THE MONTHLY MOSQUITO

The Gagging Law

The government’s dashing through a recently developed statute which, if it goes ahead, would have a bitter result on British democracy and our entitlement to speak up on matters that are important in order to us.

From May 2014, harsh new rules would stop non-politicians from speaking up on the essential matters of the day. A large span of campaign factions and non-profit organisations, everybody from The Royal British Legion, with Oxfam, to the RSPB, are warning about the danger this will create.

In a thriving democracy, everybody should be in a position to communicate their opinions, and everybody should be permitted to get in order to high point what elected officials are saying and doing on the matters that are of importance to them.

Politics is too significant to leave to political parties, and when we speak up about decisions that have an effect on us, and what lies ahead for our country, we can often alter things for the better.

If we permit this gagging order, it means that there will be a limitation on information or remarks that is made by the public, or remarks that has been handed over to an organised third party.

Gagging orders may be utilised, for instance, to keep legal trade secrets of a business, to keep safe the good character of ongoing police or military operations, or to keep from harm the freedom of disturbance of an injured party or child, or equally what occurs in government.

Conversely, as their drawback, they may be misused as a functional implement for those of monetary means to frighten witnesses and stop the release of information, using the legal system rather than other techniques of intimidation.

In spite of a huge crusade in opposition to it, the Tories did accomplish to get it passed in what has become frequently known as the ‘gagging bill’. The gagging bill is a way to silence people who would in fact want to have a voice in what happens in our country and, inside our government, but now can’t do that.

The mainstream corporate media have amused themselves with the government by frequently alluding to it as the lobbying bill, in spite of the fact that the larger part of the lobby industry will still be completely untouched by it. Essentially the bill keeps safety in house corporate lobbying operations from any sort of authorised examination, meaning that a cloak of secrecy will still cloak their control upon our politicians.

The fact that the inappropriately named lobby bill does hardly anything to control the pursuit of corporate lobbyists isn’t even the worst of it. The truly shocking part is the sizeable second section of the bill which is plainly blueprinted to muffle attackers of the government such as charities, voluntary organisations, protest groups, trade unions and religions, which in spite of the bile from disagreeable anti theist ranter brigade, have done much good work in promoting social justice.

The intent to utilise this latest law in order to repel the freedom of speech of organisations that find fault with government plans was made completely comprehensible by the communication used by Iain Duncan Smith in his harangue against the Trussell Trust food bank group earlier in January.

It was an extremely bad day for anybody wanting to save the environment, save a hospital or be against tuition fees, and it must be transparent. Civil society must never be deprived of its voice. We must stand up for our convictions and to decline self censorship.

We must toil tirelessly to make sure that this bill does not silence charities and campaigners because this bill will inflict a huge regulatory strain on charities and voluntary organisations, which is now one more confirmation that David Cameron’s Big Society is a con.

One thing is for certain, The Tory gagging laws will not be relevant to the corporate restriction on the mainstream press, and whilst charities and protest groups are muzzled from condemning government strategies, the cheerleaders of neoliberalism in the right wing press, such as the Murdoch emporium, The Telegraph, The Daily Mail, and the Express etc will be permitted to carry on spurting their brazenly prejudiced Tory party advertising.

The fact that the Tories will never gag their attack dogs in the mainstream corporate press presents differing parties with a possible means of evasion. If they proclaim themselves media organisations, or aim their disapproval of the government by means of the press outlets such as their own tabloids, periodicals or websites, the Tories would be forced to bring in harsh press status in order to shut them up.

In conclusion, this is very discouraging stuff, and despite the best attempts of the charitable sector, Tory led government has brought in laws intended to gag their critics. The only glimmer of hopefulness is that this legislation is so badly thought up that it is doomed to failure.

The most advantageous way to test this is through a majority of non compliance. Nevertheless, it may only take the courage of a small number of organisations to rotate this legislation in opposition to those that thought it up by making sure that the Tories efforts to gag their critics rebound spectacularly by rendering far more public attention to the differing organisation than merely letting them alone would have.

Iain Duncan Smith Facing Commons Grinding Over His Universal Credit Benefit Improvement Chaos

Iain Duncan Smith fronts a grilling from Members of Parliament over his bungled Universal Credit programme. The marshalled Work and Pensions Secretary will be questioned about the misuse of more than £130 million on his welfare shake-up.

He will be requested to account for the spiralling expense of the project, which had been expected this year but has been hampered for at the minimum two years surrounded by disorder over its recently developed computer system.

