Saturday, 14 April 2007

Labour - The Battle to Suceed Blair

Former Home Secretary Charles Clarke is heading the 'Stop Gordon Brown' campaign. He fired the opening shots in what threatens to be a fiercely-fought battle to succeed Tony Blair.
"Recent political history is littered with leadership favourites who have been pipped at the post," said Clarke. "There is no reason why the Chancellor should not suffer the same shock defeat." Mr Clarke, who recently called Mr Brown a 'deluded control freak', says that it is impossible to predict what will happen when Mr Blair resigns next month and the Labour leadership race starts in earnest.

The Labour Party during the last few years has had one problem after another. Most recently with the cash for honours inquiry, the handling of the Hostage Crisis, and now the battle within the party to succeed Blair. This Government is NOT heading in the right direction. We can only hope at the next general election the the public will see through the empty promises which they will no doubt make and NOT support Labour. Britain needs to rebuild its image as a country and government with strong effective leadership instead of the current image of a weak scandal-filled government in which one hand has no idea what the other is doing.

Prince William and Kate Middleton Split... Is History Repeating Itself?

Prince William and long time girlfriend Kate Middleton, who many thought would one day be Queen, have split due to William's demanding schedule in the Army. William passed out from Sandhurst as an Army officer last December and started his training to be a armoured troop commander in Camp Bovington Dorset on March 16, leaving the couple seeing each other no more than once a week. A "close friend" of the Prince and Miss Middleton told The Sun newspaper: "As far as Kate is concerned, William simply hasn't been paying her enough attention.

This sounds all to reminiscent of Charles and Camilla. Given William's father's relationship history, royal watchers will be wondering whether there will be a chance of a Duchess of Cornwall type scenario, where the pair marry decades later.

Camilla first met the Prince of Wales in the 1970s, but later married Andrew Parker Bowles, then had an affair with the Prince and then finally wed the heir to the throne in 2005 and became an HRH. Comparisons of Kate's treatment by photographers were made with that of Diana, Princess of Wales's experience. However, her actual relationship with William is very similar to that of Charles and Camilla. We can only hope that history doesn't repeat itself.

Friday, 13 April 2007

The World Watched as Blair Handled the Hostage Crisis in Iran and the Reviews are Not Good

Below are a small selection of the comments being made around the world with regard to Britain's handling of the hostage crisis. Some I disagree with, but unfortunately most are correct. Blair's handling of this crisis was degrading to Britain and everything we stand for. Thanks to Mr. Blair we have become a prime target in the future for terrorist attacks on our soil as well as on our men and women fighting for this country abroad.

'When will Tony Blair learn that, in international relations, nice guys finish last? Blair's timid response to his soldiers' abduction shows how weak-willed the once-imperial power has become.' - Los Angeles Times.

'What has become of the greatness in Great Britain? The Iran hostages affair has humiliated the country and exposed its marginalisation on the international scene. - Le Temps.

'On any given day, one isn't likely to find common cause with Iranian President Ahmadinejad. He's a dangerous, lying, Holocaust-denying, Jew-hating cutthroat thug, not to put too fine a point on it. But he was dead-on when he wondered why a once-great power such as Britain sends mothers of toddlers to fight its battles. - Washington Post

'The saga of the 15 naval personnel has become a parable for modern Britain ... the heady cocktail of money and TV has placed the ex-captives' exploits in the same league as the Big Brother show.' - New York Times

'The British Navy might once have ruled the waves but following the spat with Iran over the capture and release of 15 personnel, the Ministry of Defence looks set to be remembered for waiving the rules. - Der Spiegel.

Thursday, 12 April 2007

Hostages Selling Their Stories .. I Have to Say It

I am sure many people will disagree with me, but I have to say it. I can not believe that the British sailors and marines who were held hostage are selling their stories for a profit. This simple fact has changed my perception of them quite a bit, even more if they do not donate the money to a charity for the families of the soldiers who were not as lucky. The men and women who DIED FIGHTING for their country.

