George Osborne Sucks!

Image

I’ve got one news item for you today and, it’s about George Osborne, a multimillionaire who’s got his trust fund set up overseas in a tax haven.

He’s the Chancellor of the Exchequer; he puts doughnuts on his on winkle and, he gets them to eat them off, what sort of man is that?

This man said: ‘We have agreed seven departments CUTS.”

They’re cutting the elderly, the young, the disabled, in the end they’ll be making people destitute, they’ll be carrying people out onto the streets, where they’ll call for the police to go and thieve the homeless food and, their blankets.

Yet you see the MP’s aren’t getting cut, the MPs want a pay increase, they want thousands and thousands of pounds more.

They’ve got cash for Plasma TVs, for curtains, for £39 breakfasts, yet they want to cut the vulnerable.    They don’t want to cut the Royals, the Queen is getting a £6 million pay increase, how is that right?

As stated by Forbes magazine, Queen Elizabeth has a personal net worth of approximately 500 million dollars.

Although, if her personal assets were to incorporate possessions that she technically is the owner of, incorporating all of England, India and, Canada including others, as well as the Crown Estates, which comprise Buckingham Palace, the Royal Art collection and, additional belongings, her net worth would be in the trillions, but yet they still seem to want more.

Image

The Queen requested ministers for money to heat Buckingham Palace from a kitty set to one side for low income families, it’s been divulged.

Royal assistants begged for the money as they asserted that gas and electricity bills had gone up by an extra 50 per cent in a year, adding up to more than £1 million.

The cash would have come from the £60 million energy savings grant set to one side for cash strapped families, housing associations and hospitals.

Nevertheless, ministers turned down the 2004 request made by the Royal Household, fearing a public relations catastrophe.

Nonetheless, if they thought they could have gotten away with it, do you believe they would have given the Royal Household the cash?

You’ve got the bedroom tax and, The Queen has got 775 rooms in Buckingham Palace, these incorporate 52 Royal and guest bedrooms, who sleeps in all of these rooms, the undetectable ghost?

Image

Then you have the bankers, George Osborne isn’t saying anything about cutting the bankers money, he’s been giving bankers millions and, their rubbings their hands together.

One more Pony for my daughter, another Bentley for my son, holidays and skiing trips.  There’s no banking reform, but theres Welfare reform, you do that mathematics in your head and, ask yourself the questions, why is that?

Why is George Osborne giving tax cuts to the wealthy, why is he feeding bankers pound notes, so they can go and gamble it up in the City?

Why are they hitting the most vulnerable, the disabled, the sick and, then you’ve got Iain Duncan Smith, can you visualise a man that you’re going to for assistance, for compassion, your suffering, your elderly, your having a heart attack, you’ve got Cancer, your vulnerable.

Image

We have to go to that nut case and, he’s employing ATOS because you see this government, the money isn’t going to us because they’re spending more.

Image

Why – Government contracts and, they want private courts to save money, they’re building infrastructure for the German National Railway to financially gain from us.

These people who sit at their troughs are moving money into private pockets, all the time squeezing people, extracting the life out of them.

Image

Then there’s the case of a poor woman who had a double heart and lung transplant and, she’s dead, nine days after ATOS found her fit to work and, her money was stopped, you can’t make those events up.

In addition, these people at the troughs, they can’t stop, they’re part of the war mechanism, they want to go around murdering people, they’ve just opened up a new line in Syria, let’s move a cargo of weapons there.

George Osborne, how is it feasible that we permit these parasites among us and, what do they say after they’ve shot 25 demonstrators, where they’re making anybody who wants to protest an extremist and, then they can just gun them down so that it’s better for the entire nation.

They use these derisory bigotry methods, aiming at the poor against the poor, black against white, muslim against christian, the government love it, it’s one huge shit storm, it’s a super storm!

There has never been such an insidious government, they’re privatising the NHS, can you visualise that?  They’ve got predators standing at the doors of Accident and Emergency.

Image

Cherie Blaire and Richard Branson with fangs and blood coming out their mouths, just dripping and seeping with blood, with talons, scrapping at sick people, what is this eternal damnation that’s going on?

Image Image

As George Osborne attacks the most vulnerable people, the rich walk away with goody bags.  The wealthier get wealthier and, the poor get deprived even more and, are given no consideration.

There’s no freedom for the poor as the government Lord over us and, we shadow them like sheep and, the government can gloss over it as much as they want but in the end the rug will get swept from under them and that cape of deception that covered them, will no longer be there to hide all their lies.

The Queen Assists Despairing Victim By Sending His Letter To David Cameron

Image

Dad of three Roger Davis is fighting eviction from his three bedroom home, so he decided to write to Her Majesty as a final resort after No 10 Downing Street disregarded him.

Now the Queen has been drawn into the coalitions’ Bedroom Tax debacle by passing on a victim’s grievance letter to David Cameron, a newspaper revealed.

Image

Roger Davis who is terrified of going out because of Agoraphobia (an extreme or irrational fear of crowded spaces), is confronted with losing his home of 20 years after the tax totalled almost £100 a month to his rent and, forced him into owing money.

