TAX, TAX AND MORE TAX

It doesn't matter how lowly you are, how little you earn, we're all paying more and more tax even though the average working man's/woman's or low paid workers salaries have not jumped up in line with everything else, higher property prices for example. Yes it's fine for the standard home owner who can borrow against his home but there are millions of people who live in public accommodation. They have no clout whatever. Strangely however, people don't seem to be quite as aware of this as you would think.

We accept all these extra taxes because they are imposed on us as a tax we don't have to pay if we don't buy the product or the service. However, that's all very well for those that have the financial freedom to make the choice. They don't notice or care so much, as they have both the power and the compensation of knowing that at any time they can opt in or out at will. Some of us have no choice. For example if we own a car, the tax on petrol and the roads is crippling, and yet they still want to use tax as a way to get us off the roads. This is clearly a hard hitting tax on poorer households. It will get worse if the current minister for transport gets his way with his eye-in-the-sky plan to tax people by the mile. What - he expects us all to either stay at home or take the lousy public transport we have in a society where thugs and terrorists are on the increase. How will this effect the elderly and weak. Can you see the streets filled with elderly cyclists. The car is everything to them. We can't just unlearn to use it. And why should we in Britain bear the brunt of the save the planet campaign when America, Russia, China and India are doing nothing about it? Lefty loonies again pushing their very own people. It's just great if you happen to have a nice ministerial car at your disposal... or can afford the tax! Yo're safe. Meanwhile the rest of us pay what we can barely afford, to do things we have to do to make ends meet and that means driving to get to work, to go shopping etc.

Then there's VAT. Well again, it's fine for those who have the money but why oh why should ordinary families have to cough up huge tax amounts for necessities - it's not all on luxuries you know - when they can barely make ends meet. It's the reason they can barely make ends meet! So many foods and essential items are taxed at between 15% and 17.5%. This EEC imposed levy strangles the ordinary in our society without them realising or thinking about it. If the average family sat down and worked out just how much stealth tax they paid in a week on ordinary goods, they'd be horrified. And it's not just a one off, it's every day of every week, of every month, of every year. Here's a great exercise for the public to try. Keep all your receipts for a week and tot up your tax for that week. Add in your income tax, national insurance, weekly council tax, portion of road tax and petrol tax, electricity, gas, water etc. It's staggering.

If you ever wondered why there was such a feel good factor about the fifties, it was a post war, VAT free utopia when money, though low, went a lot further. However, thanks to the incessant rise in property prices, more and more people feel richer than they are, borrowing more and more to fund luxuries. For those who turn their money to cash, they will be the winners, but sooner or later, the stellar property market could and may well collapse. It can't keep rising indefinitely without consequences. If it does collapse, the millions of property "paper" millionaires will become overreached bankrupts almost overnight and the whole structure of income and taxation may collapse turning us into a washed up economy. Just what will happen then when no one has any money to afford anything; who knows. It'll definitely put a crimp in the Chancellors day when that happens and the Chinese and Russians and Indians - emerging economies - will pick their teeth with us. British Empire? What cost British Empire?

Good riddence! This vile and loathsome quartet of filth are the lowest of the low, the very bottom rung of the evolutionary ladder, humans, but only just, the scum of the earth. Pond slime. They have just received what seems to me like a pathetic sentence for what was in anybody's eyes, a most disgusting crime which resulted in the death of their victim David Morley a man who had survived the 1999 nail bomb attack on the Soho pub, The Admiral Duncan. The four of them set on Morley in what they called a 'Happy Slap' attack and when he was on the ground and helpless they kicked him and jumped on him and stomped on his head. What utter cowards!
The three males got 12 years and the girl 8 years for taking part in the recreational beating up and ultimate killing of Mr Morley who just happened to be in the same place at the same time. What makes it worse is that they videoed the incident for the purposes of putting it on the internet. 12 years for a man's life. 8 to the girl who kicked and stomped on his head. Manslaughter. Manslaughter? They went out trawling the streets for their victims of which there were a number on that day. So by saying they didn't mean to kill their victim, they get manslaughter and a light sentence. Bare in mind they'll be out in half their terms for good behaviour, so the female will be out in 4 years and the males in 6. Back out on the streets, free men to once more climb under the nearest slimy rock from whence they apparently came. Oh sure, they'll be "reformed" no doubt, and have learnt a trade and be new model citizens by then, we will be assured by social workers and reformers, but what of justice? Meanwhile the family of Mr Morley will be only just into their life sentence of grief.

