THERE IS SOMETHING ROTTEN IN THE STATE OF WESTMINSTER

LET'S LOOK AT BRITISH VALUES

We should know what they are. Otherwise we might be infringing them, and making ourselves terrorists.

The expression says: Ughh Ordinary people!

I just read this comment on Wings from “Heedtracker” (to whom my thanks):

‘The Home Office defines extremism as “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.” '

I always get a bit annoyed when I read about “British Values”. We often hear about how “fair play” and “decency”, “cricket” and all that sort of stuff, forms the very backbone of our society, and somehow is exclusive to people from these islands. 

I get even more cross when I hear British values defined as “democracy”, “the rule of law”, “individual liberty”, etc. What rubbish. Britain is a chancer nation. A SPIV.

We've talked about this alleged "democracy" so many times on Munguin’s Republic.  What democracy, we've asked!

We have no constitution. I know that they say we do, and that it’s simply unwritten. But in reality they make it up as they go along, citing tradition or discarding it, as and when it suits their purposes.

We have an unelected head of state whom we were brought up to believe had no real powers (the real powers having been ceded by custom and practice by Victoria when she took VERY extended bereavement leave after the death of her husband). But we've found out recently that she actually has authority to interfere with law making and that she uses it.

We are not amused!

A person above the law because she IS the law.

Additionally she has an heir who has powers to alter laws, in particular over the Duchy of Cornwall. 

Furthermore the entire royal family has vast privilege and huge influence over affairs of state with the authority, or influence, to summon ministers and to be listened to. These powers are frequently accompanied by an astounding lack of skills.

We have a chamber of parliament populated by: 

two hereditary aristocrats; 

90+ aristocrats self selected from within their own class of a thousand or so dukes, viscounts, earls and marquises; 

26 senior churchmen from only one religion, and at that, only one sect of that religion (where is the tolerance of different faiths there?), 

and hundreds and hundreds of placemen of political parties. 

These placemen are appointed by political leaders to sit in the upper house, for life, with aristocratic titles (with their children being granted junior titles). Some are ex politicians, in certain cases high ranking, but in other cases, dead-weights who have been bought with aristocratic titles because their seat has been needed for someone better connected, and sometimes people who were rejected at the ballot box and rewarded with a job in politics anyway. "To hell with what the public thought of you... have a Barony!" Sometimes of course the seat os bought by enormous donations.

Then there’s a Privy Council, a convenient way for a few selected faithful (it has a quorum of 3), in the presence of the queen, to pass laws as ‘Orders in Council’ without any discussion in parliament.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...£300 and bubbly ZZZZZZZZZ

There is a House of Commons elected on a first past the post system, capable of producing massive majorities, or elected dictatorships, on as little as 35% of the vote. Seventy-five percent of seats never change hands and many members have a seat for life. (Some even pass it down to their offspring, eh Anas?).

There is a whipping system within the chamber which guarantees party loyalty on pain of career collapse, or personal embarrassment (we'll tell your wife!), and there are a variety “lost in the mists of time” procedures which can stop a bill in its tracks.  

The “I spy Strangers” ploy!

As Jim and John pointed out below, there's the Remembrancer. Now there's something from the middle ages!

As for the “rule of law”. Oh please, this cracks me up!!

Would that be the rule of law that allowed the Hillsborough disaster to be relayed to the public in the way that it was, with backing from the very top, so as not to damage the incompetent police management, but happily destroy the reputations of football fans… because they could?

Would that be the rule of law that, time after time, saw child abuse investigations being closed down by the secret police, by senior police officers or by MPs themselves?

Would that be the rule of law that saw the BBC cover up Savile’s (and others) behaviour for decades; that saw the Civil Service lie and cheat for the UK government during the Scottish referendum (and how many other times)  and have the Queen voice an opinion against all her supposed constitutional responsibilities?

Would it be the rule of law that saw police colluding with the press in return for pay-offs to get red tops sensational stories and make HSBC quantities of money? 

Now, here's the plan LOL

Or the rule of law that found the senior management of these papers to be blameless, utterly unaware of where the sensational stories came from, or where all the money was going?

Is it the rule of law that saw Blair and his ministers lie to parliament and to the people so that he could go to war in Iraq, against the United nations advice, to support his friend, George Bush? (How did that work out Tony?)

