Friday, 24 April 2015

How Oxford's Labour Council Wastes Your Money

According to its own website, Oxford City Council spent £47,452 last year on "town-twinning events and activities". 
Oxford is, as we know, twinned with the cold and remote French town of Grenoble, where everything is shut on Mondays, the worthy German city of Bonn, and the town of Leon in Nicaragua. So from time to time our City councillors get trips to these destinations, all-expenses-paid. But curiously enough last year there were no visits or events and they still managed to spend £47,452.

 Bonny Bonn

This is the same city council that is so strapped for cash that they say they cannot afford to keep the swimming pool open in Temple Cowley. They make us pay for garden waste disposal on top of what we already pay for household rubbish collection and recycling.

I wrote to Oxford City Council asking what they had spent this money on. They wrote back to me explaining that there is a part-time council employee who works 18 hours per week and handles all matters connected with town twinning. But why does it take someone even 18 hours per week to organize no events and no visits? Where has that money gone? Most people would regard £47,452 as a very generous salary for full-time work, let alone 18 hours per week doing nothing. (The employee also gets National Insurance payments, so they will get a nice pension for organising nil events too). What exactly did they do - perhaps contribute a few thousand to hacking down all the trees in Bonn or Leon to match their wanton destruction here in Oxford?

The City Council also managed to spend £30,496 on "social inclusion" and £429,262 on a scheme called "Positive Futures". The latter defines itself as a "Youth Ambition Programme for Oxford City". The City Council tells me that this includes £138k for a Holiday Activities Programme and £244k for a Youth Ambition Programme in supposedly "deprived areas of the city". This Youth Ambition programme consists of nothing more than running youth-clubs and sporting activities. In other words, leisure activities and sweeteners for the council estates where they want to ensure Labour votes. That's on top of the millions spent on a swanky new swimming pool in Blackbird Leys.

Somebody I know who worked as a volunteer in one of these youth clubs enquired why they did not inform the police of illegal drug use although they knew it was going on, and why they gave underage girls advice on getting abortions without informing their parents. He was told that his "attitudes" i.e. ethics, were inappropriate and was dropped as a volunteer.

Monday, 20 April 2015

Blair's Devolution Disaster

The Labour government of Tony Blair foisted so many disasters on the British Isles that even full-length books about it give inadequate space to the glaring injustice of its devolution policy.
Devolution was one of the ways that Labour bought votes so that it could get into power in 1997. The Party made promises to all sorts of minorities and pressure groups to get their votes, regardless of the impact this would have on the UK as a whole.
Devolution had long been a Liberal policy but New Labour was eager to adopt it if it would update their image for voters in Scotland and Wales, where most of the coal-mines had been closed down and Labour had no intention of re-opening them. Devolution was the sweetie they handed out.

So Scotland and Wales were each given a referendum, resulting in a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly, that cost the UK taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds per year. The absurdity of this is that under Labour the UK continued to relinquish its powers of self-government to the EU. More and more parliaments were set up, with less and less power. Each one costs a fortune to run, and so we pay more to get less. 
          The whole basis of devolution was unjust. When Scotland and Wales got their own parliaments, they should have lost their right to sit in the English Parliament. That is fair. Why should Scottish and Welsh MPs, who are predominantly Labour, have power at Westminster, and impose their policies on English people who have not voted for them? Devolution did nothing to address this injustice, but made it worse. Scottish and Welsh people now have two votes and two sets of MPs. They can impose laws on England and then go home and rule themselves as well. We have to pay for their double elections and double parliament with two lots of representatives drawing handsome salaries. And they have more MPs in Westminster per voter than the English do. The population of Scotland is actually no more than the population of Yorkshire, yet there are 59 Scottish MPs at Westminster and only thirty from Yorkshire. 
Wales and Scotland also get a disproportionate amount of the EU funding that we all pay for via our membership fees of £62 million per day. Most of this is paid by the English tax-payer who thus subsidizes Wales and Scotland both indirectly and directly.
          The Barnett Formula is a basic injustice that has existed since 1978 when Labour's Lord Barnett decided to allocate more funding to Scotland and Wales than to England. Out of the total tax revenue of the UK, Scotland and Wales get more per head of population than England does, and that is statutory.  English people get only £8,500 per year, while Welsh get £9,709 and Scots get £10,152.  That is how they can afford free prescriptions, free ambulances, free care for the elderly, and free university places.  