His Work and Pension Committee confrontation comes as a Tory insider maintains Chancellor George Osborne and Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude have lost their trust in Iain Duncan Smith.

Iain Duncan Smith is hopeless. George Osbourne and Frances Maude have lost any faith in his capability to administer Universal Credit without a hitch. It’s not on time or on schedule, and the whole thing is a catastrophe.

Iain Duncan Smith urged he was bent on trudging on with the vital improvements, which will amalgamate six benefits and tax credit.

Nevertheless it has high pointed how the disorderly introduction has seen £40 million written off in assets that will never be utilised and £91 million spent on assets that will only be functional for five years.

Brutal Pepper Spray Assault On Birmingham Bus Commuter Visible In CCTV Launched By Police

The police have released CCTV footage presenting a barbarous and unprovoked pepper spray attack on a man travelling a bus in Birmingham. In the video, a man and woman can be watched setting upon their 21 year old male casualty over an interval of seven minutes, leaving him briefly visionless and with a severely broken nose.

Officers said they think the assault started following when the casualty politely asked the couple to intervene when two children, with who they were travelling, began hurling sweets at him. The occurrence took place on the top deck of the No 24 bus along Birmingham’s Board Street prior to 6pm on 11 January.

Police have released the CCTV pictures now in the hopefulness that anybody who might know the man and woman involved will come forward.

The man was just minding his own affairs when he politely asked the crowd to stop tossing sweets at him, but that plea induced a savage, and extended assault. The injured party had something like pepper spray sprayed in his face which made him powerless as the blows rained down on him.

At one point, the assailant stood on a seat to get a better booting slant, whilst the woman he was with as well from time to time teamed up in the attack. The casualty was fortunate to get off with merely a broken nose as it could have been much more unpleasant.

What makes this more appalling is that they let loose this assault in front of two children they were travelling with and, then we wonder why young children end up being a double take of their peers, clearly because they only follow by example.

Three Charged With Theft Of Food From Skip At The Rear Of Iceland Supermarket

A man will stand trial next month after being apprehended taking some tomatoes, mushrooms and cheese from dustbins at the rear of a branch of Iceland’s. It’s expected the man; freelance web designer was making himself a fried breakfast, and will dispute the actions taken against him, and that he was taking food because he needed to eat and doesn’t think he’s done anything unlawful or fraudulent in taking the food ordained for landfill from a skip.

The case will necessitate magistrates to examine the occurrence of skipping, taking disposed of supermarket garbage to cook and eat, and will high point the matter of how much supermarket food is disposed of, in spite of long operations to lessen the unwanted food.

It will as well centre attention on a group of people taking fundamental steps to feed themselves as they strive with the rising cost of living in London. The man accused, together with his partners in crime, all residents of a squat in north London, were apprehended on 25 October, just prior to midnight, after a member of the public phoned the police to inform them about three men climbing over a wall at the rear of Iceland in Kentish Town.

Obviously bystanders have nothing else better to do at that time of the night, other than to inform what is going on in their locality, when they would in likelihood be better off at home with a satisfying cup of cocoa and a hot water bottle.

Police apprehended the men as they left the district with a holdall and trolley comprising food. The entire price of the things taken reportedly amounted to £33, and they were of low monetary value, being made up of tomatoes, mushrooms, cheese and Mr Kipling cakes because evidently the thieves thought that they were “exceedingly good cakes”.

At first the three men were arrested for burglary, and were charged under a dubious subdivision of the 1824 Vagrancy Act, after being found in a confined region, that is Iceland, for an illegal intention, namely thieving food.

This particular statute was passed to handle particular difficulties that England and Wales confronted following the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815. Nine years after the end of antagonism with France, the British Army and British Navy had gone through a huge cutback in numbers.

Discharged military staff, who had no jobs or housing, were living rough on the streets or in temporary camps, at the same time, a huge rush of economic migrants from Ireland and Scotland turned up in England, particularly in London, in a hunt for employment… Do you see a pattern materialising here?

Lawmakers became worried parish constables were becoming unproductive in restraint on the growing numbers of homeless and destitute urban poor, and punishment for the broad interpretation of vagrancy, comprising prostitution was up to one month hard labour.

Of course, the 1824 Act was revised a number of times, most notably by the Vagrancy Act 1838, which instituted a number of new public order offences that were considered at the time to be likely to source moral disapproval. It included the provision for the prosecution of each Person wilfully exposing view, in any Street, or public Place, any obscene Print, Picture, or other indecent Exhibition.

