....and waking up next to a fat whap.
Those self defence stories
A man was arrested yesterday on suspicion of attempted murder for shooting a burglar in the leg. The details of the story were a bit sketch but this morning Pavlov's Cat directed me to this follow up story that tells us the homeowner also had a 'large cannabis growing operation'.
The question is, did his cannabis activities have anything to do with the burglary and the shooting? If the answer is no then it's still a case of justified self defence.
It may well be that he was just growing a few plants for personal use and the police have picked up on this as part of their quest to demonise the use of guns and home defence in general.
With impeccable timing, the BBC has also reported today, that Vincent Cooke, who was arrested last month for stabbing a burglar to death, has been released without charge.
That's a good result, although he should never have been arrested in the first place. He was clearly not a danger to the public; the police could have done their investigation without any need for an arrest.
It seems those who defend their homes with deadly force are not being charged with a crime but we still have a long way to go before they are no longer treated as criminals by the police.
Now we need to see what happens to our cannabis growing shooter. I was very disappointed to hear that he was growing drugs because this will definitely be used against him by the police and media, even if it had nothing at all to do with the burglary.
Time will tell I suppose.
The question is, did his cannabis activities have anything to do with the burglary and the shooting? If the answer is no then it's still a case of justified self defence.
It may well be that he was just growing a few plants for personal use and the police have picked up on this as part of their quest to demonise the use of guns and home defence in general.
With impeccable timing, the BBC has also reported today, that Vincent Cooke, who was arrested last month for stabbing a burglar to death, has been released without charge.
Nazir Afzal, chief crown prosecutor for the North West area, said: "It is clear to me that Mr Cooke did what he honestly and instinctively believed was necessary on that day to protect himself, his home and his family from intruders."
That's a good result, although he should never have been arrested in the first place. He was clearly not a danger to the public; the police could have done their investigation without any need for an arrest.
It seems those who defend their homes with deadly force are not being charged with a crime but we still have a long way to go before they are no longer treated as criminals by the police.
Now we need to see what happens to our cannabis growing shooter. I was very disappointed to hear that he was growing drugs because this will definitely be used against him by the police and media, even if it had nothing at all to do with the burglary.
Time will tell I suppose.
That's not the kind of harsh sentancing I was talking about
A bus driver has been sent to prison for 28 months after pleading guilty to causing death by dangerous driving.
It appears he hit the accelerator rather than the brake on his bus and killed a young child.
It's always sad when somebody dies, but this was an accident, not dangerous driving, just an error of judgement. This man did not want to kill the young lad and he doesn't deserve such a harsh sentence.
It seems like the decent, hard working members of society who err, are the ones who get the tough justice. The chav scumbags or those of that religion which mustn't be named are the ones who get off with the piddly little jail terms or community punishment. British justice is backward.
Please don't ask me what I would say if this was my child.....
It appears he hit the accelerator rather than the brake on his bus and killed a young child.
It's always sad when somebody dies, but this was an accident, not dangerous driving, just an error of judgement. This man did not want to kill the young lad and he doesn't deserve such a harsh sentence.
It seems like the decent, hard working members of society who err, are the ones who get the tough justice. The chav scumbags or those of that religion which mustn't be named are the ones who get off with the piddly little jail terms or community punishment. British justice is backward.
Please don't ask me what I would say if this was my child.....
Another arrest for defending property. Apparently.
Watchmaker is held for attempted murder after 'blasting burglar with shotgun during raid by two intruders at rural home'
The details in this article are very sketchy, but on face value it looks like two men broke into someones home, tried to steal the keys to a car, but one of them was shot by the homeowner. He has now been arrested for attempted murder.
Assuming that's what happened, I ask again, why are the police insistent on arresting these people for defending themselves?
There have been three recent high profile cases of burglars being knifed to death by homeowners, two of whom have been released without charge. They were arrested on a charge of murder. This man hasn't killed his attacker, only wounded him, yet still he was arrested on the biggest charge possible, attempted murder.
I would argue that a man who fired a shotgun at an intruder and only gave him a non life threatening leg would was specifically attempting not to commit murder.
The Police obviously think differently. They really hate members of the public doing their jobs for them because they believe they have the monopoly on crime prevention and defence.
They even had a word in The Boiling Frogs ear just for sitting on a burglar.
Like I said, the details are sketchy, there will probably be more to come.
One thing that does spring out of the article is the polices assurances to the public that this is a one off and they are in no danger.
You know the reason for this don't you. This was a shooting, an incident with a firearm and probably a legal one. Visions of Raul Moat and Derek Bird, nut jobs on the rampage with guns. That's how the police want us to think, that all guns are bad and all guns should be banned.
Don't worry good citizens, the police are there to defend you from nasty shotgun toting homeowners.
A watchmaker has been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder after a suspected burglar was allegedly shot in the leg during a botched raid in a quiet rural village.
The details in this article are very sketchy, but on face value it looks like two men broke into someones home, tried to steal the keys to a car, but one of them was shot by the homeowner. He has now been arrested for attempted murder.
Assuming that's what happened, I ask again, why are the police insistent on arresting these people for defending themselves?
There have been three recent high profile cases of burglars being knifed to death by homeowners, two of whom have been released without charge. They were arrested on a charge of murder. This man hasn't killed his attacker, only wounded him, yet still he was arrested on the biggest charge possible, attempted murder.
I would argue that a man who fired a shotgun at an intruder and only gave him a non life threatening leg would was specifically attempting not to commit murder.
The Police obviously think differently. They really hate members of the public doing their jobs for them because they believe they have the monopoly on crime prevention and defence.
They even had a word in The Boiling Frogs ear just for sitting on a burglar.
Like I said, the details are sketchy, there will probably be more to come.
One thing that does spring out of the article is the polices assurances to the public that this is a one off and they are in no danger.
'I wish to reassure local residents that this is a contained incident: we have people in custody and we believe there is no further threat to the public in the area.'
'Police remain in Leigh Sinton and Whitbourne conducting house-to-house inquiries and forensic investigations, and providing reassurance to local residents.
