THE MONTHLY MOSQUITO

A Labour cabinet managed by Jeremy Corbyn would borrow £15 billion a year to develop homes across the nation, half of them council homes, as part of a £500 billion programme of public expenditure, new policy documents have shown.

It would strive to create one million homes throughout a five-year parliament and secure housing tenants, particularly those in the private division, new safeguards, comprising secure three-year contracts and protection from unreasonable rent increases.

Despite the enormous amounts, Corbyn’s team maintains that government borrowing will be extremely valuable and a great opportunity for taxpayers because of the boost to the economy from the building, job formulation and rental revenue.

The documents, released by the Corbyn campaign as it attempts to fend off the challenge to his leadership by Owen Smith, states that the net cost to the public sector will be £10 billion a year since two-thirds of the construction proposal would be labour expenses, suggesting additional tax incomes for the Treasury.

The documents state that, with government borrowing rates the lowest ever, this is the most cost-effective way imaginable to match Britain’s housing requirements. Because the government will be obtaining assets, the taxpayer can expect to make a net gain as rents are paid on the new housing.

Corbyn’s team announced its figures and ideas were also reliable and accurate than the house-building program proposed by Smith, who had simply stated he would free up councils across the nation to borrow to build.

Recently Smith set out proposals to abandon university education expenses and asked for the current funding scheme to be substituted with a 1%-2% graduate tax. He further promised to create 50,000 dwellings a year for would-be first-time buyers aged below 30, to be rented at cheaper than market rent.

In one of the wealthiest countries in the world, it’s a disgrace that we can’t provide dwellings with affordable rents. Consider too the bucket loads of cash taxpayers are consuming by pouring it into the pockets of private landlords through housing benefit.

However, there are greater chances of him making extra jars of the jam than homes. However, so good the ideals and cause the immediate situation of the labour party even under Hilary Benn seems desperate.

Neither Corbyn nor Owen Smith will appeal to those who chose SNP UKIP Tory or Liberal last time. Until Labour halt re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and grants a modestly accessible offering it will be doomed to the runner-up and enable Mrs May to do as she wants.

Since Corbyn is only mimicking the post-war British values of the SNP and is attempting to mimic their methods. Essentially everybody acknowledges that there is a house crisis in the United Kingdom, delivered by the management of the Tories and New Labour.

The housing crisis in Britain is not a new problem, there’s been a lack of houses for decades, and the problem is no closer to being solved. If those in government achieved in reaching our housing requirements they might be worse off, which doesn’t make the position any easier.

First, let’s examine the extent of the housing dilemma confronting Britain now. A report by Shelter last year found the housing crisis was so severe that a quarter of adults below the age of 35 were still living in their childhood bedroom.

In addition to overcrowding, we are experiencing enormous home prices, an increasing waiting register for social housing, 1.69 million homes in England alone, and a surge in homelessness. The reason why is easy, we’re not creating sufficient homes, and we haven’t for decades.

Back in 2004, the Barker Review of Housing estimated the increasing population. It decided that, in order to maintain the pace, the United Kingdom would have to create around 250,000 homes a year. It’s declined to do so each year since. Last year, it managed about half that figure, and that was a high point.

In the intermediate years, the Lyons Report in 2014 implied there was now an accumulation of a million homes. In fact, the United Kingdom hasn’t created 250,000 homes in a year following the 1970s, and it has never done so without a huge government sector house-building plan.

There’s no doubt that we are in the clutches of another housing disaster, created by consecutive governments’ and negligence to create the homes we require.

A current Civitas Report pointed out that, amid 1948 and 1979, the number of publicly-funded homes didn’t fall beneath 100,000 a year. Then a white paper in 1976 declared there was too much housing, and with the changing of the political guard, public-sector house construction went into a perpendicular slump.

Council house-building has never improved. What limited financing the administration, has been centred on housing associations instead, mostly since their financing didn’t count towards public sector deficit.

Yet, even this was a fraction of what it had been in past decades, and as a consequence, housing associations have been developing at a pace of 30,000 a year.

When the Labour Party came into control in 1997, policies were not focused on financing more public sector housebuilding, but preferably encouraging people onto the housing stairway if they could afford it, and helping those who couldn’t afford it through the welfare system.

Following the shipment of the Coalition government, and the Conservative administration that succeeded, there has been a bigger focus on lowering expenses in the midst of mounting nationwide debt. This has meant enormous cuts to the welfare system and the housing allowance.

Alternatively, the administration has concentrated on enterprises to make it simpler for people to borrow and build up collaterals to afford increasingly costly homes. Financial website loveMONEY talked with a government spokesperson about housebuilding projects. The spokesperson stated that, following spring 2010, government-backed projects have supported over 290,000 households to obtain a home.

Nearly half of these, above 150,000 were supported through Help-to-Buy projects. This, nevertheless, has done little to sustain the number of homes. Furthermore, to make things worse, housing associations have grown more reluctant to develop as there is doubt over their fate.

This has left housebuilders to tackle the housing crisis alone, something they are not equipped or even incentivised to do, particularly following the financial disaster.

The 2008 financial crash destroyed the house building industry, leading to the lowest levels of starts for any peacetime year following the 1920s and the loss of a quarter of a million building projects.