Frankly, these four scumbags from Kennington South London, should at least do hard labour and be kept inside until they are too old to be a threat to anybody. Or they should be sent to Iraq as cannon fodder, a shield to replace a few of the brave men in the front line opperations just in case they come under fire. Some of them are no older than 18. Losing this lot would be less painful than losing useful members of society. Instead... a few years experience on the inside will no doubt hone their lawless skills and resentment of society.
We have heard how O'Mahoney's mother was a drug addict and left her to wander the street at 3 but spare no tears for her. She took her anger out on a man who had done nothing to her. It was a willful act of spite for the mere fun of being violent to someone out numbered and defenceless. Cowardly! We heard how they all had it tough. So what, is that an excuse? If it is it's a pathetic excuse. Plenty of people have come from tough backgrounds but not used it as an excuse to hurt others. That argument is just what you would expect from some defending barrister whose only thought is to win his case, regardless.
These people were intelligent enough to have learnt how to upload video to the internet, the workings of a computer, the complexities of modern mobile phones... in other words they knew plenty about the technology they were employing for their base recreation of mugging and thuggery. In other words they were capable of learning and therefore of reason. Are you telling me they didn't know anything about right and wrong. Bollcks, they knew alright. Are you telling me that they picked up nothing in their horrid lives of the difference between violence and non violence. Hardly. The very fact that they went out deliberately to be violent and film it shows they did. That alone surely warrants a longer sentence than 12 and 8 years. These creatures knew exactly what they were doing. You can't excuse them because they had a tough background. Through the education system, they had all the opportunities to learn the difference between right and wrong. They chose violence and cruelty and they did it for a 'laugh'. It doesn't get much sicker than that. I'm sure they're all filled with remorse. Remorse that they got caught. I'm sure they'd have done anything to get away with their vile crimes. The down turned eyes, the soulful expression, its all so easy when you want to pull the wool over the eyes of the more trusting, the mort decent or is it the more gullible. Spin comes easy to the lawless. And of course so does violence, the one of the truly ignorant. Anyway it seems that they got away with it. Such sentences are hardly a deterrent to others. The message is go for manslaughter and you'll be out in six'.
David Morley's friend Alistair Whiteside, who was chatting to him when they were attacked, said: "I have lost my best friend of six years. I watched him being killed and that will live with me for the rest of my life." He too has a life sentence.
Our 'civilised' society seems to tolerate such incidents more readily today thanks to an army of social workers and dungareed carers. But what about the victims? It seems that we still do not have justice for victims in this country.

BG

Debt

It stuns me that so soon after the festive season, people still have the cash to book holidays and flock to the sales. Where do they get it from? From the credit card companies I suppose. We in the first world, all live on borrowed money. Meanwhile in the third world people struggle if they don't have the cash to buy their daily needs and scrape by. Some of course don't. Some don't make it, but we don't hear about the poverty stricken paupers dying in the gutters of places like Bombay - or Mumbai as it's known - Bangkok and any of the undeveloped countries. Out of sight out of mind. Of course the one good thing about having a society based on cash is that you never have the stress of worrying whether or not you'll be able to pay off the debt. Now it would be ignorance personified to suggest that there are no debts in the third world. Debt is rife everywhere and nowhere is it more cruel than the third world where money lenders literally own your life until your debt is paid off. That sometimes mean your family is owned by them, even after your death and there is precious little compassion for those poor souls forever chasing the interest on a debt they may not have incurred. If we in the first world could do anything, it would be to alleviate the debt of the individual in some way, particularly those oppressed by slave masters. Sure there will always be debt and debtors but we could try to eradicate the evil money lenders who like nothing better than enslaving their own and working them until they drop.

BG

Bernard Rants about Christmas!

It's bloody typical isn't it? I mean you've just about got over the last one then all at once in the middle of September along comes another one. Christmas I mean! I mean I ask you. Is there any hope of it taking longer to get here? Fat chance. They'll be dragging it up in August next year and earlier every year until an unofficial Advent will start in January. You'll just be getting your Visa bill for the last one and on telly they'll telling us to get our Mark & Spencer food, the latest Argos catalogue and offering us new ways us of offsetting our over inflated Visa bill that doesn't involve any blood letting. Meanwhile the Christian end of the planet will come to a halt for three weeks - in one way or another - and we wont be straight until Easter when we'll all be buying egg shaped chocolate at a premium. Christmas ought not to start until the week before at the earliest. Some of us have other things on our minds apart from spending our bank accounts into oblivion! Bah Humbug!

BG

Another submission from our stringer somewhere in the country - Tarquin Thinly-Spred

IS IT FAIR I ASK YOU?

As I await the deliberations of a judge in another example of someone falling foul of our legal system.
I refuse to say Justice systemI reflect on where our priorities lay.