Just stop and think  - over a 70-year lifetime, the English voter gets £105,000 less in public spending than a Scottish person. Think of the impact that has on quality of life. Devolution made this existing injustice worse. 
In the clamour for devolution, England was never given the option of a parliament free from Scottish and Welsh MPs - Labour didn't even consider it. And no wonder, since there are far more Labour supporters in Scotland and Wales than in England. They are the traditional Labour heartlands. Without Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs, Scotsman Tony Blair would never have got into power. The history of the Labour Party is a history of Scotland and Wales ruling England. From Kier Hardy to Callaghan, Kinnock and Blair, Labour has been a Scottish and Welsh-led party, imposing its policies and taxes on England. Without Scottish and Welsh MPs, England would never have had to endure the calamity of the Blair-Brown government, with its PC nonsense and endless wars.
        Shamefully, when David Cameron was campaigning in Scotland against independence, he guaranteed continuing the Barnett Formula  - it was nothing but a bribe at the expense of English voters. Cameron, another Scotsman...
       The fair solution would be to abolish the Barnett Formula and scrap the Scottish and Welsh seats in the Westminster Parliament. Let Scotland rule itself if it wants to and take its share of UK's national debt with it when it goes. Why should we have to bail out the Royal Bank of Scotland, and Barclays too? Their voters will soon wake up to a cold reality, that Scotland is a poor country that has been living beyond its means. 
      Abolishing the Barnett Formula is an English Democrat policy that UKIP has now started to flirt with, but they are only offering to reduce the subsidy paid by England, not to scrap it altogether. We in English Democrats want to end it altogether. Devolution has been a farce. Independence should be genuine or not at all.
   Vote to abolish the Barnett Formula here:

Monday, 13 April 2015

Well Done Pope Francis for Calling the Armenian Genocide What It Was

Pope Francis has done something brave and important by speaking out about the Armenian genocide, one of Europe's best-kept secrets. It was not just a slaughter, it was not just a massacre, it was an extermination of Christians on a genocidal scale. And our biassed media are reluctant either to refer to it or to call the victims Christian martyrs as they undoubtedly were.
Let the present government in Turkey rage and storm  - it shows them in their true colours. Their denial of this ugly fact of their past adds to the shame. The Muslim Turks exterminated Christians on a massive scale during the First World War. In 1914 there were two million Armenian Christians in the Ottoman Empire. By 1918 there  were only about 400,000 left, mostly living in or near Istanbul. All the rest had been rounded up, driven from their homes, shot, bayoneted or herded northwards into the Syrian desert where they were deliberately left to starve. 

Image result for how many armenians were killed in the genocide

Even at the time there were reporters and photographers who recorded what was going on, and sent the facts to the newspapers, and many of these photographs have been preserved and placed on websites to provide valuable testimony. The Turks still deny what happened and claim that the only violence was mutual, between warring communities. However, the pictures and the testimonials of survivors and their children establish that this is not true.
The extermination of Christians under Muslim rule had been going on for centuries and this was just the last chapter in a long tale of ruthless oppression, Greek and Middle Eastern Christians were gradually but systematically exterminated, so that Palestine and other Christian majority areas under the Byzantine Empire eventually became predominantly Muslim. There were massacres of Armenians by Turks in 1894, 1895, 1896, 1909, and again between 1920 and 1923.
            In the Great War Turkey was allied to Germany and its genocide of Armenians provided Hitler with the model for his own policies. "Who remembers the Armenians?" he asked. 
            Well, today Pope Francis did. Even more promising is the fact that he held an Armenian-rite mass attended by leaders of the Armenian Christian church. This centenary matters because  we are living in a time of rising persecution of Christians by fanatical and ruthless Muslims.
In Paris there is a public memorial to the Armenians, victims of the first and the least acknowledged genocide of the twentieth century. It would be a good idea to have one in London, and what a pity our own limp, spineless Anglican clergy are not taking a lead in this. It would be a lot better than enacting the pointless farce of a state funeral for Richard III.