Image

He wrote to the Queen after the Prime Minister didn’t bother to answer two of his letters, nevertheless; nearly all correspondence that are sent to the Prime Minister from the public don’t in fact get past his personal assistant and, if his cleric doesn’t think that it’s of pressing importance, then in that case the PM will not even see what was in the correspondence.

Image

Roger Davis then received a letter from Buckingham Palace promising his plea for assistance would be handed onto Downing Street, talk about passing the buck.

Image

Next he was sent a correspondence from the PMs office saying his appeal would be handed over to the communities department run by Tory minister Eric Pickles, talk about passing the buck yet again.

Without doubt the Prime Minister could have sorted this poor man’s predicament out, after all, David Cameron is the Prime Minister of the whole country, or is Eric Pickles the PM nowadays, I’m not sure, it’s all remarkably perplexing!

Image

Curiouser and Curiouser – Follow that White Rabbit!

Image

The Royal residence said Her Majesty could not personally involve herself in Roger’s situation but there is hope he may retain his home as his council is evaluating if he’s owed further benefits.

Last week a poll established that 60 percent of voters backed Labour’s intention to put an end to the Bedroom Tax, which has hit 660,000 British households.

Roger Davis said: ‘I wrote to Downing Street but they ignored me.  I didn’t know who else to turn to, so in desperation I tried the Queen.’

Image

‘When I got a letter back it really lifted me.  It meant a lot that someone in authority actually replied and acknowledged me.  I want to make the Queen aware of the situation people are facing.  I know she can’t personally act for me but it made me feel better.’

The Queen has a significant and formal romance with Parliament.  The expression ‘Crown in Parliament’ is used to describe the British legislature, which is composed of the Sovereign, the House of Lords and, the House of Commons.

Of these three contrasting components, the Commons, a number of who usually support the chosen Government of the day, has the presiding political control.

The role of the Monarch in the passing of legislation is nowadays entirely formal, even though The Queen has the power ‘to counsel, to support and to notify’ her ministers through regular audiences with the Prime Minister.

The Sovereign’s approval is needed to all bills passed by Parliament in order for them to become law.    Assent (agreement to an action being appointed law) has not been declined since 1707, but could if The Queen so wished it to be.

It is as well a long accepted custom that The Queen is requested by Parliament to provide approval (which is different to assent) for the debating of bills which would affect prerogative or interests of the Crown.

Where Queen’s Consent is given it is signified in each House of Parliament and recorded in Hansard.  Consent has not been refused in present-day times, except on the counsel of Government.

The Queen as well performs a vital part in the ceremonial opening and disbanding of Parliament.  In the yearly State Opening of Parliament ceremony, The Queen opens Parliament in person and, talks to both Houses in The Queen’s Speech.  Neither House can go ahead with public business until The Queen’s Speech has been read out.

This talk is drafted by the Government and, not by The Queen.  It profiles the Government’s plans for the coming assembly of Parliament and points out forthcoming rulings.

In addition to opening Parliament, only The Queen can convene Parliament and, terminate it without dissolving it, or dissolve it.

When a Prime Minister wants to disband Parliament and summon a general election, he or she is required to ask the permission of the Monarch to do so.  For this purpose, the Prime Minister usually journeys to Buckingham Palace prior to publicising a general election.

The Queen’s role in Parliament is:

Agreeing to Bills passed by Parliament, on the guidance of Ministers;

Giving audiences to Ministers, at which Her Majesty may be consulted, encouraged and warn;

Opening every new assembly of Parliament;

Proroguing or disbanding Parliament before a general election.

It appears that The Queen’s role in the lawmaking process is ceremonial, as her reserve authorities are seldom exercised, even though I’m sure they could be if she so desired.  Theoretically she still possesses a substantial amount of control in international transactions and, The Queen, as the Head of State, has the control to declare war and, make peace, to acknowledge overseas countries, to conclude agreement and to take over, or give up territory on behalf of the United Kingdom.

In her additional realms she leaves the exercise of these powers to her representatives, who also exercise it at the instruction of chosen governments.  In observation, it seems that even though The Queen is an extremely valuable person and, always will be, that her role is just ceremonious and, even though she does have significant authority, she does not utilise it and, that the responsibility of the United Kingdom is left merely down to the Government.

When Roger Davis sent his correspondence to The Queen, the reply from the Palace said: ‘The Queen has asked me to thank you for your letter from which Her Majesty has taken careful note of your comment about your current housing situation.

‘However, this is not a matter in which The Queen would personally intervene.  Nevertheless as a constitutional sovereign Her Majesty acts on the advice of Ministers and, I have been instructed to send your letter to the Prime Minister so that he may know of your approach to The Queen on this matter and, may consider the points you raise.’

What an entire waste of time that was and, should be an education to people out there that believe that they may get something done by approaching The Queen.  She may be the Monarch of this nation but she unquestionably does not have jurisdiction over it, the government do.

