THE UK GOVERNMENT IS INVOLVED IN THIS...

WARNING: SOME OF THESE PICTURES ARE HEARTBREAKING. DON'T READ ON IF YOU FIND IMAGES OF DEAD CHILDREN TOO DISTURBING

Her parents killed and her house blown up, so she sleeps on the street.

A couple of days ago on the Today Programme on Radio 4, Sarah Montague asked David Cameron about the war in Yemen.

She pointed out the enormous quantity of British arms that were being sold to Saudi to use in their war, that British advisers were training their military and that British personnel were in the control rooms advising as missiles were launched at targets in Yemen.

She also mentioned that among the buildings bombed was a Médecins Sans Frontières hospital.

Well done, you morons, you blew up an aid lorry.

Cameron didn't answer the question, of course. He never does, but he doesn't have to. He waffled for a while about the need to protect the democratically elected legitimate government of that country. Because of course Saudi likes its neighbours to have democratically elected governments!

Of course, as the most important country in the world, bar none, it is Britain's job to ensure democracy is upheld everywhere on Earth except, strangely, in Britain, where no mention had been made in parliament of their troops' involvement in this war. That's a bit odd in a democracy, isn't it?

But these days fewer and fewer of the laws that are passed in the "mother of parliaments" is actually discussed and voted on in the elected chamber. 

Someone discovered  statutory instruments, and is now busily putting them to use. It's even more fun than the Privy Council.

And this was a factory that made insulin. There are no other manufacturers in the country. Diabetics will now die.
 Bravo!

As so little is known about the war in Yemen, I thought we should share some photographs of the misery and, I imagine, war crimes, that the UK is currently involved in... and no one knows much about.

A police station. Full of policemen. Dead ones.

Your average day.

Downtown, where all the lights are bright.
Because everything is being blown up.

Dazed.

Helpless.

Starving to death.

...or dead...

...by the dozens

I'm so ashamed. I'm so disgusted. We must get away from these barbarians.

PROUD TO BE BRITISH?

It's rather a long watch at just under an hour, but it is an hour well spent, documenting as it does, the way that the British and American treat people who are powerless, lie to their own citizens, whether in these islands or elsewhere and, in the end disregard high court ruling when it suits them and use archaic powers of the queen to bypass democratic scrutiny. 

The film was made in 2004. An update on further duplicity can be read on the Wikipedia site for the islands. 

JUNK MAIL ALERT

The British Government has produced a booklet about how Scotland benefits from being in the UK. This has been done at Taxpayers' expense.

Of course, that's not unreasonable.

Indeed, I believe the Electoral Commission instructed both the Scottish and British sides to make information on their campaigns readily available to the public. Scotland did with the government's White Paper, and now Britain has with this booklet.

The difference between the two efforts is that every household in Scotland will be sent a British book, whether they want it or not (a bit like the Sun's free copy to every English household, which caused so many problems for Ed Miliband). 

The Scottish paper was and is available to those who wanted it, free of charge, either in a download, ebook or in a paper version. You had to request a copy if you wanted one.

Clearly this cut the cost of distribution, because those who simply weren't interested and wouldn't attempt to read it, didn't order it.

Stuart Campbell has started taking the UK information to pieces and analysing the content in his usual style. Clearly he does it so much better than I do, so I won't even attempt it here. 

I would however like to point out that as I don't want to booklet, I will not accept it.

It will be sent back to Better Together so that they can send it to someone who wants to read it, or recycled to save a tree.

The address to send it to is:

Better Together
FREEPOST RTAU-ZCRB-TELS
5 Blythswood Square
Glasgow
G2 4AD

You may prefer to hand it in at (or send it to):

Scotland Office: Edinburgh
1 Melville Crescent
Edinburgh
EH3 7HW

There may be other addresses to which you could return unwanted copies rather than cluttering up your rubbish bins with them.

I'm sure that the government, or Better Together will be happy to pay the postage on what would be considered junk mail by many.

Of course if you want to read it, write a funny crit of it  and send it (by email) to Munguin as a guest post, I'm sure he would be delighted to publish it, for the usual fee.

THE EXCELLENT RESULT THAT IS, OF COURSE, A HUMILIATING DEFEAT

Another letter from Nicola...

Dear Tris
 
Earlier today the Electoral Commission published its report on the referendum question and campaign spending limits.
 
The Scottish Government is accepting the recommendations in full. So - subject to the agreement of Parliament - the question on the ballot paper in 2014 will be: “Should Scotland be an independent country?” Yes or No.

It’s a minor tweak to the question we had proposed – and is poles apart from what the No campaign wanted. Alistair Darling wanted a question asking “if you want to remain part of the United Kingdom”. Others pushed the idea of asking about a “separate” Scotland (as the Social Attitudes Survey still does). That’s gone too.
 
We are left with a simple 6-word question, approved by the Electoral Commission, which gives the people of Scotland the opportunity to make a clear and informed decision on our constitutional future.