The Vagrancy Act 1898 prohibited soliciting or begging for morally wrong grounds. At first intentional as an action opposed to prostitution, in reality the law was almost only used to convict men of gay sexual intercourse. The historical events of laws on panhandling and vagrancy is a long one and, many actions have been passed and have been continually revised, but the importance has always been laid on the prosecution of people whose way of life is begging and vagrancy.

The men challenged the charges and Iceland insisted it didn’t want the men to be prosecuted. Plainly Iceland did not see it was in the public’s interest to see these men prosecuted, after all, is there anything wrong with taking food from containers that are intended for landfill? We throw away food daily that could be given to non-profit organisations, or the homeless so that they can eat, but we opt to demolish it, rather than give it to somebody else in a less important situation.

What made me giggle even more is that the articles were given back to Iceland store, where they would have put it back into recycling containers and, then onto the landfill. Nevertheless these men were held in a police cell for 19 hours prior to being set free because the Crown Prosecution Service perceived that it would be significant to the public interest in taking these three men to court, who was just attempting not to starve.

Besides, what is the sin of taking, if it is going to landfill anyhow, and how is it harming anyone else, consequently of no interest to the public, except the individual who snitched in the first place.

Down To Her Final £1million: Queen’s Money Reserves Plunge After Monarchical Guru’s Overspend

The Queen should start renting out Buckingham Palace for a fee to increase the cash flow for pressing repairs to decaying monarchial residences, Members of Parliament proposed.

MPs said that the royals have to come up with additional profit-making plans, such as opening the official residence to the public for a more lengthy time and; they inform that it will cost at the minimum £50 million to repair Buckingham Palace and further monumental monarchial structures such as Windsor Castle.

The Commons Public Accounts Committee wants the monarchy to get a better grasp on their financial affairs so taxpayers don’t have to foot the whole restoration bill and, why the hell should the taxpayer foot the bill anyhow?

No doubt there is some reality that the Monarch and the Royal Family are the nation’s most victorious benefit scroungers and, that public money afforded to the Monarchial Family is not being exhausted as well as it could be.

Before anything else, what you have to bear in mind is that the Queen was born into her status and so has done nothing to merit the taxpayers money she’s given. But is it not the instance for many if not most of the people up and down the nation who are well off, who are in moderate comfort thanks to the reality that they were born to wealthy, well associated and schooled parents, but they’re not monied by the taxpayer, so why should the Monarchy be funded by the taxpayer?

The only way to get around this awkward fact would be to strip everybody born into a half way decent family of any advantages they might have in affluence and status.

Previously experimentation of this sort were performed without much outcome and, with substantial violence and if we’re going to do it to the Monarchy we should do it to everybody.

The Monarch should be looking into business opportunities to foot the bills, such as renting out sections of the royal residence and staterooms for reserved use, at least then she wouldn’t have to worry about taking cash from the taxpayer to pay for her financial undoing.

Members of Parliament maintain Monarchial advisors have overspent so much that the Queen’s money put to one side have gone from £35 million in 2001 to just £1 million today. Seemingly the Royal home has been living from hand to mouth for some time, well newsflash, the ordinary person, her flag-wavers do that on a daily basis, but sadly they don’t have additional rooms to rent out because any other rooms that they do have, the government are making them pay taxes on.

The Monarch, the Royal Family and, Members of Parliament with second homes should be obliged to pay bedroom tax, just like other benefit claimants. The Crown Estate is not and, never has been, the direct possession of the Monarchy.

These people live in social housing and should be exposed to Bedroom Tax. Although instead, the Queen gets a £5 million increase in domestic expenses and, Members of Parliament, well, let’s not even go there.

Buckingham Palace on its own has 775 rooms, this comprises of 19 State rooms, 52 Royal and guest bedrooms, 188 staff bedrooms, 92 offices and 78 bathrooms. In addition, there is Windsor Castle, Balmoral Castle and the rest of them.

We merely call for equal treatment towards those who are given welfare, and ordinary working groups, because anybody who lives on the taxpayers finances, should as well live on a minimal income and, in a council property proportionate to the size of the aggregate and should have to pay bedroom tax on any vacant room with a door.

The difficulty is that people are frightened to say anything because this is the Monarchial Family and people don’t want to talk about this matter head on. The Monarch is not there for most of the time and, I am not sure why they can’t open the Royal home to the public for longer than they do.

