Tuesday, 30 March 2010

The economic recovery.

MonopolyImage by elycefeliz via Flickr

I find it very annoying to say the least when I listen to the plans the budding parties have for our economic recovery.
All three of the main parties agree that the credit crunch has left us with billions of pounds deficit in the economy, and that WE the taxpayers will have to pay extra taxes to recover the money (plus interest) on the loans.
WE have to pay extra taxes to recover OUR money that THEY loaned to the banks with no mention of the banks repaying any of the loans, or any allowances made in the economic recovery for any such money forthcoming.

It seems to me that we loaned the money, and we have to pay back the money to ourselves, (plus interest) while the banks get off Scot free, and the bankers walk away with large bonuses every year.


Conning us out of billions of pounds they managed to evaporate into thin air.

I wonder how my bank manager would respond if I asked for a loan, suggesting the same repayment method, which would be, having them repay the loan, "to me" that I received. (With interest of course.)

Somehow or other I think I would be shown the door, which makes me ask the question.
Why are WE lumbered with the debts THEY owe us?

We the taxpayer managed to accrue the billions of pounds that was loaned to the banks, albeit while being heavily taxed, but why do we need to have EXTRA taxes added on to accumulate this money again when we managed to save the billions without these extra taxes.

The government borrowed money over and above the money the taxpayers were forced to donate.

Where did this money come from when the credit crunch is supposed to be a world wide crises?
Who are we paying these loans to with the added interest?

I thought "MONOPOLY" was a board game, but it seems to me that the governments of this world are playing it on a world wide scale, using imaginary money that can be won or lost with the only losers being the taxpayers.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Sunday, 21 March 2010

Letter to Gordon Brown.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown, President Luiz In...Image via Wikipedia

Below is a letter Gordon Brown will receive from me during the coming week.
You, my faithful followers have the chance to read it before him.
I hope it meets your approval.

22 March 2010

Dear Mr Brown

Here are some points you might like to ponder on transit from number ten Downing Street to your new abode that you will be forced to take residency in after the election.

As your party were in charge during the financial crisis, you should have had the gumption to put conditions on the ridiculously large loans you dished out to the banks, mainly a definite clause laid down on a repayment system, and a cap on the vulgar bonuses received by the greedy team of banking management, until the said loans of billions of taxpayer’s money has been repaid.

Your budgets and manifestos since do not take into consideration any of the money being paid back by the banks, only by the taxpayer whose money it was in the first place.
Perhaps it is time you realised that the majority of voters come from the poorest paid of the country, some through no fault of their own, which makes them no less clever than you or your fellow politicians, and are very capable of working out who, or what party is the best way forward.
Taxing these people more by doing away with the 10p income tax basement level is no way to gain their votes, and if you think that by returning the money fleeced from them last year will make its existence go unnoticed this year you are sadly mistaken as the difference it makes to a small wage is very significant in comparison to the large pay-packet you and your kind receive.

Although the SNP has taken the brunt of the Megrahi affair and do not deserve to be put back in power in Scotland (the coming election will see to that) your party too influenced that decision, and is responsible for many other murderers, and sex offenders being released from prison only to commit the same offences soon after their release.
It is time the courts in our country were allowed to punish crimes rather than give in to the minority who think leniency is the answer, and are proved to be wrong time and time again much to the disgust of the victims and decent citizen of Britain who suffer through these stupid actions.

It seems to me and the majority of the voters that you have stopped listening to us, the people who put your party in power with the assumption that you were there to carry out OUR wishes NOT your own, and are turning this country into a dictatorship rather than a democracy.

If you were worth voting for you would forget about introducing ID cards, a system that the biggest majority of this country do not want whether we could afford them or not.
If there was ever any doubt in your mind of your betrayal, your persistence on going through with such a ridiculous scheme that we can ill afford until this country is back on its feet is one example of you not listening to the people who put you in power.

Another example is the Trident missile that will cost the taxpayer billions at a time when we are already over taxed thanks to your generosity towards the bankers, and your failure to consolidate a repayment scheme.

You tell US to tighten OUR belts while you go on squandering OUR money and expect to be re-elected.

You crucify the poorest of this country’s citizens, who as I have said make up the majority of the voters, and expect to be re-elected.

You do nothing about the leniency shown to our criminals, have no consideration for victims of crime, and expect to be re-elected.

These are the concerns of the people who put your party in power, and these are the concerns you should be addressing.

It is bad enough your betrayal, but not to have the sense to see where you are going wrong, treating the electorate like dummies and being stubborn enough to stick to plans that the general public abhor gives them no confidence in you or your party, so if you have not already made plans to move out of number ten, I suggest you do so.

The saddest thing about politics at present is the fact that none of the main parties seem to have the sense to act on the voters’ wishes and would rather act like a bunch of schoolboys in the House of Commons trying to score points off each other rather than get down to the reality of putting the country to rights.

Any party that has the sense to act on the points I have given you to ponder will show that they have the voters concerns in mind, which will show us a way out of this recession without punishing the very people whose money rescued the country in the first place.
It is not too late to show some sense, and give the voters SOME hope in the coming election, and maybe delay your departure from number ten.

Yours sincerely

D. Swarbrick.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Saturday, 13 March 2010

The election.

Polls are suggesting that it will be a HUNG parliament after the coming election.


Brown, Cameron, the lot, start afresh, and the replacements would know their fate if they mucked up the way their predecessors did.

ACH, there is no harm in dreaming.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tuesday, 9 March 2010

Senseless appeals allowed by Britain.

"Limbs in the Loch" murderer William Beggs loses appeal bid

Mar 9 2010

"LIMBS-in-the-loch" killer William Beggs failed today in a bid to have his conviction for murdering and dismembering a teenager overturned.

Beggs, 46, was convicted in 2001 of murdering 18-year-old Barry Wallace in Kilmarnock, Ayrshire. He was jailed for life and ordered to serve at least 20 years.

A full appeal against his conviction got under way last September, in which he argued that the trial which saw him convicted of the December 1999 killing was unfair and that he was a victim of a miscarriage of justice.

The grounds of appeal included claims that he was denied a fair hearing because of "prejudicial" publicity before and during the high-profile case.

But today three senior judges at the Appeal Court in Edinburgh ruled that his appeal against conviction should be refused.

Beggs was present in court today to hear the judges deliver their decision.

Lord Eassie, sitting with Lady Paton and Lord Philip, told him the court had "carefully considered" the arguments put forward on his behalf.

But he said: "The conclusion reached is that none of the grounds of appeal were well-founded. Accordingly, the appeal must be refused."

Beggs showed no emotion as he was led away to the cells.

This is another example of the British legal system, and how rightly convicted murderers can soft-soap their way to a day out, while making a fool of the very courts that put them in jail in the first place.

It is time the law was changed to knock the arrogance out of these prisoners who abuse the human rights laws that were made to help victims of crime rather than the criminals.

It's all to easy for scum like Beggs to lodge an appeal that has little, if any hope of being successful, and this futile attempt of Beggs should be a lesson to the old codgers in our justice system who allow this to happen, using up precious court time and taxpayers money just to pacify vermin like him.

They know only too well that their appeals will not be successful, and is only an exercise to torment the victims families, and the British public who would rather see his kind rot in Hell.

Years ago he would have been rightly hung by the neck until the life was drained out of him, saving the taxpayers a fortune, and freeing up a prison cell for less obnoxious prisoners, who commit less serious crimes and who do not take up as much time in the holiday inns that we now call prisons.

If a convict thinks he has a case, then it should be looked at, and studied by sensible lawyers who are not just in it for the money, and if it is as feeble as Beggs,as was the many others before him who have tried the same trick, then they should be rejected before it takes up court time, and ONLY if the case has a solid chance of success with definite proof of a miscarriage of justice, should it then reach the courts.

It is high time the British justice system woke up and started doing the job it was established to do, and that is to PROTECT the British public, NOT to entertain violent murderers like Beggs, who spend their free time in the prison library concocting another scheme for another away day, and who take great pleasure out of mocking a system that leaves itself wide open to ridicule.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Sunday, 7 March 2010

British justice gone mad AGAIN.

