Arden Forester

Murder he did not commit - Sam Hallam freedom story

noreply@blogger.com (Arden Forester) — Sat, 19 May 2012 11:30:00 +0000

Justice at last!

People get caught up in all sorts of things they never ever expected to. I once witnessed a case of petty violence at a petrol station. I called the police. Wrong move. As I gave interminable personal information to the call centre, the perpetrators had disappeared. On one hand the police seem to see public involvement as a nuisance and on the other they get decidely worked up. Murders work them up. They seem to think they must close the case in days regardless of the facts because perceived public anger is reigning down on them.

The case of Sam Hallam is very much one of a hapless young man caught up in things he is clueless to control. The police said he did it, had their witnesses and judge and jury all concur. Seven years in jail. Yet all along there was one person, or maybe more, who knew there was evidence to the contrary. The boy was two miles away using his mobile phone. I can't help thinking the word cover-up is suitable here. That person kept quiet all the time Hallam was in jail. The Appeal Court heard his case, yet the evidence remained concealed. Then the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) got involved and their deliberations found it all out. Why so long? And is anything going to happen to those who knew better?

Many say that if you haven't done anything you've nothing to fear. Well Sam Hallam did nothing or at least didn't murder anyone and he got seven years. And for the salivating hanging brigade, he could well have been dead too if the death sentence had been around. Food for thought indeed.

All the human colours of the rainbow - US style

noreply@blogger.com (Arden Forester) — Thu, 17 May 2012 13:36:00 +0000

It takes all sorts to make the USA go round

A few years ago the Daily Mail got all excited and published an article suggesting that Americans would be foreigners in their own country in 50 years. Euphemism followed euphemism but the general gist was that white people would be outnumbered by non-whites. So what, I thought when I read it. Is America a white country? It used to be British, then George Washington got the hump with the king, if only a little hump. Things carried on more or less as usual after independence, then came the Civil War, between men with very English names and the 20th century beckoned. All the while the Irish, Germans, Italians, etc were entering the country. Now its full of every nation under the sun. And the indigenous Indians are still waiting for compensation. Are we to be alarmed that the largest immigrant based country on earth is not going to be a pure white country? I hope not.

The BBC today reveals that non-white births now outnumber white ones in the US. As if to say this is a matter that needs some addressing. Shakespeare wrote lines for Shylock in the Merchant of Venice - "If you prick us, do we not bleed?" - and that applies today as well. Blood is not different except by groups.

Maybe I'm wrong, but there is an implied race judgement here. The United States was created as a new land of opportunity for old established peoples, many of whom lacked opportunity for advancement where they were. Immigrants have made the United States what it is. However, those who think it is a white country with non-white people in it are deluding themselves. Those days are gone. Whilst some of the colonial history may be useful for the tourist industry, most of America has no mental or physical link with the thirteen colonies. I've had the Fourth of July in California and nobody seemed remotely attached to any idea of kicking a king out. Far too hot for thinking anyway.

No, America will be a totally mixed race, mixed religion, mixed up a bit place in this century. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Rebekah Brooks charged with perverting the course of justice

noreply@blogger.com (Arden Forester) — Tue, 15 May 2012 09:33:00 +0000

Not smirking now!

So just now we've heard that Rebekah Brooks and her husband Charlie are to be charged with the very serious matter of perverting the course of justice. If convicted, it's definitely jail time for them both. And you can reckon that David Cameron's texting days will be over as far as she is concerned. LOL!

She says the decision to prosecute is a case of “posturing” by the CPS. "We deplore this weak and unjust decision." Really? There have been an unprecedented number of officers detecting all the nuances of this scandal. No stones have been left unturned. Having been rapped over the knuckles for cosy relationships with press types in the past, the police will be quite desperate to see that they have a near perfect case. The CPS lawyers will have perused each page of the files with the heaviest magnifying glasses available. Ms Brooks may think it unjust but she should not have been so fickle with the law before. One rogue reporter, indeed!

News International has more skeletons in its cupboards and closets, of that I have no doubt. Rupert Murdoch was always disdainful of the political classes in Britain. Why the likes of Blair and Cameron ever thought his empire was worth courting, I do not know. I well remember Murdoch making an acidic remark about the British soon after he got his hands on The Times. He had no time for us then and has no time for us now. Ms Brooks was just doing his bidding. Will we ever see Murdoch and his amnesiac son in the dock with her? Could be, and that might be the culmination of it all. As someone has said of this, it is a story that keeps on running.

New Blogger -old blogging!

noreply@blogger.com (Arden Forester) — Tue, 15 May 2012 09:06:00 +0000

I've been off the air, so to speak, with a heady mixture of felling unwell with a nasty head cold and being busy with other things. During the time since my last post, I've been contemplating certain posts I could have made. George Galloway's win in Bradford. Respect for him at least. Then there's all the stuff about the euro, the new French president (being inaugurated today) and, well, loads of things. Blogging is a funny thing. It's a bit like breadmaking. You've got to keep at it to perfect it. Not that I'm a perfected blogger. That's something I know I am not. And today I find that Blogger is "all new" and I will have to become familiar with a completely different set of clickable wotsits. However, I have had my blogging wires reconnected today. And what a load of news there is to comment on - Rebekah Brooks for starters!