Thursday, 2 April 2015

Stumped for an Answer

Until a few weeks ago this lane in Headington Quarry was a pleasure to  walk through. I went along it almost every day walking to the bus stop or post box. It was a beautiful, rural footpath, lined by tall sycamores that created a natural avenue.

They were beautiful, noble and verdant, always full of birds and birdsong. Then suddenly, the City Council moved in with their chain-saws and overnight the whole lot were gone. The fact that this is the nesting season for birds, when tree-felling is supposedly illegal, did not deter them.
I still cannot quite believe the scale of the destruction. There are fewer and fewer broad-leaved native trees in Quarry. Over the past ten years they have been systematically cut down, and those that remain are drastically over-pruned to the point of having all their lower branches removed. Soon the only trees left will be rather ugly imported spruces and conifers, that don't fit in with the environment.

What amazes me is the absolute phobia many people seem to have about trees. Any tree is always too big, too close to something, too high, too low, too wide, too narrow, too far away, too old, too young, or just guilty of some crime such as dropping its leaves on the ground, of all places. Why do people hate trees and perceive them as somehow a threat? I find this inexplicable.
I once lived in a house with an ornamental cherry tree in the front garden. Actually it was one of the attractions of the house that drew me to it. When not flowering it had the most wonderful deep maroon foliage. But a neighbour never stopped complaining that it cut out the light from the front of the house. 
In the last month, Oxford City Council has felled at least a dozen fine, flourishing native trees from the city centre, leaving the area around the Westgate Centre denuded and stark. They have been sending out the chainsaw gangs at night to avoid attracting attention or protest.
Then they claim they have got a "green" agenda. Like hell.

Wednesday, 1 April 2015

LibDem Cyril Smith's Links to Labour Pervert Paul Flowers

Now who would have thought that these two charming rogues would have had any close links? 
Yet it does seem that notorious pederast MP Cyril Smith was hand in glove with the "Rev" Paul Flowers, who crashed the Co-op Bank in 2013. Flowers, who spent most of his time taking drugs and going to orgies with juvenile rent-boys, was at one time a member of the same Rochdale Council as Cyril Smith, the fat, jolly, LibDem MP who abused boys for forty years. And while they were on the same council, they helped to obstruct enquiries into Smith's activities and other sex-abuse allegations.

The Rev Paul Flowers had close political links to Sir Cyril Smith, the late Liberal Democrat MP accused of several child abuse offences

Rochdale is one of the areas where a grooming gangs have been very busy preying on hundreds of vulnerable schoolgirls who have been raped and prostituted with the full knowledge of local social services and police. Clever old Cyril set up a care-home for boys where he could always drop in and have a little fun. The grooming gangs took advantage of girls who were supposedly "in care". So Rochdale is keeping up the good old traditions established by these Labour and LibDem councillors!
Flowers who was the darling of the Labour Party and an icon of their new politically-correct "ethics" left the Co-op Bank in tatters, having lost billions of its assets while busy snorting coke, and crystal meth (whatever that is). The Co-op Bank thought it was creditable to have a "gay" director. He has now gone on to another lucrative job  -  making porn films.
And LibDem councillor Roz Smith in Oxford fits into the picture neatly as she says she thinks "people should be allowed to live as they wish".