'I would like to reiterate that residents are not at any risk.
You know the reason for this don't you. This was a shooting, an incident with a firearm and probably a legal one. Visions of Raul Moat and Derek Bird, nut jobs on the rampage with guns. That's how the police want us to think, that all guns are bad and all guns should be banned.
Don't worry good citizens, the police are there to defend you from nasty shotgun toting homeowners.
All smokers die horrible deaths?
I was speaking with a heart specialist yesterday. I've been having some nasty heart palpitations, and after a lot of tests with weird electrodes it turns out I've been drinking way too much coffee.
He was talking about caffeine, alcohol and tobacco and how they affect different people in different ways.
During his very long speech he told me that doctors all know the damage that cigarettes do, but what they don't know is why only fifteen percent of smokers develop lung diseases.
I was quite stunned by that revelation. I do know that a lot of smokers do it all their life without problems, despite the antis trying to make us believe that all smokers die of lung cancer, but I thought the percentages would be a lot higher than that.
And that comes from a heart doctor.
He was talking about caffeine, alcohol and tobacco and how they affect different people in different ways.
During his very long speech he told me that doctors all know the damage that cigarettes do, but what they don't know is why only fifteen percent of smokers develop lung diseases.
I was quite stunned by that revelation. I do know that a lot of smokers do it all their life without problems, despite the antis trying to make us believe that all smokers die of lung cancer, but I thought the percentages would be a lot higher than that.
And that comes from a heart doctor.
Beer and babies? Not my kind of venue.
This is another 'Shut up righteous, you created this' moment.
Pubs are struggling to survive since the smoking ban took away all their trade. The righteous anti-smokers refuse to notice the damage the ban has done. Some blame it on the recession, some blame it on the price of supermarket booze and some even try to come up with 'exciting' new ways for pubs to bring in trade.
Of course these new ways must conform to righteous standards, rarely involving alcohol, never involving smoking and always child friendly. When a struggling pub has the cheek to come up with it's own ideas for survival, there is of course, uproar.
Oh hell no! Babies in a bar? That cannot be allowed to happen...
..and just feet away from drinkers too. Just feet away! Oh the humanity!
I must admit, I'm not a fan of children so I would never drink in a bar with a mum and toddler group just feet away from me. (Feet away!). That's my choice though, as it is the choice of parents to take their kids to such a place.
I agree it would be inappropriate for the parents to get pissed up while their kids are running around. This happens all too often in some pubs. Landlords turn a blind eye while parents get smashed and kids run riot, just because they are so desperate for custom.
This pub seems to have arranged a proper mother and baby group though, and the impression is that it will be run responsibly.
Gah! My first thought is 'It's a pub, not a creché', but it is their pub and they can run it how they see fit. I certainly wouldn't be drinking there while the group is in attendance, just feeeeeeet away!
Ahh.. So I definitely wouldn't be drinking there when the mum and baby group is in. I am never in a pub between 10 and 12 on a Tuesday, or any other day of the week for that matter.
Reading the story I would have thought that this is going one at all hours when the pub is full of alcoholics falling over. Two hours a week on a Tuesday morning? Only the righteous could get this story into the Daily Fail.
Oh wind it in! It's two hours a week on a Tuesday morning. What do you think it's going to do, turn the little darlings into raving alcoholics through passive drinking?
Argggh! So don't go then.
Yes because that's what every pub is all about, every hour of every day. A load of locals getting drunk. (Feet away)
I'm sure there are and I'm sure they do. You don't have to take your own kids there if you don't want to.
Although not my cup of tea, this pub could actually be doing the community a favour if there are no other suitable venues in the area. People like yourself are often the first ones to cry about the rising cost of childcare or lack of facilities for children. You don't like it when someone tries to provide a service for their customers and community that doesn't quite conform to your righteous world view though, do you?
They don't have to attend the group. Quite. However they will cross hell and high water to see that no one else can do either. Why? Because they can.
Pubs are struggling to survive since the smoking ban took away all their trade. The righteous anti-smokers refuse to notice the damage the ban has done. Some blame it on the recession, some blame it on the price of supermarket booze and some even try to come up with 'exciting' new ways for pubs to bring in trade.
Of course these new ways must conform to righteous standards, rarely involving alcohol, never involving smoking and always child friendly. When a struggling pub has the cheek to come up with it's own ideas for survival, there is of course, uproar.
A town pub has come under fire after launching a 'highly inappropriate' baby and toddler group - in the bar.
Oh hell no! Babies in a bar? That cannot be allowed to happen...
Young children are allowed to play at the Kings Fee pub in Hereford - part of the JD Wetherspoon chain - just feet away from drinkers.
..and just feet away from drinkers too. Just feet away! Oh the humanity!
I must admit, I'm not a fan of children so I would never drink in a bar with a mum and toddler group just feet away from me. (Feet away!). That's my choice though, as it is the choice of parents to take their kids to such a place.
I agree it would be inappropriate for the parents to get pissed up while their kids are running around. This happens all too often in some pubs. Landlords turn a blind eye while parents get smashed and kids run riot, just because they are so desperate for custom.
This pub seems to have arranged a proper mother and baby group though, and the impression is that it will be run responsibly.
The pub provides toys, a play-pen for toddlers and a changing area for babies while milk and food can be heated in a microwave.
Gah! My first thought is 'It's a pub, not a creché', but it is their pub and they can run it how they see fit. I certainly wouldn't be drinking there while the group is in attendance, just feeeeeeet away!
The 'Kings Fee Baby and Toddler Group' meets between 10am and 12pm every Tuesday.
Ahh.. So I definitely wouldn't be drinking there when the mum and baby group is in. I am never in a pub between 10 and 12 on a Tuesday, or any other day of the week for that matter.
Reading the story I would have thought that this is going one at all hours when the pub is full of alcoholics falling over. Two hours a week on a Tuesday morning? Only the righteous could get this story into the Daily Fail.
But parents groups hit out at holding such a group meeting in an establishment selling alcohol.