Rick Santorum bows out of gruelling GOP battle

noreply@blogger.com (Arden Forester) — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 22:40:00 +0000

Rick Santorum says goodbye to the White House race

The nominee for the Republican Party will be Mitt Romney. That was always a reasonable cert in this horse race. Now that Rick Santorum has bowed out it leaves Mitt with two terriers snapping at his heels. My hope was for Ron Paul to make it. Still is. But the system will give the nomination to Romney and he will lose. How he can expect to win I do not know. Many Republicans are dismissive of him. And his candidature will act as a pivot to the accusations that he is out of touch. With America fumbling its way around the margins of recession, an affluent flip-flopper may not sit well with the aspirations of Middle America.

Unless Barack Obama does something really stupid he'll win in November. And it could be so very different.

Shopping in Shirley and Wonderland too!

noreply@blogger.com (Arden Forester) — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 09:37:00 +0000

The new Parkgate shopping centre for Shirley

Those of us living in the southern reaches of the Birmingham conurbation are waiting with tremendous excitement for the building of a new Asda supermarket. This WalMart creation is going to envigorate the shopping habits of the good people of Shirley, or so we are led to believe. Truth to tell it will only benefit the pockets of WalMart shareholders and the man behind the scheme who has told us all such wonderful fairy stories.

The concept in Britain today is that retailing is not for the public but for the big businesses behind it all. Anyone looking at how WalMart ruined small town America will see how they care little for the little man and woman. In fact competition is a dirty word for them. When Tesco got twice the size of Sainsbury's it never crossed their minds to bother whether Sainsbury's went bust or not. As it happens, Justin King ( a good Solihull boy!) fought back. But he had muscle behind him. Retailing appears now to be a kind of jungle law. The fastest and fittest succeed. Not through competition alone, but through aquisitions, manipulation of the planning laws, and selling things you never sold before.

Now I believe in fair competition, in accepting that failure is part of the business experience, but a lot of current practice is creating a dog eat dog mentality. Today we are told that the number of retailers entering administration in England and Wales in the first quarter of this year was up 15% on a year earlier, according to Deloitte. They say 69 firms failed during the three-month period, compared with 60 a year earlier. "The number of job losses that came as a result of these administrations was almost 10,000 out of the 22,000 employed by those companies," it said. Among the firms hit were Past Times, Peacocks, Game, La Senza, and Blacks. And this number probably does not include the independents who just shut up shop and left for pastures new.

My observations are that there is no real sense of what shopping is about, no proper planning or purpose for the future. In Shirley, the need for another supermarket is clearly zero. But the council at the time tried to suggest there were no supermarkets and Asda's arrival would be better than manna from heaven. The forgotten truth was that Asda had bought the old PowerGen building across the road to use as a mega bargaining chip in their desire to enter the local market. The developer gave a false image of the shopping experience in the area and, well, now we have Asda coming to a new Parkgate shopping centre. Jobs will be created we are told. No such thing. Jobs will be switched as those already working for Tesco, Morrisons, Sainsbury's, Iceland, Aldi et al, decide to jump ship. I notice in local shops the practice of minimum staffing. Self-service is the order of the day (when they work!) so job creation is in the Alice in Wonderland realm. Unless we import more people for the new shopping experience, it will be up to the local population to spend more. I don't hold my breath.

We should be more like the Netherlands where large and small shops co-exist quite happily. Small Dutch towns are not ruined by the likes of Albert Hein or Hema because these companies integarate into the local community rather than take them over. The Dutch have 25 year plans for their economy, with a bit of nip and tuck. The British seem to have little or no idea what retailing is all about in the sense of need. Customer service is patchy, prices are a science, and everything seems to be made in China or some other "emerging" country.

So when Asda finally comes to Shirley I expect it to do well. I also expect to see the butchers, greengrocers and other such local retailers disappear from town. Just this weekend one shop on the Statford Road is closing down. "Final Sale" is the announcement. A nation of shopkeepers is what Napoleon Bonaparte rather condescendingly said about Britain. Not anymore. It's a nation of bargain hunters and retail manipulators. Quite a different matter!

Come Dine with the Camerons

noreply@blogger.com (Arden Forester) — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 23:19:00 +0000

"For £250,000 it's a 3-course dinner with champagne!"

Can't you just see it. A new reality show for Channel 4. A bevvy of desperados, each with at least a quarter of a million to spare, cook up a reason to dine with Dave and SamCam in the Downing Street flat. I thought David Cameron was going to put a stop to all this nonsense. I must have been either deluded or thinking of someone else at the time. It's all a tragedy for the Conservative Party.

David Cameron appears to have nothing to conserve in British politics. No traditions worth keeping. He's so keen on presentation (no doubt as the heir to Blair) that all else goes hang. Now we hear that the Conservative Party co-treasurer Peter Cruddas offered access to the prime minister and chancellor for £250,000, so the Sunday Times has alleged. I saw Cruddas just now on the BBC News sounding very much like a sleaze merchant on the loose. Did it ever cross his mind that telling would-be donors they could influence policy was a transparent action? Probably not. Transparency is still an opaque concept to these guys.

