Category Archives: MPs

Banning Burkha’s Simply Not British

Man/Woman Wearing Burkha: Especially handy for those wishing to leave the country, or commit crimes, incognito.

Banning burkas in the UK would be ‘rather un-British’, says Green | Mail Online

A cabinet minister has delivered a staunch defence of a woman’s right to wear a burka.

Quite right, I totally agree with Caroline Spelman, the Burkha empowers women. It allows them to go out and about without any thought to having to use sun glasses and make-up to cover up their bruises and black eyes, unlike most abused women. How many drunkard wife-beaters are kicking themselves, or their wives, for not thinking of such a marvellous piece of clothing?

I mean is the woman really that naive? She’s meant to be a Government minister. 

Possession and Repression

Afghan Woman

Boy crying as he realises that this person, is not in fact, his mother and he has lost her in a sea of similarly dressed women.

The burkha has nothing to do with Islam, indeed it is believed to pre-date Islam and is part of a culture that at best marginalises women, at worst subjugates them. Of course most cultures and civilisations have been guilty of this at some point, including the great Greek and Roman civilisations, but the fact that such an attitude persists in the modern world, and with such vehemence, is quite disturbing. Almost as disturbing as having it not only in Britain, but also defended by so called intellectual women in Britain.

The burkha allows women to be removed from society, to become non-people, and invisible. I am sure that they are times when we all crave a little anonymity, but to have it forced on us daily, whether we want it or not, would be soul destroying. 

Spelman said:

I’ve been out to Afghanistan and I think I understand much better as a result of actually visiting why a lot of Muslim women want to wear the burka.

The irony of course is that women in Afghanistan may very well chose to wear it, but usually because they’d much rather not be accosted for not covering themselves or worse, have acid thrown in their faces or be killed.  To me that isn’t so much a choice as an ultimatum. And yet that is what she bases her view on women wearing the burkha in Britain on! The dozy mare continues to dig herself a hole stating:

‘We are a free country, we attach importance to people being free and for a woman it is empowering to be able to choose each morning when you wake up what you wear.’

Quite right, I am sure they agonise for hours over whether to wear the black burkha with the semi-tranparent mesh covering the eyes, or the black burkha with the semi-tranparent mesh covering the eyes! Does she really not see that this is precisely the point? These women cannot chose what they wear, she may very well spend time picking the perfect outfit each morning, but for burkha wearers, the outfit has already picked them.   

Afghan ID parade

ID parades in Afghanistan are much easier to organise, unfortunately not so easy to pick out offenders.

Not Part of Our Culture

Another ministerial buffoon, Damian Green, stated that it was un-British to tell people what to wear. Clearly he hasn’t been shopping or to his local bank for quite a while then, hoodies and motorcycle helmets and anything else that covers the face are banned in such places. Even Jedi are not allowed to cover their heads in Tesco.  So is it really a case of it being un-British telling people what to wear, or is it just considered un-British telling those what to do who bring their whole culture here, wholesale, and expect the British to put up with it?

Surely it is more un-British to behave in a totally unfamiliar way to most Britons, i.e. force your wife to cover herself from head to toe in black with only a semi-transparent eye slot? There’s nothing particularly British about that.  Imagine if we all were to go around dressed in burkhas, men and women? It would be totally impractical and absolute chaos, no-one would have any idea who any one is, the whole sense of community would collapse, so why do these ministerial half-wits think it is OK for certain people to do it?

Such behaviour is not part of British culture, nor indeed is it part of any modern, forward thinking society, as Sarkozy said:

“The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience.”

Which is why they have banned it there. Even Syria, yes, that’s Syria has banned them from University campuses.

Mustn’t Upset Anyone

There is no end to this kind of limp wristed, ‘let’s put up with everything from a foreign culture, no matter how wrong it is’ attitude, and from the nation that put an end to Thugee and Sati in India, and helped end the slave trade world-wide, it is deeply worrying. It seems that to some people foreign = better, or at least means that it overrides normal, British, morals. 

MUSLIM BUS DRIVERS’ BAN ON GUIDE DOGS

MUSLIM drivers are forcing blind people and their guide dogs off buses because they consider the animals to be ‘unclean’, it has been revealed.