I am, as a person, not patriotic at all, that doesn’t mean that I don’t like them, it just means that I have no feelings with regard to the Royal family, the same as I would have no feelings towards my next door neighbours, but I do believe as The Royal family that they should have more claim on what goes on in this country, after all The Queen is the ‘rule of one’ and, having the standing of A Queen and, her ancestors before her, she has the right to have a claim on what goes on in this country and, not just ceremonially.

Company Businesses Get Profit From The Unemployed

Image

The long term out of work will have to engage in work placements in return for their social security, under strict rules launched by the Chancellor George Osborne.

Workfare is an unorthodox design to orthodox social welfare techniques and, was first announced by civil rights pioneer James Charles Evers in 1968, but, it was made popular by Richard Nixon in a broadcasted address in  August 1969.

Image

Oh, you didn’t actually think that George Osborne really thought of the concept, to think, he would require a brain.

Image

Long established welfare benefit designs are usually given based on particular circumstances, such as hunting for work, or founded on meeting a standard that would situate the recipient as unavailable to search for work, or be working.

Workfare means that recipients have to fulfil certain participation requirements to carry on receiving their welfare benefits.  These conditions are frequently an amalgamation of activities that are meant to make better the recipient’s employment possibilities, such as education, rehabilitation and, employment skills and, those nominated as playing a role in the community, such as voluntary, or low paid employment.

These programmes, which are common in Australia, Canada and, now the United Kingdom, have caused substantial discourse and disagreement.

There are two main types of workfare schemes, those that encourage direct employment to get people off the welfare roll and, straight into the workforce and, those that are intended to increase social capital by providing guidance and education to those currently in the welfare structure.

In the Third World, similar schemes are invented to reduce rural poverty between day labourers by providing government subsidised temporary employment throughout those times of the year when little agricultural jobs are obtainable.

Although we don’t live in a Third World nation, well not yet anyhow.  Nonetheless, are we now living is what is classified as a Third World, I’m not sure.  The word as far as I was concerned was merely differentiated  as such countries that were poverty-stricken, but I was incorrect because Third World countries are as well differentiated by the worst records for political rights and civil liberties and, in the United Kingdom at the moment; we don’t appear to have much of either.

The intention and objective of workfare is to create a net contribution to the general public from welfare recipients.  Most often, this means getting the jobless into paid employment, reducing or removing welfare payments to them and, consequently bringing about an income that creates taxes.

What’s more, it’s disputed that once a person has new job skills, even at entry level, they’re better able to get profitable long term employment.

Welfare to work programmes works toward breaking the cycle of poverty in which welfare dependency can turn into a way of life but Workfare in the United Kingdom refers to government workfare plans by which people must undertake employment in return for their benefit payments or risk being deprived of them.

Workfare strategies in the United Kingdom are an issue.  Backers assert that such plans will assist people in moving off welfare and, into work, whereas critics bicker that they’re comparable to enslavement and indentured servitude and counterproductive in reducing unemployment.

In November 2011, the Prime Minister’s Office made public a scheme under which Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants who haven’t located a position once they have been through a work programme will do a 26 week position in the community for 30 hours a week.

As stated by The Guardian in 2012, under the Government’s Community Action Programme, people who have been out of employment for a number of years, are obliged to work for six months unsalaried, incorporating money making companies, in order to retain their benefits.

Image

These developments shadowed years of worry and talks by people both for and opposed to such plans of action.  In 1999, the UK charity Child Poverty Action Group communicated worries that a government report that single parents and the disabled might have to attend recurrent interviews for jobs under danger of being deprived of benefits and, was a step towards the US model of the workfare system.

This as well means that the government had already thought of this master plan even prior to David Cameron and his posse having got into power.

The Trades Union Congress (TUC), a federation of trade unions in the United Kingdom, has declared that workfare is taking advantage of the jobless, paying them less than the minimum wage.

Image

The TUC as well points out that workfare is biased to the paid employee who find themselves in conflict with voluntary workers, after all, if you were the owner of a business and, required workers, who would you take the unpaid workers, or one’s that you had to pay?

In these situations the consequences would be work deficits and, the decline of pay, overtime or other conditions and, employers who choose not to utilise workfare workers would as well find themselves wrangling with other companies who are effectively being subsidised.

There is little proof that workfare increases the probability of locating employment.  It can even lessen employment opportunities by restricting the time obtainable for job search and, by failing to supply skills and experience valued by employers.

Nonetheless, this is what the government want because free labour is more advantageous than having to reward someone a full salary for the week, when they can pay them next to nothing for a full weeks work.

In the end we will see almost everyone out of work and, being fed off the state for a minimum wage.  They will end up paying us less than minimum wage because almost all people will be out of work and, over time, no one will think to act upon this since our children would have been conditioned to think that’s is how it should be.

It does not matter how much we believe that we’re not, we are all ruled over and, conditioned to do as we’re told.  I don’t have to prove or disprove this, our TVs, the newspapers and ads on the TV do this daily, they tell us what we should do, what we should purchase, how we should consume our food, what we should ingest and, almost all of us are convinced it’s true.