Venables and Thompson at the time of their arrestImage via Wikipedia

One thing I don't have to worry about is content for this blog as our justice system has so many flaws and makes so many blunders that I will never be short of something to rant about.

Three stories covered by the newspapers shows how ridiculous the whole set up is.

The first concerns the convicted murderer Peter Tobin, who, while serving three life sentences for murdering young girls, and has admitted to murdering over forty has been allowed to appeal his latest life sentence for killing Vicky Hamilton, claiming the thirty year sentence he was handed was too excessive and should be reduced.

This man has been awarded enough life sentences to ensure he dies behind bars, so why does our stupid so called justice system allow him to take up the courts time and waste money on such a useless cause when he will die in jail anyway.
Once prisoners are sentenced they should have no right of appeal unless there is good cause for such measures.

The second case is of three boys (read below) whose case refers to their sentences as LIFE sentences, so I ask you. Since when is eleven years a life sentence to a boy of fifteen unless the judge knows of some fatal illness he might have?

Life sentences for Glasgow street murder teenagers
Anthony Ford
Mr Ford died in hospital the day after the attack last July

Two 15-year-old boys have been given life sentences for murdering a man in an apparent revenge attack.

The pair, who cannot be named for legal reasons, set upon Anthony Ford, 30, as he walked his dog in the Govan area of Glasgow last July.

At the High Court in Glasgow they were each ordered to be detained for a minimum of 11 years.

Another teenager, John Gallagher, 17, was sentenced to nine years for culpable homicide.

A fourth teenager, Daryl Barney, 18, was given community service after being convicted of assault.

The court heard that Gallagher, who blamed Mr Ford for a previous attack on his father in 2007, led the fatal assault after he and his friends met the victim accidentally in the street.

Last of the bunch is the Jon Venables saga, one of the killers of the two year old "James Bulger" who served only eight years for his sickening crime, and has cost the taxpayers a fortune to rehabilitate him.
Now he is back in prison for breaching his bail conditions which has blown his cover, and it will cost the taxpayers another fortune if he is ever released again.

I for one wouldn't mind it costing us money for his stay in prison for the rest of his life, and I am sure the mother of James Bulger would feel the same way, along with the majority of the country.

If there was any doubt that the general public were not pleased at the sentences the two murderers of James Bulger received, them why go to all the trouble of concealing their identities.

The British public have cause for concern about the reasoning of our justice system, and these three stories just back up everything I have written about it.
If the people in this country who are in power to make laws and pass sentences don't buck up their ideas and get the laws altered to suit the twenty first century, and start to dish out sentences that will satisfy the people of whom the crimes are committed against, they should be made to answer in their own courts as to why such stupid incidents occur, and why they allow our over crowded courts to be used for needless appeals, or let murderers walk free after serving only a small fraction of their sentence.

Even our police force is disgusted at the way criminals are treated, which gives them less incentive to catch them, when our idiotic judges and do-gooders pander to them instead of punishing them.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tuesday, 2 March 2010

The Yorkshire Ripper.

Etching by Francisco Goya.Image via Wikipedia

The Yorkshire ripper is a good example of why hanging should never have been abolished.
There was never any doubt, and never will be any doubt that this scum took the lives of thirteen women,and attempted to kill at least seven more, therefore it could have saved the taxpayers a lot money if he had hanged.
Now he is wasting more money, and taking up court time in his attempt to get a release date.


With the abolition of hanging he should have got the next best thing, and been thrown in the corner of a cell, fed once a day with bread and water until he died. The public should have heard nothing about him, and he should have had no connection with the outside world.
Him and his kind should never be allowed to appeal against their conviction, never be released, and the only time the public should ever hear about them again is when they die in their prison cell.
The families of the ripper's victims must be furious that this scum is being allowed to rear his ugly head again.
Throw him back in his cell and leave him to rot, and any other of the vermin who have committed violent murders like him should never be heard of again, never given the chance to cause any more stress to their victims families.
Its time fitting punishments were adhered to.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]