There’s the rule of law for some, and a very different rule of law for others. 

The much vaunted respect for people of other faiths, of course, as well as favouring bishops and archbishops of the English church by giving them titles and a seat in parliament, excludes anyone who is not a member of the Church of England, from being in line to the throne.  Not that that affects many of us, but it remains incredibly disrespectful to other Christian sects, and and other faiths not considered good enough.

What about the rule that in state schools (depending on the country) an act of Christian worship is obligatory on a regular basis (once a day in England).

So what democracy? What rule of Law? What respect?

British values…?

Stop and ask yourself:  Who do you trust in the British establishment?

You're the most wonderful man in
the world Sir Jimmy

The members of the House of Commons who as recently as 2009 were shown by the Telegraph to have an inordinate number of cheats in their midst? And who, despite being shown up for what they were, continue to be found out by sting operations from Channel Four’s “Despatches” on a weekly basis?

The members of the House of Lords who were similarly shown up by the Times? The Noble Lord Hanningfield who, having gone to prison for fiddling, and managing to get out within days by having a nervous breakdown, went straight back to his old ploy of signing in for his £300 and buggering off home?

The police who took bribes from the newspapers or who demonised Liverpool fans, or who were described as “institutionally racist” by the Lawrence inquiry?

The newspapers themselves who would sell their granny into slavery for a story?

The BBC which, when it wasn't paying executives massive salaries to travel around the world in first class, like royalty, was turning a blind eye to depravity in its dressing rooms?

The City of London and the hallowed banking and insurance industry??

Do you… could you, actually trust anyone at all?

I sometimes wonder if people in the Home Office, and indeed other government departments, have ever stopped and listened to themselves, or if, living in cloud cuckoo land, they really actually believe the rubbish they spout.

ROLL ON THE DAY WHEN WE DON'T HAVE TWITS LIKE THIS IN OUR GOVERNMENT

There are times when you wonder at the sheer incompetence of members of Cameron's government.

The English police have come in for some well deserved stick recently. (I only mention that they are English, because in fact the are, and the Scottish police are an entirely separate organisation, who have not had any more bad press than usual.)

They Met, in particular has lost several senior officers over its close relationship with the press; over brutality of its officers at student protests and the G8 protests where a totally uninvolved member of the public was killed, and of course the Yorkshire police cover up over Hillsborough.

But, earlier this week, two police officers in Manchester were shot and there was a considerable outpouring of sympathy for them and their families and colleagues. Noticeably more coverage was given than is ever allowed for members of the armed forces who are killed in the line of duty.

Clearly it is of vital importance to the government that the public has confidence in the police. The alternative is unthinkable, and Cameron will surely have been concerned that all the bad publicity will have eroded that. He, after all, may need the police to be onside at some stage in the next 2 1/2 years.

And so, out he came to make a solemn speech about two brave officers killed by a ruthless criminal, with all the expected "fine body of men" type quotes.

It must have been somewhat of a blow to him then when a man he has just promoted from a very junior cabinet position to be his chief whip in an increasingly fractious Tory Party, decided to have a rant at the police in Downing Street, in front of members of the public and the press.

Andrew Mitchell (Rugby and Cambridge) managed to say (or allegedly say) just about everything that reinforces the stereotype image that we all have of a Tory Cabinet Minister.

Having been stopped at the gate of Downing Street and directed to use the pedestrian gate at the side, the immediately unlike-able Mitchell launched into a rant, in which he allegedly (although he denies this) called the police "f*king plebs", and told then that they should "learn your place", and pointed out that they did not run the government (erm, neither does he)... although I'm sure that even the most arrogant of the police would not claim to do so.

Iain Martin, a Daily Telegraph political correspondent thinks he will be unlikely to be in his job by the end of the weekend.  

But these people have more front than Rothsay, so I reckon he will hold out in the hopes that the press will find something more significant to report than a posh privileged muppet abusing someone who has a little bit of authority over him. 

Isn't it, though, quite scary that the governance of the country is in the hands of people who have such poor judgement. 

Update

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2206484/Police-say-Andrew-Mitchell-yelled-Ill-job-officer-stopped-riding-bike.html

According to the Mail (dubious) Mitchell threatened to have the officer's job for this.  ‘I’ll have your ****ing job for this.’ along with...‘I’m the chief whip. I’m telling you open this gate. I’m the chief whip and I’m coming through these gates. Best you learn your ****ing place. You don’t run this ****ing government. You’re ****ing plebs.’