Neil Leitch, chief executive of the Pre-school Learning Alliance, said: 'We would urge caution as this is an inappropriate location to hold a mother and toddler group.
'We strongly advise parents to be careful and not to drink when they are looking after children. Childcare and alcohol is a highly inappropriate combination.
'If they want to continue holding the group in the pub we would suggested they do it in a closed off room away from the other customers.'
Oh wind it in! It's two hours a week on a Tuesday morning. What do you think it's going to do, turn the little darlings into raving alcoholics through passive drinking?
Mother-of-one Mary Jones, 34, said: 'I was completely shocked when I heard about the group.
Argggh! So don't go then.
'A pub is not an appropriate setting for young children. The idea of toddlers running around a pub with a load of locals getting drunk is mind boggling, I have never heard anything like it.'
Yes because that's what every pub is all about, every hour of every day. A load of locals getting drunk. (Feet away)
The group was set up by husband and wife Kings Fee managers Robbie and Helen Bates.
Mrs Bates, who has a two-year-old son, said: 'There are no other places that are big enough in Hereford to hold a mother and baby group.
'We decided to create one in the pub, it is a big venue and we feel it is family friendly.
'We hope to expand the group over the next few weeks. It is a place where mums can come to have a quick natter with their friends.'
But Anita Leech, 41, a teacher and mother-of-three, said: 'A pub is the last place I would want to take my kids.
'I can't believe they are even allowed to have a group in a pub like that surely there must be health and safety rules to adhere to.'
I'm sure there are and I'm sure they do. You don't have to take your own kids there if you don't want to.
Although not my cup of tea, this pub could actually be doing the community a favour if there are no other suitable venues in the area. People like yourself are often the first ones to cry about the rising cost of childcare or lack of facilities for children. You don't like it when someone tries to provide a service for their customers and community that doesn't quite conform to your righteous world view though, do you?
A spokesman for JD Wetherspoon today defended the group, claiming the pub is 'an ideal meeting place' for mothers and their young children.
He said: 'We do not feel that it is inappropriate to hold the group in the pub. There are many groups held in different pubs across the country as they are ideal meeting places.
'We are delighted the group is being held here, it is a social pub and we want it to be the hub of the community.
'We do not feel there is a risk in having young children in our establishments. If other people think it is inappropriate it is up to them, they do not have to attend the group.'
They don't have to attend the group. Quite. However they will cross hell and high water to see that no one else can do either. Why? Because they can.
There are no fat people in government?
Cameron backs Danish-style 'fat tax' on most unhealthy food as Tories launch battle with the bulge
Why oh why do we even bother voting? You just cant tell the difference anymore. Cameron is supposed to be a Tory, small state, low tax, no nannying etc. Maggie must be turning in her grave.
Britain doesn't have an obesity time bomb, it has a few fat people and a lot of righteous people who want nag us all into living a British standard lifestyle so they can line their pockets with taxpayers money while pretending to be charitable, altruistic champions of the 'vulnerable'.
This won't do a damn thing to prevent obesity but it will hurt poor people a great deal. This tax will help to swell the treasury and keep up the wasteful policies of those who dictate to us, only through taking more money from the pockets of poor people who are already struggling to cover their weekly food bills.
Milk, cheese and meat? They intend to tax some of the most common staples because of a misconception about fat and what it does to us. This will penalise everyone, even those who eat a healthy balanced diet..
He's really fallen for this nonsense hasn't he. The lobby groups are now in charge of the country.
I hope they don't just criticise, they need to throw him straight out of the party. He's been making a mockery of Tory values ever since the coalition came to power, but this must be far over stepping the mark.
Neither of which is really your concern. You force us all at gunpoint to pay for the health service, why should you be worried about the cost of treating us? If things are that bad, scrap the NHS and NI, and lets have an insurance based system instead.
Our longevity is no business of yours either. If we die early because of our lifestyle choices, fine, we will deal with that. Or is it because you want us to be good little taxpayers for as long as possible?
And out of the woodwork they come. The righteous with their hands in the tax tin, demanding that something be done about people they whose lifestyles they disagree with, all in the name of seeking those rents.
No there shouldn't. Low income families who choose to have children should be bearing the responsibility for their choices. Any family should be left alone to make their own eating choices. The state has no business here.
Why oh why do we even bother voting? You just cant tell the difference anymore. Cameron is supposed to be a Tory, small state, low tax, no nannying etc. Maggie must be turning in her grave.
A fat tax could be the answer to Britain’s obesity time-bomb, David Cameron suggested yesterday.
Britain doesn't have an obesity time bomb, it has a few fat people and a lot of righteous people who want nag us all into living a British standard lifestyle so they can line their pockets with taxpayers money while pretending to be charitable, altruistic champions of the 'vulnerable'.
The tax – being considered at a time of rampant food price inflation – could put 25p on the price of a pack of butter and 8p on a packet of crisps.
This won't do a damn thing to prevent obesity but it will hurt poor people a great deal. This tax will help to swell the treasury and keep up the wasteful policies of those who dictate to us, only through taking more money from the pockets of poor people who are already struggling to cover their weekly food bills.
Although no details have been worked out, the levy would target products such as milk, cheese, pizza, meat, oil and processed food.
Milk, cheese and meat? They intend to tax some of the most common staples because of a misconception about fat and what it does to us. This will penalise everyone, even those who eat a healthy balanced diet..
Mr Cameron said drastic action was needed because by 2050 more than half of the population is predicted to be obese – so fat their health is in danger.
He's really fallen for this nonsense hasn't he. The lobby groups are now in charge of the country.
But many of his backbenchers will criticise the move as an example of the ‘nanny state’ his party is supposed to oppose.
I hope they don't just criticise, they need to throw him straight out of the party. He's been making a mockery of Tory values ever since the coalition came to power, but this must be far over stepping the mark.
‘I am worried about the costs to the Health Service, the fact that some people are going to have shorter lives than their parents.’
