Archive for Politicians
Legal insider trading
- Image via Wikipedia
Thanks to the Nationalist Socialist Party of the UK, aka The Labour party, shorthand- Nazi (UK) -Government, for declaring insider trading is now legal.
Hiding billions of pounds in security is now an completely acceptable way for a PLC to operate, in the old days, before the Nazis took power, this was unacceptable and any PLC had to legally declare this information, because funnily enough a PLC means everyone is entitled to equal information.
Sure, the rules were bent as far as possible and pension fund managers who hold shares for two days got more information than any individual investor ever got hold of, but at least even under the self serving Tories, billions of pounds of security, hit the wires.
Thanks to the minion who goes by the title ‘Chancellor of the Exchequer’ and his playmate Brown, who has the title of Prime Minister, those rules go by the board.
It is now absolutely acceptable for a PLC to fail to declare their true financial status and up to the shareholders to find out the truth about the company in which they are investing.
I have no vested gripe with capitalism, but I do have a real problem when it becomes acceptable to hide information which would enable private investors to make rational decisions.
There can now never be a genuine trial against insider trading in the UK. The Government have set a precedent. The Directors of the banks didn’t sell their shares because they knew full well the bank wasn’t going to fail, that information should have become immediately available to shareholders, who may well have taken different positions on the market at that time, not to mention subsequent trading decisions.
We need to look at the spike in share price and the spike in options trading shortly after the Nazi (UK) Government made their hidden securitisation and find out, which fund managers were privy to information, they are the evidence that insider trading is now formally legal in the UK.
The Nazis (UK) manage a better job of anarchy in the UK than anyone else.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=60dd0279-5b2b-48c2-9232-7c9874f83e09)
Communication Political style
I just had to laugh that the online communications champion for the Labour Party, is so keen to engage with the general public, that she a policy of blocking some people from following her twitter account.
Whilst this seems to be a shot in the foot and indicative of the way that British Politicians behave, it is particularly bizarre, as her role is one of on-line communications development. I can totally understand her choosing not to follow people, but stopping them following her, given her role is very strange.
It seems that when politicians talk about engaging with the public, what they actually mean, in many cases and it appears at the communication level for the Labour Party, this means only with people who meet the censorship policy criteria.
Whilst anyone who has been blocked from following, is not actually missing a great deal, it seems to me that her policy is exactly in line with those of the political system who continue to block their ears to most people.
As she appears not to want people to follow her, I wont bother putting up her twitter account link.
If she does tweet anything of importance, you can be sure we will post it on anarchy in the UK, but don’t hold your breath for a follow up article.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=f012e209-2759-4e1a-90de-d29ce9e873ed)
It isn’t fair
Well we had a board meeting a couple of weeks ago and I put forward a new proposal.
Any other business:
- Image by Getty Images via Daylife
1. Review of expenses – formalize the process.
As there is a recession and the winter is coming along, I thought it right and proper that Directors, (not the hoi-polloi) should be permitted a few official breaks as we worked so hard and no one else does. Goodness, we even have to turn up for work from time to time.
It just didn’t seem reasonable to me, that I should be expected to travel for an hour by car to get in to work, so felt that we should introduce a second home allowance for any Director who lived more than an hour away, by foot, as this seemed a reasonable commuting expectation.
My colleagues pointed out that most staff travelled in further than that. Mere detail I pointed out and carried on:
I proposed that the Company should pay for my furniture for my new home, along with cleaning bills, gardening, White-goods and electronic equipment and general upkeep, which of course if I had any tax liability, then the company should pay the cost of this to my off shore bank account, as a ‘consultancy charge’ through my other shell company based in The Cayman Islands.
The open mouths that gazed at me told me all was going well so I continued:
Because I would be staying in a Second Home during the week, I think the company should pay my food bills, after all I had to fill the fridges and cupboards in two houses, surely they could see the sense in this.