The Rev Paul Flowers had close political links to Sir Cyril Smith, the late Liberal Democrat MP accused of several child abuse offences, it was disclosed on Thursday.
The disgraced Methodist minister, who was chairman of the Co-op bank for three years, was a member of Rochdale council at the same time as Smith, who died in 2010 aged 82.
Mr Flowers also helped oversee Rochdale social services at the time of an alleged Satanic abuse scandal, the council confirmed.
It was alleged that Smith raped boys at Knowl View special school and abused boys at Cambridge House Children’s Home, a privately-run care home in the Lancashire town which closed in 1965.
Smith was never prosecuted for any crime, although the Crown Prosecution Service last year admitted that he should have been prosecuted for abusing boys in the 1960s.
Smith was originally a Labour councillor in Rochdale and later a Liberal then Liberal Democrat MP for the town from 1972 to 1992. His brother, Norman Smith, who was mayor of Rochdale in 1986-87, said that Mr Flowers sat on council committees with Sir Cyril.
“Cyril was more involved with [Paul Flowers] than me. Cyril was a councillor and MP at the time,” he said.
“They knew each other by being on the council, and of course he was a prominent minister. They were on committees together.”
Mr Smith said Mr Flowers was the minister of Champness Hall in Drake Street, in the centre of Rochdale. He added: “He was respected in some quarters, but not in other quarters. I always remember people saying, 'he will go a long way, that lad’. They were impressed by him.
“He was obviously going to make a name for himself, and he has done. He was a prominent man — when you were in a room and he came in, you knew he was there.”
There is no suggestion that Mr Flowers is linked to any of the allegations around Sir Cyril Smith.
A spokesman for Rochdale Borough Council confirmed that Mr Flowers was a councillor from 1988 to 1992. The minister served as vice-chairman of the social services committee in 1990/91, and sat on the committee in the previous and following years.
During that time, 16 children in the town were taken into care because it was alleged that they had been abused and forced into Satanic rituals — but a lengthy investigation found no evidence of abuse or devil worship. West Yorkshire Police raided Mr Flowers’s home earlier this week after he was filmed apparently buying class-A drugs including crack cocaine and crystal meth. Mr Flowers may face arrest as part of the police inquiry, it is understood.
It can also be disclosed that Mr Flowers received a conviction for drink-driving while serving as a councillor in Rochdale.
He was caught drink-driving in Manchester in 1990 after celebrating his 40th birthday. It is thought he was later handed a driving ban by magistrates.
A spokesman for the Methodist Church said: “We are aware of the matter. Our usual processes were followed and Rev Flowers was very sorry. This matter did not preclude him from his activities in the church and he was allowed to continue in his ministry.”
Mr Flowers was also convicted of carrying out a sex act in a Hampshire public toilet more than 30 years ago. [Typical homosexual behaviour]
He also resigned as a Labour councillor in Bradford in 2011 after “inappropriate but not illegal adult content” was found on a computer he used.
It has been alleged that Mr Flowers communicated with rent boys using his work email account while he was in charge of the Co-op bank.
David Cameron has ordered an inquiry into how someone like Mr Flowers could come to run a major British financial institution.
The Prime Minister has said that the Co-op bank had been “driven into the wall” by Mr Flowers.


Monday, 30 March 2015

LibDem Election Candidate and Councillor Arrested on Paedophile Charges

When I asked Oxfordshire county councillor Roz Smith to comment on the blatant promotion of paedophilia in the schools curriculum during LGBT so-called "History Month" she refused to answer any questions.

She refused to examine what was being taught or why criminals, paedophiles, drug-addicts and mass murderers were all being presented as heroes to children. She merely told me it was her philosophy that "people should be allowed to live as they wish". Not normal people of course - they get tried in secret courts and sent to prison, it's only the twisted weirdos who can "live as they wish" according to the LibDems.
Here is an example of her philosophy in practice.

Liberal Democrat candidate Jason Zadrozny photographed during the 2010 election campaign.

Jason Zadrozny the LibDem election candidate in Ashfield has had to withdraw after police arrested him on paedophile charges. Police said, "The 34-year-old was arrested yesterday and questioned about an allegation of buggery and gross indecency with a male under 16". He is still a LibDem councillor. Remind you of anyone?

Cyril Smith, LibDem MP for Rochdale, molested countless boys in care homes for over forty years, with full knowledge of police and many inside the political establishment. He enjoyed beating them as well as carrying out sexual perversion. One of his victims, whose complaints were not believed, is said to have committed suicide.