Neither of which is really your concern. You force us all at gunpoint to pay for the health service, why should you be worried about the cost of treating us? If things are that bad, scrap the NHS and NI, and lets have an insurance based system instead.
Our longevity is no business of yours either. If we die early because of our lifestyle choices, fine, we will deal with that. Or is it because you want us to be good little taxpayers for as long as possible?
Last night Tam Fry of the National Obesity Forum said: ‘We will obviously have to wait to see the small print of the tax he is considering but he has made a move in the right direction.’
Professor Terence Stephenson, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said: ‘We welcome David Cameron’s comments to consider taking drastic action against a child epidemic problem that is growing year on year.
And out of the woodwork they come. The righteous with their hands in the tax tin, demanding that something be done about people they whose lifestyles they disagree with, all in the name of seeking those rents.
‘There should be stringent support to help low-income families to afford lower fat and higher quality foods for their children.’
No there shouldn't. Low income families who choose to have children should be bearing the responsibility for their choices. Any family should be left alone to make their own eating choices. The state has no business here.
Oh please do!
It's one thing for 'charities to be funded by the taxpayer, but to go on strike over pay, now that really takes the cake.
CHARITY workers who support some of East Lancashire’s most vulnerable families are considering going on strike.
These charities, funded by taxpayers money, are often supplying largely uneccessary 'services' at great cost to the public. Surely they see the need to be realistic about the challenges we face in the current economic climate?
Eh? but.. sheesh!
Sod the talks, go on strike. Let's see if you are missed.
Always 'the most vulnerable'. Priority should be not wasting taxpayers hard earned cash.
CHARITY workers who support some of East Lancashire’s most vulnerable families are considering going on strike.
Protests revolve around plans to reduce protected pay periods for staff, following redeployment, from two years to one, and a salary freeze.
Dave Prentis, Unison general secretary, said: “Charity workers’ jobs have become increasingly difficult, with the pressures placed on them by the Government’s cuts, at the same time as rising demand for services.”
Mike Robinson, Unite national officer, said AfC pay was not keeping pace with inflation and pushing members into ‘further financial hardship’.
These charities, funded by taxpayers money, are often supplying largely uneccessary 'services' at great cost to the public. Surely they see the need to be realistic about the challenges we face in the current economic climate?
Richard Cove, AfC’s human resources director, said the charity ‘needs to be realistic about the challenges we face’, in the current economic climate, and strike action was ‘regrettable’.
Eh? but.. sheesh!
He pledged to continue talks with the unions, in the hope of reaching a settlement.
Sod the talks, go on strike. Let's see if you are missed.
“Our priority is to continue to deliver services for the most vulnerable children and young people we work with,” he said.
Always 'the most vulnerable'. Priority should be not wasting taxpayers hard earned cash.
Opportunity Knox
This has already been given a suitably good kicking over at Max Farquar, but I see no reason not to show another copy of this:
Go and see Max for the full fake story.
I always knew the MSM were a bunch of useless liars, but this takes the cake. The Daily fail have prepared two stories about the Amanda Knox appeal before the results were known. One for if the appeal was rejected and one for if she was acquitted. The silly buggers posted the wrong one online though.
It even comes with fake quotes - "Prosecutors were delighted with the verdict and said “Justice has been done” although they said on a “human factor it was sad two young people would be spending years in jail“
So did the reporter just make this up out of the air or did he actually approach the prosecutors and ask for quotes for either eventuality?
"Can I have a quote to use if the appeal is rejected?"
"I couldn't possibly give a quote until we know!"
"Maybe this will help?"
"Prosecutors were delighted blah blah blah...
It could happen.
It also puts into question, everything written in the 'true' story that was eventually published. That also contains quotes and emotions that were probably made up a long time before the verdict came in. In fact, it puts into question everything the Daily Mail have ever written.
It's a good job I've never taken MSM stories as gospel truth.
So. After four years she has been acquitted and is on her way home. I try not to get involved in discussing cases such as these. I never go to the trials and as we have just seen, the info in the media is unreliable at best.
The assumption must now be that she is in fact innocent and has lost four years of her life in an Italian jail. If there is one thing I am sure of it's that I couldn't do time, particularly four years of it. I feel for her.
Good luck to her. She may have been in hell for the last four years but she has an opportunity now. Sell that story! Just not to the Daily Mail.
Go and see Max for the full fake story.
I always knew the MSM were a bunch of useless liars, but this takes the cake. The Daily fail have prepared two stories about the Amanda Knox appeal before the results were known. One for if the appeal was rejected and one for if she was acquitted. The silly buggers posted the wrong one online though.
It even comes with fake quotes - "Prosecutors were delighted with the verdict and said “Justice has been done” although they said on a “human factor it was sad two young people would be spending years in jail“
So did the reporter just make this up out of the air or did he actually approach the prosecutors and ask for quotes for either eventuality?
"Can I have a quote to use if the appeal is rejected?"
"I couldn't possibly give a quote until we know!"
"Maybe this will help?"
It could happen.
It also puts into question, everything written in the 'true' story that was eventually published. That also contains quotes and emotions that were probably made up a long time before the verdict came in. In fact, it puts into question everything the Daily Mail have ever written.
It's a good job I've never taken MSM stories as gospel truth.
So. After four years she has been acquitted and is on her way home. I try not to get involved in discussing cases such as these. I never go to the trials and as we have just seen, the info in the media is unreliable at best.
The assumption must now be that she is in fact innocent and has lost four years of her life in an Italian jail. If there is one thing I am sure of it's that I couldn't do time, particularly four years of it. I feel for her.
Good luck to her. She may have been in hell for the last four years but she has an opportunity now. Sell that story! Just not to the Daily Mail.
Another example of the self perpetuating charity
Demand for food handouts rises by 20% as 'ordinary' people and families fall into poverty
Oh I don't believe you've seen a rise in people who cannot afford to feed themselves, rather a rise in people asking for free handouts. We live in an entitlement culture, where those who do not have what they would like are encouraged to put out their hands and demand it from others.