The Royal residence has already been host to its first ever football match to mark the Football Association’s 150th anniversary and, in 2012, Gary Barlow arranged the Diamond Jubilee Concert at the Palace, presenting many performances, one of which was Robbie Williams.

Nevertheless, there are many money spinning enterprises that are required to assist bringing in money to mop up a hazardous and declining accumulation of restoration at the Royal residence because seemingly the wiring and boilers in the Palace have not been upgraded for 60 years, almost as long as the Queen has been ruling this country for, so maybe she needs upgrading as well…

All wiring and boilers are required to be updated at some time in their life cycle, even if it just means that they’re checked and serviced on a repeated basis and if they’re not updated; it just means that at some point in their life, they will give up the ghost and stop working completely, or will unquestionably go out with a bang.

Restoration has been put off for years while the Monarch splashed out on alternative things. It’s obvious that the Monarchial house requires to do more to protect nationally significant heritage buildings and; it’s evident that the Royal estate is beneath what is considered to be a satisfactory state.

The Royals got £31 million from the taxpayer in 2012-2013 but used up 33.3 million, coercing them to sink into their stocks. At the moment, the Royals have been summoned to lower their expenses and increased spending because the Royal kitty is so short that the Queen might be powerless to pay out for unexpected events, like where she’s going to get her next outfit from…

Why Is The Divorce Ratio So High Particularly In Western Countries If Love Marriages Work?

All marriages require making decisions with partial data because a number of us don’t know what we want and, it’s not unforeseen that a romance for life breaks down at some point.

Frequently it includes outside elements, parents, children, society. In short, all marriages are sure to suck if it’s lacking a sufficient footing of understanding and support.

Love or arranged, marriage requires give and take and an awareness to do these things.

Divorce is a socioeconomic occurrence that is contingent on economic expansion, labour opportunities, ethnic support and career movement.

When financial resources stop growing, a large amount of marriages on the edge get shoved over the cliff. In fact, Western countries are seeing a huge increase in divorce among the rural, unschooled population, where unemployment is quickly on the rise.

If every single thing is alike, urban localities will have more divorce. The causes span from lengthy commute to data flow, more understanding of the divorce and poorer help structures. West is extremely urbanised in contrast to the east.

Even though Israel is very urbanised and literate, its divorce ratio is extremely low as it has a more powerful social support system. In many of the cities in the east and the west, families are becoming nuclear owing to additional labour development.

This lessens the support systems and, various divorces occur when couples are left to take care of themselves without proper advice and guidance.

West is far more urbanised than the east and has a frail social and family support.

Religion has an effect on divorce in many ways. In Orthodox countries, divorce is still a taboo and religious laws might make divorce complex and difficult to achieve.

Apart from that, religion can as well work in a more favourable way because if all is evenly matched, people who share a spiritual relationship are less unlikely to divorce.

In locations like Cuba, it ’s extremely easy to get a divorce; consequently, more divorces happen for the smallest of causes. In other places in the world, divorce is a dirty course of action and, once again, the US ranks at the pinnacle of the West as it’s a much more litigious culture than most.

One fascinating stat is that choreographers are 2.5 times more likely to divorce than mathematicians. In general, having a stable job in a secure sector is a good protection against divorce.

Living together is one more riveting element that strongly corresponds with divorce, as partners don’t take marriage that solemnly even after the wedding.

Divorce ratios is mainly an indication of equal rights for women and societal acceptability of divorce and, not how happy people are in their marriages.

There are happy and unhappy marriages all over. The substantial distinction is not in this but in what people do if they find themselves in an unhappy marriage.

In some cultures, it’s socially inappropriate to ever get a divorce. If they were at home as a homemaker while the husband worked, they may have little skills in working and fewer possibilities of providing well for themselves financially and, hardly surprising that under such situations that the few try to obtain a divorce, particularly where there are children to feed.

Instead, they tolerate the marriage that lacks passion, love, friendship, even basic respect. Nevertheless, such couples would almost unquestionably get divorced in a culture where that was more acceptable.

In western countries, the question is not if the marriage is possible to tolerate, but alternatively if you believe you will be happier inside or outside of marriage. It’s usual for married people in the west to divorce in spite of the fact none of them are being abusive, despite no adultery and, occasionally even despite a still functioning friendship, because one of them, or both, perceive that the marriage is holding them back or not giving all they want from a spouse.