Nevertheless, the difficult financial situation has taken its casualties in the interlude. It has led to an amount of smaller housebuilders being taken over or falling out of the market completely. One of the main obstacles with the housebuilding enterprise in this country is that we are far too reliant on a small number of really important developers to deliver the lion’s percentage of the homes we require.

Having fewer housebuilders means there are fewer active sites at any given time. On each site, builders finish properties as quickly as they are able to sell them at a stable price, rather than as quickly as possible. And that’s a crucial difference.

The planning policy doesn’t help either. As Shelter points out, there isn’t suitable construction land, it isn’t affordable enough, and it isn’t easy enough to develop on.

The Civitas report hinted that another elephant in the room may be the side-effect of creating enough homes. There is an insufficient evident desire for a reduction in house costs, which would leave millions of homeowners out of pocket.

Furthermore, the only way of decreasing home prices for everyone is to get on top of demand, improve supply and lower home costs. In other words, creating suitable homes could make the government disliked with a number of homeowners, who are also voters.

Nevertheless, a 2013 Shelter report argues that the assumption all homeowners want costs to increase are flawed. It cited investigation that discovered that simply a third of people desired increasing costs, and most desired security. This would allow the government to create hundreds of thousands of homes a year without endangering and impacting on the market.

A government spokesperson said that it was preparing to do just that and that they have set out the most formidable concept for housing since the 1970s, increasing the housing allowance so they can deliver a million additional homes by 2020.

This involves spending £8 billion for 400,000 affordable homes.

That unquestionably is an opportunistic target, and it’s questionable if it will be a hit, fewer than a third of housebuilders believe it’s possible, according to a current investigation. However, even if they do, it’s yet far from a perfect solution. That’s all since the difficulties of the housing industry that cannot be corrected by solely creating more homes for private investment.

We can change the course of the housing disaster, however, to do this the government need to concentrate on creating places that people on average wages can really manage to buy or rent for the long-term. What’s more, the proposed 400,000 affordable homes is a dab in the ocean.

Millions of people are losing the faith of ever affording a home to put down roots in, and alternatively, face an existence confined in precarious and costly private renting. What’s worse, government schemes like Starter Homes costing up to £250,000, or almost half a million pounds in London, will usually only benefit the better off.

Doing something regarding the housing dilemma presently will need even stronger effort, since we are beginning from a very unenviable point.

However, can we actually anticipate clear response when the two parties perhaps best placed to resolve the dilemma have reservations, if not an out-and-out disincentive, to do so?

Questionable Television celebrity Katie Hopkins has been reported to Twitter by police officers over a bad taste vote on the Camber Sands victims. Five young men in their advanced teens and early 20s were hauled from the water off the East Sussex coastline, having travelled from London to spend the day at the beach.

However, Hopkins sparkled insult when she tweeted a poll with the thread, “5 dead at Camber Sands were…”, accompanied by a number of bad joke responses. Sussex Police responded to criticisms on the social networking site verifying they had reported her, continuing that it really was not suitable to joke about five deaths the day after the event.

It was especially callous, though not illegal.

The five, thought to be Sri Lankan in origin, died on Wednesday.

A spokesperson for Sussex Police announced that Hopkins’ tweet was listed under the classes of offensive, hurtful, rude and nasty.

At around 10.30am on Thursday, Sussex Police was made aware of a tweet, which the authorities deemed to be callous. This has been related to Twitter. The main interest is to the sentiments and emotions of the next of kin of those who sadly perished at Camber.

The poll has presently been removed.

We are all familiar with Katie Hopkins, and what a terrible trap she has, and she should restrain herself from society if she clearly cannot keep her awful opinions to herself. Maybe she should take a vacation following her brain operation since obviously whatever surgery she had has not quelled her muzzle.

Katie Hopkins has the largest aperture I know, though I’m sure there are people out there with larger orifices, although I’ve still not discovered them yet, therefore, because of this, it’s my opportunity to butcher Katie, so she can see how it feels to be a butt.

Usually, when somebody takes the piss out of another person, there is usually a reason behind it, but these people that perished, she had no attachment to them, she had never met them before, they were total strangers, and they didn’t warrant that sort of bitterness.

She is a resentful woman and an extremely rude person that I have come across in a long time. She is not friendly at all, and her affection for people is zilch. She does not appear to have any regard for anyone, which I see as rather offensive, and she despises everyone around her.

Rent-a-gob Katie Hopkins has made a profession out of being contentious for the sake of it. She stated that Hannah was the ideal name for a dyslexic child. Unsurprisingly, the bulk of the nation was unimpressed by dirty knickers Katie and her pitiful effort to create discord by linking children’s names to disabilities.

However, this isn’t the first time the former Apprentice star has been so callous. Katie went face to face bickering over the policies of attachment parenting. Hopkins made a swipe, as a discussion got heated, over images that were published months beforehand, showing grappling mum Peaches Geldof attempting to pick up her son from the sidewalk after her pram fell over.

It was a cheap punch from Hopkins since most parents have had their child fall out of bed, or fall from a pram, it doesn’t matter whether you are a single parent or a married parent, these things occur.

Motormouth Katie insulted a room full of students when she told them she didn’t actually approve of obese people, and that she wouldn’t like to face a ginger in the dark, and rained disdain on the state school system.

She propelled into a conversation in which she damned what she stated was the special treatment of university applicants from the state school system.