This has become our way of life and, we’re living a life of restraint and, it’s not a life that we control, but one that other’s control for us, without us even realising it.

Benefits will be taken away from the long term unemployed, unless they work full time, picking up garbage, cleaning off street art, or cooking meals for the elderly.

Some might believe that workfare is okay and, in some situations it might be, but the ordinary person gets £71.80 a week on benefit, the average person who works on minimum wage gets approximately £246.09 before tax, working a full week, which is way more than the meagre £71.80 the government want to give in benefits and, as well make the benefit claimant work 40 hours a week – Slave labour is disparaging to human life when the government are exploiting human beings, no wonder the people of the United Kingdom are becoming annoyed with what’s going on.

George Osborne blamed Labour of permitting people to linger on benefits for years, while allowing uncontrolled amounts of immigrants fill low paid jobs.  Migrants have been permitted to come into the United Kingdom for numerous years to do unskilled jobs for little money.

All governments past and present appear to like servitude and, they don’t appear to be able to wake each day without controlling something, it’s practically what makes them tick, this control and supremacy.

Mr Osborne said: ‘From now on, people are going to have to do something in return for those benefits.’

There is getting people to do something, but not something for nothing.  Had Mr Osborne said that people would have to work part time for their benefits, then that would have been fair and, why is it called ‘Workfare’, is it because it’s not fair?

Should UKIP be excluded from TV election debates – David Cameron seems to think so!

Is David Cameron shitting his pants…

The Prime Minister is giving backing to general election discussions, but expresses they should be restricted to applicants likely to be the winners.

As he voiced his support for general election television discussions, he as well pointed out that Nigel Farage should be left out of those debates.

Image

The Prime Minister claimed he believed the discussions, which took place on three successive weeks in 2010, worked well, even though they took up too much time.

The Prime Minister, who not so long ago turned down a challenge from Alex Salmond to discuss the Scottish Independence Referendum, pointed out that Farage should be eliminated from the discussions.

Image

David Cameron said that he thought that the debates predominately should be with regard to people who have the possibility of becoming Prime Minister, or is it that he believes that they do have the possibility of being victorious and, that’s why Nigel Farage has been left out from the debates.

Some Tories think that eliminating Farage would kill off the discussions and,  that the UKIP leader would probably organise a legal challenge to any intention of excluding him after next year’s European parliamentary elections, which he is anticipated being the winner of.

Sorry, Ed Miliband

Image

It doesn’t matter how much Ed Miliband’s lips tremble, his dad was; as indicated, a far wing highbrow, whose gratefulness to a nation that took him in, extended merely to hoping it might be pulled apart, root by root.

The fact that Ralph Miliband was a suburban North London émigré, does not change the reality that he was, like so many scholars, allured by the political and economic theories of Karl Marx.

Image

Our universities are effectively the only locations in the educated society where this preposterous and discredited belief goes on to flourish; much of it today being utter attitudinising rubbish.

We shouldn’t hold Ralph Miliband responsible for groaning about how nationalistic the British were when he initially arrived, they in all likelihood were and, it’s true that while he was a Marxist, he withstood the warning call of the repulsive Commie Party of Great Britain, which was to his credence and, I’m sure he was as well a delightful father and, held dinner parties every bit as pleasant as those now presented by his son.

Ralph Miliband was born in Belgium and, made his home in England to get away from the Nazi Holocaust.  He has been best recognised as one of the intellectual Marxists of his time.

He learnt to speak English and, enrolled at the London School of Economics, where he became absorbed in the left wing political views and, became dedicated to the belief of social democracy.

By the 1960s, he was a well-known constituent of the New Left political organisation in Britain, which was condemning of the well-known Stalinist governments in the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc.

Growing up in Brussels, he became a member of the Hashomer Hatzair (Young Guard) at the age of 15, a left-wing Zionist youth organisation.

Image

Following the eruption of WWII, the Miliband family, being Jewish, decided to escape the country from the anti Semitic Nazi power.

Image

To Ralph Miliband’s shock, he came across prejudice in London and, he established that the Englishman was a fanatical nationalist.

He promised to be loyal to the Workers’ cause, while benefiting from living in England, which offered him a home and security.  Ralph Miliband despised the Royal Family, the Church of England and, the Army and, wanted a workers’ rebellion.

He in all probability disliked the Royal Family for the faux doctoral establishment it has always been and, the Church, as he was a doubting Thomas.

Image

And, not the Army workforce, but more precisely the military armament network that sucks the prosperity out of all but a few.

For those of a particular age, Ed Miliband’s talk last week was exhilaratingly wistful.  His promise to freeze energy costs made people think of happier times when Labour strategies were patently and, shamelessly ridiculous.

Following a generation of loss, we start to hope to discover reds under the bed once again.  In its comprehensible delight, a daily paper made the error of pinpointing only a dead red, Mr Miliband’s late father, Ralph Miliband.

It in addition magnified its mistake by saying that the older Miliband hated Britain, on the foundation of some irate comments he uttered when he was 17.