To be truthful, it’s not determined if people in love marriages are usually happier than people in organised marriages. There’s a lot to be said for love, for making your own preferences and, for attraction. But there’s as well quite a lot to be said for making logical choices modelled by matters like participated values and circumstances and considering fors and against in a more rational and less emotional light.

Serial monogamy is quite satisfactory in much of the west, and as such, you should not automatically think that all marriages that end in divorce as failures if two people are in love and, live with each other contentedly for 3, 5 or ten years, but not for life, where is the inadequacy in that?

We don’t think about other relationships that last for years but not for life a failure, so why do so for love? If you’ve got a dear friend that you hang out with for 3, 5 or 10 years before you drift away from each other and lose contact, do you deem that friendship a failure? I definitely don’t…

Legal Beagles Put On Important Strike For Legal Aid

An unheard of court strike was carried out by thousands of Legal Beagles against Tory proposals to cut legal aid and punish the poorest to exploitation.

More than 200 barristers in black gowns and wigs demonstrated outside London’s Old Bailey as part of their first ever national industrial action. Major strikes were as well platformed in Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Birmingham, Newcastle, Winchester, Bristol and Cardiff before lawyers went back to their cases at 2pm.

The Criminal Bar Association announced that their industrial action had been backed by nearly every chamber across England and Wales. It came in answer to Tory Justice Secretary Chris Grayling’s intentions to cut ￡220 million from the legal aid budget by 2018/19.

The effects of the industrial action were unheard of and extremely unified and, optimistically this will make the government think twice about slashing both criminal and civil legal aid.

Lawyers are extremely unwilling to take industrial action because they perceive a duty to their clients and, Mr Grayling’s wishes to take money for civil and legal aid cases like child custody cases and slash funding for criminal legal aid by up to 30 percent.

On The Job Seekers: Government Website Issues Call Girl Recruitment Advert

An advert for a profession as a call girl has materialised on a Government website. The incompetent Department of Works and Pensions permitted the ‘no experience necessary’ proposal for a single girl prepared to work as a prostitute to be displayed on the Direct Gov.

The ad, offering £10 an hour, put up by a bureau named Horny Escorts on a board favoured with the unemployed, proffers employment on a flexitime basis with the sole eligibility required and listed as ‘must like sex’.

The description indicated: ‘Female worker wanted to go out with guys maybe for evening or have full on sex’.

In grammatically incorrect English, it carries on: ’This would be better if you was single and able to work at your own pace’.

‘Looks and race unimportant. You will need a mobile phone. No experience necessary’.

The advert was affixed on the Universal Jobmatch section of the Direct Gov site by the manager of the agency.

It only has one man and woman employed for the company, but brags of having ‘the most gorgeous and sophisticated women and men in the UK’.

The boss declared: ‘I put the advert up there because it’s a job site and it’s a job. I was a bit shocked they allowed it.

‘I also do deliveries, and I had posted an ad for a same day delivery service, and then I just put the escorting one underneath it.

’The advert declares ‘must like sex’ because if a man pays for it obviously he’s going to want that. I thought the Department of Works and Pensions would admin it.

‘I didn’t know it would go straight online’.

He said he decided to publicise following work slowing down, saying ‘It’s not been that good’.

A DWP spokesperson confessed the mistake but declined to voice if ads were read prior to going live.

He said: ’The post was inappropriate and was taken down the next day.

‘When advertising jobs, employers had to agree to terms and conditions. Where an inappropriate job is identified it is quickly removed’.

The manager of the business is right; it is an employment site, and it is an occupation, but on the other hand, you wouldn’t put on an employment site, looking for a burglar to do a robbery, rewarded by £10 an hour, skills not obligatory.

You could contend the facts, but the conditions of compensation would have to be worked out so it did not become damaging to anyone. Can you visualise doing a housebreaking that was profitable to anyone?

Maybe we should give call girls and escort girls a registration number and open up medical centres to make sure that they didn’t give their customers any high-risk maladies in the interest of health and safety.

Danny Dyer Replies To Homophobic Twitter Insult: ‘Here’s A Little Message For You’

Danny Dyer has grown into a somewhat of a turnaround since landing himself a role in the Eastenders soap opera; he’s currently sort of pleasant and appealing, which is an excellent adjustment from offering people menacing and derogatory guidance on how to get over their exes.