She stated that suicidal inmates should simply kill themselves. Yes, she actually did state that.

Katie further stated that she would never hire somebody who is overweight.

She stated, that she actually believed that if you have a tattoo you have to question about what sort of prospect you have ahead of you. Katie stated, that as an entrepreneur she certainly wouldn’t hire somebody with tattoos and that she would worry what her shoppers would think of them. Plus socially we still see tattoos as graffiti, or perhaps she was talking about her revolting orifice, that’s full of textual graffiti.

She further asserted that Mammary militia breastfeeding en masse in Costa puts one off their latte.

She stated that being despised is a cross she bears. Like the Jesus of the outspoken.

Katie, 38, who was on The Apprentice in 2006, wrote in a magazine that Lily Allen was kind of exciting until she had kids. She added she was eliminating herself from the notoriety since she aspired to be a parent.

She stated, it mainly meant gaining two stone and looking rather ugly.

Lily, 28, who suffered two miscarriages before giving birth to twin daughters Ethel and Marnie, 13 months, hit back, and replied, that yes, following tragically losing a baby so advanced in her pregnancy, she may have increased a few pounds.

Furthermore, that she was one of several that obtain relief in food. The Smile vocalist continued that she wasn’t exercising since she didn’t want to take any chances and that the survival of her children seemed more relevant than being skinny.

Katie announced to Heat magazine, Gemma Collins was at the plus size fashion awards to get her contributions to overweight people award, which Katie believed meant mostly being fat. She said, well done to Gemma for being overweight, but following catching wind of the evil remarks, the Towie actress lashed out.

Gemma called Hopkins a total mug, stating that she was so kind to Katie when they met one another.

Discussing the Keeping Up with the Kardashians star, she stated that she has a fat arse and that she actually didn’t understand what the fascination was with Kim. She further stated, she actually didn’t believe that being seen as somebody with a big behind was that great, and that she would rather be remembered as the biggest bitch in Britain.

Katie stated, that her foresight for Bieber was that he’ll be up next on a wrecking ball licking an adjustable spanner, and believed that may be in the offing for Belieber. Or go the Lohan highway and simply waste the remainder of his days in and out of rehab.

Or he could go the full Winehouse, and that will be the death of Bieber.

She further took objection to his faithful follower support, hitting the Beliebers and maintained they seemingly don’t have many friends and struggle with their own individual problems. She ranted, Beliebers are weird. They do adore him, and that they may admire him endlessly.

She stated, she assumed they’re kind of pathetic, single teenagers named Rebecca, that hasn’t got many mates, presumably got problems with their weight, height, hair colour, skin, and I don’t know what, and sort of grip onto him and say that they ‘belieb’.

She further stated that the X Factor 2013 had finished in a disturbing confrontation amidst a fat mum in a jumpsuit and a small boy in whatever his mum set out for him on his bed. She continued, they also attempted performing cute clips of Sam’s children. They were convinced that would make the woman break, but it turned out she had the sensitivity of a prison officer.

Writing in her post for Best, Katie further annihilated Elton John for looking puffy around the gills and took a swipe at 61-year-old Sharon Osbourne’s plastic surgery, and said, if she is going to look this good next year she will need to bulk buy plastic.

This is how vitriol spilling Katie Hopkins portrays television chef Nigella Lawson. Reporting in her Sun editorial mother-of-two Katie, who stated her hubby thought Nigella was a tad savoury, and said, Nigella made each mum in the country seem less than ideal. There is a rare delight in discovering that behind the full breast and alluring glimpses to the camera, things are not as flawless as they appear.

Under that pallid appearance, equine fangs and motormouth is an instrument of sheer wickedness. She simply isn’t a human being, as she has no heart, she does not have one individual emotion, and the truth of it is, she, in fact, is just a shameful evil woman who has no compassion for anyone else.

She relishes tearing the essence out of others, and gets vast entertainment out of it, and obviously her saneness isn’t intact, you could barely describe her as the brains of Britain.

Katie Hopkins may have been a newspaper reporter before she joined the competitors on the UK series of the reality T.V show The Apprentice in 2007, but maybe the publicity of it all has gone to her head, and presently all she can do is talk out of her arse.

She has repeatedly made personal and derogatory remarks on camera. She after performed in I’m a Celebrity…Get Me Out of Here! on ITV and Celebrity Big Brother on Channel 5. She has penned articles for British newspapers The Sun and the Daily Mail and stood as a competitor in the 2009 European Parliamentary election, God forbid had she actually got in.

Hopkins has been scrutinised in the media and by advocacy organisations and MP’s for her remarks about migrants and accused of classism and racism, but according to Hopkins, she is driving back the barricades closing in on freedom of speech.

It is one action to support freedom of speech, but to be the caca mouth of it all is very offensive to everyone around her. Discharging your own faeces is fair enough, however, not when your smearing it all over everybody else.

You’re supposed to take the garbage out, not launch it over everyone else, and she should learn to throw whatever nonsense comes out of her orifice into the trash, maybe whilst she’s there, maybe she might discover some basic understanding, with some understanding of other people’s emotions.

Penalties have been inflicted on women wearing burkinis in the southern French town of Cannes.

A prohibition on the swimwear, popular with some Muslim women as they completely conceal the body, was controversially launched earlier in August.