I can now see why traditional Tories have had enough and are jumping ship to UKIP. They are fed up with all the current nonsensical political thought. Abolish the House of Lords but don't say what's coming in its place. Have a "consultation period" on "gay marriage" but tell the consulted they will have it regardless. Have a "consultation period" on unit pricing for alcohol but tell the consulted they will have a minimum charge regardless. Be ham-fisted over taxing the pensioners and then say they will be better off. Then there's the 45p tax business. And the rich paying tax? Apparently the millionaire cabinet members are not affected.

Are we all to be taken as fools? Government borrowing is still sky-rocketing. John Redwood is asking some pertinent questions. I bet he gets impertinent answers.

I can't understand why politicians can be so stupid. On the business of Cruddas and his donation finding efforts, the Conservatives issued a statement. "No donation was ever accepted or even formally considered by the Conservative Party. All donations to the Conservative Party have to comply with requirements of electoral law, and these are strictly enforced by our compliance department." Maybe, but dinner with the Camerons does not come under electoral law. Common sense would say it may look iffy, but that's a different matter.

I thought of horses for courses and David Cameron seems to be picking the wrong horses, both literally and otherwise. This Cruddas episode needs some explaining and it will be interesting to know what David Cameron will say about it and whether Cruddas will be there Monday morning.

Mass murderer assad and missus find it all so funny

noreply@blogger.com (Arden Forester) — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 20:45:00 +0000

Assad shows his trigger finger as wife smirks sweetly

These two are laughing about how good they are at murdering their own people. Mrs Assad is just like the hideous Mrs Ceauşescu, although she has an alluring beauty to hind the venomous hatred. She claims to be the "real dictator" of Syria, in that she not only supports her husband's killing policy but actively promotes it.

When they eventually fall, as fall they will do, it should be the International Court in the Hague that wipes the smiles from their faces, but it will probably end in a grisly finality for them. In the past, such leaders have found their heads on pikes, bowels in the street and other such horrendous fates. Assad and his missus should realise that humanity has a depraved side. Just as they can be depraved so can many of those they persecute. If he was a betting man, he would not get very good odds on a receiving a healthy retirement. The bets are being placed on a more likely outcome of a rather unsavoury ending.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams to stand down

noreply@blogger.com (Arden Forester) — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 16:20:00 +0000

Archbishop to leave St.Augustine's chair for a chair at Magdalene College

The Archbishop of Canterbury has decided that the time is right to stand down. Or at least next January that is, when he will take the position of Master of Magdalene College at Cambridge University. He will carry on for the rest of this year as Archbishop, which is probably a good thing seeing as there is unfinished business within the church. I have thought his time in office has been quite good. He is obviously a very thoughtful person and is hailed as a clerical intellectual, although I find it hard to see how he can reconcile unilateral alteration of the sacraments as something consistent with the tradition of the Christian Faith.

Whilst there are disagreements within the Anglican Communion, there is much to commend Rowan Williams and his personal sense of integrity. He has done more to unite than to disunite. His successor must be seen as a unifier rather than as a person ready to jettison doctrines in favour of craving wordly approval.

The one thing that I find rather sad is the large number of intemperate, spiteful people that invade the BBC and other websites with their nasty comments. Whatever one thinks of Rowan Williams he is certainly none of the things some people have let pass their brain cells. By all means be forceful in viewpoints but surely downright meanness and hate is not right.

Gay marriage consultation starts

noreply@blogger.com (Arden Forester) — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:26:00 +0000

Feathers ruffled by Featherstone?

The government has launched its consultation period over the issue of gay marriage. 12 weeks to decide the efficacy of such a momentous decision to change English law. One thing they will have to consider is what exactly constitutes a legal "gay marriage". They will have to incorporate some reference to homosexual activity in order to comply with the aspect of law that covers consummation of a marriage. For the first time, buggery will be officially sanctioned as opposed to not making it illegal. Currently the law says, about grounds on which a marriage is voidable, that a separation can occur if - "the marriage has not been consummated owing to the incapacity of either party to consummate it" or "that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the wilful refusal of the respondent to consummate it". If this aspect of law, the act of consummation, is removed, it makes the whole concept marriage remarkably odd. If it remains then we are all sanctioning something we might never have thought we would.

The Queen, as Supreme Governor of the Established Church, will be asked to sign her name to an act which enables something that, as Defender of the Faith, she should eschew. Lynne Featherstone says the church has nothing to fear, but how she can say that when church and state are so intertwined beggars belief. People will be asked to subscribe to things they know goes against their religious belief. Civil partnerships were always designed to protect homosexuals from being put at a disadvantage over property and inheritance rights. That's fair do's all round.

Those parliamentarians in favour of changing the law seem vague about the consequences of such a change. Will Self, on BBC Question Time, when discussing with Caroline Flint the Established Church's position, said to her "You don't get it, do you?" Her jaw dropped as her ignorance briefly overcame her. She didn't get it and probably still doesn't.

This Coalition government needs to get it before they get into a terrible mess.

Goldman Sachs director quits "toxic bank" for sake of his conscience

noreply@blogger.com (Arden Forester) — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:15:00 +0000

Goldman Sachs has its admirers...doesn't it?