This is another example that some aspects of foreign cultures or even religions, have no place in Britain. 

Advertisements

Conservative Dynasty

Roland Spencer - Leader of the Conservative Group and Gedling Borough Council

Roland Spencer: Head of House Spencer and although the opportunity to be an MP came too late for him, he has ensured his son can take it.

Just to prove that I am not biased, at least not entirely, I thought I'd best look at the Conservative candidate for my area, Mark Spencer. Mark Spencer comes from something of a Conservative dynasty, his father Roland stood for election in 1997 and lost against Paddy Tipping, the current incumbent, who has decided to stand down. 

Roland Spencer lives in a large house in a particularly affluent area, close to me in fact, and made his money in construction and property development. He's been a local councillor since the mid-80s, a former mayor and is currently the leader of the local council, and has been since 2006 and is the current Leader of the Conservative Group.  Mark Spencer's political pedigree however doesn't end there. 

Nepotism

Gedling Borough Councillor - Jennifer Jean Spencer

Jennifer Jean Spencer - Matriarch of House Spencer

His mother Jennifer Jane Spencer is also serving on the local council, was also Mayor (15 years after her husband), and current 'Business Champion', whatever that means! With his parents, is it any surprise that he has been selected as the local Conservative Parliamentary Candidate?

Mark Spencer himself is no newbie to politics, elected to local council in 2003, and regional in 2005 (Nottinghamshire County Council), he's been at this for a while and is aiming for a hat-trick of local, regional and national seats. 

I have met Roland Spencer and he's a decent and likeable enough chap, but you don't get out of the property development business during the boom years and into politics unless there's money in it, and you don't set your wife and son onto your career path, unless there's a decent living in it. 

Perhaps it is because I am a staunch Monarchist, but there is something that I find distasteful about powerful families, or at least more than one in any nation, and for one family to hold all the power in one region is a little troubling. Should Mark Spencer be elected, the Spencer's would have the local council and constituency sown up. 

Policies

Councillor and prospective MP - Mark Spencer

Mark Spencer: Heir Apparent of House Spencer, with his eyes on a bigger prize

Perhaps this power and money explains why Mark Spencer's leaflet was on A3 paper, whereas all the others (Labour, UKIP, BNP, none from Lib-Dems yet) were on standard A5. The leaflet has the Conservative slogan of Change emblazoned across the top, but like the Conservatives and Cameron in general, it is eye catching and looks the part, but offers precious little in terms of substance.

But at least his leaflet was the right one, the BNP were kind enough to send me a leaflet for an area that I do not live in and for a candidate I cannot vote for. Hardly inspires confidence when everyone else has managed it correctly. 

Like the other leaflets I've received, the Conservative one only further convinced me that politics in Britain is broken, full of corruption and nepotism and only really serving the interests of those elected, not the electorate. 

Sexism and Nepotism

Emilie Oldknow: She allegedly said 'Who do I have to sleep with to get elected in my area?' at a Labour Party meeting, and Jonathan Ashworth held up his hand.

It seems that I have to remove the image of my MP that I have had on my dartboard for the past decade and replace it. No, the election hasn't come early to my neck of the woods, rather the boundary commission has decided to move me into another region.

My 'new' region is still a Labour safe seat and although the MP is standing down, another candidate has been parachuted in – Emilie Oldknow. 

Available in any colour, as long as its black

Oldknow was selected from a list of women only candidates. Now, I have nothing against voting for women (I voted for Thatcher), but I despise being forced to only vote for women, merely because they are women and are needed to make up the numbers in Parliament. It wasn't a case that the two best canidates for Labour were women, it was a case that the only candidates that Labour would select in my region were women. 

This ridiculous sexism, masquerading as positive discrimination is insulting, not only to women, who are apparently too stupid to vote for anyone other than someone with breasts, but also men, who are apparently so sexist that they can only vote for men unless given no choice. 

Purely on the basis that my choice has been removed from me, I would never vote for Emilie Oldknow. Such actions are a first step on a slippery slope, what next, only being allowed to vote for Blair/Brown cronies?

Too late

Chris Leslie

Chris Leslie: Another Brown crony, who masterminded his 2007 leadership campaign, has been parachuted into Nottingham East safe seat after being personally selected by Brown.