I pressed on:
I think it only fair that as I am the person who is expected to suffer by having to have a second home, it is only fair that I keep the sale price of the home the company paid for, but I should have the option to decide which home I should be able to claim expenses on a week by week basis, just to make sure it was all value for money.
Well my fellow directors were getting in to the swing of this, I could tell by their ashen faces, in fact a couple of them began whispering to one another:
I then suggested we put this to the vote and I couldn’t believe it when the decided this was not a good idea, even worse an emergency shareholder meeting was called and I was kicked out.
Now to cap it all, I have been billed for the expenses I had been claiming for years. I went to talk to my solicitor and sure enough she confirmed, those claims were not against the rules. Nowhere in the rules did it say I couldn’t claim for having a weekly sauna, decorators, tax advice, second home, or even third home for that matter. In fact I could have claimed for a private jet and yacht as they were not against the rules.
It isn’t fair.
Oh and by the way, my new book ‘how to claim expenses – no questions asked’ will be out soon, published by ’scum’.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=29bc7408-f3c5-4415-9645-b3680801d1d7)
MPs errors
Anarchy in the UK is, a regular readers will be well aware, a comment on the state of the UK as it stands.
I do not hide my absolute contempt for Democracy and many British institutions be they state bodies or large private enterprise. This contempt is a result of the complete contempt with which these large corporates and Government bodies treat the population or the customer.
anarchy in the uk
I wanted to turn my attention to MPs expenses and the apparent disconnect between politicians and the public. People make mistakes and I don’t have an argument with this; people rip other people off, this is a fact of life; people lie, this happens. But when we have a situation of these three events coinciding with a group of people who make the laws which affect our everyday lives, there is a problem.
David Cameron
It is not good enough that Cameron has paid back his ‘error’. He wants to be the political head of this country, but he is either too thick or too corrupt to know what is happening in relation to his expenses. How is he meant to run a country if he can’t manage a simple expenses claim.
I used to run a medium sized business and I expected staff to understand how to make an expenses claim, I certainly wouldn’t promote an idiot who didn’t know how to follow a simple procedure and I would fire anyone who tried to be clever with false claims and that was in a medium sized business.
Cameron can’t understand that cutting wisteria is not a legitimate claim and it took the Daily Telegraph to bring him to book. Is he really fit for purpose? No, get rid of him, is is evidently incompetent as he can’t quite manage a simple expenses claim form. How is he meant to deal with issues of state? I certainly would not recognize the moron as competent, any more than I would Brown.
Gordon Brown
Dear old Brown, is a man who lives in a grace and favour property, but apparently felt that paying his brother for a cleaner for a ’second home’ (for goodness sake you and I are paying for his first home) was acceptable. This is the man who managed to claim twice within six months for the same plumbing job, but it was an ‘inadvertent mistake’, no wonder he keeps re-announcing the same policies year after year as new initiatives, oh and by the way you and I also probably paid for his Sky Sports. But of course those self serving MPs refused to permit scrutiny of their expenses, claiming that the Freedom of Information Act shouldn’t besmirch their hallowed ground and this issue over sky sports remains under wraps. Speaking of television, Jacqui Smith, ‘made a mistake’ in claiming for porn films for her husband.
The whole of the House of Commons is littered with unacceptable claims and anarchy in the UK will remind you of the contempt with which politicians held our money as we move forward to the election.
As I said, I accept errors are made, which do not require, in many instances more than a written warning, but there are positions of responsibility which means that an error is unacceptable.
MPs sit in that spotlight, these are people who are entrusted, by those who bother to vote for the idiots, to scrutinize legislation. If they can’t work out that claiming a Remembrance Day wreath is unacceptable – finger pointed
Boris Johnson
directly at Boris Johnson, is just repugnant, then it gives me the horrors that they are in a position to make decisions about anything other than their own life. I would not employ anyone in any capacity who ‘made the mistake’ so many of our MPs, Mayors and Local representatives have made, they are not fit for office.
But aside from that, exactly how much has the Thomas Legg audit cost me? I don’t recall reclaiming audit expenses. His bill must be charged equally amongst the MPs he audited, why should you and I pick up the bill. MPs decided they didn’t need to be audited, I see no reason I should foot their audit bill.
Anarchy in the UK refers to the corruption, arrogance and incompetence within this country and the British Democratically elected Houses of Parliament is perhaps the epitome of anarchy in the UK.
I will of course return at another time to the point that a Democratically elected Government in the UK has for the past twenty years been opposed by over 70% of the population. But hey Democracy is all about the money in the wallet isn’t it?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=46dcf259-bfd8-4f91-ad4f-1d55afd31795)
UK Police licensed to Kill
The decision by the British Courts today that the Police Officers involved in the death of De Menezes in London should face no further action, have far wider implications than just on the activity of these police officers.
Killing innocent members of the public by British Police officers in the ‘line of duty’ have now effectively been ruled as acceptable. There is little doubt from the information available, regarding communication failures and incompetence that there should be culpability. Yet the officers involved in the incident are being provided with a defence that the Nuremberg Trials deemedinadmissible, ‘following orders’.
- Image by abux_77 via Flickr
The Police Officers have been able to defend their actions by passing the buck to higher authority, justifying their actions that they were only doing what they had been told. There can be no doubt that DeMenezes was killed on that fateful day by officers who pulled the triggers. They should be tried in open court.
It may well be that their actions were defensible against a murder charge, I would not pre-judge the verdict in such a trial, but to decide they should not be tried, simply because it isn’t expedient and the officers involved were only following orders, is unacceptable.
We have a police force which is under fire from the General Public and a State apparatus which increasingly appears determined to defend them against any open investigation.
While the UK witters on about other countries across the world, where murder by state clandestine operations is endemic, we are in danger of slipping in to that position ourselves.
Where is the result of the Tomlinson G20 death? WHy is it taking so long to actually bring this case to a conclusion.
One only has to look at investigations carried out by the IPCC into police actions in connection to the death of members of the public, to see there is no accountability. The De Menezes case may be a high profile incident, but it is far from isolated. Prosecutions over deaths of members of the public at the hands of the police are few and far between, this can not be a healthy position.
The purpose of an open trial with Judge and Jury, is meant to be the bedrock of the British Justice System. This Labour Government has already started to erode the concept, justifying it by attempting to re-write history. Now the Judiciary are also culpable in the erosion of the very Justice System they are meant to defend.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=8e686039-8daf-4989-9eb1-3c28b6f99e36)
Police complaints
- Image via Wikipedia
Recent figures released by the IPCC show complaints regarding the police reaching a staggering 31 000 over the past year. These are only reports to the IPCC, as far as I can tell.
Yet, the blase comment by both the IPCC and various police forces up and down the country, is that this is just because people now know how to complain. The proposition being that people just complain for the sake of it and because there is now a better known complaints procedure, people are just abusing it. The additional response being that complaints were not upheld, so they were evidently just fictitious.
The state bodies in the UK is held by a corrupt and complacent group, who should not be holding office. Over every Century dramatic changes in political relationships occur, for far too long in the UK, there has been no change in the power brokers.
The Police force, set up by Peel in the 19th Century has become, without anything more than acquiescence by the population the enforcers of law and order; have gained their power through a political system which contrives to retain its own power, by creating a relationship between the two groupings with the clear intention of making the population subservient.
The Police have been permitted to decide laws, interpret laws and administer justice as they deem fit due in no small part, that the leadership of the Police forces obtain political power by serving the political power mongers.
Many countries entrust power to the Military, in the UK, due to constitutional conflict between Parliament and Monarchy, the Military have been precluded from this power share, as the Military are quite evidently and historically tied to the Monarchy. Through Acts of Parliament, the Police force have been granted powers far beyond their scope and as a result have formed an allegiance with the Government, not with the Population, which was the original intention of the ‘Peelers’.