Nicola
******
Seems reasonable to me, even if some are calling it a humiliating defeat for Alex Salmond. Doubtless Lamont will repeat that in the fullness of time, when they let her out of the bunker. 

I've never objected to the Electoral Commission giving its opinion on the question or the conduct of the referendum. I think, though, that the actual referendum, the counting, etc, should be overseen by a more neutral body, something international with no axe to grind in either direction...the UN perhaps, sending in observers to do spot checks, as they do in third world countries. 

I'm happy too with the amount of money that can be spent based on the results of the last election. It is far more than the government had proposed; a sum I thought was a little short. It allows the SNP to spend £1.344m: Labour £834,000. The Tories will be allowed £396,000, the Lib Dems £201,000 and the Greens £150,000.

The SNP has the money to spend thanks to two large bequests and thousands of smaller donations. I'm wondering where the other parties will raise their funds, given the parlous state of their finances. From rich Tories in England, I suspect.

I'm pleased too that the Electoral Commission has proposed that, in order that the referendum be fair, electors must know what they are voting for. So the YES campaign must publish details of what they expect  an independent Scotland to look like.

The down side for the UK is that they must say what will happen if there is a YES vote; and what will happen if there is a NO vote. What would our future be like in the UK. In fact why they think we are better together. 

So the end of the vague promises of Jam Tomorrow proposed by both Cameron, and his Scottish lieutenant Ruth. 

Both sides must be honest and serious about their proposals. This may be interesting because Cameron has completely ruled out any pre-negotiation with the Scottish government, while the Scottish government is quite happy to put its cards on the table. So we will have no idea what their position on many issues will be...

Having for some time now badgered the Scottish government about accepting the suggestions of the Electoral Commission, the UK government now needs to do the same thing.

IS THE GOVERNMENT RUNNING A COUNTRY OR A COUNTRY CLUB

Excerpt from Hansard:

Matthew Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much his Department and its predecessors spent on wine in each year since 1997. [12829]

Tim Loughton (Education): The accounting systems of the Department and its predecessors do not record information separately on this type of expenditure and it could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Any expenditure on wine is made in accordance with published departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on principles set out in Managing Public Money and the Treasury handbook on Regularity and Propriety.

WHY?

It would only need a junior clerk to total up the money spent on wine for the last 13 years. Not, you would have thought beyond the capabilities of a government that can prosecute two wars at a time. They don't mind wasting money on wine; they do, however, have a problem wasting money on telling us how much of our tax has gone down their fat greedy necks. Who'd have guessed it?

Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the cost to the public purse has been of (a) red wine, (b) white wine, (c) champagne and (d) fortified wine purchased for the Government wine cellar since his appointment. [26874]

Mr Bellingham (FCO): Government Hospitality buys wines when they are relatively less expensive, and stores them until they are ready to use. Government Hospitality has spent £25,043 on new stock for the cellar since May 2010, all of which has been on white wine only.

WHY?

Half a million people are losing their jobs; Pensioners and other housing benefit claimants are going to find themselves in real hardship because of cuts in their allowances; most, if not every, public service is going to be reduced.

Why is the government spending £25,000 of our tax money on wine? Who will drink this wine, and why, given the parlous state of the United Kingdom, does the government think it has the right to spend our taxes in this way?

I understand that State Dinners held by the Queen at Windsor might be expected to serve some wine, but that's the head of state. Why is the government serving wine? Is the mess we are in atributable to the fact that the government drinks itself stupid at lunch time and then conducts our business in the afternoon?

Can we have an end to this nonsense? If ministers want wine with their meals they should buy it themselves. Our pensioners can afford lunch never mind booze.

Bloody self important drunken gits.

Pics: (1) Is this what the cave at Downing Street looks like? (2) State Dining Room at Downing Street; (3) Well are we all in this together? What do you think?

ASIL NADIR TO RETURN TO FACE JUSTICE AND SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENT

I note from the pages of The Telegraph that Asil Nadir has decided to return to Britain to face the charges of fraud that he avoided by fleeing to Northern Cypress 17 years ago.

Because Northern Cypress is not recognised by the UK, there was, is, and can be, no extradition treaty, but Mr Nadir says that he is coming back of his own free will.

Apparently he was very much a part of the enterprise boom of the 1980s, building up a company called Polly Peck, which at its height was worth £1.7 billion, but which crashed with massive debts. It was alleged that Mr Nadir had transferred millions out of the company to himself.... leaving the business with debts of £1.3 billion.

His support for Mrs Thatcher’s government, vocal and financial, became an embarrassment to her as the alleged thefts became apparent.

In an interview with BBC’s Today programme Mr Nadir said the he believed the legal ''environment'' was right for him to return. He said that he was hoping to get a fair trial. He had not, he said, felt that he would get a fair trial back in the early 1990s.

He spent 3 years battling with 'immense injustice and tremendous abuse of power in Britain', he said. It was because of this and the consequent deterioration in his health that he fled, in a private jet, to Northern Cypress to recuperate. He has recuperated for 17 years during which time he has built a business empire in the Mediterranean country which is only recognized by Turkey. There he controls the Kibris newspaper and television group and exercises notable political influence.

In the interview he said that he hoped the new Government would be "wise enough and will think highly enough of Great Britain" to clear the matter, whatever that means. He did not rule out supporting the Government financially, arguing that there was nothing wrong with donating to a political party. He said that it was only fair if you approved of the policies of a Government, if you wanted to extend their power, that you should support them with financial donations.

I wonder what he thinks has changed about English law that it will take a different view of the intelligence and evidence that was built against him by the Fraud Squad, and I wonder why he thinks that the government, which he has promised to support financially (unless he’s banged up) would have any influence over the outcome of any trial.

Of course, it may all have been a fit up. The police in the early 90s were not always to be trusted. Maybe Mr Nadir got on someone's nerves; and of course he was "foreign", always a good reason for a bit of nastiness from Plod.

Whichever, I suspect that it wasn’t a very good idea to give that interview, now we know what he’s up to... and if the government does, in fact have any say what goes on in the courts, he may just have blown his chance of getting off.

========================

......AND ALL THIS MONEY FOR ONE WEE HAT

I read in the Sunday Post this week (yes, I know it’s Thursday, but I’m a slow reader) that the estimated cost of security during the Pope’s visit to Scotland this autumn will be around £70 million.

Now that’s a lot of money in any language (especially if the wee man’s only coming here to give Sophia Pangloss her red hat back).

As this is a State Visit and the Pope is here by invitation of Her Majesty’s government (ie wee Spud) as Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, we have to pick this bill up.

The security money, it seems, will come out of the Scottish government’s budget, despite the Scottish government having played no part in the invitation. And according to the article in the Post, the Scottish government says that it can’t afford it.

Now to be fair the Scottish government can easily afford £70 million pounds; it’s a lot, but in governmental terms it’s next to nothing, but at a time when pensioners are finding that their services have been cut, libraries are closing down, children’s services are being reduced etc, I think that Holyrood is quite right to say it can’t afford the money for a one day visit by a foreign head of state.

I’m not denying that this head of state may be important to a proportion of the Scottish population, and for those who feel that way his visit will be a huge event in their lives. The fact that I can’t see why, after all faith in God, is faith in God, not in a man in a long white garb, is of little relevance.

I’m also wondering who’s making the vast profit out of it. Who provides this security? As popular as the Pope will be with some people, he will be equally unpopular with others, I accept, particularly given his personal involvement in the scandals that have surrounded the Church, but £70 million... for one day?

The British Government invited the man on behalf of the British Queen. They should pay. And, as the Post suggests, it wouldn’t hurt if the obscenely wealthy Vatican City State were to put its hands in its pockets.

Alternatively Sophia could just nip over to Vatican on one of these cheap flights and get her hat back herself.

Pics: Sophia's hat (modeled by an elderly citizen of a small Mediterranean country), and an example of some of the Vatican's wealth that it might conside selling to pay for the Pope's security (in fact Michelangelo's Pietà which is in St Peter's Basillica, Vatican)

BUFF HOON THE GOON GETS THE BOOT FROM NATO COMMITTEE

Well, poor old Geoff Hoon has cooked his goose well and truly this time.

It seems that he has been dismissed from a high level group of NATO personnel chaired by ex-Secretary of State Madeline Albright and tasked with studying new strategic concepts for the alliance (whatever that may be, and indeed whatever use he would have been to them).

He was caught on camera for a Channel Four Despatches programme bragging that a recent tax-payer funded trip to Washington DC, had involved “three days work for NATO followed by ‘a couple of days of Hoon work’”. He shouted his mouth off about the role that “provided him with commercially lucrative insights which could be useful to the arms industry”. He now wanted to turn his contacts and into “something that, bluntly, makes money”. Nice one Buster, we pay for you to go there (first class, I have no doubt, and pay for your hotel and food and you spend the time working for your greedy little self to make money in the arms trade. What kind of pond life are you?)

Anyway, his butt must be well sore because as a result of this piece of bragging to a young female journalist posing as a businesswoman, he has been tossed out of the Labour party and had his ass sacked from the NATO job that he was getting all these contacts from.

As my dear friend Spook would have said if he were writing this.....”wee shame”.

It appears that Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the secretary-general of NATO, asked him to leave when Gordon Brown made clear that he did not wish the former chief whip to remain a member of the committee.

So there you go you wee tube....... That’s what you get for trying to impress the ladies that despite your thinning hair, double chin and lined face you are still a force to be reckoned with. A word to the wise..... It’s probably best to remember that if a young lady is showing interest in you of any sort at all, there’s probably an ulterior motive, so watch out for the hidden camera, and mic, and keep your silly fat gob shut.

To think we once entrusted the lives of our troops to this fool.


Pictured: NATO summit and The Right Dishonourable Geoff Hoon, MP

.......................................................