Roz Smith voted for  - and got  - a 14% rise in her own pay as a county councillor last year.

A Liberal Democrat candidate in a very close marginal seat has been arrested over allegations of child abuse.
Jason Zadrozny was fighting to win Ashfield against Labour shadow minister Gloria de Piero, who won by only 192 votes in 2010.
However, Zadrozny, who denies the allegations, has now withdrawn his candidacy, leaving the Liberal Democrats without a contender in a key seat with just weeks to go before the election.
The arrest of the Lib Dem hopeful, who is also a councillor, was first reported by the Mansfield and Ashfield Chad.
In a statement, Zadrozny said: “I am today withdrawing my candidacy as a prospective parliamentary candidate for the Ashfield and Eastwood constituency.
“Yesterday I was questioned by Nottinghamshire police about historic allegations, some of which are over 10 years old.
“I am in full cooperation with the police and vehemently refute the allegations. I have spent the last 10 years championing the cause of the Liberal Democrats both locally and nationally and I do not want this allegation to detract from the real issues facing local residents in the upcoming elections.
“Therefore I will step down with immediate effect as the party’s prospective parliamentary candidate to spend my time clearing my name.”
A Nottinghamshire police statement said: “The 34-year-old was arrested yesterday and questioned about an allegation of buggery and gross indecency with a male under 16 between September 2003 and April 2004, sexual activity with a child between May 2004 and December 2007 and an allegation of meeting a child under 16 following sexual grooming from May 2004 and December 2007.”

Tuesday, 24 March 2015

All This Fuss for a Murderer - Richard III Undoubtedly Killed the Little Princes in the Tower.

What is all this mummery and tomfoolery about the funeral of Richard III? Has the Archbishop of Canterbury really got nothing better to do than to flap around in purple robes waving a crook and insisting that Richard III wasn't one? After the battle of Bosworth Field, Richard's body was taken by Franciscan monks and buried in their monastery grounds. It's not their fault it ended up five hundred years later as a car-park. That could happen to anyone. But the point is that he did get a proper Christian burial. And a state funeral is way over the top, for a man who was quite definitely a murderer. 

     I'm not just saying that because of Shakespeare's play, and I have no prejudice at all against people who suffer from scoliosis. I'm sure it was tough for Richard having a crooked back and being ridiculed for it. It is very important to doubt whatever we are told, and look for historical proof. When we do so, all of it seems to me to point to Richard being as guilty as hell.  
     The Richard III Society is, to serious historians, what the Flat Earth Society is to serious scientists - a joke, On TV, Philippa Langley of the R3-Soc was unconvinced by the strong circumstantial evidence put forward by David Starkey. But Starkey was cut short by Jon Snow before he could state a quarter of the evidence there is against Richard III. 
     Richard, Duke of Gloucester, was the younger brother of King Edward IV, who deposed Henry VI after defeating him in the War of the Roses. Edward married the beautiful widow Elizabeth Woodville and had three children, so he was well provided with heirs. Moreover, there was another brother, George, who was also older than Richard. He too had children, who preceded Richard in the order of succession. Richard was only seventh in line to the throne, yet he maneouvred in such a way as to seize power within three months of Edward IV's death. All that cannot be coincidence.
    When Edward IV died, in April 1483, he left two sons, aged twelve and ten. There was no particular reason why the elder, Prince Edward should not be crowned. Earlier kings had been crowned even younger. But wily uncle Richard declared himself Lord Protector, and immediately ordered the princes' tutors and guardians to be sent away to the North of England. He had his nephews lodged in the Tower of London, which was not a royal residence. It was a prison.
     Two months after Edward IV's death, a sermon was preached in London, declaring that his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville had been invalid, and therefore both boys were illegitimate. They could no longer claim the right of succession. Nor could their elder sister Elizabeth, who was aged sixteen. This was awfully convenient for Richard as it brought him three steps nearer to the throne. And it seems to have been done on his orders.
    The next person to be got out of the  way was George, Duke of Clarence. We all remember that in the play he was drowned in a butt of Malmsey  - the sweet white wine that came from the tiny peninsula of Monemvasia in Greece. Lovely place, it looks like a Christmas pudding. The fact is that three days after the sermon, Richard had his brother George arrested and stripped of his rank by "attainder", a sort of disgrace that was only supposed to fall on those convicted of a capital crime. It is true that George had once wavered in his support for the Yorkist line. He had changed sides during the Wars of the Roses and fought with Warwick the Kingmaker in one famous battle. This was the pretext for now accusing him of treason, though all that was twenty years ago and their brother Edward had held no grudge, after he came to the throne. In Richard's eyes, George's worst crime was that of coming ahead of Richard in the line of succession. 
    George never had a trial; he had no lawyers, no defence and no rights as defined under Magna Carta. Once he was in prison, George did not live very long. Whether it was Malmsey, or sherry, or just water, he certainly did find his way into a barrel head down, and feet up. George's children were barred from the succession by the terms of their father's attainder, denied all rights of inheritance then bundled out of the way hurriedly. The huge estates that George had owned were appropriated by their kindly uncle, Richard.
    So with three more claimants eliminated, in June 1483 Richard had Parliament declare him King, and he was crowned later that year.
    The two young princes simply disappeared. What happened to them? Why were their mother and their sister not allowed to visit them or know what happened? If they had died from some illness or natural cause, there was no reason why Richard should not have said so, quite openly. The bodies could have been inspected, and a funeral held. But it never was. A doctor was visiting them often, in the Tower, so if they died of an illness why was this never diagnosed, recorded or confirmed by that doctor? They were in the Tower of London, under strict guard, so nobody else apart from Richard could have killed them or ordered their murderIt is quite possible that the two princes were simply left to starve to death.
    It was pretty obvious to most people in England in 1483, if not to Philippa Langley, that this string of coincidences was more than suspicious, it shrieked guilt at the top of its voice. Richard had managed to grab power by pushing everybody else out of his way in the space of three months. 
       The universal belief that Richard was guilty was the major factor that toppled him from the throne. The family of Elizabeth Woodville and the other leading nobles could not stand by and let the usurper get away with his crimes. They led a rebellion and Henry Tudor, a distant cousin, provided them with the claimant they needed to depose Richard in 1485.
        If Richard III did not order the murder of the two little princes, only one other person could conceivably have done so, and that is Henry Tudor, who became Henry VII.  Yet shortly after he became king, he married Princess Elizabeth, their sister. Would she, or her mother, have agreed to this if they had the faintest suspicion of Henry being the murderer? I think not.
        Richard was a villain. He had it coming, he so had it coming.
        In 1789, two bodies were found that are very likely to be those of the two murdered princes. They were discovered inside the vault of Edward IV and his wife, in St George's Chapel, Windsor. There were two children's coffins with them, bearing the names of two royal children who had died in their father's lifetime. But the remains of these two bodies were found elsewhere in the vault. Somebody had replaced them with two others, which have never been identified. In 1789, no means existed to identify these skeletons, already by then three hundred years old. Perhaps it is time for some DNA testing to be carried out on them, and if one of them is indeed the murdered King Edward V, I think he should get the state funeral, not his frightfully wicked uncle, Richard III.

Elizabeth,11 February 1466 – 11 February 1503  She was four years older than her brother Edward, Prince of Wales Edward V (2 November 1470 – c.1483)[1] was King of England from his father Edward IV's death on 9 April 1483 until 26 June of the same year. He was never crowned, and his 86-day reign was dominated by the influence of his uncle and Lord Protector, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, who succeeded him as Richard III on 26 June 1483; this was confirmed by the Act entitled Titulus Regius, which denounced any further claims through his father's heirs. Edward and his younger brother Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York were the Princes in the Tower who disappeared after being sent to heavily guarded royal lodgings in the Tower of London. Responsibility for their deaths is widely attributed to Richard III, but the lack of any solid evidence and conflicting contemporary accounts suggest four other primary suspects.

When Edward IV died, Prince Edward was aged twelve, and his elder sister Elizabeth was already aged sixteen,