Oops, if it's true, it's worse than I thought and he's toast by Sunday!

But there's the dilemma. You have:

1. The Met ...

2. A Westminster Tory Cabinet Minister

3. The Press, in particular the Daily Mail.

So who is telling the truth. Probably none of them, I suspect!

OLYMPIC CHAOS ON DAY ONE

The Olympics got off to a ...erm ... start today as the woeful incompetence of the organisers showed that what they said they could do in theory was a little less spectacular when it was put into practice.

First a bus carrying Australian and American athletes from Heathrow took four hours to get to London, because the driver got lost, and could use his sat nav. The they discovered that noone had added the Olympic village to the sat nav. Kerron Clement (US Gold Medal Hurdler), not surprisingly, tweeted: 'Um, so we've been lost on the road for 4 hrs. Not a good first impression London.'


Then they started charging people today to use the M4 and chaos ensued as drivers weren't sure whether the new VIP lanes were or were not in operation. Playing it safe (as the fines for straying into a lane above your station is £130 a time) cars tried to filter into the other lanes, and at one point the traffic jams were over 30 miles long.


At other places in London there was chaos because drivers were avoiding roads which were not restricted until next week, as apparently the signposting was not clear.

Then there was anger from an Australian married couple, Lauryn and Russell Mark, who have been told that they may not share a room in the Olympic village while they are competing as male and female accommodation is separate. This means that same sex couples may share facilities but heterosexuals cannot...unless they wish to book an hotel room (at god knows what profiteering price). They say that they have shared accommodation all over the world, but it appears that matron checks to make sure that there isn't any naughtiness in London. In a further blow to Australia, the Heathrow staff managed to lose the sailing team's sails... less than handy!

Bad news too for fans of Beach volleyball (why is that an Olympic sport). Girls who normally play the game in bikinis have been given special permission to wear shorts and t shirts because of the cold miserable weather. I'm guessing that many middle aged men with tickets for that event won't now bother turning up.


And of course, it wouldn't be an Olympic story without good old G4S making an appearance. Police and royal marines have been called in to take over from the company as large numbers of their new staff failed to show for work today. Probably doubtful of ever getting paid; possibly not informed of their start dates; who knows the reasons for the mess, but nine police forces have had to supply security for venues and marines are taking over at the centres in Weymouth and Portsmouth because fewer than 40% of Group Four staff turned up for duty.


In Manchester only 17 of the required 56 security guards turned up to guard the athletes' hotel.


And to cap it all, whilst heads may well roll at G4S, it's the kind of punishment for incompetence that I'd favour should I ever manage ever to be so cack-handed... It has been suggested that the chief executive, Nick Buckles, may leave with a golden goodbye of around £21 million. Not bad for making a fool of London, disrupting the armed forces and losing around £50 million for his company on the contract.

Some preliminary football matches from groups D and G are to be played in Glasgow, but demand for tickets has been so low that tens of thousands have had to be given away to children so that the stadium doesn't look empty.


I would hope that the ministers responsible for this mess lose their jobs in the re-shuffle, but frankly I doubt they will. 

IS PEACEFUL PROTEST NO LONGER ALLOWED IN ENGLAND?

Scores of people were arrested and many more detained before the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton last April, leading to claims that police were unlawfully criminalising legitimate protests before they had taken place.


Now protesters in England are asking for a judicial review of the police actions in arresting people who may (or may not) have protested peacefully.


In particular they are fearful that unless this behaviour goes unchallenged it will be the norm for the future, including at the jubilee celebrations and at the Olympics.

Of course these are English police and it is English law which apparently allows this, and as such it does not affect us in Scotland. But it will be interesting to find out what the law really says, in a country that wastes tax payers money by lecturing and harassing, and in the worse cases invading countries that do not allow peaceful protest.


I remember how the protesters and dissidents, not to mention the tramps and homeless, were rounded up from Beijing before China held its Olympics, and thinking what a dreadful regime they ran that allowed that police behaviour. Now, just because the eyes of the world will be on England in a couple of months, and Cameron will be running around playing host to "important people" driving around in "Zil lanes" and generally playing the part of a great ruler, it doesn't mean that people should not be allowed to protest. Foreigners should see what life is really like here. 