Some years ago I was cycling to work and got run over by a car driven by someone "not expecting to see a cyclist on the road" I was hospitalised for few days, required surgery and people say I'm not right in the head now.
At the scene, the driver gave false details and later turned out not to have insurance.
However Police took no action and no-one went to court.

Some years ago my dear white haired grandmother was walking through St Mary's church yard and got pushed over and had her purse taken by 2 oiks. Luckily a scaffolder working on house nearby ran to her aid, chased after them, caught one guy, smacked him and got the purse back. The police visited him on site next day and said "on this occasion we will take no action but we must caution you against taking the law into your own hands, you may be open to a charge of assault"
Upon asking why they didn't arrest the oik for nicking the purse they said they had no proof of that.
"Why did I assault him then" The police left.
I read now of two rapes that have occurred in the church yard. Would the victims have preferred the scaffolder or the police to be on hand ?

Several weeks ago a party at a house near me erupted into a knife fight. People left hurriedly.
One partygoer surprised me by making his escape through my house shouting "look out, he's tooled up"
I phoned the police and after spending some time negotiating the call centre and giving a brief biography of myself and the reason "Why did I want the police to respond ?"
Luckily no one was arrested a few hours later when the police dropped around.
How my neighbours laughed over the next few days as we repaired our fence panels. I put a dead bolt on my back door.

Some weeks ago I went to play golf. I found a gang of travellers had encamped in the car park of the golf course and were happily riding quad bikes up and own the 15th fairway, whilst the police watched, apparently with "their hands tied"
I expect the damage will be paid for by the £500 I and other members pay.
Luckily no one was arrested and inconvenienced by going to court.

A while ago my good lady and I went to see Norwich FC play, had a meal, went to the cinema and then drove back. At 1.30 in the morning I drove at 45 MPH on the A11 and was photographed.
Or as I pointed out to the 2 policemen who came to see me, all you can see is the number plate in the inky darkness, nothing else, nothing at all.
"Never the less Sir, you will be required to attend court and face a charge of exceeding the speed limit"

I sent a cheque for £90 and stayed in bed.

Its good to know our priorities and what qualifies as criminal action these days.

Am I alone in despairing.

Yours in chains

Tarquin Thinly-Spred

AND NOW "LETTER FROM A MERRY GUY" (With apologies to the late Alistair Cooke)

We have a letter from one of our stringers out there in the field (god knows what it is he's doing in the field but it isn't rock and roll matey!)

This courtesy of Tarquin Thinly-Spred - MOVIE TALK!

Am I alone in despairing at the inconsiderate people in cinema's these days?Students have a hard enough time as it is, getting up in the middle of a Wednesday afternoon to go to their lecture, so they look forward to a Sunday evening when they can all meet up and picnic and gossip and laugh with their friends, but, in the middle of this, the inconsiderate manager of the cinema that they are sat in decides to show a film. Tut Tut
I shouldn't pick on students though. People wouldn't dream of going to a football match and if the ball came into the crowd, keep it, thus ruining the game for everyone.
Or go to a golf course and kick any ball they find into the bushes or go to a restaurant and go round putting salt on everyone's meal to ruin it or go to a pub and jostle people, spilling their pint. But they are quite happy to follow me to cinema, pay £6.50 to see a £40 million pound work effort by a team of people AND TALK ALL THE WAY THROUGH IT!

I assume I am sprayed with a distinctive scent when I buy my ticket so that these people can find me in the dark and sit behind me!Am I alone in despairing?

Yours in spirit

Tarquin Thinly-Spred

February 13th 2005

ANNIVERSARY OF THE DRESDEN BOMBING - FEBRUARY 13TH 1945

You've got to hand it to the German neo-Nazis, they've got some gall claiming the moral high ground over the Dresden bombing in which 35,000 Germans died. Perhaps if Hitler hadn't invaded Poland, or Czechoslovakia or France, or Norway or Africa or any of the other countries they tried to suborn; or hadn't bombed the Dutch just hours after their surrender killing at least 35,000 of them, or hadn't bombed London, Coventry, Liverpool etc in which thousands died in firestorms similar to Dresden, or at the very least, hadn't murdered 6 million+ Jews because they didn't like them as a race seeing them as inferior trouble makers who needed extermination, or hadn't murdered their own people for just not wanting to be at war, just maybe, maybe.... they might have a case. But as ever, the extreme right have no rationality or sense of justice, humanity, or any kind of acceptance that their brutal bullying attitudes are as inferior as any of those they believe to be inferior; there's no wonder this collection of lunatics feel hard done by. It is doubly sad for the majority of Germany has understood and forgiven the Dresden bombing, just as we have forgiven the bombing of our cities during the war they started.