Well it seems that Emilie Oldknow ticks that box too. Oldknow just happens to be sharing a bed with Jonathan Ashworth, Brown's deputy political secretary. Even her opponent during selection pulled out citing cronyism and claiming that the selection process is basically a done deal. 

I am inclined to believe her, how else, other than cronyism and positive discrimination, would a 29 year old who cannot even spell the name of her hometown and with no political experience become the candidate for my area?

It has also been noted that Oldknow, who used to work for the NHS, and her fiancée Ashworth, may have had quite a lot to do with the recent cancer leaflets, although Oldknow stated:

“I had not seen the mailshot before and it wasn’t sent out by my campaign,”

Thank you Brown, if I were beginning to forget why I will never vote Labour again for the rest of my life, and why I hate our current political system, you have reminded me. 

Common Sense Prevails!

Tyler Juett - Thief

Killed: Tyler Juett was killed after breaking into a house, armed with a knife. I'm guessing this isn't a recent picture

Murder charge against man who killed burglar to be dropped

Omari Roberts, 23, was due to stand trial for the murder of 17-year-old Tyler Juett who was stabbed to death during a struggle at his mother’s housein Nottingham last year.

I’ve been following this case closely, and I have to admit, I was starting to worry that the justice system had take all leave of its senses! The way that this case was handled has made me wonder whether someone else, from on high had something to do with bringing this case to court.

Ooh, now that I think about it!

It was seven months after the event that the CPS, quite out of the blue, decided that Omari Roberts should be prosecuted. The only explanation that I can think of for such a long period of ‘thinking about it’ is because that is how long it took before the very vocal complaining of Juett’s mother reached someone high up within Labour.

Tyler Juett, not quite as complimentary as the official images

Typical young hoodie chav or innocent child?

Someone who no doubt thought that self defence was already illegal, and therefore wanted something done. Who is this soon to be Labour peer? None other than Keir Starmer, Human Rights evangelist and head of the CPS.

Having left any impartiality behind long, long ago, Keir decided that this case needed rectifying. A very strong opponent of the death penalty, having being instrumental in getting it abolished in the Caribbean, and is working hard to ensure its abolition throughout Africa. Keir Starmer obviously didn’t like the idea of any criminal getting his just desserts, he certainly has a dislike of such karma, having argued successfully in the House of Lords that evidence obtained by torture should be inadmissable in court and also had control orders for two suspected terrorists reversed when he represented them in the House of Lords.  A criminal being killed whilst committing a crime certainly wouldn’t have gone down well with Keir Starmer. And clearly it didn’t.

Not on my watch

More recent photo of burglar Tyler Juett

Tyler: A more recent photo that more accurately portrays the burglar

Ian Cunningham, the CPS lawyer, who officially brought this case to court said:

“I have looked very carefully at the public interest in this case, and I am satisfied that it requires a prosecution. I also discussed the case with the CPS principal legal adviser [Keir Starmer] and have decided there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. The law also makes clear that people could be prosecuted if they act with excessive and gratuitous force.”

The irony is of course that the only ones who acted with excessive and gratuitous force were the two burglars that forced their way into the home, and then attacked the homeowner’s son with a knife! There is little mention of the 14 year old burglar that survived, no doubt the CPS dropped charges against this little angel, before turning their attention to the real victim.

This case was never in the public interest. Omari Roberts has no convictions, is not violent and if he is only ever going to kill burglars that enter his home, then the public at large is quite safe from the man. The only interests that were served in bringing about the prosecution was those of Keir Starmer, whose principles could not stomach a criminal being killed by an honest citizen on his watch.

I yield!

Keir Starmer

The slightly effeminate Keir Starmer, may well have been on the receiving end of one too many wet towel flicks.

Cunningham also said:

“I have decided that when Omari Roberts disturbed two burglars and caused injuries to them – in one case fatally – his actions were not reasonable.”

A silly and illogical conclusion. I don’t think that any son would be ‘reasonable’ upon finding two armed young male burglars in his mothers home. Frankly I think it should be perfectly legal to kill someone who breaks into your home, with or without excessive or gratuitous force. Had it been Robert’s mother, she would more than likely have been injured, if not killed herself.