There is no excuse for 31 000 complaints through the IPCC, the Police force are out of control as the Parliamentarians have for too long failed to see the danger of giving them carte blanche control, while their minds have been focused on ensuring the Military are kept in check.
It is far beyond time when a Police Force which murders people as they wish on the street, with no accountability, abuses Acts of Parliament to serve their own purpose again with no accountability and no interest in the population they were originally created to serve were pulled back.
The Government are afraid of the Police Forces, as they have awoken to the fact that these are the people with the powers that Government has divested while attempting to hold down Military power.
A group which receives 31 000 complaints in a year is not fit for purpose, but the Government are unable to control them and it is entirely up to the population to stop this out of control body politic.
It is long past time for change.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=2ab703c1-1624-4ca0-9177-63bdf9a1e82a)
Moving Windmills
Real inspiration and innovation isn’t driven by generating large profits as the story of William Kamkwamba demonstrates all too clearly.
The absolute drive to find a solution is a superb model it would be good to see applied more frequently in the UK.
We have quangos, development agencies, politicians, relief funds and who knows what else aiming to create ever more complex solutions to simple questions.
William took an old book and changed his life and that of his family and village. Not through massive infrastructure projects, but by identifying a need and developing a solution.
While I am sure many people involved in regeneration projects are keen to provide solutions, it does often appear as though many of those solutions come from blue sky thinking and are not driven from bottom up planning.
If there was less pontification and more conversation with those facing problems, then practical faster solutions may well be forthcoming.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=526a5452-de0b-48b1-996a-cf8b1bbb7338)
Paucity of political conversation
I often find myself in total amazement of the paucity of political conversation when listening to the Westminster cesspit speaking in their echo chamber.
- Image by www.galleryspace.net via Flickr
Unfortunately they are no more switched on when it comes to engagement with those outside that circle.
I have an intense distrust of many who seek political office, of this I make no bones. I do however try to engage with these people on occasion and recently found reason to query a Politicians blog. To be fair, I usually find a reason to question most things politicians say particularly as they are all to happy to tell everyone that it is necessary to lie as a politician. I am outraged by this defence and I fail to understand why politicians don’t know why they are distrusted when this, for many ’sometimes I have to lie’ is their start point.
Democratically elected MPs are never happier than when towing the party line, as far too many of them seem to believe that holding office, is a career move. Listening to any question posed at a politician in the UK on mainstream media, is a waste of time. They fail to answer any question and start talking about the opposition party, they sound even worse than the dodgiest second hand car salesman. Sometimes they meander off message and the true nature of their intellect comes to light.
The MP concerned, MPs as an aside laughingly like to referred to as ‘honourable’, to whom this article is dedicated, is the Honourable Member for Glasgow South. Is better known as Tom Harris.
I feel it appropriate to put Tom Harris in context.
Dear old Tom, as you may recall feels that he needed to claim £19.99 for a child’s bed set and £59.79 for a child’s inflatable bed and felt moved to appeal when his claim was rejected as the claim was not ‘not wholly, exclusively and necessarily’ incurred in relation to parliamentary duties. But he still thinks this was an unjustified rejection. This is the man who declared, as the recession was just called negative growth (a different article) that ‘In our own country today, despite the recent credit squeeze, our citizens have never been so wealthy.’ (source) and has never seen the need to revise this, whilst at the same time has never seen the need to apologize for his claim for unnecessary expenses.
I digress…..
The honourable Thomas decided to post a couple of blog posts here and here which I felt were suggesting those of the Muslim faith as being terrorists and told him so. Of course he replied, initially with the reply that I was just dim and so the conversation developed, with my pointing out a particular phrase on one of his posts. ‘Islamism will never seem as threatening as the government, and there will never be a shortage of appeasers who can justify the terrorists’ which to me appeared to suggest those who are Islamists are nothing but terrorists, well Tom felt I didn’t understand the basics and had no hesitation in telling me I didn’t know what I was talking about. On offering a helpful reply to elucidate, the Honourable Member for ’spurious claims’, decided the whole subject needed changing.