This entire hostage crisis has made a mockery of Britain and it is being exacerbated by this latest development. I am grateful they arrived home safely and I can accept the choice they made to go along with the Iranians version of events to save themselves. However, I would not, as some people are, call them heroes per say. They were doing their job, as every other person enlisted is. It is an incredibly honourable job that requires a great deal of courage. We should be very grateful to ALL the men and women who defend our country on a daily basis. What I don't understand is why these sailors and marines are any greater heroes than the others who are, as I write this, doing the exact same thing. Yes, they were captured. Yes, I'm certain it was a horrible experience. But they are now safely on British soil, whereas the 4 soldiers from Iraq have been returned to British soil not safely, but in body bags. I think those 4, and all the others like them, who gave their lives for this country are the true heroes. The true heroes are the soldiers and their families who will now fight to get through every day knowing they will never see their loved one again.

Tuesday, 10 April 2007

President of Iran Proudly Announces"We Have Joined the Nuclear Club" and Threatens the West

A year ago, Iran announced that it had produced enriched uranium for the first time. Unfortunately today they have come a long way from that first announcement.

At the ceremony at the Natanz nuclear facility Monday Ahmadinejad said, "With great honour, I declare that as of today our dear country has joined the nuclear club of nations and can produce nuclear fuel on an industrial scale." This announcement has heightened fears that Tehran aims to produce warheads, not energy.

Iran announced in February that it had set up two cascades of 164 centrifuges each at Natanz. It said it planned to have 3,000 centrifuges by the end of March. The United Nations has repeatedly demanded Iran halt its uranium enrichment programme. Previously Iran was only known to have 328 centrifuges, machines which purify uranium, in operation. But now officials say that Tehran has begun enriching uranium with 3,000 centrifuges thus vastly expanding its nuclear programme . David Albright, a former U.N. nuclear inspector, said 3,000 centrifuges would be enough to build a nuclear warhead within a year.

Iran claims it wants the fuel to generate electricity so it is able export more of its oil and gas. But the West fears, with good reason, it will bring Tehran closer to building atomic bombs. Uranium enrichment can produce fuel for a nuclear reactor or material for a nuclear warhead. Iran maintains its nuclear programme is purely peaceful. However, when referring to the UN increasing sanctions Ahmadinejad said,'Don't do something that will make this great nation reconsider its policies," a clear threat to the west.

Ali Larijani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator with the West, said at Natanz on Monday that Iran had begun injecting gas into many of the centrifuges. He did not specifying a number. The most sensitive areas at Natanz, deep underground, are thought to be halls that can hold up to 50,000 centrifuges. Mr Larijani also warned that Iran would have no choice but to review its membership of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if further pressure was applied by the West over its nuclear programme.

Iran's clear defiance of the UN sanctions shows the ineffectiveness of the resolutions. Ahmadinejad is a terrorist who, will very soon possess the capability of nuclear warheads. Iran has already supplied Iraq with the bombs killing our soldiers. They attack our sailors and marines in international waters and hold them hostage. Their children, the future of Iran, are celebrating in the streets chanting "Death to Britain, Death to America", and receiving text messages congratulating them. And we really believe that Iran, if they are allowed to continue with the enrichment of uranium, will not develop nuclear warheads? Once they have nuclear warheads it will be too late. They will at best use the threat of them to achieve their goals and at worst we will have a nuclear war. Iran should never have been allowed to progress this far but now that they have this facility needs to be destroyed. As history has shown, sanctions and diplomacy do not work with terrorists, and it is most certainly terrorists we are dealing with.

Monday, 9 April 2007

Question Of The Week

Do you feel there should be reprucussions for the schools who fingerprinted school children, without parental consent, then proceeded to tell these children there was no need to inform their parents?

Outrage At The Naive Statement Made By UK Bishop of the Forces

The Roman Catholic Bishop of the Forces, the Rt Rev Tom Burns(pictured), who oversees the armed forces has provoked public outrage by praising the Iranian leadership for its "forgiveness" and "act of mercy" in freeing the 15 British sailors and marines last week. He said that the religious beliefs of the Iranians had played a large part in their decision to release the hostages. These words were echoed by a leading Anglican figure, the Right Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, who said Iran had acted within the "moral and spiritual tradition of their country" and contrasted this with Britain's "free-floating attitudes".