There certainly needs to be clarification on the law in this area, Labour MPs keep stating that the law is clear, yet cases like this keep coming to court, or are coming close to court thanks to Labour lackeys. Perhaps they all believe that any fight is like the wet towel flicking shower room play fights that they engaged in at public school and that it merely had to go on until one party shouts ‘Submit!’

Tyler Juett - Criminal killed in the line of duty

Tyler Juett: Faced with this knife wielding maniac in my mothers home, I think I'd kill him too.

With the way things stand, should an unfortunate burglar encounter me in my home, I wouldn’t hesitate to ensure my family were safe, even if that meant killing the burglar. The question is, would I call the police, or even an ambulance afterward? With my legal protection removed, or the CPS acting as though it is, I could save myself a whole lot of hassle by just wrapping the corpse of the slain thief in bin bags and driving out to some woods with a spade. It’s not as if burglars tell people where they’re going, or leave an itinerary is it?

Omari Roberts lawyer had the best line:

“This is a young man [Roberts] with no history of violence whatsoever, coming back to his mother’s house for lunch and finding two people who rushed at him. One of them has ended up dead but he was damned if he did, and dead if he didn’t.”

Precisely. The will to live is not something that can be legislated out of us.

Update 19/04/2010:
BBC News – Burglar murder charge against Nottingham man dropped

A man accused of murder after stabbing a teenage burglar to death during a break-in at his mother’s home has had all charges against him dropped.

Charges were indeed dropped today as expected. Questions now of course need to be asked about why Keir Starmer became personally involved in this case and whether he should face action for his conduct. This whole episode has been disgusting and tarnished the reputation and impartiality of the CPS, this charge was never in the public interest and should never have been brought.

The BNP might be racist, but are they the only option?

Nick Griffin: Barmy and not helped by his mad eyed look

BBC NEWS | Politics | Griffin complaint over BBC ‘mob’

BNP leader Nick Griffin is to complain to the BBC over his controversial appearance on Question Time, saying he had faced a “lynch mob”.

I have to admit that this was the strangest question time that I have ever seen, and also the most compelling.

I cannot have been the only one wondering what the crazy one-eyed racist was going to do, and then, when it was clear that Gordon Brown was not going to try and block Question Time, what Griffin would do.

Was it a lynch mob? Of course, but then what did Nick Griffin expect? Whether he believes that he was hard done by and it was biased, these were the questions that the public wanted answering.

The Racist

In the end Griffin came across and a slightly bonkers, babbling buffoon. By the end he seemed to become more and more unhinged and was almost frothing at the mouth. Initially the man came across like the unpopular kid at school, desperately trying to get in with the cool gang by laughing at their jokes, hanging around and behaving in a generally awkward and unsettling manner.

He was shaking at the off and looked terrified, but then, this wasn’t the usual working men’s club full of uneducated underclass, this was the big table. His lies, such as denying he said things, when the video footage was clearly available, and deflecting questions, weren’t going to wash here, and that appeared to be what worried him.

It was a poor performance overall and he managed to demonstrate that his moderate stance was a façade, merely hiding his deep seated hatred. The BBC must have been rubbing their hands in glee when they placed him next to black intellectual, Bonnie Greer, a person who, under Griffin’s true White Supremacist views, cannot exist.

That said, despite his views the monster behaved and treated Greer as an equal. The same cannot be said of Greer who thought it appropriate to turn her back on him throughout the programme, clearly under the impression that being disrespectful to someone because of their views, is different from being disrespectful to someone because of their colour. Prejudice is prejudice and it was clearly an ill thought out move on the part of Greer.

In Britain, at least in my day, we were brought up to respect the views of others, even if we disagreed with them, and treating someone with contempt merely because of their views is wrong. I would never do the same to a Global Warming nut.

Culture

Youseff Bashir and people like him hate Britain, its culture and all it stands for

Despite all Griffin’s failings, his ravings, his inexplicable fits of laughter and disturbed appearance, had he changed ‘race’ to culture, I would have agreed with most of what he said. Does that make me a racist? Moreover, do I care – no. If protecting my culture upsets others – tough, their culture is no doubt protected elsewhere, mine is not. There is a creeping realisation in Britain, predominately but not exclusively amongst whites, that their culture is being eroded.