The exchange on twitter….
@TomHarrisMP Take it from recent blog posts, you consider those of Islamic faith – terrorists. Why not just join the BNP & be done with it?
TomHarrisMP@timwhale That’s a rather dim statement. I consider Bin Laden and other Islamists to be terrorists. Don’t you?
@TomHarrisMP try reading your articles again esp ‘heads in the sand’ para 3 sentence 2
TomHarrisMP@timwhale So you admit to not knowing the massive difference between “Islam” and “Islamism”?
@TomHarrisMP the notion of islamism does not of itself define terrorism, Sharia Law exists in many countries.
@TomHarrisMP try this report from the International Crisis Group http://bit.ly/3InMFM
TomHarrisMP@timwhale However you define Islamism, you’d have to be pretty thick not to realise that my post was about extremists, not Muslims.
Political conversations are nothing but obfuscation and deceit, this is but one example of how when for a politician facts get in the way, the whole subject changes. I wonder why I feel there is a paucity of political conversation?
Making headline statements is OK, I understand this. However when you have got it so horribly wrong, why not just admit it? Telling someone they don’t understand and then being directed to real information, not political on-message then just pretending the advisory didn’t happen and ignoring the whole context of the conversation, is just crass stupidity and indicative of the level to which political intellect has slumped.
Did I mention….
Tom Harris is not that keen on a transparent parliament
Thinks ID cards are a good idea
Supported the Iraq war
and wants no investigation into the invasion of Iraq
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=edae533e-1246-4127-936a-fdd1074e1973)
Crown Steward of the Manor of Northstead
I don’t think my views of John Bercow and his suitability as the man to lead to the clean up of MPs corruption needs further expounding, nor my views on the responsibilities of any Speaker in the House of Commons. This isn’t reiteration of even similar points.
I have long been suspicious of the concept that the Speaker is re-elected to the House of Commons by virtue of no-body standing against them in a constituency election. I am delighted to see this protocol being challenged by Farage. It is a shame the options for the constituency is between UKIP and a Speaker, but it may blow open a hole in this tradition.
- Image via Wikipedia
The people of each constituency should be able to vote for a candidate they wish to elect and that elected MP to be representative for them in Parliament. However we have a situation which has grown up as a ‘protocol’ that the constituents of the Speakers seat as an MP get no choice in their representative and their duly returned representative can not represent them or their interests in Parliament as the Speaker is bound by yet another protocol, which means that they are unable to take part in debates or pursue full parliamentary duties.
This is paired with yet another protocol which means that other Parliamentarians are prohibited from taking cases from people not in their constituency.
Never having had the misfortune to live in one of these constituencies, I have no idea how the process works and how you deal with a constituency matter. How you ever have the opportunity to express your democratic choice, nor how you direct your concerns about the quality of the local MP, by voting against them at the next opportunity. But the whole concept that a constituency has no democratic voice and no representation stinks. Perhaps they pay no taxes to take an old adage.
There is no reason that MPs shouldn’t have a ‘Speaker’ albeit it with far more limited powers and scope than at present, as I have argued, but that doesn’t mean that those who wish to express their democratic rights should have no outlet in which to do so and as importantly that they are not represented in Parliament.
The Speaker of the House should not be a constituency MP and there is absolutely no sense in the ridiculous farrago of the constituency election. MPs are a pathetic bunch and they always need to have a ‘tradition’ on which to hang their hat, so to cheer up the little children, why not call the Speaker – Crown Steward of the Manor of Northstead, ironically the last holder of office being Martin when he was kicked out of the role of Speaker.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=c7020c39-05d7-4e58-b0c6-e4ab5b97b009)