January 31st 2005
THIS MICHAEL JACKSON THING

It would be easier to have some sympathy for Michael Jackson if he seemed truly victimised by his current situation, but the more publicly he pronounces his innocence before being required do so in court, the more guilty he seems and now we hear that his lawyers are planning to go in hard on the boy who alleges he's a victim of Michael Jackson's predatory lust. Just what does that mean and how much, and why the necessity for such intimidation if Jackson is innocent? With that in mind it just seems that the boy more than likely is a victim in some way. Why would Jackson's legal team release such information to the public domain if that wasn't the case. It's clearly a ploy to terrify the boy, and attempt to get him to back out of his case. Why would Jackson who professes to love children sanction such strong arm tactics against a boy? Just how threatened are you Michael? Just how desperate is he and if he is that desperate why - if he is innocent? Clearly Jackson must feel that to be proven not guilty requires the intimidation and demonisation of this lad. Well no one can anticipate the outcome of the case but you have to wonder.
But what about Jackson the man. Well here is a weirdo - to look at at least - if ever there was one. His appearance alone leaves you dazed and confused for if ever there was a look to confuse his is it. Alright, he's an entertainer and entertainers have to make their presence felt but come on Jacko! You've got talent, surely you could dress like a grown man not like a Disney fairy tale prince - or should that be princess? Is he male or female for a start. Well we know he's male but his hair style is definitely female. The style wouldn't look out of place on Carol Channing or Sandra Dee - yes its that retro. Perhaps that should be his next step, to go Blonde. He could top it off with a cute little glittery slide. Then his clothes, well tailored naturally, but so bloody tasteless.... Little breast pocket badges, or fake awards apparently that he has awarded himself. Who's he trying to impress, Tinkerbell the fairy or is it that it makes him feel important in the eyes of all those children he gathers around him. He seems to have a constant need to deify himself in their eyes - what's all that about? A man that remoulds his face as often as he has done (twice according to him so that proves he's not a liar to start with) has deep inner issues of identity. His home, its a theme park guaranteed to attract children. His home as we saw from the Martin Bashir documentary is filled with toys and cuddly wuddly Disney characters, but also rather sinisterly, secret passages and bathrooms. What's all that about? He spends money - and why shouldn't he its his - like he has a bottomless pit of funds but buys the most gaudy rubbish Rodeo Drive can flog him, ersatz antique junk that like of which you never saw, crap on a grand scale for ridiculous prices. This is retail therapy on a grand scale, self indulgence to compensate in some way. Then there are these desperate videos of him putting his case - the latest yesterday pleading to be allowed to have his day in court. Well surely isn't that already established Mike. So why underline it and re-dot the Is. Seems fishy to me! Here is all the pathos of the poor little persecuted boy even trying to sound like a sad little boy, that high pitched poor-me-I'm-hard-done-by voice. Well what about the kid who brought the case. Isn't he allowed the same deal. Oh no, wait a minute. He can't afford a full media team and a bunch of shifty over paid lawyers to get his message across. The trouble is just how injured are you Michael are you the victim you profess to be? Will we see you standing on top of your car again directing your own camera crew and playing to the crowd like your last court appearance. Will we have to stomach the Michael Jackson dance routine - yawn! same old routine ad nauseam - performance for the gathered fans just to show how truly innocent and great you are, "...LOOK AT ME...!" . What was that, a dance of joy to make it clear to the other side just how rich and powerful you are, so much so that no matter what you do you believe you'll win this case. It looked like contempt of court from where I was sitting. There was no dignity in it it was a case of self promotion - do you ever stop!? Will you ever come up with something new!? Have you run out of ideas!? Sadly for you Michael, if you want people to start listening to you and taking you seriously, that's anyone above the age of fifteen, you should get a new image, change your ludicrous hair style, your ridiculous clothes,your ostrich attitude to people - especially authority - and grow up otherwise no one other than the sycophants in your close circle - they're in it for the spin off money - will ever look at you and say, there's a man, a good man, an honest man, a man you can trust and love and want to be with. You'll never know who to trust and when your youth has deserted you - as it will, unless you've found a way to halt the onset of age (an oxygen tent wont do it) all you'll be left with is the kids who are too gullible to know any better - and no one's going to let you go on playing with them when you're old and crusty! Michael, for God's sake wake up!