In schools Christmas is no longer celebrated, but Divali and Eid are. Anything Christian or traditionally British is deemed either too white, or worse, racist. Which is of course dressed up in buzz words such as divisive, or not inclusive or diverse enough.

Griffin’s remark:

“They must acknowledge that Britain always has been, and must remain – and it’s right that it must remain – a fundamentally British and Christian country based on Western democratic values and not on the eternal values of the Qu’ran.”

Is something that many, many people agree with. I am not a Christian, but the Christian values that this country is based on, or at least were during my youth, have made me the person that I am today, hard working and law abiding. I haven’t moved to another country, I still live in the same country that my ancestors did, so why should those core values change, or indeed why should I need to change?

The point is that I shouldn’t, but we are being brow beaten into accepting other cultures being superior to our own and those that speak out are branded racist xenophobes. The problem is that there is no middle ground, there is no one else tackling these issues other than the BNP, the other parties are running scared as after 50 years of promoting ‘multicultural diversity’ they have no idea what British is anymore and are terrified of upsetting a minority.

As a black man pointed out on the show (demonstrating once again that this isn’t just a ‘white’ or ‘race’ issue), it is because no one wants to tackle immigration that the BNP are becoming more popular. They are the only ones talking of preserving British culture.

Immigration

Marek Harcar: Despite having numerous convictions for violence he had no trouble getting into Britain to commit murder. Of course now deporting him would breach his human rights!

I have never heard a convincing argument for a multicultural society. Ironically Bonnie Greer pointed out Rome as a multicultural society that flourished, stating that anyone could become a Roman citizen, regardless of race. Which was true, if they were prepared to serve a decade or more in the army. A test of loyalty and dedication that we should perhaps employ in modern Britain, that way, at least the Gurkha’s who seem to be the only people not allowed to settle here, would be allowed to settle here.

Rome eventually fell due to multiculturalism, the advantages gained by the Marius reforms were slowly diluted as more and more cultures were absorbed into the Empire and the army. By the end the Roman army was a pale shadow of its former self, Rome itself had lost many of its ideals, beliefs (adopting Christianity as the official religion for one), culture and military ethos. In the end relying on other hardy and warlike people to do the fighting for them, who then eventually turned on the weak Romans. After all, why continue to fight to protect the weak Roman culture,  when their own was superior?

There are many obvious parallels to be drawn between Rome and modern Britain but no positives that I can see. Baroness Warsi also tried to explain the positives of multiculturalism/immigration stating that ‘Britain should have the brightest and the best here’, sadly for Warsi and the other proponents of multi-ethnic Britain, it is the polar opposite that is actually happening.

We are getting the criminals, the lazy and the dregs of other societies landing here, people whom, if they were British citizens, would not get in anywhere else but here they are most welcome. People like Marek Harcar and Ali Majlat, who, when arrested,  the police in their home nations were gob smacked that they were ever allowed here. So easy is it to come here that Interpol believes that many of Europe’s most wanted criminals are hiding in plain sight in Britain.

Currently almost 20% of all the criminals locked up in British prisons are foreign nationals, and more than 20% of all British murderers are foreign nationals, this ridiculous situation cannot be allowed to continue.

Baroness Warsi and Jack Straw seemed to like the expression, ‘We cannot just pull up the drawbridge..’, well I’d like to know, if they don’t think they should pull it up now with a quarter of all criminals in Britain immigrants, just when they think it would be a good time to do so? When 50% of prisoners are foreign nationals? 80%? Or when the rest of the world decides to use as a huge Alcatraz and walls us all in?

Deporting those that have no business being here, and stopping immigrants from entering this country would cut the crime and murder rates by 20%, who would not think that was a good idea? People like Jack Straw who have round the clock protection and live in areas not affected by crime. Let’s be honest here, immigrants don’t move to the sort of areas that MPs live in, and they are not eligible for their jobs!

Jack ‘Not in the Face’ Straw

Jack Straw: Teary eyed, like his father was at the thought of having to fight those nasty Nazi’s.

I thought that Jack Straw was quite a decent, opened minded bloke, but I found his talk about Churchill and the Nazi’s sickening. He then later brought up the fact that he was from a family of Jewish immigrants, which made it all the more startling that his father had decided to sit out World War II, and leave the fighting to people like my family.

My grandfather’s brother died protecting Jack Straw’s cowardly father, yet my grandfather is a pensioner struggling on the breadline, whilst Straw, never having had to lift a finger to protect his comforts nor make the ultimate sacrifice like so many others, is now sitting pretty. 

It disgusted me that he thought it OK to lecture someone else about the war, when his family did not make the sacrifices that others did, did not do their duty like others did, but reaped more of the benefits than many of the others. He tried to use his family history to point out positives of immigration but all it did was bury the argument, Straw’s family and father were content to take all the benefits of living in Britain, but not fight to defend those freedoms. Which begs the question of whether modern immigrants would follow the Straw example of loyalty.

Because that loyalty could not be relied upon, during the war in which Straw’s dad excused himself, World War II, they rounded up all the Germans in Britain and kept them in prison camps. The Americans did the same with the Japanese. Today, it would be impossible. With Britain likely to get sucked into a war in Pakistan, and with Pakistan the country of origin for most immigrants in Britain, and also most foreign nationals languishing in prison, it could be a security disaster. Indeed so lax are things here, Al Qaeda or the Taliban could very well run their war from Britain, with less fear of getting caught or even deported if they were.

Much as Straw and the others would have us think that these are simply race issues, they are not. It isn’t just a case of black and white, there are a myriad of issues to do with immigration and not least the erosion of our culture and values but also issues of security, stability and crime. The more that politicians dodge this issue, a fact which was very clear on Question Time once again, the more people will move to the BNP.

Our political leaders have basically said that it is their way or the highway, and I’m not for doing it their way.

Kirkbride’s whole family on the make

Julie Kirkbride and her family enjoy the rewards of public office

I was starting to think that these revelations had run out of steam, but then more come along from this despicable woman.

‘Public execution’ for MP Julie Kirkbride after it’s revealed she paid her sister £12,000 as ‘secretary’ | Mail Online

Julie Kirkbride faces a ‘public execution’ after she was told to meet voters to explain claims that her brother and sister exploited her expenses.

Not content with giving her brother a home rent free, and then claiming back refurbishment costs from the taxpayer, she also employed her sister!

Plenty to go around

No one can claim that Julie Kirkbride is not generous, shame it isn’t her money.

The Tory MP paid her sister Karen Leadley £12,000 a year from public funds to be an ‘executive secretary’. Mrs Leadley works from her own home in Dorset – 141 miles from her sister’s Bromsgrove constituency and 107 miles from Westminster.

In this case it appears that ‘executive’ is a euphemism for not involving any actual work. To me, this looks like fraud, Kirkbride is claiming money for her sister under false pretences. Whether or not her sister received the money is irrelevant, she clearly was not entitled to claim it.

Her explanation leaves a lot to be desired:

My sister does work for me on a part-time salary of around £12,000. She lives in Wimborne, Dorset, but she has a computer which is networked to my constituency office and London office.

What on earth does she mean ‘networked’? She cannot seriously be saying that her sister’s computer is somehow linked into her constituency computer? And if she is, is that legal? Would not that give her ‘part-time’ sister  access to privileged information?

Or does the dozy mare actually mean by network – the internet? And that her sister can check her email from where she is? Either way this just seems to be another MP employing another family member in a very well paid but frivolous position.

Keeping it in the family

She doesn’t just pay her immediate family though, she also sets them up in business.

Yesterday her leaked office expenses revealed that her brother bought a digital camera, five memory cards, four internet routers, three external hard drives, a printer, map software and a battery with £1,000.52 of public money.

Once again her explanation for this is, quite frankly, bizarre.

‘I record my work as an MP in pictures. I often ask my brother to source IT equipment for me. These items were bought by my brother, on my instructions.’

A pig with its snout in the trough

Now, I am no photography expert but routers? How do they fit into photography? And four? Surely just the one is enough? Not to mention five memory cards and three hard drives, that is one hell of a lot of storage space for a few pictures of her carrying out her duties as MP.

Which raises another point, if this equipment was to record her work in pictures, where are the pictures? There is a curious lack of them on her official website, despite the massive amount of storage space she could have saved them in. And if the pictures were not to be a publicly viewable record, why were we paying for them?

Besides does she really need some weird photographic record in order to do her job? I think not. If she wants to take happy snaps, she should do so on her own camera, on her own time and at her own expense. But I think it is clear that this equipment was for her brothers IT business, and not to record her work as an MP for posterity.

Fraud

She has lied, cheated and milked the system and although it would seem an appropriate place for such a person, she has no place in the House of Parliament. She should face a fraud investigation, saying that she is going to stand down at the next election is not enough. That means that she gets another year of her £64,000 salary, not to mention the nice pension she gets and a ‘re-settlement’ allowance of about £30,000.

More infuriating of course, is the fact that she can still claim expenses that we are unlikely to know anything about, for the next year!

This woman and her husband should be in court, explaining to a Judge and a Jury why they made the claims that they did, not enjoying their ‘retirement’ at our considerable expense.  

Criticise Me Will You?

Brian Jenkins: Not the sharpest tool in the box

‘Bully’ MP threatens to sue student who criticised him over Gurkhas in note hand-delivered to home | Mail Online

A Labour MP was accused of ‘bullying’ yesterday for threatening to sue a 21-year-old student who criticised him for not backing the Gurkhas.

It is often said that MPs appear to live on a different planet but this one seems to live on a planet where it is illegal for his constituents to criticise him!

Gurkha’s

The idiot did vote against better rights for Gurkha’s, so I am not sure what he is basing his threat to sue on, whether or not he received a letter? According to WriteToThem.com he only responds 60% of the time anyway, so there is a good chance that he did get it but just didn’t bother to reply.

Besides, if he didn’t receive the letter, how did he have the students address to hand deliver the letter to him? I think that the answer is clear, he did get the letter, didn’t bother to reply and then took umbrage at the fact that one of the people who pay his wages had the cheek to criticise him for not doing his job.

Just out of interest, has anyone ever, ever, met anyone who didn’t want the Gurkha’s to have the right to settle in this country? Anyone in Tamworth? Anyone at all? I really cannot think of anyone, outside of Government that didn’t want them to settle here, no group, no movement and no individuals.

Even the BNP supported the Gurkha’s, yet this, and many other MPs, voted against giving them the right to settle here. What did he base his voting on? It was nothing to do with what his constituents wanted and it certainly wasn’t anything to do with democracy.

Taking the piss

This once again displays how out of touch MPs are; they really do believe that they are beyond reproach, a law unto themselves and uncaring of the views of the people that they are meant to serve.

Still he doesn’t go quite as far as Anthony Steen MP:

Just in case you can’t play it, he comes out with gems such as:

“I think I have behaved impeccably.”

He’s claimed £87,000 in four years for his house.

I’ve done nothing criminal, that’s the most awful thing, and do you know what it’s about? Jealousy.

I’ve got a very, very large house. Some people say it looks like Balmoral.

He has a house that looks like Balmoral, the residence of the Queen? Yet claims money from the taxpayer to maintain it? Not even the Queen does that.

He went on:

“I don’t know what the fuss is about”

Few MPs seem to realise what they have done wrong.

“This Government have mucked up the system…by bringing in the Freedom of Information Act…and caught me on the wrong foot…”

Home of Anthony Steel MP, which apparently looks like Balmoral.

The best part of all and that really shows the mentality of these free loaders is this part:

Interviewer: You don’t think that any of this information should have been released?

Anthony Steen: No, what right does the public have to interfere with my private life? None. This whole episodes reminds me of an episode from Coronation Street [The Soap Opera].

Quite right, what right have the taxpayers to know what MPs spend taxpayers money on? What the idiot doesn’t seem to understand is that when we pay his wages, we are his boss, and that means that we have every right to know what he is claiming.

His remark about Balmoral is telling, the Queen reveals all her expenses, everything that she claims in tedious detail. She doesn’t quibble about the fact that the taxpayer may want to know what their taxes are being spent on at the Palace, yet this odious man believes his claims should be private!

I have been saying it for years but now it is very clear, Parliament is corrupt and broken. The very institution that was designed to protect us from the aristocracy has simply replaced it. Now we have 646 families that get to live like Kings at the taxpayers expense.