The tabloid newspaper managed to offend against taste and propriety on numerous matters and, criticised a man for his dead father’s opinions, giving false accounts of those points of view and, as well condemned a Jew.

The daily newspaper debased the constitutional process with its criticism on Ralph Miliband.   There was no rationale for the headline on the Miliband article which said he hated Britain.

Image

This is carrying political science to an area that is plainly degrading and, it’s not warranted and, totally out of reference.  The man fought for his country and, we now live in a completely changed life to the mismatch connecting communism and fascism.

It’s brutal and ridiculous to blame a man for his viewpoint that was shaped in his youth, where he was misled, but not unpatriotic and, if that’s the situation, does that convey that all people in this day and age, if they seem as if they’re being unpatriotic that they should all be chastised as being Marxist?

Ed Miliband’s decision to protect his father is what any child would do and, it’s predictable that a child in any path of life, not just one that’s engaged in politics would come to the defence of their parent.

It’s what you’d expect a child to do and, that’s plainly what’s taking place here and, we should grasp and respect that.  No one is in a position to form an opinion and, Ed Miliband will have been familiar with his father far better than any of us could have conceivably have done.

When you have ancestors that don’t come from this country, people do feel extremely fragile, especially if the patriotism of those relations is called into question.

It can be an extremely upsetting thing and, I would certainly want to launch an attack back if it was me.

I can’t see why Ed Miliband should be harassed for preserving his fathers name, after all Ralph Miliband is no longer alive and, can’t defend his good name, so why shouldn’t his son do it for him?

If someone was finding fault with my father’s name, someone that I embraced in high admiration, I would hold that human being contemptible and, reject their allegations because no one should discredit another person, particularly one that is no longer alive and can’t defend themselves and, those that do disparage a dead person is a coward.

Image

But what do I know, I’m merely a Jew!

Iain Duncan Smith claimed a £39 breakfast as expenses (He must have been hungry!)

Image

The Work and Pensions Secretary was condemned of living in a different world after a newspaper exposed his flavour for the morning banquet.

Iain Duncan Smith lay claim that he could survive on just £53 a week, fell apart last night after evidence surfaced of a £39 breakfast he attempted to put on as expenses.

The Work and Pensions Secretary was criticised of living in a different world; after a newspaper unveiled his taste for the morning blow out which would leave him exactly £14 for the rest of the week.

The Cabinet minister claims he is aware of what it’s like to live on a humble income and, has dismissed a challenge from a 370,000 strong appeal for him to demonstrate it, which places his character as being a bit of a shit and, a bit of a namby-pamby university oddity, if you were to ask me; still your not asking me, I’m merely a figment of your imagination!

But Mr Duncan Smith, made a claim on his Commons expenses for a £193 hotel stay, comprising a breakfast for £39.

Who in this world squanders that much on a breakfast and, was he having a feast for his morning blowout, including Caviar?  Or, does he like to be that ostentatious and, if that’s the case, maybe the public should shackle his mouth so that he can save the taxpayer some money.

The proof of purchase submitted to the Parliamentary authorities when he was an opposition MP, manifests that he as well claimed for a mini bar bill and, in one instance, a £9 cocktail.

If he wants to drink alcohol on his own time and, out of his personal funds that would be justifiable, but to blatantly do it out of the taxpayers money is absolutely appalling and, taking advantage and, in that case, he must think extremely little of his own constituents.

A newspaper also disclosed that Mr Duncan Smith has yet to pay a visit a food bank since becoming Work and Pensions Secretary in May 2010, in spite of his claim to having been aware of what it’s like to be on the breadline.

Unison General Secretary Dave Prentis said: “Everyone, including a man who spends £39 on one breakfast, would struggle to survive on £53 a week.

Image

“Iain Duncan Smith can bluster all he likes, but he is living in a different world to millions who have to live on pittance thanks to his policies.”

Mr Duncan Smith sparked fury by telling a County Durham market trader he could live on £53 “if I had to.”

But of course, Iain Duncan Smith will never have to survive off £53, his life will always be electrifying because he has this talent of misleading the public wherever he goes.

So, he can say things like being able to sustain himself on £53 a week because he knows he will never have to do it and, all that he’s doing is delivering a red herring to the public.

Back to the workhouse

Image

The most recent squeeze is the governments aim at dealing with a deficit sourced by the wealthy and, is to carry on penalising the poor for being poor.  Presently they’re forming a plan to make the jobless carry out four week periods of mandatory unpaid work, or have their benefits stopped for up to three months.

Image

Who would have believed that the workhouse, that notorious establishment affiliated with Victorian times and, which lives on in the composition of Charles Dickens, would inch its way closer to becoming reality once again in the 21st century?

At the present time, Jobseekers Allowance for adults over the age of 25 stands at £71.70 per week.  For those under 25, it’s £56.80.  Neither amount can by any stretch of the imagination be described as excessively high.

It’s the opposite, the current level of Jobseekers Allowance is not sufficient to pay for anything approaching what nearly all people in work would deem a proper standard of life and, nevertheless, since the general election, the ConDem alliance has centred an excessive quantity of awareness on criticising those receiving of Jobseekers Allowance, as well as those in receit of additional benefits, such as Incapacity and Housing Benefit.

This is done under the rubric of an extremely flexible explanation of the term progressive, one largely advertised by the Lib Dem, half of the union to fit in with how they like to look at themselves, even if according to current opinion polls barely anyone else does any longer.

Image Image

As for the warped prism through which Tories consider society, this can merely be comprehended in terms of social division, in spite of objections to the contrary by Mr Cameron et al., this is a political party who’s enduring aim is the promotion in the interest of the wealthy and, big business at the expense of the poor and, the working class.

Unemployment is a traumatic experience and, the shame, social abuse, humiliation and monetary deprivation associated it, which flies in the face of the right wing ideas of people lazing about luxurious accommodation and, living it up.

Image

The feeling of isolation can cause them to commit crimes, have stress related illnesses and, various other social and human illnesses and, yet in spite of this, the alliance plans on aggravating the situation, rather than alleviating it with attack after attack.

Cancer Drugs Funded Until 2016

Image

A £200 million a year reserve, for life boosting cancer medicine is to carry on up until 2016; the Prime Minister has announced.

Image

This must be a sign of things to come and, it’s all extremely magnificent, but what happens to those sick people that are being given medical care, following 2016?

Well, after 2016, if the nest egg isn’t prolonged, in that case, all those patients that are being given medical care and, medicated to preserve their lives will be informed that they’re not eligible any longer and, some will eventually lose their lives.

Image

The project was expected to end next year, but David Cameron has promised £400 million to keep it ticking over and, it’s beneficial to keep it ticking over, as this move means for Mr Cameron, that logistically, he anticipates putting himself as a front runner, so that he can be the winner of the next election, since people will then believe that if he doesn’t get in, the project will merely continue up until the next election takes place.

From now up until the next election all people will see is the here and now, what the government are doing and, they will try to convince you that it’s to try and make the United Kingdom a better place.

And, that’s all people will see, as the government surges a cargo of cash into many enterprises that they think people will want to see and, they won’t worry on how much cash they pump into these different schemes because deep down they know they’re not going to be the winners of the next election.

Cancer organisations have greeted the move positively, yet Labour have blamed the Prime Minister of letting patients down.  Well, there will be a large amount of sick people who will be let down after the next election, unless the next faction go about doing things more wisely than the last did, which we all have aspirations for, but will that be the case; yet I for one, am not holding my breath, since they all give one’s word that they will give you the Garden of Eden and, then they give you Hell on Earth.

I congratulate those people that will be getting medical care and, the role that the fund will perform in fighting the disease and, tens of thousands of people who will be given medical care because of it, but what will become of those people that won’t be eligible for treatment because they didn’t live in the right postal address?

There are around 30 medications that are obtainable on the Cancer Drugs Fund and, over the last three years around 34,000 sick people have had medical care that they wouldn’t have had otherwise, had the money not existed.

Admittedly some of these patients wouldn’t have survived, had this cash not been accessible and, what has been achieved is brilliant, but who is going to deal with the sick people that will be refused medical care after 2016?

The intention of the CDF was to make it easier for medics to prescribe treatments even if they’ve not so far been approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice).

The project was set to run up until 2014 and, campaigners raised worries about where patients would turn for help when the resources came to an end.

So, following 2016, where will sick people turn for help when the money has ceased and, will activists have to raise their concerns once more?

David Cameron appears to be hanging out that carrot once more, because he said that the CDF had been a huge triumph and, added that should he be voted in once more, he would propose that it be continued beyond 2016.

He said it would be proposed, not that it would without question be maintained… Oh, that dangling carrot again.

This declaration, which will be warmly greeted by a great deal of sick people across the country and, will influence others into thinking that David Cameron is doing this for the good of the people.

A good number of you need to peruse all through the fine print since Mr Cameron will never do anything other than getting himself results from the general public and, those results are votes that they will give him, if he appears virtuous and, looking as if he’s doing the proper thing.

Image

Another charity said that while the announcement was optimistic, it warned it was just a stop gap and, highlighted the instance of a lady who was unsuccessful and, did not fulfil CDF specifications to Avastin, a medication demonstrated to delay recurrence and, what is the criteria and, why do some people fulfil it and, a number of people don’t.

Image

After all, Cancer is Cancer, it doesn’t prey on particular people, so why should certain people be selected to satisfy a particular specification and, that if they don’t meet that specification, they don’t get medical care.

Image

It’s just about being fortunate, but that’s not fair and, it shouldn’t be a matter of good fortune and, some people get medical care because they’re charmed enough to live in the right postcode, but if they’re vulnerable and less assertive, or don’t have the help, they will in all likelihood die.

Schoolboy Who Raped Shows No Remorse

A schoolboy who sexually assaulted a six year old girl on two occasions has walked free from a court of law and, has been ordered to reward his victim just £300 recompense.

Image

The 12 year old boy, who can’t be identified for legal reasons, confessed that he forced the girl to carry out a sex act on two occasions.

His parents took him to a police station when they heard about the sex attack accusations where he confessed to what he’d done straight away.

Image

When the boy was asked what he felt about the effect that his wrongdoings had on the injured party, he said that he didn’t care how she felt.

The judge expressed that she was not sending him to a secure youth offending unit because she didn’t want him to be in the company of older and, more sophisticated criminals.

Image

When thinking about how best to keep our children safe, particularly from sex offenders, we’re inclined to think about the endangers posed by grown-ups.

Seldom does the picture of a young person, maybe friend, or even a sibling come to our attention.

Although one third of sex offences are carried out by young people and sexual coercion; several incidents of which would be reported as an attack, or stalking if committed by an adult is a danger to a young persons well-being.

Image

It’s roughly calculated that one in six children who have been sexually mistreated at some point in their lives, 80 percent of these will have been abused by an immediate family member or a trusted person, some of whom will be another child.

The number of recorded offences and, the number of children and young people found guilty in a court, or dealt with at a Children’s Hearing for offences against other children is a bad indicator of the measure of breaking the law.

A gauge of 60 percent of sex offending is overlooked and, UK research demonstrates that 75 percent of all accounted sexual offences against children remains undisclosed up until the child attains adulthood.

In Scotland, only 40 percent of sexual abuse and, as few as 25 percent of reported lecherous and lascivious offences against children result in sentencing.

Sex offenders frequently point out that, even though found guilty as an adult, their breaking the law started in their teens and, how sex offenders are comprehended has altered over time.

Previously sex offending by adults against children may have been ascribed to poor social functioning, immaturity and, even lack of sexual responsiveness of a partner.

Children or young people’s sexual violence was not considered to be a deliberate act of harm but as part of youthful experimentation, but when is a child’s sexual experimentation just not healthy?

Childhood sexual experimentation connecting two children of approximately comparable ages is typical and, almost all children have had sexual contact with other children at times throughout their childhood and; this is an expected part of child growth.

In keeping with the judgemental and predominately opposing comprehension of human desirability, religious fundamentalists, moralists, hypocrites and, other vendors of integrity who frequently attempt to portray any kind of sexuality other than straight intercourse between legally married partners.

These sex loathing, sex frightened persons regularly try to paint childhood sexuality as something evil, asserting that a child’s attraction in sex, or that a child’s experimenting sexually with others is by some means perverted or deviant, but this is plainly wrong.

A child’s attraction to sex is absolutely healthy and, in fact, is genetically programmed into the human brain.

There is no age boundary because interests about sex and sexual experimentation at any age are typical characteristics of human life.

This doesn’t signify that sexual acting out between children and, especially between siblings should be disregarded, permitted, or supported, but merely that almost all instances of it would be best seen and comprehended as a kind of developmental play, extremely different from adult sensuality.

Unquestionably projecting onto a child the adult phobias, adult myths, adult sadness and, adult religious prejudices with respect to behaviours which result innocently and, in response to strong, often angry processes of physical and mental maturation is unfair to a child and, a symbol of incompetent parenting.

The banning of incest is a legitimate topic and, as well a societal taboo, but clearly incest is both desired and experienced by a great deal of people, because if it were not, there would be no requirements for such powerful prohibitions opposing it.

Incest usually applies merely to actual sexual relations, additional kinds of sexual communication between close relatives is not technically incest and, in some cultures is completely run-of-the-mill.

A traditional Balinese family, the mother’s routinely stroke the penises of their young sons and, such behaviour is thought no more incestuous than breast feeding and, ordinary sexual experimentation between children inside the selfsame family is certainly not incest.

When incest, or any additional sexual connection takes place between an adult and a child, that adds up, by meaning to child abuse.

In fact, bodily contact is not even a specification for child abuse, because such activities as talking sexually to a child, presenting the child with pornographic material, revealing ones sex parts to a child and, other such sexualising of a relationship with a child may as well count as abuse, but sexual communication between two children of about the same ages and mental capacities does not, and cannot, by interpretation, amount to child abuse.

When one person enslaves a child to do things that she doesn’t want to, it means that that person has restrained that person like you would livestock.

It in addition, not only makes it abuse, but as well they have made that young person workable for their own endeavour and, not by free will.

The thoughts that cause adolescents to abuse makes it difficult for them to be a part of the community, they don’t look at human life as being extremely precious and, they see themselves as insignificant to the structure of society, consequently the system is inconsequential to them.

Twelve to thirteen year olds are inclined to go through an unsettled, difficult time as the child makes the change from prepubescence and, a swift alteration physically, socially and emotionally.

In all expanse of life it’s the dawn of a child’s passage from childhood to adulthood and, in all likelihood a bit of straying in nobody’s land on the way.

Mistreatment of young children at an early age is linked with considerable danger in future and more serious offending.  The earlier and, the more severe the offending, the more difficult the behaviour is likely to be in adulthood.

Suppose somebody who detests being tickled is held down and mercilessly tickled over and over against their desire to be tickled.  No matter how much they hated the unpleasant experience, they would involuntarily giggle.

It would be flagrant incomprehension about the average human response to tickling to assume that their unruly laughter was a sign that deep down they enjoyed it.

Similarly, when one’s body involuntarily sends signals to the brain in a response to sexual molestation, it says nothing about one’s morality or view with respect to the offence.

Everybody knows that a molester might be a brutal frightening monster of a man, or young person, but what is hard for one to understand, though, is that those who sexually impede on little children vary from this extreme through to responsible caregivers and, as we will find out, occasionally even loving mothers.

A molester might be such an insane fiend as to leave each victim extremely traumatised and, there are others, however, who are so tender, measured, consoling and relied upon that any normal child could not help but consider the sexual intervention as being as innate and, as enjoyable as breast feeding.

A child’s response is contingent on the molester’s technique, not the victim’s integrity and, pleasurable feelings are not restricted to children.

Abused survivors who, in response to their suffering, end up obsessed with stimulating their own sexual pleasures, or licentiousness, or loathing certain people, particularly their abuser.  Their exploits are from time time less than praiseworthy and, they find themselves meshed in devastating behaviour that they detest.

Image

Tragically, nonetheless, a further unpleasant response to sex abuse is for a number of former victims to end up sexually interfering with others and, they can end up as dependent on it as others become addicted to masturbation, or to despising their abuser, or to being in love with somebody who will end up harming them.

Victims of sexual immoral acts many times are afflicted with dreadful, but quite uncalled for twinges of self-reproach over being forced to feel enjoyment.  Having a pleasant sensation in the middle of a sexual assault and, molestation is usually no more than a bodily response like losing blood.

If somebody buys someone else an ice cream and, whilst he’s consuming it the other person picks his pockets and thieves his credit card and, by the time he’s realised what has occurred he finds himself in a hopeless and difficult situation, with his bank account emptied out, yet that person would feel largely abused if asked if the ice cream tasted good, as if that had anything to do with the enormity of that persons deprivation.

When someone believes that they have possession of another person, in order to retain that right of possession they need something that gives them enjoyment and, that summons their arousal.  Nonetheless, there is a particular inclination that makes them want to wallow in such fulfilment and, even though not always comprehensible, it is usually either that bond that someone has with a child, or the brutality that causes a relatively diligent caregiver to turn negligent in their responsibility with respect to that child.

So, when a young boy abuses that trust, one is hopeful that in such a predicament that a court of law will govern that the legal profession and, would work out that almost all young adults that abuse, will as they get older abuse once more and, it doesn’t matter how much therapy they’re given, the affliction that they have inside them will cause them to break the law again, even though some do not; it’s determining who will and who won’t and, do we in fact know that they won’t?

How Atos Are Taking Over

Image

The NHS is not being privatised with a bang; but more with a cunning deceitful whine.

Image

We only have to take a look at Holland, which privatised its health care system in 2006, to see how it’s feasible for the NHS to be privatised by secrecy.

Image

Following the Dutch example, privatisation is occurring in three phases.  First of all services of the health services is passed over to private firms.

Image

This is already well under way in the United Kingdom.

Next restraint of the health budget is passed over to private commissioning alliances made up of doctors and consultants.

This has already happened in the United Kingdom.

Ultimately, the private commissioning consortiums themselves are taken over by private businesses.

In the United Kingdom, over a quarter of the NHS Commissioning Consortiums are being run by the consultancy firm KPMG.

As soon as this third phase is finished, the health services are effectively privatised, with commissioning, control of budgets and provisions of health services all run by private companies.

In Holland, the commissioning of health services and, general constraint of the health budgets were finally taken over by the selfsame KPMG which is taking over commissioning in the United Kingdom.

So, if things carry on going the same as in Holland, just one firm, KPMG, will have all-inclusive control of our National Health Services.

Image

The head of KPMG, Mark Britnell, has already been nominated as a mentor to David Cameron on health and, was on one occasion quoted as saying, ‘The NHS will be shown no mercy’ when it comes to privatisation.

Image

But who precisely are KPMG?

They used to be a component of an international professional service and auditing firm, but in 2002, the Dutch and UK branch of the business were mysteriously sold off to a French group, which still is the owner of them today.

The name of the French firm?

Yes, you’ve guessed it, the firm we all thought we were going to be seeing the back of, ATOS!

This is the firm whose doctors believed that Cerebral Palsy was curable.

ATOS could already be well on the way to taking charge of the NHS budgets and commissioning, just as it has accomplished doing in Holland.

Be extremely scared because in 2007 Atos was suspended from a services contract for the NHS North West and South West after bungling ultrasound scans.

Eight primary care trusts discussed terms on a new contract with Atos through the Department of Health, to supply extra ultrasound scans from the end of December 2006 to the end of March 2007.

Atos was suspended from this agreement prior to it ending.  The firm was expected to begin a new and longer contract, but Atos was suspended after a clinical audit established that some patient details were not being accurately documented.

Atos said that they accepted the suspension and, it was not clear when it would begin working on the scans again.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started