CENSORSHIP BY FORCE (DEC 2004)

Who could have failed to notice the news item about Birmingham's Repertory Theatre being forced to drop the controversial production of Behzti a play depicting murder and sex abuse in a Sikh temple. The reason they took this decision was simple. VIOLENCE! Yes that's right. A bunch of people who came to these shores to seek freedom from persecution (well either that or they were economic migrants) decided that they didn't really want that sort of freedom for everyone and therefore proceeded to enforce their beliefs on others using that time honoured solution of minority groups of fanatics everywhere, intimidation and violence. Sadly the theatre's artistic body were forced buckle under the pressure. Of course there must be good reason for the strength of the outburst of aggression such as say, well, murder and sex abuse never happens in Sikh temples, hardly ever! Anyway, so glad you managed to point that out with violence, that makes it all the clearer. Mohan Singh, from the Guru Nanak Gurdwara in south Birmingham welcomed the decision saying "Free speech can go so far. Maybe 5,000 people would have seen this play over the run. Are you going to upset 600,000 Sikhs in Britain and maybe 20 million outside the UK for that?" Well old chum, free speech means never having to say your sorry. You see the whole concept of freedom of speech is that we are allowed to make critical remarks without being locked up in some filthy black hole because some self inflated official taking a break from his corrupt political dealings who doesn't like what others say decides to silence dissent. Geddit?! If you come to these shores and decide that you don't like the concept of freedom, may we suggest that you F*** off back to where you were oppressed and leave our society alone. We happen to like it this way. Just beware because you may not like what you find if you open this particular Pandora's box.

BBC story

THE BLAIR (2004)

Is Tony Blair becoming dictatorial or is it the people around him doing things in his name? Has he lost control and is he just a mouthpiece behind which hide the true power mongers of the Labour Party. He doesn't appear to have lost control but think about it. After the Iraq fiasco, just how much support has this one man got in his own party? Just what deal is keeping him at the top when clearly people like Prescott (the well known bar steward) and Brown seem to be stronger and more aggressive than him. Just what kind of deal does smiling, hand wringing man-of-the-people, caring, sharing Tony have with those "good chums" around him? Perhaps they had it explained to them by Peter Mandelson. Is it not a case that Tony is the only smoke screen between the party and the public. Without him, they'd be sunk. Behind that facade of good old understanding beats the heart of the old socialist left and the third term might be viewed as their swansong in which they will hammer the country before they go to their inevitable pasture. Maybe that was why Tony sent Peter M off to Europe. His reward for pointing out the obvious and saving Tone from an internal coup?

FILM VIOLENCE (2003)

Time and again we hear how film violence is the root cause of violence on our streets. Well lets face it they have to find some cause for it. In a politically correct society it's never said of course that its down to lousy parenting skills, poor teaching in schools, peer pressure and a minority of thoroughly evil individuals who just love violence for violence sake. Heaven forfend that we should point the finger in that general direction. No its always the fault of screen violence or high spirited youth blowing off steam or poverty, never tangible areas in need of attention. If you want to blame the screen for the violence on our streets and in our towns late at night, blame the posturing of the Hollywood anti hero " ... are you looking at me?!" or "...come on then give it your best shot..." all of which usually ends in mild fisticuffs. On the street someone pulls a knife and people get hurt. That's the reality of macho face to face confrontations. That's why people get hurt because they emulate that macho posture and the outcome can never be the same as it is on screen. Once you go down that road, you're committed and there's no way out without losing face unless you're prepared for that or you clobber the other person.

THE IMMIGRATION DEBATE (2003)

Nobody minds serious asylum seekers coming in Britain. We have a duty to protect those in genuine peril. Who could argue against genuinely persecuted individuals escaping a murderous dictatorial regime where their life is genuinely threatened because of their political beliefs or sheer persecution. We should protect them. But why should Britain have to take everyone that lands on these shores, they can't all be persecuted, some of them must economic migrants or chancers. How come they don't stay in, France and Germany but use those countries as stepping stones to get here? If they were really persecuted they would rest where they were safe. What's more, how many asylum seekers are terrorists?A proportion of them must be. They are getting in somehow. How many are gangsters with little regard for our way of life and morality. How long before they are calling the shots - the next generation, the one after that? The screening process is by all accounts poor and un-thorough. If there's one thing we Brits are good at it's cost cutting - in the wrong places. Sure they can get the motorists to pay through the nose but when it comes to putting security in place to protect the British way of life, it comes down to a man with a note book and pencil wanting to take your name a really effective deterrent. We have poor coastal security so many of those coming to these shores could be landing in places where there is NO security. The happy clappy "let's take everybody" brigade have no concept of what they propose. YES by all means, let's take genuine asylum seekers, but let's throw back those who aren't and throw them back quickly otherwise the culture of these shores will change beyond recognition and our children and our children's children are going to be the ones to suffer. The sooner this issue is settled the better.