Who says we don't have consciences. We all do, but some of us don't let them get pricked, whilst others get them pricked quite a lot. Working in today's banking world must be a hard place for anyone. I've known plenty of people leave employment with banks because they just could not stand it any longer. Their consciences troubled them. Clients may be sold policies they don't need or want (PPI just one type), there are investment "vehicles" that have poor performance and there are other inadequate financial dealings. There used to be an institute of bankers for a level of professionalism. Now the only such body in the UK is The Chartered Institute of Bankers in Scotland. They have an interesting section on "ethical dilemmas" which challenge a person's professional integrity. More biased towards a bank's position that a customer's I feel, though.

Anyway, Greg Smith, who headed Goldman's equity derivatives business in Europe, has resigned because he could no longer work there "in good conscience". He said it was common to hear talk of ripping off their "muppet" clients. "The environment now is as toxic and destructive as I have ever seen it," he wrote in the New York Times. "I knew it was time to leave when I realised I could no longer look students in the eye and tell them what a great place this was to work," he wrote. "It makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping their clients off. Over the last 12 months I have seen five different managing directors refer to their own clients as 'muppets', sometimes over internal email."

Muppets? Of course, Goldman Sachs don't hold with this view. They think it is all neat and dandy in corporate world. One rogue banker? Well, if Mr.Smith is to be believed those emails exist and damningly refer to muppets. Which clients are the muppets? Perhaps that will leak out and Goldman Sachs can start eating humble pie.

A lot of large corporations obtain their business in parasitical ways. They latch onto other companies and just suck cash out for themselves with little or no regard for the integrity of the work done or the value of it for the client. Trenton City Council in New Jersey is just one organisation sitting up and querying what is being bought in its name. It has refused to approve a $42,000 (£26,855) contract for paper products after baulking at its $4,000 charge for paper cups. The National Health Service has been saddled with a bogus computer and there are other tales of woe.

Most companies operate in decent hardworking ways offering customer true value for money. But there are others which operate very close to the wire when in comes to integrity. There seems to be a fine line between legality and illegality for some. Pity.

Rebekah Brooks and husband arrested on phone hacking charge

noreply@blogger.com (Arden Forester) — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 11:08:00 +0000

Conspirators or what? Police arrest these two and detain them

One rogue reporter, eh? Not any more! It's a whole bevvy of sleazy News International operatives including the erstwhile editor of the Sun, Rebekah Brooks. She's now been arrested, along with hubby Charlie, on suspicion of conspiring to pervert the course of justice. That's a big time offence in the judicial minds. Judges might have seen phone hacking as a measly crime, but this is something else. Should she be charged with this and subsequently found guilty, she won't be flouncing out of court waving her locks at passing camera lenses. She will be incarcerated.

Now it appears that the police are taking all this more seriously. The whole edifice of the News International temple is beginning to crash. Every day we hear of money either being paid out or going to be paid out to wronged celebrities and people caught up in the cheap and cheerless gossip gathering enterprise that Rupert Murdoch was so keen to establish. It's a sort of pincer operation with more than one set of pincers being used. Leveson is inquiring, the police are probing, the courts are finding in favour of those who have been hacked and the rest of the press is delving deep. Murdoch must be wondering when and where it will all end. Probably in tears. But he has only himself to blame for that.

Lynne Featherstone is revealed as the crusading secularist

noreply@blogger.com (Arden Forester) — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 12:56:00 +0000

Lynne Featherstone spots a crucifix-wearer in the auditorium!

The Equalities minister, Lynne Featherstone, is behind this clumsy attempt to deny Christians the right to wear crucifixes and crosses. The Daily Mail has revealed her zealotry in seeking to stop Christian workers using such adornments. Ms Featherstone is not religious as far as I know. She is apparently a secular Jew with little or no regard for hasidic habits. I don't think she would take on the Jewish community, though, with their distinctive outward appearances. Nor the Muslims or any other group. She's decided that Christians are different so need to be seen to be completely un-Christian in personal appearance.

Of course, as Lord Carey quite rightly says, "The irony is that when governments and courts dictate to Christians that the cross is a matter of insignificance, it becomes an even more important symbol and expression of our faith." Quite! And Boris Johnson, in the Daily Telegraph, has his say in concluding that some legal minds are so clever they banish common sense from their brains.

The Coalition must be barmy if it thinks it is helping the country get out of the mess it's in by stoking up anti-Catholic rhetoric and denigrating Christian values. Ms Featherstone isn't acting in isolation. Theresa May must have a hand in this, as well as David Cameron himself. What can they be thinking of?

Anti-Christian Coalition? Cameron leads an increasingly nasty party

noreply@blogger.com (Arden Forester) — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 18:35:00 +0000

Banned by the Coalition? Could be!

David Cameron is an odd cove indeed. He sees the Conservative Party as something which has little to conserve by way of tradition and received values. Instead he favours bringing in laws that fly in the face of Christian teaching and the established order of England. Virulent voices appear to charm him most, and those voices are distinctly against matrimony and catholic order as we have known it.