Bishop Burns continued ,"Faith in a forgiving God has been exemplified in action by their good deeds. They are offering to release the sailors and marines, not just as the result of diplomacy, but also as an act of mercy in accordance with their religion."

Now, with all due respect, have they lost their minds?!? I do not think these religious leaders understand that this was a premeditated capture and release. It was a PR stunt by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during which ,he humiliated the UK and forced our sailors and marines to be paraded in front of Iranian media. They were forced lie to save themselves from 7 years in prison or death. I think the bishops must have missed the part of the story where the sailor described how they were bound and blindfolded with guns being cocked. This is after the Iranians planned capture occurred where they attacked the UK ship when it was NOT in Iranian waters.I think they also are not acknowledging that these "religious Iranians" KILL and terrorize our people on a DAILY basis in the name of their religion.

The Bishop went so far as to make the following statement."The president talked about the religious background to the release, with reference to the Prophet's birthday and the passing over of Christ. What struck me was that if there were any values on the British side they were free-floating and not anchored in a spiritual and moral tradition." My comment to the Bishop is our beliefs may be "free-floating and not anchored in spiritual and moral tradition" but at least we do not blow up and terrorise innocent men women and children in the name of them!

Bishop Burns came under fierce attack yesterday for his more trusting remarks. Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, called him "naive in the extreme". He said it appeared that the bishop had been "taken in by the clever propaganda" of the Iranian regime. "This is a regime that illegally captured our servicemen and held them in quite dreadful conditions for some time. The true moral worth of a leader is in his or her deeds, not words." Dr Fox added: "I think that those who talk in religious terms while practising abduction should be judged on what they have done, not what they have said. "

I hope that both Bishops who applauded the Iranian President take note of Fox... the old saying is true, "actions speak louder than words."

Blair's Big Brother Governement Targets Our Children Behind Parents Back

Blair's Big Brother Government will now force 5.9million children to have their fingerprints taken by schools simply to borrow library books or gain access to school dinner service. 5.9 million children's fingerprints are believed to have been taken already, some without parental approval and even by 'con tricks' such as pretend spy games.

The Tories obtained information from Freedom of Information data to reveal a further 4.9 million sets of prints could now be added to school computers after the majority of local education authorities sanctioned the practice.

This is a way to have our children become accustomed to a surveillance, government controlled, big brother society. What they have not considered is what will happen when a hacker gains control of the biometric and other data belonging to these schoolchildren.

Conservatives have taken a survey of every education authority in the country to see if they allow the practice. Only 39 of the 171 that replied said they do . That means that up to 17,000 schools, a total of 5.9million children, may already be allowed to fingerprint. In some cases, it is being done without parents' permission. Last month, it came to light that a primary school headmaster persuaded pupils to give their prints by pretending they were playing at being spies. He reportedly told youngsters at Ghyllside Primary School that it was 'just a game ... so there's no need to tell your parents'. These prints are used to operate the school's new library system.

Tory frontbencher Damian Green called for a new code to protect youngsters, consisting of the following four points:
• No fingerprinting of children without prior parental consent;
• Coding of information so that no child can be identified from the school database;
• Information should be used only for purposes specified by the school in advance;
• All data to be destroyed when the child leaves the school.
Mr Green said: "Schools use fingerprints as security for libraries, and sometimes to allow access to canteens. If parents have given permission, this is acceptable, but only on strict conditions that every school should follow

A code of rules? The government has already gone behind the parents, and public's back to obtain trusting children's biometric data. They have told children to keep secrets from their parents. Are there no repercussions for these actions. If one of my children had their fingerprints taken by underhanded means and without my consent I would be furious. Why are these parents not demanding their children's fingerprints be destroyed? Blair's Labour Government has no shame. It can not convince the British Public to willingly give up their biometric data so it targets the weakest and most innocent members of our society, the children who do not know any better.