It's all very well starting a worthy charity where you re-distribute food that would otherwise have been wasted to the poor, but you need to understand the necessity of keeping strict checks on what you are doing.
When people see the opportunity for a freebie, particularly in these modern times, they will want a piece of that pie for themselves. If you don't restrict your activities to the homeless, but instead let anyone with a story of hardship avail themselves of your services, you will indeed see a rise in demand.
The more you give, the more you will find you need to give, and this is of course going to be followed by shouts for more funding and donations as you demonstrate through numbers, what a wonderful and necessary job your charity is doing, but still it's not enough.
Take a closer look at these new people you are helping if you want to see how fast the welfare system is reacting. What kind of trainers do they wear, car do they drive, mobile phone do they use and television do they watch?
Anyone who has lost a job or whose business has gone under, as you say, would not go hungry in the short time it would take for benefits to come through. Realising that they are about to be living on less money than they are used to however, might make the offer of free food quite tempting.
At the risk of repeating myself and many others, a charity that survives on government funding is no charity at all. The foodsahre concept, distributing unwanted food to the homeless is a good one. As a charity it would have to be run on donations and volunteers, otherwise it is just another government department.
Just like that. But be careful who you distribute it to. If you don't have strict rules on who is eligible for your free food, you will soon have more grabbing hands than you ever thought possible, every one of them needy and entitled.
Britain has seen a sharp rise in the number of people requesting food handouts as 'ordinary' working people and families fall on hard times.
In the past year alone FareShare, which redistributes surplus food from major manufacturers and supermarkets to social care charities, has seen a 20 per cent rise in the number of people who can't afford to feed themselves - from 29,000 per day to 35,000 per day.
Oh I don't believe you've seen a rise in people who cannot afford to feed themselves, rather a rise in people asking for free handouts. We live in an entitlement culture, where those who do not have what they would like are encouraged to put out their hands and demand it from others.
It's all very well starting a worthy charity where you re-distribute food that would otherwise have been wasted to the poor, but you need to understand the necessity of keeping strict checks on what you are doing.
When people see the opportunity for a freebie, particularly in these modern times, they will want a piece of that pie for themselves. If you don't restrict your activities to the homeless, but instead let anyone with a story of hardship avail themselves of your services, you will indeed see a rise in demand.
The more you give, the more you will find you need to give, and this is of course going to be followed by shouts for more funding and donations as you demonstrate through numbers, what a wonderful and necessary job your charity is doing, but still it's not enough.
'The big problem is that the welfare state is not reacting fast enough to need.'
Take a closer look at these new people you are helping if you want to see how fast the welfare system is reacting. What kind of trainers do they wear, car do they drive, mobile phone do they use and television do they watch?
The time it takes for benefits payments to come through after a claim has been accepted is increasing, Mr Ravn added, resulting in people going hungry.
Anyone who has lost a job or whose business has gone under, as you say, would not go hungry in the short time it would take for benefits to come through. Realising that they are about to be living on less money than they are used to however, might make the offer of free food quite tempting.
Another problem: A third of the charities surveyed by FareShare are also facing Government funding cuts, with 65 per cent slashing food budgets to stay afloat
At the risk of repeating myself and many others, a charity that survives on government funding is no charity at all. The foodsahre concept, distributing unwanted food to the homeless is a good one. As a charity it would have to be run on donations and volunteers, otherwise it is just another government department.
Lindsay Boswell, chief executive of FareShare, said: 'At a time of unprecedented demand we want the food industry and the general public to increase their support.'
'We're asking anyone who works in the food industry in any capacity to look at what is happening to their surplus food and to ask themselves a simple question: "Could this food stop someone going hungry?"'
Just like that. But be careful who you distribute it to. If you don't have strict rules on who is eligible for your free food, you will soon have more grabbing hands than you ever thought possible, every one of them needy and entitled.
Incorrect headline of the day. *Now corrected*
£1.5m project to support increase in middle class victims of domestic violence
From Lancashire Telegraph
1.5m quid to have more middle class women beaten up? I like it.
Unfortunately there is no humor in the reality:
Victims of domestic abuse do not need personal support workers funded by 1.5m of taxpayers money. They need to get the hell out of their abusive relationship the first time abuse happens and they need to stay out.
The police will assist you if you are assaulted by your partner. That's when you leave. There are charities who will help you find your feet once you have left your partner, if you so need it.
The only thing that one on one support workers can do is assist people who have chosen to stay with an abusive partner regardless of the risks. Fair enough, it's your life if you want to waste it, but let's not waste taxpayers money on people who have made that choice.
*UPDATE*
The LET have changed the head line to:
"New £1.5m scheme to tackle domestic violence in Blackburn with Darwen" and they've deleted my comment. Not one word of thanks! Ungrateful bastards.
From Lancashire Telegraph
1.5m quid to have more middle class women beaten up? I like it.
Unfortunately there is no humor in the reality:
The Domestic Abuse Service is the first of its kind in the country and will give every victim a personal support worker.
Victims of domestic abuse do not need personal support workers funded by 1.5m of taxpayers money. They need to get the hell out of their abusive relationship the first time abuse happens and they need to stay out.
The police will assist you if you are assaulted by your partner. That's when you leave. There are charities who will help you find your feet once you have left your partner, if you so need it.
The only thing that one on one support workers can do is assist people who have chosen to stay with an abusive partner regardless of the risks. Fair enough, it's your life if you want to waste it, but let's not waste taxpayers money on people who have made that choice.
*UPDATE*
The LET have changed the head line to:
"New £1.5m scheme to tackle domestic violence in Blackburn with Darwen" and they've deleted my comment. Not one word of thanks! Ungrateful bastards.
Lunch box lunacy
Parents are failing to put enough fruit and veg into their children's packed lunches, health experts have warned.
Yes of course, you would love that wouldn't you. You can't regulate and control what parents choose to feed their kids if they give them packed lunches. If they all went on school meals you could make sure they are all fed the same 'healthy choices' that you dictate. What's next? Ban the packed lunch and turn all feeding over to the state?
Sweets and salted snacks can't be provided in schools? It's a long while since I went to primary school but I'm assuming then that the 'tuck shop' is a thing of the past?
I was at primary school in the early eighties before all this PC and healthy eating claptrap became big business for fake charities. I'm not a fat whap and I'm quite healthy, as are many people my age. There is no need for all this nannying in our schools.
It might be a website about food but you will need a strong stomach to go visit it.
This website is supposedly written to help adults make healthy choices for children, yet it is written as though only under fives will be reading it. No self respecting adult could read through any of that and take it to heart, it's kidspeak all the way through.
There is a section where you can create a lunchbox meal planner for the week by selecting choices to put in the lunch box then printing it out.
There is also a section on cooking your own food with recipes.
Every food item suggested in these sections is totally vegetarian. There is no suggestion on the site that it is intended to be vegetarian or that children should be fed as such, but you just try and find a ham and tomato sandwich on there and you won't succeed. There are no meat related products at all.
Here are some of the options:
"What have you got for dinner today, Chardonnay?" "Cous cous with roasted veg and chick peas."
Yeah right. There is nothing wrong with a ham and tomato or tuna mayo sandwich. It's only lunch, you can still prepare them something healthy for tea in the evening. As long as a diet is balanced, kids will be healthy. It doesn't need to be mega healthy vegan slop 24/7. Throw a 'salted snack' in there if you want. Salt is also part of a healthy diet.
No, it's quite simple. Children don't have any money apart from that which their parents give them. If they pass shops on their way home from school they can only spend what money they have been given. Some also have minds of their own, although if I had been given wholegrain cous cous with non fat chick peas for my dinner I would want to get something more substantial from the shop
Parents don't influence what goes in a packed lunch, they have the final say. I think the bit that disappoints you is that a lot of parents don't think the same way as you. Maybe one reason is because they are not middle class hippies paid by the taxpayer to follow the life you champion.
Yes, the five a day target, pullet out of thin air by 'experts'. As long as the nippers are not eating pie and chips every day, they will do just fine. It's time the fake charity got it's fingers out of kiddies dinners.
The School Food Trust, which examined 3,500 packed lunches in England in 2009, says about 40% of lunchboxes do not contain any fruit or vegetables, compared with 10% of school dinners.
It said parents should consider switching to school meals.
Yes of course, you would love that wouldn't you. You can't regulate and control what parents choose to feed their kids if they give them packed lunches. If they all went on school meals you could make sure they are all fed the same 'healthy choices' that you dictate. What's next? Ban the packed lunch and turn all feeding over to the state?
Patricia Mucavele, research and nutrition manager at the School Food Trust, which offers its own advice on packed lunches, said, "School lunches are now the most nutritious choice for children and young people.
"Packed lunches aren't as nutritious as school meals - they are typically higher in saturated fat, sugar and salt, and often contain foods that can't be provided in schools, such as sweets and salted snacks.
Sweets and salted snacks can't be provided in schools? It's a long while since I went to primary school but I'm assuming then that the 'tuck shop' is a thing of the past?
I was at primary school in the early eighties before all this PC and healthy eating claptrap became big business for fake charities. I'm not a fat whap and I'm quite healthy, as are many people my age. There is no need for all this nannying in our schools.
Meanwhile, the World Cancer Research Fund has set up a website to give parents advice on healthier lunchboxes.
It might be a website about food but you will need a strong stomach to go visit it.
This website is supposedly written to help adults make healthy choices for children, yet it is written as though only under fives will be reading it. No self respecting adult could read through any of that and take it to heart, it's kidspeak all the way through.
There is a section where you can create a lunchbox meal planner for the week by selecting choices to put in the lunch box then printing it out.
There is also a section on cooking your own food with recipes.
Every food item suggested in these sections is totally vegetarian. There is no suggestion on the site that it is intended to be vegetarian or that children should be fed as such, but you just try and find a ham and tomato sandwich on there and you won't succeed. There are no meat related products at all.
Here are some of the options:
Butternut squash soup with wholegrain bread
Cous cous with roasted vegetables and chickpeas
Wholegrain pasta salad with tomatoes, green beans and sweetcorn in green pesto sauce
Low-fat cream cheese on wholegrain cracker with grapes
Carrot and cucumber sticks
Dried fruits
"What have you got for dinner today, Chardonnay?" "Cous cous with roasted veg and chick peas."
Yeah right. There is nothing wrong with a ham and tomato or tuna mayo sandwich. It's only lunch, you can still prepare them something healthy for tea in the evening. As long as a diet is balanced, kids will be healthy. It doesn't need to be mega healthy vegan slop 24/7. Throw a 'salted snack' in there if you want. Salt is also part of a healthy diet.
"It can sometimes be difficult for parents to control what their children eat, particularly if they are passing shops on the way home from school or visiting their friends.
No, it's quite simple. Children don't have any money apart from that which their parents give them. If they pass shops on their way home from school they can only spend what money they have been given. Some also have minds of their own, although if I had been given wholegrain cous cous with non fat chick peas for my dinner I would want to get something more substantial from the shop
But parents can influence what is in their packed lunches and the fact that not all of them are doing so is a missed opportunity."
Parents don't influence what goes in a packed lunch, they have the final say. I think the bit that disappoints you is that a lot of parents don't think the same way as you. Maybe one reason is because they are not middle class hippies paid by the taxpayer to follow the life you champion.
The trust's 2009 Primary School Food Survey, included an in-depth look at the contents of almost 3,500 packed lunches across 135 schools in England.
It found 58% of those with packed lunches had items that could count towards their "five a day" fruit and vegetable target, compared with over 90% of those eating school meals.
Yes, the five a day target, pullet out of thin air by 'experts'. As long as the nippers are not eating pie and chips every day, they will do just fine. It's time the fake charity got it's fingers out of kiddies dinners.
Gun myths - Part two
Following on from last weeks post, here is Graham Showells, Gun myths part two.
Imposing harsh minimum sentences for gun possession is the best solution.
No amount of legislation will stop criminals arming themselves with illegal weapons and using them to kill and injure innocent, law-abiding people. The reason for this is because criminals don't obey laws, that's what makes them criminals in the first place.
How can we possibly use laws to protect us from people that don't obey laws? The problems we face here in Britain are nothing to do with inanimate objects such as knifes and guns. The problem is dangerous and violent people attacking others.
Of course not, but if minimum sentences are in place there would be no choice BUT to jail them, regardless of whether there was any criminal intent.
It's important to remember that not everyone in possession of a firearm intends to commit a crime, and it should be for a judge to decide what sentence a person gets, based on the circumstances under which the gun was found.
(Source - BBC News - March 2011)
(Source - BBC News - March 2009)
We should arm the police to deal with gun violence and gun massacres.
Imagine someone working alone in a shop. A robber enters the shop, pulls out a gun, points it in the shopkeepers face and demands the days takings. There is no armed police officer in the shop and there is no armed officer anywhere NEAR the shop either.
How would arming the police help this defenceless robbery victim ?
You need to realise the police cannot protect you from criminals. When police attend a 999 call, in 99% of cases the crime is over and all the police can do is take a statement, call an ambulance or take a photo of the dead victim's body.
Another important consideration is that when police arrest someone for carrying a defensive weapon they disarm them, leaving them unable to protect themselves against violence. By doing this the cops make it easier for criminals to operate, making them more likely to commit violent crime and making their own jobs even harder.
Guns in the hands of the people are tools of liberty and freedom. When only the government and police have guns, a country can very easily become a police state. The section called "Guns and Tyranny" explains this in more detail.
We've always had tough gun laws in Britain.
You may be surprised to learn that before 1920, Britain had no laws concerning the carrying or ownership of guns.
A quote from firearms expert and former police officer Superintendent Colin Greenwood -
"England entered the twentieth century with no controls over the purchasing or keeping of any type of firearm, and the only measure which related to the carrying of guns was the Gun Licence Act, requiring the purchase of a ten shilling gun licence from a Post Office. Anyone, be he convicted criminal, lunatic, drunkard or child could legally acquire any type of firearm and the presence of pistols and revolvers in households all over the country was fairly widespread.
England at that time was a country where guns of every type were familiar instruments and where anyone who felt the need or desire to own a gun could obtain one. The cheaper guns were very cheap and well within the reach of all but the very poor. The right of the Englishman to keep arms for his own defence was still completely accepted and all attempts at placing this under restraint had failed."
The UK had very little armed violence during this time.
Legal access to firearms has been restricted progressively since 1920, right up to the strict and grossly unfair gun laws that we have today. It's also noticeable that violent crime rates have risen each time the country's gun laws have been tightened.
(Source - BBC News November 2007 ) (PDF File)
(Source - The Right To Armed Self-Defence by David Botsford) (PDF File)
Britain has only a fraction of the violent crime of the United States.
Each year, the United Kingdom experiences more violent crimes than all 50 US states put together. According to the British Crime Survey, the UK had more than 2.5 million violent crimes in 2008. This works out to be a violent crime rate of 2,000 offences per 100,000 residents.
The United States, with a population 5 times that of the UK, had only 1.4 million violent crimes during the same period. This works out to be a violent crime rate of 466 offences per 100,000 residents
This means that Britain has a crime rate that is actually more than 4 times that of the United States. The true violent crime rate of the UK is probably far higher as many people simply don't bother reporting crimes as they feel that nothing will be done.
The reason is for this difference in crime rates is that in the U.S. concealed handguns appear to deter criminals from committing crimes.
In the UK, there is nothing to deter criminals at all.
(Source - Federal Bureau Of Investigation 1990 - 2009 Crime Statistics )
(Source - Telegraph Newspaper - July 2009) (PDF File)
No amount of legislation will stop criminals arming themselves with illegal weapons and using them to kill and injure innocent, law-abiding people. The reason for this is because criminals don't obey laws, that's what makes them criminals in the first place.
How can we possibly use laws to protect us from people that don't obey laws? The problems we face here in Britain are nothing to do with inanimate objects such as knifes and guns. The problem is dangerous and violent people attacking others.
Just because someone has a knife or gun it does not mean that they will murder or even harm another person. Most people can and should be trusted to behave responsibly.
Increasing minimum sentences for simple gun possession has created lots of problems and solved none.
Imagine someone that finds an old pistol during a clearout of his attic or a scared old man trying protect himself and his business from young, able-bodied criminals.
Would sending any of these people to jail do anything to reduce violent crime ? Of course not, but if minimum sentences are in place there would be no choice BUT to jail them, regardless of whether there was any criminal intent.
It's important to remember that not everyone in possession of a firearm intends to commit a crime, and it should be for a judge to decide what sentence a person gets, based on the circumstances under which the gun was found.
(Source - BBC News - March 2011)
(Source - BBC News - March 2009)
We should arm the police to deal with gun violence and gun massacres.
Imagine someone working alone in a shop. A robber enters the shop, pulls out a gun, points it in the shopkeepers face and demands the days takings. There is no armed police officer in the shop and there is no armed officer anywhere NEAR the shop either.
How would arming the police help this defenceless robbery victim ?
You need to realise the police cannot protect you from criminals. When police attend a 999 call, in 99% of cases the crime is over and all the police can do is take a statement, call an ambulance or take a photo of the dead victim's body.
Another important consideration is that when police arrest someone for carrying a defensive weapon they disarm them, leaving them unable to protect themselves against violence. By doing this the cops make it easier for criminals to operate, making them more likely to commit violent crime and making their own jobs even harder.
Guns in the hands of the people are tools of liberty and freedom. When only the government and police have guns, a country can very easily become a police state. The section called "Guns and Tyranny" explains this in more detail.
We've always had tough gun laws in Britain.
You may be surprised to learn that before 1920, Britain had no laws concerning the carrying or ownership of guns.