It might even solve some of Tessy's immigration problems!


Picture shows English police attacking a student protesting about the rise in tuition fees he had been promised would not happen. (Actually, all the Liberals said was that they would not double the fees. And they didn't.)

TESSY COMES CLEAN AT LAST

Theresa May, it seems, lets her mouth run away with her when she is on tv, or making statements to the press. It is, however, to her credit that when giving information to a select committee, I imagine under some sort of oath, she reverts to a tale nearer the truth.

It’s disconcerting though that there is, in London, a home secretary who feels that it is appropriate to lie and big herself up in front of the television cameras. It does mean that next time she makes some announcement, no one is likely to believe her.

“Oh, that’s just old Kinky Boots making herself sound more like a dominatrix than she really is...Get you wellies off, Tessy, put yer feet up, have a cuppa, and tell us like it really is,” they will say joshingly!

In front of the Home Affairs committee when questioned about the riots in London, she admitted that she had not ordered more police on to the streets and she had not cancelled all police leave, as she also claimed at the time, to the anger of the police chiefs. She also admitted that she had no powers to do that. It seems that the police were right all along.

Furthermore, and possibly more disturbingly, having blamed gangs and gang culture for the riots, she was forced to admit that there were far fewer gangs involved than had previously been imagined. Most indeed of those arrested had NOT been members of gangs. This begs the question, why did Cameron have such a go at the gangs if they weren’t responsible. Did he just make an assumption that they were to blame, or did he wilfully lie?

People who aspire to government really do have to try to understand that they can’t be allowed to make up a narrative to suit their agenda. When a crime is committed, as crimes undoubtedly were, the public has a right to know who did it; not who the government wants them to believe did it so that they may have public support when they launch an attack on whichever group. This is an important part of democracy.

So why did she lie? What was the reason behind her fibbing?

As a Scot I care not much about the doings of Mrs May. Home Secretaries' remits are largely in England. However, part of her responsibilities relate to terrorism throughout all of these countries and as such she has a relatively important role in Scotland, and one where when she tells us something, I’d prefer not to have to wonder whether it’s the truth or some little plot cooked up by her and Cameron in order to undermine something Scottish... possibly the government.

MORE RANDOM THOUGHTS

It now costs around £70 to fill an average family car with petrol, and that this is worrying for a “hard working British family”, who may only have around £250 disposable income, and with rent of £80 and council tax of a further £60 this can make life difficult. You could see the pain in the prime minister’s face. He really feels for us “hard-working British families”. He hasn’t said how he feels about spinster ladies and single people. I wonder how he feels about pensioners whose only way of getting shopping is to use their car. How does he think they manage with the most expensive fuel in the world in this oil rich nation? Indeed how does the poor man manage himself?

Mr Richard Baker is starting to campaign for re-election by bringing up the case of Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al Megrahi. He wanted to know how many letters and emails were received (and has been told) then he wanted them broken down into how many were for and how many against, and then he wanted to know how many civil servants were on the “Lockerbie team”, and then he wanted to know how many man hours had gone into dealing with the matter, and then he wanted to know how much it cost. (He’s very inquisitive, isn’t he?) He appears to be very concerned about how much this particular item has cost the Scottish taxpayer. I wonder if he’s considered how much time it would take and money it would cost to provide him with all this information so that he can go electioneering on it?

Mr Gray has started his election campaign, 100 days before the election, by highlighting (predictably) 100 SNP broken promises. They included promises which the SNP had not made. He also misquoted the SNP manifesto at least 20 times and mentioned items which are the responsibility of other parliaments. Moreover he included things that the SNP had brought forward and had been voted down by parliament. So as usual Mr Gray got his facts all wrong and mixed up promises broken with policies voted out by parliament. God help us if he is ever First Minister, but if he is, he will be able to rely on me to point out every single promise he breaks.

Our senior police officers were given bonuses amounting to more than £400,000 across the country last year, at a time when police forces are having to slash money from their budgets. Colin McKerracher, CBE, QPM, LlB, Chief Constable of Grampian Police, has suggested that part of the money confiscated as proceeds of crime could be used to subsidise the police in future. Could this be because he was one of only two Chief Constables that accepted his bonus? It seems to me that, like in every other walk of life, those at the top will always look after themselves, regardless of the effects on other people. Me me me me me is the motto of the senior people.

John Taylor has been found guilty of stealing over £11,000 of public money. As a barrister surely he must have been bright enough to realise that the “advice” given by fellow peers that “any family connection with an address” was enough to justify claiming that it was a first residence for the purposes of claiming expenses, especially as if he had never even been to the house, never mind lived there. I hope his lordship will have time in the pokey to reflect on his limited understanding of the legal system, and perhaps do some revision. He is safe in the knowledge, however, that even if he gets more than a year’s sentence he will still be able to resume his seat in the House upon release, and restart his expenses business.

MORE POLICE, GOOD NEIGHBOURS, HARD WORKERS: ALL AT FMQ TODAY

When is the Labour leader going give some thought to the questions he asks and thus deny the First Minister the opportunity to do a weekly party political broadcast.

Today’s subject was police numbers. Based on conversations he had had with two, yes 2, police officers Elmer concluded that the government’s claims to have more police on the streets was a sham. Some research would have unearthed the Scottish Police Federation’s statement fulsome in its praise for the position of the government, saying that they had understood the needs of policing and wishing that some local authorities, Labour ones, would step up to the plate and take the same attitude. Ooops!

Eck was able to point out that Labour was the only party in the Chamber which did not support an increase in police numbers. He quoted 1190 (the number of additional officers on about 5 occasions, and repeated that recorded crime is at its lowest levels in Scotland for 30 years.

When will Elmer ever learn?

And so to Annabel:

...who once again proved that FMQs doesn’t have to be a battlefield. She turned, appropriately, to the question of snow. Much of Scotland is under the worst November weather, Annabel said, for 40 years. She praised people who had made it to work, particularly those in caring and neighbours and friends looking in on the elderly or frail. She asked the FM to join her in praising them.

This he was happy to do, and gave examples of the security guard in parliament who was up at 4 am, collecting his colleagues in his 4 x 4 for the early shift and Perth and Kinross Council which had got to all but 2 of its vulnerable residents, but who had assured themselves that these remaining two were being looked after by neighbours.

{On a personal note here, I’ve been touched by the way people have helped each other out during the awful weather. My own mum has had countless offers of help, and when I knocked on the doors of some older people around me, I was hearing the same thing. We Scots can be proud of ourselves I think.}

In reference to school closures Annabel suggested that headmasters should be left to make decisions on opening. The FM agreed and referred her to advice to schools to that effect from the Cabinet Secretary for Education. Harmony.

And so to Tavish:

...who wanted to refer Eck to the review that the English transport minister had ordered of the way that transport had handled the snow and what was the FM doing along these lines. Alex said that we could have any number of reviews after the event was over, in the meantime the government was concerned with the practicalities of keeping Scotland moving.

Tavish asked about the fact that Edinburgh airport was closed today and suggested that in view of the government’s attempts to bring winter tourism to the country it would be a good idea if they could keep the capital’s airport open. The FM whilst praising Edinburgh’s fight to keep the runway open agreed that there might be lessons that could be learned from Aberdeen, Dundee, and Highlands and Islands airports, which had remained open.

Questions about snow; sectarianism; PE in schools and a Single Police Authority followed from members. One particular line from Eck I thought was worth a mention. Richard Baker asked about a Single Police Authority and when the First Minister had answered the point he said... I’m tempted to remind Richard Baker, although of course I won’t, that he said.... and proceeded to remind not just Mr Baker, but anyone listening, what he had said... the just of which was that there were 7 police forces ...when there are actually 8. He pointed out that Mr B would be better to know how many there were before he started trying to abolish them.

And so to lunch for them ....and tea for me!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00w6f4n/First_Ministers_Question_Time_02_12_2010/

WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER ....GREAT!

Mr Cameron is going to lead a fight back against “vested interests” that say that their particular bit of the world should not suffer cutbacks. Good luck to him.... No, wait, bad luck to him. Why shouldn't people have vested interests? It's their job, their career, their kids' future, their lives.

He is particularly concerned that the police, who have warned of a ‘Christmas for Criminals’, should be put back in their box.

But surely the people who say that if you cut staff you will receive a worse service are not wrong, are they? I mean, it’s just an uncomfortable fact that, if you cut the policing budget, you are likely to have fewer police, working with inferior equipment, which in turn will mean that criminals will be the real winners.

Not long ago Annabel Goldie made it a condition of her support for the government’s budget that there be 1000 more police on the Scottish streets. She said, quite rightly, that the Conservatives had secured an important concession which would make life safer for Scots. What goes up, must come down..... QED.

People (the government tells us) are behind the coalition’s cuts, but no one wants to be a victim. I’ve heard pensioners agree that there must be cuts, but then decrying the possibility that concessionary travel passes or to winter fuel allowances be cut. I heard a woman yesterday deploring the possibility that care homes will have to close and residents sent home to their families. The woman has to work; she can’t have her elderly mother to stay. But she adds she’s very much for the cuts... just not cuts that will hurt her.

Simon Heffer, surely a government supporter, points out that whilst the RAF can be cut, there must be no cuts to the Army and Navy because, he says, the world is looking very dangerous. Well Simon, we’ll just have to take a back seat and not interfere with all the things that are looking so dangerous. It’s not like we are needed. America only wants us so that they don’t look as if they are on their own.

We are all in this together whether we are happy about it, or like me, unhappy. I’m not a banker and I don’t owe a halfpenny, not on one single credit card, not on a store card, not on a mortgage, so I consider this crisis to be not any of my doing. So, I’m in it together, without being in it at all. But undoubtedly my library will close, the parks nearby will not be planted with flowers, the grass will be cut less frequently, my bins will be emptied on fewer occasions, the ponds will cover with algae, the roads will not be repaired, and on the few occasions I want a policeman, I will have to do without. I'll have to wait longer in queues, and I'll get even more nonsense when I come into contact with public bodies. And that’s just the start.

C’est la vie.

That the poor will be affected more than the rich goes without saying. It’s unavoidable. A few inconveniences at the top will equate to lives made intolerable at the bottom.

But that’s what you get when you allow a stupid man full reign on the finances because you have a weak and vain prime minister who lacks the courage to challenge his chancellor. That’s what you get when that stupid chancellor wants to go down in history for having beaten boom and bust, as if that were possible, and then demands to be prime minister. That’s what you get when greedy bankers see a chance to do all the things that, if they know anything about economics at all, they know will implode one day. And that’s what you get when you replace these vain, stupid, irresponsible, glory seekers with a group of heartless incompetents who have never known what it was like not to have a couple of million in the bank.

Welcome to Britain. And you wonder why I want independence?

FUNNY OLD WORLD

Well, would you ever believe it?

Of course you would. I mean on a day when it turns out that:

700,000 children have being diagnosed as having learning difficulties, when they don't, presumably so that schools can access extra money regardless of the effect on the children and hide low sandards of teaching;

The police tell us that less money for policing will result in fewer police and that this will be dangerous at a time when social unrest is on the rise (not that they are trying to protect their own salaries or anything!!!);

Having told us only a few weeks ago that house prices were on the up, sellers have been told to drop their prices by 10%;

That inflation is 150% of what was forecast...close eh? I mean why do we pay the economists at the Bank of England and the Treasury? Are all their forecasts out by this kind of margin?

And that Nick Clegg, in the midst of the financial (and soon to be social) crisis, is wittering on about improving the lot of women in the third world..... (Why do we always have to be leading the way in poking our inexpert noses into other people's affairs? Why do we not do something about the horrors at home?)..........
It should come as no particular shock that Tony Blair has been awarded the Philadelphia Liberty Medal in recognition of his “steadfast commitment to conflict resolution”.

I can’t think of much to say about that... except don’t you think that it plays into the hands of people all over the Muslim world who think that they are simply second of third class citizens of the world?

Here’s a guy who in collaboration with Bush showed a ''steadfast commitment'' to killing innocent people and causing untold, and to us unimaginable, suffering and all kinds of hell in Afghanistan (legally) and Iraq (illegally) ... and they award him the Liberty Medal.

Funny old world?

... Still, unto those who have, etc....there are and have always been some people who could fall off the tenth floor into a pile of manure, bounce up onto their feet and walk home smelling of Yves St Laurent!

I just hope Blair can see the irony.