The three females, aged from 29 to 57, were with their kids at the beach when police officers interceded over the offending garments.

Four of the females were fined €38, £33 whilst all were presented with warnings and instructed to vacate the area.

They are young mothers or grandmothers, and they do not think they are criminals. All were really disconcerted at the way they were treated.

Mayor David Lisnard created discord amongst Muslim groups by making Cannes the principal resort town to force an embargo on the full-body swimsuits. He took this decision amongst many other decisions to make sure his town was protected in the context of the state of emergency.

Mr Lisnard’s decision was questioned although later supported in court. A judge announced the rule was enforceable under French legislation which forbids people invoking their sacred positions to skirt common laws governing relationships within public authorities and private individuals.

The judge put the embargo in the context of the state of emergency and current Islamist assaults, notably in Nice a month ago.

Cannes is less than 20 miles from Nice, where Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel ploughed a lorry into a crowd which had assembled to see Bastille Day fireworks, killing 85 people.

Another resort town near Nice, Villeneuve-Loubet, also outlawed burkinis on beaches. A recently proposed by-law ordered only clothes that are respectful to morality and secular beliefs, and in compliance with health and safety laws is supported.

Mayor Lionnel Luca announced the ban of the garments was for hygienic purposes. Plus he was informed that there was a couple on one of the beaches where the lady was bathing completely dressed, and it deemed unacceptable for sanitary purposes and undesirable given the overall situation.

In France, one does not come to the beach clothed to represent one’s religious beliefs, particularly as they are erroneous beliefs that the doctrine does not require.

France has forced a controversial prohibition on full-face veils since 2004.

This covering of the face has a suggestion of sexism and many think that this is the summit of cultural and governmental development. One of the outcomes of this thinking is the trend to establish an ideal, in so far as different nations differ from that, sets them as problematical.

For instance, many think that females in the United States are extremely liberated. In so far as women in different cultures live differently, they are considered to be oppressed. Of course, women are oppressed elsewhere, although it is a misconception to think that they are oppressed and we are liberated.

This so-called binary forms an obscure way in which women elsewhere are not 100% inferior and those other women similarly experience from gendered persecution.

I’m not sure which is worse, the inflexible and unreasonable example of appeal in the United States and the idea that women’s bodies are revealed to inspection or the thought of living under a burka that bans particular freedoms, but saves you from evaluative eyes and the outcomes of their contradictory evaluations.

Consuming live creatures is the tradition of individuals feeding on creatures that are still viable, preferably than animals which have been discovered lifeless or slaughtered to be consumed. Consuming live creatures is a common tradition in several Asian food customs, although animals are further digested alive for shock value.

Both vertebral or shellfish may be consumed.

Consuming live animals, or pieces of live creatures, may be illegal in some provinces under animal torture statutes. Puritanical bans on the consumption of live animals by individuals are further present in many world faiths.

The Frog sashimi is a Japanese speciality consisting of feeding on a live frog, separating the members of the body that they can’t feed on and the principal idea is to consume the heart of the frog while it’s still beating.

These people would eat their first born. Sickening, heartless and sadistic animal cruelty, what is wrong with these people?

This is sickening, while this dying animal fights and flaps about helplessly. This is gross and inhuman and perhaps this shallow callous smiling woman consuming this unfortunate and traumatised animal should suffocate to death. This is terrible. What is wrong with people? This practice must end.

This is shockingly violent torture, an utterly groundless torment of a breathing animal. Such inhumane and cruel practice is disgraceful. There is a particular level of purgatory maintained for the perpetrators of this despicable ridiculous custom.

It’s a seedy world we live in. Another reason why we should withdraw from going to any country where people exist and who are inhumane, uncaring and really quite sick.

After Tom-Jan Hüsch’s sweetheart split up with him, he chose to take vengeance to an absurd level by violently beating and hitting the hound his lover purchased him as a gift. Worst of all he chose to record it all and upload to Facebook.

This video was since withdrawn from Facebook, yet, the video immediately went viral, drawing the attention of one person who chose to bring this small canine justice by hunting down Hüsch and causing the corresponding injury to him that Hüsch forced on the hapless, helpless creature.

The chap further recorded a video of himself beating up Hüsch, which he next posted online as a lesson to everybody that pet torture and degradation would not be allowed in Germany. Hüsch’s assailant was next named as Josef Guldschmitt. Guldschmitt described his attack in a discussion by telephone this evening.

Guldschmitt stated that he actually wanted him to die and that if he could have located his pliers, he would have twisted his scrotum off.

As of now, no charges have been filed upon Guldschmitt.

People like Tom-Jan Hüsch need to be held responsible for what they do to another life, and it is immaterial if that life is human life or an animal. It does not matter if you have a grievance with your girlfriend, the creature has done nothing wrong and should not have to endure degenerates like Hüsch.

You can’t beat a pet because you have the hump with your ex-partner, and then believe it’s acceptable, that simply makes a person cowardly and contemptible, and it’s despicable that a human being could even behave that way towards a pet.

This is shocking, and people that behave towards their pets in this manner should be put in jail, it should be a serious felonious crime. It would happen if it was a human being, and it should be the equivalent for pets.

The Queen can’t get prosecuted. If the Queen perpetrated a grave wrong, could she get arrested and if so, how would the hierarchy change? All court cases in Crown court are “The Queen versus”. The Queen cannot be charged with an offence as she cannot prosecute herself. So in speculation, she could do what she wants. If she murdered somebody, she would not be arrested for it.

As the Crown Proceedings Act only affected the law in regards to actions supported on by or on behalf of the UK government, the sovereign continues individually free from illegal and public actions. She cannot be arrested because of her status as head of state, to charge her, Parliament has to decide to remove her first and eliminate her rights and such, making her not the sovereign anymore. Not very believable.

Can the government constitutionally remove the Queen? Doubtful, even if they did, under the human rights act she can’t be tried for a wrong that was legal when she performed it.

However, the Queen’s protection can be excluded by an act of parliament if they thought it was required. Remember that after Oliver Cromwell, the government is the principal authority. We prefer to let the Royal Family be the puppet heads of state.

Queen Elizabeth II is not like you and me. Did you know she is free from prosecution? That she has her own private poet, paid in Sherry wine? Or that she holds power over British swans and can discharge the whole Australian government? It’s correct that her position as the British head of state is mostly stately, and the sovereign no longer holds any solemn strength from day to day.

As a person, she cannot be contested in any civil or criminal action and actions of parliament don’t touch her except if they explicitly say that they do.

Under the Crown Proceedings Act (1947), civil proceedings can be taken on the Crown in its public role, this normally indicates actions on government departments and agencies, as the selected Government governs in The monarch’s name.

So you can sue her sovereignty government but you cannot sue her.

This suggests that the monarch can kill somebody and not be charged. Of course, if she did so there would be an action of parliament that not only discharged her, but removed any prospective ruler of such immunity but, she still would not face prosecution because it was not prohibited when the action was performed.

The famous privilege rule of the monarch has been devolved chiefly to government delegates. Yet, this still means that when the British government advocates conflict or oversees the civil service, or signs an agreement, it is doing so only on her authority.

Technically, all unmarked swans in open water belong to the sovereign, though the monarch exercises her right only on some stretches of the Thames and its nearby rivers.

The “Rule, Britannia, Britannia rules the waves,” goes a traditional British ballad, and this custom continues below the waves, too. The monarch has power over a diversity of water creatures in British waters. The monarch still technically owns all the sturgeons, whales, and dolphins in the waters around the United Kingdom, in a practice that dates back to a law from 1324, through the rule of King Edward II.

It takes lots of dedication to be the Queen I’m sure, her family must be so proud of her, and all her colleagues that she is enveloped by, embracing all that notoriety she has from the British public. With all of her quirky trappings that she dresses in for state events, I question if she is as interesting as her costumes look?

A glimpse of the Queen in all of her paraphernalia, which is quite dazzling, she could practically ignite a Belisha beacon, however, there is no avoiding her Royal obligations, the Queen is the symbol of Britain, and she draws in loads of dough through tourism. The Queen is the method where we make money, and she is the image of this nation, without her, where would we be?

Wow, this nation would be in chaos without her appearance, and over the years there has been a small detachment between the universality of the palace and the people following the passing of Diana, and as the monarch arrives at a new milestone of becoming the UK’s longest ruling monarch, the issue of her value to Britain’s economy has once again been raised.

According to a new investigation by Brand Finance, the value of the sovereignty has been put at an estimated £56.7 billion. This figure covers the cost of physical assets such as the Crown Estate, the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster and the Crown Jewels. When these physical assets are removed, the entire value of the sovereignty to the UK’s economy is an evaluated £1.155 billion for 2015, according to their investigation. 

This number has been estimated by clearing off expenses such as the Sovereign Grant, the millions paid on security and the preservation of the palaces against sources of revenue such as the excess produced by the Crown Estate, the improvement in tourism and the value award from labels bearing Royal Warrants. Yet, Brand Finance attributes £152 million in assets to the Kate Effect, which is characterised as an improvement to fashion and additional labels worn, used or otherwise approved.

Furthermore, £101 million is associated to the Charlotte Effect and £76 million to the George Effect, whilst a sum of £114 million has been estimated as the calculated amount of PR. Brand Finance has not yet replied to how these numbers were calculated from cumulative purchases.

Followers of the sovereignty and its worth to the United Kingdom usually use the example of tourism as an area where the Royals bring in business. Brand Finance’s calculations reveal that tourism resources connected to the sovereignty and its legacy has been estimated at £535 million for 2015.

However, the UK’s tourism group VisitBritain said that whilst global tourism is Britain’s third biggest service exportation, with inbound tourism to Britain worth £26.2 billion, only some of that figure can be connected to attractions and events with a link to British sovereign and legacy. These are sites such as the Tower of London, Buckingham Palace and Westminster Abbey, where the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were married, though no exact figure can be gauged of the contribution of the royals on tourism revenues.

While having a noble family gets us an immense volume of global coverage and available publicity for Britain across the realm, which is priceless, it’s not something we can give an accurate financial value for, and Campaign group Republic, which asks for the overthrow of the sovereignty, maintains that its personal analysis reveals the sovereignty costs the United Kingdom £334 million a year, with various working royal costing the taxpayer £18.5 million a piece.

Republic repudiates the inclusion of excess from the Crown Estate as a reservoir of funds as it is a property investment vehicle managed, not owned, by the monarch through her rule as sovereign on the interest of the kingdom.

It alternatively maintains that costs from a quantity of sources incorporating the Sovereign Grant, costs to regional councils, costs from security and losses incurred by the private holdings of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall amount to £333.9 million.

Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, further acknowledged as the Queen, is set to pass her great-great-grandmother as the longest reigning sovereign in British history.

She has replaced Queen Victoria as a holder of the title Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth and Defender of the Faith for the prolonged period, including any king, following her crowning as a 25-year-old 63 years ago.

Much is understood about her desire of corgis, the pleasure of Balmoral Castle, deemed condemnation of Diana and individual thriftiness if a person whose family and palaces cost the taxpayer £35.7 million last year can be legitimately described as frugal. But what is less well-known?

She is, as is begrudgingly recognised even by sturdy republicans, an obviously duty-oriented woman who has attempted to keep herself educated on technology and development. Her quirkier interests, sovereign virtues and activities depict a vivid life lived.

The monarch, it turns out, was really excited about efforts to hunt down the Loch Ness monster.

Letters in 1962 within the palace and naturalist Sir Peter Scott, son of Antarctic adventurer Captain Scott, stated she would like to stay informed of any progress in finding a potentially new species. They stopped quickly, however, of agreeing the beast should be named after her.

Her assistant private secretary stated it would be extremely regrettable to connect Her Highness in any way with anything which eventually become a deception. The Queen is apparently a big supporter of fact-checking Downton Abbey, according to Royal writer Brian Hoey in his book At Home with the Queen.

In one episode, he stated, she noticed that the decorations on a British officer through the First World War were really from the Second World War, a factual mistake that show’s that the history adviser must have been a little flustered about. A couple in Manchester who summoned the monarch to a wedding in 2012 were shocked when she actually arrived.

The sovereign and her hubby were having luncheon next door in Manchester Town Hall when they appeared to wish John and Frances Manning, who had sent the couple an invite on the off-chance, all the best for the future. The monarch can talk eloquent French and does not require a translator. In that regard, she had more in common with the ex-deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who can speak five languages, than with former premier David Cameron, who can speak some French but apparently not very fluently.

In that respect, she had more in common with the ex-deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who can articulate five languages. Her corgis were all issued small rubber Wellingtons to shield their paws from Buckingham Palace’s shale in 1999. They were purchased from a supplier who had invented them for police canines, and the monarch allegedly questioned whether they could look more like Wellington boots.

When she joined the Army in 1945 as a Second Subaltern, the monarch was a driver and mechanic who took a car-maintenance course before then going on to be a Junior Commander. She is believed to be the only British sovereign in history properly taught to replace a spark plug.

The grand success of longest-reigning sovereign belies a less extravagant sounding location of origin. In 1926 Elizabeth Windsor was born at her parents’ residence, 17 Bruton Street in Mayfair, at a location which is presently a Chinese restaurant.

We’ve got into the practice of buying fast junk foods which have no real food in them, we purchase tonnes of household toxic detergents when one degradable detergent will do.  We are destroying our houses and spending our hard earned cash for no good reason, why? Because the advertisement entrepreneurs tell us to.

They just want you to purchase stuff, for instance, if a corporation poisons the atmosphere or practices damaging business practices, if you don’t purchase their stuff, they will change.  If you don’t want food with chemicals or GMO’s in it, then don’t purchase it. The moment we begin taking responsibility and using our funds carefully, each politician, each company and leader around the globe will know that we have woken up.

This is the 21st century if we use our resources carefully, there’s no reason why anybody shouldn’t have what they need. There’s no reason whatsoever why people still perish to death on our planet. Plus the average man or woman whether they are Israeli or Palestinian, Protestant or Catholic, or Iraqi or American, the simple man just wants to exist in harmony, in fairness and a sanitary environment.

When we look around the globe, when we see that is not the case, we know the will of the majority is not being listened to, that’s the first sign that our system, is broken. The government won’t make these adjustments for us, yet again it’s down to the common man.

No company will continue a practice or a commodity that you the customer will not purchase. It’s vitally important that you know this because this gives you the ultimate control to shape the environment you exist in. Companies are very sensitive about you purchasing their commodities because if you don’t purchase their stuff, they go out of business.

A restaurant proprietor has come to the defence of one of his waiters after some clientele stated they did not want to be attended by him as he was autistic. Mike Jennings, who works Grenache in Walkden, Manchester, took to Facebook after being appalled at the way a table of patrons criticised his crew member.

They requested not to be served by an autistic crew member and asked Mr Jennings, why he would hire him in such an establishment. The waiter, Andy, 45, who has autism, joined the establishment three weeks ago. He shuffles his career with his position as a designated carer for his mum, who suffers from Alzheimer’s.

They used the day restoring the confidence of one of their team, after being disrespected and socially victimised by a table that was dining with them. Mike Jennings describes his recruiting, and that they hire workers based on their skill, experience and enthusiasm for the work. Not the tone of their skin, or the way they look, how many tattoos they have, their dress size, religious views or disabilities. They do not segregate.

Ultimately, he conveys a distinct message: “If you DO [discriminate]… Then please do not book a table at Grenache. You do not deserve our time, effort or RESPECT!”

This should be a prompt reminder that people with disabilities are no different from everyone else, and they should be treated with the reverence that they deserve. They are not a victim that people appear to believe they can ridicule, and just because a person has a disability does not mean that they have no social manners.

It does not indicate that they are illiterate, in fact, most people with disabilities are quite smart. However, other people cringe at the unknown and need to be extra grown-up about people with disabilities, and I am certain they would think differently if it was their child that had a disability and went to work and got mocked.

These people that ridicule the afflicted are bullies, and I find this all very distasteful, and I wince at the thought that somebody could make this person feel victimised because he is Autistic. My own son is Autistic, and he has been browbeaten by people all his life, and it makes me sad that this sort of thing still goes on, even in today’s society when prejudice is supposed to be against the law.

There should be much more stringent regulations opposing prejudice, particularly where a person has a disability through no wrongdoing of their own. After all, they don’t ask to be born this way, but that is life, and that is the way life goes, but that does not imply they should be victimised for it.

To abuse another person for being different from somebody else is completely shameful, that people think they can band together to obtain brownie points, and when these people do these terrible things, they must understand that it completely annihilates the spirit of the person they are doing it too, particularly if they have a disability.

They have plenty to deal with on an everyday basis, net alone having to put up with ignorant people assuming it’s entertaining when they do this and behave in this way towards another human being. These people are just rude and uncouth, and their conduct is far from reproach.

If they think the disabled people are imperfect, then they should take a long hard look at themselves in the mirror from time to time. At least disabled people have the capacity to overlook and the courage to disregard the cowardice that some people have in them. These are brilliant people, they are not oddballs of the community, and they can be victorious and challenge anything that is facing them.

If people have a distaste for disabled people, then clearly don’t visit the restaurant that they work in or any workplace they work in, it’s as plain as that. Prejudice is a disturbing thing, and should be abolished altogether, no ifs or buts, and it should be sanctioned by a law, not just for some, but for everybody.

We should be able to feel comfortable in our society, and not have to be cautious of what we say or do, how we look, how we dress, what colour hair we have, how many tattoos we have, whether we are disabled, a different tone of skin, it should not matter because beneath our skin we are still all the same.

Mother-of-three, Cecilia Garcia, was left this hateful voicemail from two staff, one by the name of Ann Goode, at Bromley’s Job Centre office. Goode failed to hang up correctly following leaving a message and was caught on tape. The Job Centre operator left a startling voicemail for single mother-of-three calling her a scrounging bastard that was popping out kids like an animal.

The single mother-of-three was left enraged after a Job Centre operator left a voicemail on her telephone calling her a ‘scrounging bastard that’s popping out kids like pigs. Cecelia Garcia, 44, from Beckenham, South East London, was left feeling nauseous after she got the offensive message which the staff member left by error.

The harangue of degradation was recorded after the operator decline to hang up and went on to scrutinise claimants with foreign sounding surnames to a co-worker in her office. Mrs Garcia, who has turned to benefits to top up her salary after separating from her partner last year, was left reeling by the recording left last Friday afternoon.

She had checked her messages to discover a voicemail from a woman alleging to be from the Bromley Job Centre, who requested her to call back next week.

However, rather than hanging up, the message proceeds, and communication was caught among team members who were oblivious they were being recorded.

One female begins to giggle and laughs: ‘I’m going to get very, very politically incorrect this afternoon.’ The other then responds: ‘You are, aren’t you? And I don’t blame you one bit.’

Mrs Garcia, who has a dual Mexican-British citizen, said: ‘I got sick, I was so upset over the weekend. It is really offensive all the things that she says on the voicemail. And it sounds like the other person totally agrees with her.
‘The fact that they say things like “oh they aren’t even English names” – this goes beyond everything, saying I pop out kids like pigs. I have dual nationality, we did everything right, I’m not illegal.

‘She shouldn’t express this about people from other backgrounds.’Mrs Garcia said she never wanted to turn to benefits but was forced to when she could no longer afford the rent to house her children, who are eight, six and four.
A Department for Work and Pensions spokesperson informed MailOnline today: ‘We are taking this incident extremely seriously, and we have launched an investigation.’

Each person who works in a Job Centre should be charged with atrocities opposing Humanity and told it’s up to them to demonstrate their integrity. The most depressing thing about being out of work is going to a job centre with their ridiculous levels of intimidating security, more than you’d find in night clubs. Anyone relying solely on a Job Centre for their employment is going to find themselves out of work for a long time or in work for a very short time.

Practically everybody gets jobs from employment agencies rather than the short hours, low-paid drivel jobs in job centres. The workers themselves have twaddle jobs with despicable salaries and on top of that, they have targets from this wicked government to penalise people on the most flimsy pretence. They are told to wind people up on purpose to make them kick off so they can sanction them. Everyone likes to feel a little bit superior to someone else no matter how humble they are. The only job fulfilment Job Centre staff get is looking down their beaks at Jobseekers.

People who whine they don’t get £1,000 per month should perhaps work full time, perhaps retrain or get a better position.  We should quit judging single mothers. A £1,000 a month is not a lot, and it’s not like this particular lady is a scrounger, she openly said that she fell on difficult times.

Isn’t that what the benefits scheme is designed for? Plus most people are more than content to pay taxes to implement a safety net.

There are a number of people having kids for benefits, for some, it’s the only opportunity they have of getting a home to live in. It’s a disgrace since various people in this country are struggling when they are in full employment. There appears to be this idea that a person is rolling in dough when they are in work, it will just continue until there are jobs that are well paid, and give people some kind of hope.

Jobcentre workers are there to hinder not support claimants, it’s no wonder that they treat people with such contempt. It’s called the job centre but actually, it is simply a checking station. Monitoring you have ticked all the boxes if you haven’t, you get sanctioned. That’s their duty to penalise claimants. They seem to get a huge thrill out of it too.

Although I would have no idea who would get such enthusiasm out of sanctioning people so that they have no funds, existing on nothing, it must be some sort of arousal tactic to make people fall into the depths of poverty. If you want to destroy somebody else’s life, I am certain there are many ways that it could be done, other than taking their money off them.

People are simply begging to be helped, not hindered to the position where they just want to take their own lives as they can see no other way around a situation. If they want to expand hunger, they are going the right way about it, and whilst they are doing it, they are also being extremely biassed.

People do not want to be jobless, though I do acknowledge there are a few out there that just don’t want to labour, however, parents are not one of those, and people who serve for the job centre should be impartial when serving in that sort of setting, and if they can’t be unbiased, then they shouldn’t be working there at all. We have lots of bullying outside of the workplace, we don’t want it inside, after all, all of those that do work there are assumed to be grown-ups, obviously not in this incident.

A teenage student has been forbidden from school because teachers stated her dyed hair was an unnatural colour. Fern Burke, 14, was told she could not return to classes at Middleton Technology School in Rochdale until her hair was darker.

Fern’s mum, Tracey Burke, has tried to darken it twice, however, following being told Fern’s hair was still too bright she declines to use a darker black colourant since she worries her daughter would be browbeaten.

Fern, a true brunette, dyed her hair red over the summer, however, maintains the colour waned over the summer. But inside moments of returning for the current school term, her mum got a telephone call stating Fern’s hair was too bright.

Mrs Burke then deepened it with two bottles of brown dye, however, teachers stated that it still wasn’t natural enough. Fern, who lives in Searness Road, Middleton, with her mum, father Patrick, brother Dion, 17, and sister Grace, is presently missing lessons.

Mrs Burke, herself a primary school teaching assistant, stated that Fern had always wanted to experiment and dye her hair red. As her mum knew this was not permitted in school, they waited for the summer holidays to dye it.

After seven weeks off, the colour had waned significantly and Fern returned to school. However, she was told that the colour was still too red, so at the weekend they dyed her hair twice with dark brown.

Mrs Burke stated that she refuses to dye Fern’s hair any darker, and said that the last time she dyed her hair black she was bullied. Naturally, she doesn’t want to endure this again. She said, that she didn’t believe this was right considering there are teachers at the school with purple hair or highlights which are not true colours.

Fern appreciates the necessity for rules inside the school in preparing for the working environment, but you tell me a job where you would be sent home or fired for the colour of your hair. Her mother said she needs to be getting on with work.

Fern’s mum said that she’s now begun Year 10 and needs to concentrate on her GCSEs. The Headteacher Alison Crompton refused to discuss the situation, I question why that might be?

There appears to be an enormous disparity on the colour of a person’s hair whilst in school, but shouldn’t teachers be extra receptive to their students, and recognise that people are individuals, and as individuals should be able to attire and have their hair how they require.

Clearly, teachers can’t say that violates on anyone, or what should and should not be, and if so, does this suggest that we all have to look the same, wear the same, and have the corresponding hair colour, or are we to one day grow up to be the Stepford Wives?

Does this suggest that if students are not permitted to wear their hair how they want, or have the colour that they want it, the teachers should be obeying the identical custom? If one rule is suitable for the pupils, then clearly it should be the same for the teachers?

Opinions have diminished considerably since I was at school towards the way that students should be clothed, and what colour their hair should be, and shouldn’t we as individuals be entitled to be who we truly are, rather than how a culture thinks we should be.

An individual is a person or a particular thing. Identity or selfhood is the nature or essence of being an individual, especially of being a person separate from another person and controlling his or her own needs or goals. The specific interpretation of an individual is essential in the areas of biology, law, and philosophy.

Individualism makes the individual its focus and so begins with the basic premise that the human individual is of prime consequence in the fight for freedom. The most powerful kind of freedom is to be what we really are.

If you feel uncomfortable with who you actually are, and hide the way you truly are, you’re letting society shatter your existence. You should stand up for the freedom to be yourself.

At times, schools handle students negatively. Students need to be different from another person in their own individual way, and there is nothing incorrect about that, it simply indicates that person has decided to be an individual.

Though, sometimes it is simply to fit in with others so that they do not get bullied, which can generate an adverse environment for the whole school population. People don’t start off understanding who they are as an individual, and through all the steps of growing up, teenagers are told how they should act in various circumstances.

The way a person sees himself/herself is discovered over a span of time and comes from seeing himself/herself acting in various settings. That persona is developed over a period of time until individuals come to identify themselves as themselves.

It is common for people to attempt to show themselves as if they are more beautiful and popular than they actually are. A man will pretend to be suave, and mature, and poised, and a woman puts on lipstick carefully to improve her image.

In a sense, a person should not settle for just being himself. People should not feel guilty for being who they are, and for whatever the reason, many people think like they have to struggle for the freedom to simply live as they want.

IT’S OKAY FOR YOU TO BE YOU!