A quote from firearms expert and former police officer Superintendent Colin Greenwood -
"England entered the twentieth century with no controls over the purchasing or keeping of any type of firearm, and the only measure which related to the carrying of guns was the Gun Licence Act, requiring the purchase of a ten shilling gun licence from a Post Office. Anyone, be he convicted criminal, lunatic, drunkard or child could legally acquire any type of firearm and the presence of pistols and revolvers in households all over the country was fairly widespread.
England at that time was a country where guns of every type were familiar instruments and where anyone who felt the need or desire to own a gun could obtain one. The cheaper guns were very cheap and well within the reach of all but the very poor. The right of the Englishman to keep arms for his own defence was still completely accepted and all attempts at placing this under restraint had failed."
The UK had very little armed violence during this time.
Legal access to firearms has been restricted progressively since 1920, right up to the strict and grossly unfair gun laws that we have today. It's also noticeable that violent crime rates have risen each time the country's gun laws have been tightened.
(Source - BBC News November 2007 ) (PDF File)
(Source - The Right To Armed Self-Defence by David Botsford) (PDF File)
Britain has only a fraction of the violent crime of the United States.
Each year, the United Kingdom experiences more violent crimes than all 50 US states put together. According to the British Crime Survey, the UK had more than 2.5 million violent crimes in 2008. This works out to be a violent crime rate of 2,000 offences per 100,000 residents.
The United States, with a population 5 times that of the UK, had only 1.4 million violent crimes during the same period. This works out to be a violent crime rate of 466 offences per 100,000 residents
This means that Britain has a crime rate that is actually more than 4 times that of the United States. The true violent crime rate of the UK is probably far higher as many people simply don't bother reporting crimes as they feel that nothing will be done.
The reason is for this difference in crime rates is that in the U.S. concealed handguns appear to deter criminals from committing crimes.
In the UK, there is nothing to deter criminals at all.
(Source - Federal Bureau Of Investigation 1990 - 2009 Crime Statistics )
Feral rats will be feral rats
Blackburn residents fury at housing association rules
Before you read any further, remember it's their housing association so they are entitled to make the rules for their tenants.
The only real causes for complaint would be if the rules were unreasonable or if they were large changes to something that the tenants have been used to for a long time.
Using the word 'fury' in the headline would suggest that the housing association has stepped way out of line and are attempting to be totally unreasonable.
If we're all sitting comfortably, lets find out.
Ahh. So not unreasonable at all, but you saw that coming didn't you.
So sign the agreement and keep your kids under control. You will have nothing to worry about and the community will be a lot happier.
So people have to put up with your feral brats or move away?
It seems to me that it's your children victimising the other residents.
The rules include:
*My children do not trespass on other residents front doors, driveways, lawns
*My children do not stare through residents’ windows or letterboxes
*My children do not swear at other residents when told to move away from property
*My children do not bully, swear or hit other children
*After 8pm children playing out must be mindful of others and keep the noise down
*My children do not play knock-a-door-run
*Residents speak to parents of children causing nuisance. However if they don’t feel comfortable contact Great Places. At no time should they swear/shout at children.
And yet these parents believe their children should be allowed to do all those things without hindrance. If your children don't misbehave, if you can control them like any decent parent should, what's wrong with signing the agreement?
So the problem obviously exists. It's just those who can't control their feral spawn who cry victim and go running to the papers.
Before you read any further, remember it's their housing association so they are entitled to make the rules for their tenants.
The only real causes for complaint would be if the rules were unreasonable or if they were large changes to something that the tenants have been used to for a long time.
Using the word 'fury' in the headline would suggest that the housing association has stepped way out of line and are attempting to be totally unreasonable.
If we're all sitting comfortably, lets find out.
RESIDENTS are furious at a housing association for laying down a number of rules telling them to get their children under control.Parents in Apple Close, Blackburn, are being told they must sign an agreement to stop their youngsters participating in a number of outlawed activities on the estate following a series of complaints.
Great Places Housing Group wants to stop children playing noisily after 8pm, walking on people’s lawns, looking through windows and letterboxes, dropping litter, and playing knock-a-door-run.
It said it was responding to problems with anti-social behaviour over the past 12 months.
Ahh. So not unreasonable at all, but you saw that coming didn't you.
The majority of residents have condemned the letter and have said they will not sign.
Apple Close resident Carl Harris has five children aged 14 to two-years-old.
He said: “Rather than the housing association asking everybody’s views, they’ve just done it.
“I’m worried that the next step could be eviction if we don’t sign the agreement.
So sign the agreement and keep your kids under control. You will have nothing to worry about and the community will be a lot happier.
“It is ridiculous. There’s no issues at all. Children are children...
“It is such an over-reaction. The close has been full of families with young children for years, if people can’t understand that they should look for somewhere else to live.
So people have to put up with your feral brats or move away?
His wife Caroline, 35, said: “On the one hand they are asking us to be community spirited but on the other they are victimising our children.”
It seems to me that it's your children victimising the other residents.
The rules include:
*My children do not trespass on other residents front doors, driveways, lawns
*My children do not stare through residents’ windows or letterboxes
*My children do not swear at other residents when told to move away from property
*My children do not bully, swear or hit other children
*After 8pm children playing out must be mindful of others and keep the noise down
*My children do not play knock-a-door-run
*Residents speak to parents of children causing nuisance. However if they don’t feel comfortable contact Great Places. At no time should they swear/shout at children.
And yet these parents believe their children should be allowed to do all those things without hindrance. If your children don't misbehave, if you can control them like any decent parent should, what's wrong with signing the agreement?
Guy Cresswell, director of housing at Great Places said: “Over the past 12 months, there have been problems with anti-social behaviour...
“Many of these incidents have involved some children from Apple Close using inappropriate language and threatening behaviour.
“In September, several neighbours got together and drafted their own neighbourhood agreement in an effort to sort out the problems “After discussions with our staff it was felt that Great Places should come up with a neighbourhood agreement which could be sent to all residents.
So the problem obviously exists. It's just those who can't control their feral spawn who cry victim and go running to the papers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)