When Danny’s character Mick materialised on TV and, his son, Johnny Carter, acted out by Sam Strike came out to him, nearly all watchers were like ‘Cool’, but a select number of people were extremely perplexed by the notion of a homosexual man being recognised by his father.

This exclusive number of people settled on directing their anger at Danny Dyer’s Twitter account. Nevertheless Danny Dyer had just one thing to express to them all.

I couldn’t have said it much more wisely myself, but then who wants to argue with a homophobic prick who plainly has no gonads themselves. People like this obviously are trash and, a complete splurge of time.

No one has the entitlement to criticise another person because we’re all entitled to affection from another person, whether homosexual, gay woman, black or white, it makes entirely no difference, we are all human beings that long for affection from another person, immaterial of their sexual orientation or colour.

Sadly, people have a proneness to be opposed to behaviour in people and if it’s something they don’t choose or disagree with they will attempt to delete it in approval of something more pleasant.

So thumbs up for Danny Dyer for having the balls to give voice to something out loud and mean it…

Not Fit To Judge Tim

Tim Salter took his own life following an Atos evaluation and then Atos withdrew of his benefits and, the DWP made the very same worn out declaration that people have the opportunity to appeal these judgements.

Yet appeals need an understanding of the law that is greater than most claimants have and, people in real need are self-respecting people, like Tim, who don’t like to make a fuss and desire to stay unnamed for fear of being identified as benefit scroungers.

It’s time that fitness for work evaluations were passed back to General Practitioners or consultants, who are far more likely to know their patients and the consequences of their conditions.

Now you can read with revulsion how Tim Salter took his own life after being evaluated by an Atos functionary who had no skills of mental health matters, but sadly, this is all too widespread.

Thousands of severely sick and disabled people have tragically met their death shortly after being proclaimed fit for work by Atos and the Department of Work and Pensions while many more have seen benefits cut, bringing about great deprivation and suffering.

As for the DWP, who assert that people can appeal, all they’re doing is discouraging people and, the Tory thinking is “money before people.”

Once again, Atos, the company paid by the Government to get disabled people back into employment, has been demonstrated to be heartless and barbaric.

I’m afraid the instance of Tim Salter is just the tip of the iceberg and, I suppose his suicide weighs substantially on Iain Duncan Smith’s moral senses because now Atos should be stripped naked of its Government contracts.

Tim Salter was impelled to end his life following Atos proclaimed him fit for work, which is disturbing and, this foul French company, together with heartless Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, must be brought to account and, they must be removed.

Anybody who has an Atos evaluation should question the assessor on what qualifications they have to investigate them, for this is what it is, just a shammed investigation to put an end to them from claiming what they qualify.

Tim Salter was visually impaired and was afflicted with agoraphobia and depression but was assessed as being fit for work by a physiotherapist, a verdict that drove him to take his own life; I hope this assessor can sleep soundly at night.

Atos evaluates a claimant’s robustness for work in an isolated habitat. They don’t assess whether that person can do these manoeuvres over and over again, eight hours a day, five days a week, which is the actual analysis of whether or not somebody is fit for work.

Nearly all claimants, even seriously sick or disabled ones, can carry out tests in an Atos assessment room but this doesn’t mean they can work.

Besides what work would that be anyhow? There are not sufficient jobs for people in good health, so who is going to hire somebody with health or mobility difficulties?

When is the haughty Iain Duncan Smith going to be held accountable for his deeds? Without question, if he is in charge, then he should be culpable for the suicide of people such as Tim Salter as well as the other people that have taken their lives because of the people he has declared fit for work.

When you read of despairing mothers shoplifting to feed their children, the understanding and compassionate way the police cope with offenders gives some hopefulness, in contrast to the unpleasant, cowardly Iain Duncan Smith, the designer of making the poverty-stricken even worse off.

He hasn’t got the courage to front his critics in Parliament. As an alternative, he makes extensive statements and twisted declarations with no chance for retort.

Once again we discover the Coalition being thrifty with the facts. George Osborne’s claims that coming to grips with tax avoidance are a prime concern has been exposed as further myth after confessing there are just four tax officers pursuing 124 of the biggest swindlers who are in debt to the Treasury for hundreds of millions.

The Government pays out a tiny amount running after tax dodgers while slashing benefits to our old, sick and disabled. The election can’t come fast enough for me.

In this New Year’s talk, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg says he can see the light at the end of the tunnel. I have a news flash for Mr Clegg and his Tory colleagues, so can I, it’s called election day 2015…

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this: