Daily Mailreported.
“Another woman, who claims that she was sexually harassed by Lord Rennard, described to the The Daily Mail how the party offered a bizarre form of ‘restorative justice’ in which she could confront him in private about the impact of his actions”, the report said.
However, she refused and, after threatening to go the Press, was told she had no longer had a future in the party.
According to the report a “third woman, who claims she was sexually assaulted at his London home, revealed the ‘Kafkaesque’ nightmare she experienced when she tried to report the incident to senior Lib Dems”.
Under intense pressure, the deputy prime minister was forced to order an internal probe into the sexual harassment and groping claims. But, Clegg claimed that he did not know anything about these specific cases.
At least ten women have now made complaints about the behaviour of Lord Rennard, who denies wrongdoing. The women said their claims had not been taken seriously by the party leadership.
A prominent Lib Dem has likened the party’s handling of the allegations to the way the BBC dealt with the Jimmy Savile scandal.
“There is a gulf both in the severity and scale of the allegations. But there is also a potentially worrying similarity – that just as the BBC turned a blind eye to the alleged offences of one of its stars, so too did the Lib Dems”, said Stephen Tall, co-editor of grassroots website Lib Dem Voice.
“The party has to acknowledge the seriousness not only of the allegations themselves, but also the alleged cover-up”, he added.
Why is Coke-Head George Osborne Still Chancellor?
The Chancellor George “Coke-Head” Osborne story
In a front page story in, the now defunct, News of the World and a video by The Norwich Experience Natalie Rowe, a former escort girl, spills the beans on the UK Chancellor’s cocaine habit. OK he wasn’t the Chancellor at the time, but how comes he is Chancellor now? How did he cover it up? Now that it public knowledge why is coke-head George Osborne still Chancellor of the Exchequer? Why indeed is he still a Member of Parliament?
He broke the law (at least twice)
Has he been investigated by the police? What action has the Parliamentary Standards Committee taken? Are we going to see convictions for cocaine use rescinded? Will the police, from this day forth, be told to cease arresting those in possession of cocaine? Not a chance! Acts of Parliament (they call laws*1) do not apply to the corrupt elite.
The numerous statutes passed by Parliament are designed to increase the power of the agents of force and their masters, and every act passed reduces the rights of obedient citizens. Disobedient inhabitants are not affected, because we know thatexisting world order is a sham and does not have to be obeyed.
Osborne is one of those who designs and passes Acts of Parliament. Like most of the hypocritical, corrupt elite he has no qualms about breaking them. I am not suggesting he still snorts cocaine, I have no evidence of that, but he is a train fare dodger as well so his conduct is open to question.
Only the elite can get away with these crimes working-class people get harassed by the police all the time for smoking pot (is that what it is still called?), dodging a £2 bus fare (see photo) and many other minor infringements. Coke Head got away with snorting cocaine and attempting to dodge a £160 train fare. Wanker!
To see the video evidence click HERE
Millionaire William Hague’s £62,000 of taxpayer’s cash for his 2nd home
David Cameron’s deputy claimed MP’s expenses while earning £800,000 a year.
William Hague claimed £61,995 in taxpayers’ cash to help pay for a £1million second home in London – while pocketing around £800,000 a year from part-time jobs.The millionaire Shadow Foreign Secretary, who David Cameron refers to as his “deputy in all but name”, bought the penthouse in 2003 for £685,000.
Despite earning hundreds of thousands of pounds through lucrative book deals, after-dinner speeches and directorships, Mr Hague – who also owns a £1million apartment in Yorkshire – used his MP’s living allowance to pay his mortgage interest and £4,000-a-year service charge, including use of a gym.Last week he boasted of not having a mortgage on either property.In fact, the canny former Tory leader cleared the mortgage on the fourth-floor London penthouse in October … just as MPs realised they faced being forced to publish details of all their expenses.
His claim of £61,995 between April 2004 and March 2007 is close to the maximum of £64,646.In 2006 alone Mr Hague, 48, claimed £13,626 in mortgage interest and £4,083 towards the service and maintenance costs of the apartment he shares with wife Ffion.He is able to pocket the cash under the Additional Cost Allowance (ACA) given to MPs to help them with the interest on their mortgage, or their rent or hotel bills “when staying overnight away from their main home for the purpose of performing Parliamentary duties”.The figures up to October 2008 are yet to be published, but it is believed he could have claimed another £35,000.
The complex where Mr Hague has his penthouse is home to celebrities, businessmen and City bankers. It has underground car-parking, a gym and 24-hour security.Last night Mr Hague’s spokesman insisted he had not breached the rules – and needed the second home in London because of the distance to his constituency home in Yorkshire.William Hague’s London penthouse
He said that since clearing the mortgage Mr Hague’s claim for housing expenses had “dropped dramatically”.Mr Hague bought his other home, in Richmond, North Yorkshire, in 1990. The second-floor apartment in an imposing country home is also now worth an estimated £1 million.
William Hague’s Yorkshire apartment
The revelations about the housing arrangements of multi-millionaire Mr Hague – who earns £63,291 as an MP – sparked anger at Westminster last night. A senior Labour source said: “William Hague is one person who won’t be suffering because of the recession. He has been using taxpayers’ cash to help build a property empire.”Since being recalled by Mr Cameron to his top team in 2005, Mr Hague says he has drastically cut back on his “second jobs”.
But he is still believed to earn up to £400,000 a year – making him one of the biggest earners in the Commons.The revelations come amid calls for major reforms of the system of MPs’ allowances and expenses.
Last week Westminster’s anti-sleaze watchdog John Lyon launched an inquiry into Employment Minister Tony McNulty’s expenses over claims he pocketed £60,000 on his parents’ home only 11 miles from Westminister.A separate inquiry is underway into Home Secretary Jacqui Smith claiming £20,000 a year in expenses on a room she rented from her sister in South London.And we revealed last month how Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling has claimed £104,183 of taxpayers’ money over six years for a London flat – even though he has a family home just 17 miles from Westminster.
Ian Duncan Smith’s lame Workfare propaganda
As regular readers will know, I am not a big fan of the Tory Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith. Whether it’s claiming tens of thousands of pounds from the taxpayer to “employ” his wife (hardly ever actually seen in the Constituency office) as an assistant or callously interrupting a tribute to dead disabled people with an angry political tirade, the man never ceases to provoke a profound sense of revulsion.
His latest nauseating performance came on the BBC Andrew Marr show where he lamely attempted to defend his farming out of the unemployed to profit making corporations via mandatory unpaid (Workfare) schemes in the wake of the Court of Appeals ruling that these schemes are “unlawful”.
I’m going to go through many of the things he said in the interview explaining exactly how flawed and fallacious his arguments are (bear in mind he had five days between the court ruling and the interview to develop his defence). You can check the quotations (in red) against the embedded video below if you like.
Iain started out with an absurdly misleading description of what the Court of Appeals judgement was.
“They said that the regulations were set too wide and weren’t specific enough”
Lets bypass the tautological aspect of this statement (“too wide” and “not specific enough” are different ways of saying the same thing) and move on to the fact that it is an outright misrepresentation of what the Court of Appeals actually said, which was this:
“There is a constitutional issue involved … The loss of Jobseeker’s allowance may result in considerable personal hardship, and it is not surprising that parliament should have been careful in making provision for the circumstances in which the sanction may be imposed … any scheme must be such as has been authorised by parliament.”
The words of the ruling make it absolutely clear that they are not just saying that “the regulations weren’t specific enough”. The actual ruling is an outright condemnation of Iain Duncan Smith and the DWP for completely bypassing parliament in order to impose these unlawful mandatory unpaid labour schemes on tens of thousands of people. The judges ruled that under section 17a of the 1995 Jobseekers Act (as amended in 2009), the secretary of state could not just do as he saw fit and had to lay the details of the those programmes before parliament.
“I’ve already put emergency regulations down, that’s ended it.”
So after being criticised for bypassing parliament, Iain’s solution is to bypass parliament again to impose some new “emergency regulations”? The fact that he thinks that this insidious action has
“ended it” is a crystal clear demonstration of his contempt for the rule of law and his contempt for parliamentary democracy.
“I’m not going to give way on this”
This is yet another assertion of his contempt for due process. It doesn’t matter what the courts of law say, or what parliament rules (if he ever does decide to do as the court instructed and subject his schemes to democratic scrutiny), Iain will never give up his vendetta against the unemployed.
“I absolutely clearly tell you this; people that think it is their right to take benefit and do nothing for it, those days are over”
This is shockingly inaccurate stuff from the guy at the head of the DWP. Anyone with the faintest understanding of unemployment benefits knows what a “Jobseeker’s Agreement” is. It is a deal that in return for a pitiful subsistence income, the jobseeker will demonstrate on a regular basis that they are “actively seeking work”.
For decades the staff at the Jobcentre have had the power to revoke benefits if they have reason to suspect that the claimant has not not seeking work. By pretending that before he came along that the claimant could collect benefits and “do nothing for it” he is using one of the classic Tory propaganda techniques; the misleading justification narrative. The technique of convincing gullible and reactionary people into backing their policies with a simplistic story, in this instance, the invocation of entirely fictional “idle scoroungers” that think it is their right to
“do nothing” in return for their benefits.
They did not volunteer, Cait Reilly was actually compelled to give up her skilled voluntary work at a museum (that she found through her own initiative) in order to do unskilled labour (stacking shelves, sweeping floors) on a non-voluntary basis. The mandatory element of these schemes is what the whole court case was about! Pretending that these Workfare schemes are purely voluntary schemes is an absurdly misleading thing to do, if they were purely voluntary, very many fewer people would be complaining and the DWP would not have ended up in court being told that their schemes are unlawful.
“We allow people to have two months in company, work experience, just working, doing what other people would do”
Firstly, this use of the word “allowed” is another flagrant abuse of the English language. When people are compelled to undertake these schemes under the threat of destitution, “allowed” is an Orwellian word to use. More appropriate words could be “compel”, “force” or “coerce”.
Another utterly misleading element to this particular statement is the fact that Iain reiterates and reassures that these workfare labourers are just like ordinary workers, but neglects to mention that they get no salary for doing exactly the work that paid employees should be doing.
“It’s been so successful that more than half of those kids have left benefits, it’s the most successful programme we’ve got”
The first part relies upon the use of grotesquely manipulated statistics. If marginally more than half of these “kids” have found work the scheme is actually failing spectacularly, since the average rate of “off-flow” from benefits is much higher. The latest available labour market statistics (September – November 2012, table 9.1) show us that the natural off-flow from benefits for the 18-24 age group was 69.4% over the course of one year, and 88.2% over the course of two years. What is more, the off-flow rate for 18-24 year olds has actually slowed down dramatically since Iain’s Workfare schemes were introduced. During the September – November 2009 period, under Labour, the off flow rates were 79.8% over one year and 92.0% over the course of two years. As I’ve stated before, there is actually a wealth of economic evidence that Iain Duncan Smith’s policies are pushing ever more people into long-term unemployment.
This isn’t the only criticism of this particular sentence. The conclusion is also absurd. Any scheme at all would look pretty good in comparison to Iain’s other brainchild the Work Programme, which cost over £400 million to find work for just 31,240 people, well over £10,000 a pop. What is worse is that every single one of the 18 private sector contractors in the Work Programme failed to meet their absolute minimum target of getting just 5.5% of their “clients” into work. The Work Programme is going to end up costing £billions in fees to private companies, yet the outcomes so far are significantly worse than had nothing been done at all! Trying to make Workfare look “successful” by comparing it to the Work Programme is a strategy akin to making dog food look like a reasonably appetising choice of meal by making the only other choice on the menu dog excrement!
Next, Iain turned his attention on Cait Reilly, the brave young woman that got Iain’s schemes ruled unlawful.
“She [Cait Reilly] says that she wasn’t paid. She was paid Jobseekers Allowance by the taxpayer to do this”
Well firstly, she wasn’t paid in accordance with the National Minimum Wage. If her Jobseeker’s Allowance is to be considered her salary for stacking shelves and sweeping floors at Poundland, then she made less than £1.50 an hour. Does anyone really believe that that is an appropriate wage for anyone? Would you work for £1.50 an hour? Does anyone believe that working for such a pittance would improve a person’s self-esteem as Iain likes to claim? Treating unemployment benefits as if they were a salary is a deliberate attempt to undermine the National Minimum Wage and an insult to anyone that has paid National Insurance contributions on the understanding that the money would be used to provide a “social safety net”.
This assault on the National Minimum Wage isn’t even the worst thing about it. The worst thing is that this is an outright admission that she was made to carry out menial work at Poundland (which belongs to a gigantic US based conglomerate called Warburg Pincus) at the expense of the UK taxpayer. What on earth is the man thinking? Why is he expecting people to be fine with this UK taxpayer subsidisation of a US company via schemes that revoke the labour rights of British workers?
“Most young people love this scheme”
Lets assume for a moment that this statement is true: All that would demonstrate is that today’s youth are idiots that “love” being stripped of their labour rights and being compelled to work for a fraction of the statutory minimum wage.
The problem of course is that most young people don’t “love this scheme”, they hate it. Iain presented absolutely no supporting evidence to justify his use of the word “most”. I don’t have the means or the inclination to carry out a valid statistical analysis on whether young people love Workfare (do cats love having a bath?), however I can present a wealth of anecdotal evidence, which definitely trumps Iain’s no evidence at all. I’ve spoken to dozens of people that absolutely hated these schemes, they felt exploited and abused. What is worse, some of them were even bullied by the remaining paid staff, because the paid staff saw these free-labour workers as a threat to their own jobs.
Only one young person has ever attempted to defend Workfare to me, but she knew absolutely nothing about the long and painful battle to win the labour rights she seemed happy to dismiss as unnecessary, and she was also working under the assumption that I’m opposed to voluntary work, which I’m absolutely not. I have absolutely nothing against the idea of unemployed people doing some voluntary work, in fact when I was made unemployed (many years ago) that’s precisely what I chose to do to increase my skillset. The DWP forcing people to do menial work (under threat of sanctions) at profit making corporations on the other hand is immoral, unlawful and economically illiterate.
“I’m sorry, but there is a group of people out there who think they’re too good for this kind of stuff.”
Iain was clearly implying that people that oppose Workfare are too uppity to do menial jobs, which is a brazen appeal to reverse snobbery. Intelligent people (some of them university educated, some of them not) are not opposed to Workfare because they don’t want to do menial work, the object because they understand that these schemes are outrageous attacks on the labour rights so many of our forefathers fought and died for. People oppose workfare not because of the nature of the work, but the nature of the pay.
Just to demonstrate what a misleading story Iain Duncan Smith is painting, here’s a quote from Cait Reilly:
“I don’t think I am above working in shops like Poundland. I now work part-time in a supermarket. It is just that I expect to get paid for working.”
IDS then went on to say this:
“Let me remind you that [former Tesco chief executive] Terry Leahy started his life stacking shelves.”
What Iain neglects to mention is that Terry Leahy actually got paid for stacking shelves at a supermarket. As an intelligent man, I’m fairly sure that had they expected Terry to work for them yet not paid him any salary at all, instead relying on the taxpayer to provide him a meagre subsistence payment, I’m fairly sure he would have walked away from the retail business and found himself a trade that actually paid him a living wage.
What is more, citing the boss of Tesco is a pretty poor example given that in early 2012 Tesco decided to publicly quit involvement in Workfare schemes after a spate of protests at their stores.
“The next time somebody goes in – those smart people who say there’s something wrong with this – they go into their supermarket, ask themselves this simple question, when they can’t find the food they want on the shelves, who is more important – them, the geologist, or the person who stacked the shelves?”
Again, this is a classic bit of reverse snobbery from Iain Duncan Smith. He certainly seems to have a chip on his shoulder about graduates doesn’t he? Perhaps this stems from the fact that in 2002 he got caught brazenly lying about his higher education experience and qualifications on his CV.
Moving on from the gigantic chip on his shoulder; Iain’s little “befuddled customer scenario” is all very interesting, supermarket logistics are certainly a fundamental part of the UK economy. However it is extremely difficult to see how this scenario represents any kind of argument in favour of the mandatory unpaid labour schemes that he is supposed to be defending. In essence he is dissembling tangentially to avoid discussing the actual fundamentals of the case: That he is determined to treat the unemployed like chattel; as a source of unpaid rightless labour often for foreign owned private sector interests (Poundland, Superdrug, Marriott Hotles, McDonalds, Pizza Hut, Hilton Hotels …).
So what could we possibly draw from Iain Duncan Smith’s rambling commentary?
IDS certainly displays a dazzling array of fallacious argument strategies including but not limited to: A desperately misleading misinterpretation of what the Court of Appeals ruling actually said; contempt for the rule of law; contempt for parliamentary democracy; deliberately misleading statements about the preexisting benefits system; the use of “scrounger narratives“; repeated attempts to obscure the fact that these schemes are mandatory through repetition of the words “volunteer” and “voluntary”; several other Orwellian uses of language; deliberate citation of desperately misleading statistics; contempt for the National Minimum Wage; contempt for labour rights; contempt for people that have made National Insurance contributions; contempt for the UK taxpayer; unsubstantiated assertions; non-sequiturs; reverse snobbery; and tangential dissembling.
There are a number of deeply concerning things about Iain Duncan Smith’s comments.
That following the court ruling IDS had almost a week to prepare for this interview and all he could offer was a shambolic jumble of brazen propagandising, cognitive illiteracy, distraction techniques and reverse snobbery.This does not reflect at all well on his capacity to do the extremely important job he is charged with.
That the Conservative party considers this rambling half-wit as competent enough to run a major government department suggests that they are suffering from an abject dearth of talent.
That despite demonstrating time and again that he is entirely unfit for his job, Neo-Labour don’t seem to have the political nous to nail this guy for being both too callous and too incompetent to run a major government department.
That despite the idiocy of his comments, his words were reported in an entirely uncritical in the mainstream media (BBC, Telegraph, Guardian, surprisingly the Daily Mail was one of the few that actually allowed the slightest hint of criticism to slip into their coverage). It is absolutely shocking that political discourse is being dumbed-down to such a level and the mainstream media allow the very worst culprits like IDS to get away with such inept displays of cognitive illiteracy.