Cameron claims to be a member of the Church of England, yet he would be hard pressed to follow the credal beliefs seeing as he is in the camp of those who are quite happy to dismantle the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" and replace it with a much lighter version. A pale imitation? Why he can't leave well alone I do not know. All manner of politicians across the spectrum are giving their ten pence worth of opinion, yet they seem either ignorant or abusive of church doctrine.

The legal marriage of homosexuals will have an impact on the church whether they say so or not. Currently Cameron and Co are saying that no religious body will be forced to hold "gay marriages", but they cannot enshrine this in law unless they have several categories of marriage. The sort of law they seem to want to bring in WILL encompass the church. As all within a Church of England parish have a right to a church wedding, no doubt we shall see "test cases" against known traditionalist priests and clergy. Of course, it is not helped by errant clerics, like Dr.David Ison, the new dean of St.Paul's, giving their personal views as if they see the Holy Spirit as a conduit for their wants and desires rather than as the fortitude for maintaining the Faith.

Christians are being attacked from all sides and even from within (as the General Synod proves). Whether it be the likes of Nicholas Soames, Tony Baldry and Frank Field (who seem to want to be nasty to those whose consciences cannot take the novelty doctrine regarding Holy Orders) or the government's approach to Christians wearing crosses and crucifixes, it's not fashionable to be unfashionable when it comes to fashioning new doctrines. These people do not hold with the Vincentian Canon of St. Vincent of Lerins which is that we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all.

I cannot see why it is OK for a Muslim woman to come through an airport veiled top to toe without any facial recognition, yet it is deemed provocative for a Christian worker at an airport to wear a small crucifix around her neck at work. Is a den of thieves running this country? We have a large crucifix outside our church. How long before that gets a visit from one of David Cameron's minions?

Cameron and Co say that wearing crucifixes is not a "requirement" of the Christian Faith. According to them, a turban is for a Sikh, and so on for other religions. Christians are supposed not to be afraid to profess the Faith of Christ Crucified. So why would a prime minister in a supposedly Christian country even want to take such a high handed attitude towards those who outwardly profess their faith? Will he ban clerical collars next? Or Palm Sunday processions? How about that Mr.Cameron? This all smacks of the nonsense of the late Victorian age when they tried to ban candles and incense in churches and locked priests up for standing up to them.

The Foreign Office (obviously no longer having any memories of Lord Halifax) came out with this preposterous message with regard to two British women seeking to establish their right to display the cross - “The Government submit that… the applicants’ wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was not a manifestation of their religion or belief within the meaning of Article 9, and…the restriction on the applicants' wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was not an ‘interference’ with their rights protected by Article 9......In neither case is there any suggestion that the wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was a generally recognised form of practising the Christian faith, still less one that is regarded (including by the applicants themselves) as a requirement of the faith.”

So the Foreign Office is the arbiter of how to practice the Christian Faith? Who gave them that high and mighty right? And why would they want to fight this all the way through the courts? I fear it is even more sinister secularising of society. Down with all manifestations of Christ in public. How the Pharisees would have loved them!

Like many people of belief, I have had no problem with civil partnerships. I have no trouble with veils, turbans, people wearing shamrock hats or whatever. In a society of many views and opinions, all should feel free to express them without sanctions like this. So why has the Coalition decided to pick these fights right now? With the country in the mire surely we can do without trampling on people's religious expression and convictions?

And I wonder this of David Cameron and his Foreign Office minions. If the Pope announced that Christians should display crosses, as a generally recognised form of practising the Christian faith, what would he do then? I'd be very interested to know.

Nicolas Sarkozy says France "has too many foreigners"

noreply@blogger.com (Arden Forester) — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 16:51:00 +0000

It takes one to know one!

Vive La France and vive the Foreigners. After all, where would France be without foreigners? Well, a dull place for President Sarkozy himself is the product of immigration. His father came over from Hungary to settle. I suppose that, being some time ago, makes Sarkozy junior some kind of assimilated Frenchman and not "a foreigner". I well remember a row in the Seventies about who should represent France in Miss World. What sort of delectable French woman would fit the bill? She might be blonde, or a redhead (a bit of Norman in there?), or a Latin lady, or a brunette (proper French?), or one with Magreb background or an African Frenchwoman. It was quite a discussion. I can't remember the outcome, but this sort of thing has exercised the French over the years.

I was in Paris over Christmas. It is a cosmopolitan example of the new world. Exactly what Sarkozy is going to do about changing things, if change is what he desires, is hard to fathom. I witnessed a whole gang of immigrants being swept along one boulevard by the police. It had more in common with cowboys rounding up sheep. The whole spectacle was bizarre as scores of dark-skinned men, most with mobile phones, ran in and out of cars, trying to evade the police. I witnessed no arrests or even an apprehending of one of the men.

Politicians in all countries where there has been mass immigration speak with forked tongues. The subject is riddled with deceit and subterfuge, often leaving both immigrant and host community feeling things are not as they should be. France deserves better than a "too many foreigners" remark. A bit of honest and open discussion would be a good start.

Super Tuesday, Ron Paul and the Future!

noreply@blogger.com (Arden Forester) — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 10:39:00 +0000

Super Tuesday is here - Republican contests in 10 states

Today is Super Tuesday, so called because ten states get to do it all together. Vote in primaries and caucuses that is. The Republican Party is soon to know who is likely to be the candidate. I don't think this will decide anything, though. That will be at the convention, when the voters will take a side step and watch the delegates swap opinions and possibly swap sides. Some delegates are more equal than others, but then some voters get a better result than others. This is not a contest where everyone gets the same participation other than their ability to speak freely. Democracy is managed and managed reasonably well as far as the managers are concerned.

The American constitution starts with "We the People" and it is assumed that the American electorate is just that. After all, it is a democracy, isn't it? Yes and no. The yes bit is being overtaken by the no bit. The controlling interests of American democracy are the corporations, the individually rich and the unions. The huddled masses are out in the cold. As soon as a person is elected to Congress, large amount of time is spent on the phone raising campaign funds for the next election. Some say it is up to half the working day in the year before an election. Is that sane for democratic politics? In hock to the money men? Don't tell me this is all utterly altruistic!

Ron Paul is in this fight to bring back the constitution to the people. He has consistently fought against the covert actions of the US Treasury, the Administration, Congress and all the others who discuss their daily deeds behind closed doors with a hope of keeping it away from "We the People". Today is a great opportunity to vote for a man who not only cares passionately about his country, but also about the democracy of his country. Free speech goes only so far if democratic rights are traduced and abused.

So, "We the People" can vote to bring back the Constitution from the sticky fingers of those who nearly brought down the United States in financial disaster and start to promote true democracy. Vote for Ron Paul.

Christopher Tappin denied bail in bizarre court hearing

noreply@blogger.com (Arden Forester) — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 23:00:00 +0000

A correctional center - Texas style - for correcting people!

It doesn't surprise me. The judge at the hearing today thought Christopher Tappin "might pose a danger to the community". First crazy piece of logic. Home grown lunatics are more of a problem. Then it was suggested he might be a flight risk. Second piece of crazy logic. He was prepared to be electronically tagged and heavily monitored. How he could possibly be a flight risk is beyond credible understanding. But then this is not about credible understanding. An ostrich has a better chance of flying to the moon. The judge obviously had little faith in the abilities of those who would be watching over Tappin. He must have been seeing too many movies.

All this of course is about the prosecutors trying to get Tappin to plead guilty so he gets a lesser sentence. As he has "no intention" of doing so, they may have to think of some other ruse. They obviously have completely abandoned any pretence of the notion of presumed innocence. That high principle does not fit in with the big business that is the court system.

Christopher Tappin might be seen as an old duffer trying to hoodwink the US authorities, but they may come to regret all this. Once in a while one character gets up and says to himself "Bugger this, I'm not taking their rubbish!". That guy may be Tappin.

Welsh actor Philip Madoc dies

noreply@blogger.com (Arden Forester) — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:15:00 +0000

Philip Madoc

Now it is news that Philip Madoc has died, after a short illness. Whatever else Philip Madoc did in acting, and it was considerable, his finest hour must have been portrayal the German U-boat officer in Dad's Army. It may not have been top flight drama but it was definitely the best line in British comedy. It showed up the just how marvellous British humour can be, especially English humour, and it is a fitting tribute to him.

He was also fantastic as Lloyd George.

Norman St.John-Stevas - Lord St John of Fawsley - dies aged 82

noreply@blogger.com (Arden Forester) — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 13:24:00 +0000

Politician and Pope Enthusiast

The old guard are dying off now. Another of the stalwarts of Margaret Thatcher's years has died. Norman St.John-Stevas was a colourful character who probably got his cabinet post through charm and eloquence more than his practical policies. I thought he was a good kind of Tory. My kind of Tory in fact. I don't know what his views were on the Coalition of David Cameron, as I haven't heard about him in a while. When I was a Young Conservative (oh yes!) he was up there as a mover and shaker. A Roman Catholic and a bon viveur. He used to appear on chat shows in the Sixties, but had to give up the lighter side when the serious stuff beckoned. He once said, "There's a disc jockey on Radio Caroline called Norman St.John. It's not me, you know!". Funnily that, because one pirate disc jockey called Roger Gale did become a Conservative MP.

All round a good egg was Norman. Sad to hear of his death but joyous in the hope that he will be utterly enthralled by his new life.

Free speech and democracy - do we have it all?

noreply@blogger.com (Arden Forester) — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 14:58:00 +0000

Only if there is a fire, but then form an orderly queue!

I'm all in favour of free speech. That is the freedom to say what you like when you like it. However, there are natural limits and then there are unnatural ones. An obvious natural limit is not allowing anyone falsely to cry "fire!" in a crowded theatre. Oliver Wendell Holmes quite rightly flagged that one up and it has been universally agreed ever since by right thinking people. It is also wrong to abuse people like shouting racist taunts or sexual insults at people. Stirring things up by incitement. Incitement is not part of free speech because it follows that those who cause fear and bodily harm try to extinguish the free speech in others. Sort of thing the Nazis did. One sided stuff.

However, it is quite unnatural to say that because one disagrees with someone then that person must be silenced. I don't agree with quite a lot of stuff that's going on in General Synod, but I don't wish to stop people saying what they believe. I don't agree with the Labour Party's policies, but I would not think it right to tell David Miliband to stop saying what he believes. In a democracy, free speech is vital. There are no sacred cows.

This week two people in the public eye, Baroness Tonge and David Starkey, have been pilloried for their views. Jenny Tonge, as she was when a Liberal Democrat MP, has been more or less forced to resign from the party whip in the Lords for daring to suggest that Israel might not exist in years to come. Nick Clegg went ape and then something else, probably self-righteous, and told her to shut up or go. His pristine views on the Middle East trumped her tainted opinions. Thankfully Baroness Tonge is made of sterner stuff. She's left the LibDems and can now speak freely. Free speech is limited in political parties these days. It tends to be "our way or the highway". What was her crime? Probably not kow-towing. But it was really that nobody can ever say that Israel's future is other than rock solid secure. The fact is Israel can only keep going because the United States pays for its upkeep. If the cheques stopped coming, Israel would be like Greece but worse. The Wailing Wall would need to be sound-proofed. Jenny Tonge said that Americans might one day get fed up with pay billions of dollars each year. Well, they might. And what if they did? Israel would be between The Rock and a hard place. No doubt about it. But you can't possibly discuss that, not in the LibDems. So Jenny Tonge was brutally put down, hints of the anti-semite and all the rest.

Now, David Starkey? Yes, well, he upset a few on BBC Question Time last Thursday. Starkey likes being rude. We all know that. But when asked about race, citizenship and multiculturalism, his views were traduced. But he only spoke his views. Then the silencers tried to get at him and denounce him.

It really is quite absurd that certain sections of society are trying to impose their values, their creed and their intolerances on others. We need to be ever mindful of those who seek to undermine free speech. Nick Clegg should try to sound less pompous and more ministerial. Getting the economy straight should be his priority, not worrying about the conversational straitjacket he wishes to put others in.

Halifax to hike mortgage interest rate

noreply@blogger.com (Arden Forester) — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 13:03:00 +0000

Halifax coffers need topping up so customers get to pay

The Halifax, Britain's biggest mortgage lender, is expected to raise its standard variable mortgage rate (SVR) from 1 May. The bank says this is because they are finding it harder to raise money. Oh, yes? How come they are doing so well, as part of Lloyds Banking Group, and cannot keep their housekeeping in order. Hypocrites! Royal Bank of Scotland has already raised the rate on two of its mortgages from 3.75% to 4%.

We've just seen the bleaters in the City say that if the investment bankers didn't get their bonuses, they'd clear off to some other place. So bonuses have been paid. But paid for what, exactly? Clearly not for raising mortgage money.

These clowns expect largesse to come their way regardless. Taxpayers, mortgage payers, shareholders, customers are all expected to cough up as and when. But never themselves. I think the time has come for all bank bosses to have a time and motion person monitoring them day and night.

Something's not right. Nothing adds up anymore. Certainly not in the banks!

The nastiness of the American justice system

noreply@blogger.com (Arden Forester) — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 11:03:00 +0000

Christopher Tappin leaves London for an uncertain future

The United States prides itself on being a free democracy. That misnomer has long been peddled on the good folk of America who, quite often, blindly follow all the stuff about God favouring them over other people. If God indeed did pick out America for special treatment, He left out the titbits. Now don't get me wrong, Americans are genuine people with tremendous hearts for the stranger. I can honestly say that I've been treated better in America by warm and welcoming people (some I never knew before I met them) than by my fellow countrymen. Britain can be a bit hard going at times. No, my beef is about the black and white approach to justice and democracy. I somehow think that it is all a Jekyll and Hyde thing. How many "true movies" have been made about injustices yet when the tales of woe have ended in unreadable credits, the viewers just repair to another room and forget all about it. Or that's the way it seems.

Right from the beginning, the Founding Fathers set up a democracy that would enable them to dictate to the system. Even today, democracy is tied up with cash and favours. Free speech is one thing, but democracy is quite another. Free speech just causes politicians to flinch if they don't like what's being said. But democracy causes them problems. A ballot box needs watching. Can anybody tell me the difference between Dubya Bush manipulating the Florida poll or Putin manipulating the Moscow poll? Maybe scale. Putin does it openly and it is more widespread.

Justice in the United States is not about innocence or guilt. It is about being in a big business. A big buck industry. Christopher Tappin is now in that industry. His presumed innocence is being shone on 23 hours a day by bright lights. He's in an orange jumpsuit and when he appears in court, as he did yesterday, he is shackled. The humiliation is complete. The terror that the plea bargainers want to instill is up and running. Innocent until proved guilty? Not any more. This is business, folks. Tappin is being told he might get 35 years. So he's expected to be into the plea bargain stuff before he's even blinked. 98% of accused get a plea bargain offer. That more or less puts paid to presumed innocence in America. Do Americans care? No is the answer. Actually, the US media cares little so the people get to hear virtually nothing. It's not a state secret or anything, but it might as well be.

Why does the system want to humiliate people? Is this edifying to the justice system. Does it enter the hearts of those praying in church on Sundays? Not only that, those in the system can be cruel as well. Prosecutor Greg McDonald, in the Tappin case, sounds a typically cruel person by his own words. Hope he treats his dog well. He said in court about Tappin being a flight risk and his wife being ill, "If she passes there is no incentive for him to return to the UK. Then it's no holds barred, he can get another passport and be gone. A mile from this court he's free in Mexico. All he needs to do is liquidate that $1.5 million home in the UK and he's off and running." What, with a walking cane and deaf in one ear. Come off it Mr.McDonald!

No, the whole Tappin case must be held in open court with decency and civility. Has Texas descended into a hateful, vengeful place where prisons are run by gangs of criminals and businessmen (sometimes intertwined) and the justice system by self-serving lawyers and dealmakers? It has in many parts and it should be changed so that presumed innocence can triumph once again over the dark forces of those who would seek to undermine that vital principle. Prosecutors should present evidence in open court for a judge and jury to hear. It is not the business of a prosecutor to decide guilt or innocence in a free and democratic country.

Rebekah Brooks gave back police horse in poor health

noreply@blogger.com (Arden Forester) — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:10:00 +0000

I have just seen on the BBC News website that Rebekah Brooks, News International red top and former editor, did not treat the horse she was lent as well as she should. He was described as being in "poor condition". The animal died of natural causes after being returned to the police. Maybe one or two unnatural causes as well, such as prolonged inactivity due to inconsiderate horse borrower. That horse won't say anything now, but maybe Mystic Meg, the Sun's spirit world person, could muster up a seance to engage the presence of the horse from his duties in the Elysian Fields?

Bob Diamond's Deal, No Deal as taxman delves deep

noreply@blogger.com (Arden Forester) — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 21:19:00 +0000

Bob Diamond keeps schtum!

Barclays Bank just announced that they have done very well in the profits department. Bob Diamond, chief executive and counting house boss, got a hefty bonus. Smiles all round. Now the government has just announced that a bank (it was Barclays - they admitted it) has done very well in the tax avoidance department. Smile wiped off Bob's face as money is demanded back by HMRC. Of course, Barclays say they didn't do anything wrong. Well, not criminal, that is. But banks today are little more that clever casino operators. What they do may not be a felony but it isn't always morally right.

Saving £500,000 in tax by using a tax avoidance scheme. Not exactly the corporate citizenship that Barclays aspires to. Corporate sleaze needs watching.

And this bank is joined in the murky waters of corporate land by that huge bottom feeder that is News International. One rogue reporter, eh? More like a whole school of rogues. Rebekah Wade/Brooks, the erstwhile editor of one of the red top rags, got a horse from the police. On loan, so we are told. That horse must know a bit. Corruption all round, dodgy dealings and well-feathered nests.

I have a horrible sense that the British people are not really bothered. These corporate types have hides of rhinoceroses. Nothing much pricks them. Yet enterprising businesses, the self-employed and the general workforce have to struggle along as the economy falters and fits. If we were all in this together, this nonsense at the top level of business would stop. But we aren't and I don't think it will.

Santander wants to know all about your money habits

noreply@blogger.com (Arden Forester) — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 23:09:00 +0000

Knowing you, knowing me, the bank that likes to know!

Those lending money for mortgages have a right to know whether the borrower is an upstanding person. They also have a right to enquire about ability to repay, such as finding out about salary and regular household outgoings such as utilities and household expenses. That is justifiable and represents good business practice and sound lending. But should a lender feel it is right to enquire about discretionary spending? About whether the odd treat is spent on a child or a special dinner for a spouse or lover?

Santander, the Spanish bank with Spanish practices, considers it right and proper now to delve more deeply into a person's spending habits. The bank says this is to prevent reckless borrowing and improper lending. I somehow think not. It has more of a whiff of the nosey parker about it. They now have a liking for trawling through current accounts to see what has been spent each month. "Look, he's opened an account at the gym. Easyjet? Looks like another holiday. Oh, and he's bought some new shoes...." Good gossip for the bank staff, but quite a sinister thing if done as a kind of tally for brownie points or the lack of them.

The apparent tightening up is supposed to be so that the banks, not just Santander, can say they are acting responsibly. But this is taking it a stage further from responsibility. It's defining customers as less than honest and in need of monitoring. Could it come to the stage when banks require permission to be given for a purchase? "Oh, it's a fantastic deal, better than anywhere else, but I can't say yes until I've spoken to the bank". The price we have to pay?

Perhaps if the banks are getting inquisitive perhaps bank shareholders could get a bit nosey too. How about asking where those expense accounts go each month. Which restaurants do the directors frequent? Was it good for the company or just them? Lloyds Banking Group is quite keen to pay out bonuses even to those who have failed to give shareholders a bonus. Now that sort of behaviour needs a thorough poking through I would have thought.

The Coalition was all about transparency when it got into the corridors of power. Coming up to two years of their rule and I can't see things getting much clearer. In fact it's getting a lot murkier. The latest is a woman waltzing off with millions whilst her company is being probed for fraud and the jobless she was so enamoured with are still jobless.

So, if Santander wants to know the ins and outs of their customers' wotsits how about us knowing the ins and outs of their goings on. After all, what's sauce for the goose is definitely sauce for the Spanish gander.