A very powerful piece of writing by Bryan Forbes

David,

I agree with you 100%. The magnetic ribbon program on the back of my truck is my way of showing support of our armed forces and my belief in democracy. I find this and the "Highway of Hero's" populace support send's a strong message to those new Canadians who think they can change or distrupt our system. I am happy our goverment decided to get out of the combative role next year.
Dave
 
Hopefully, one day the use of common sense will be given back to those who make decisions, and people can be treated as individuals.

A soldier who lost a leg in Afghanistan (he has been told by doctors at some stage he will loose his other leg) says he is "heartbroken" after his disability benefit was withdrawn.
Pte Aron Shelton, 26, from Bridlington, East Yorkshire, had his leg amputated in 2008 after he was hurt in an explosion in Helmand Province in 2007.

His £180-a-month benefit, which pays for an adapted car, will stop after he learnt to walk up to 400m (1,312 ft) with the aid of a prosthetic limb.

The government said it was reviewing the system to make it fairer.

Pte Shelton told BBC Radio 5 Live's Victoria Derbyshire programme that he would have to hand back the car once the benefit ended in September.

He said he was told his benefits were being withdrawn in a letter from the Department for Work and Pensions on Wednesday.

He said: "I was heartbroken and angry. "Heartbroken because I felt I'd been let down by my own government."

Driving is the only freedom of life he can get because I can do it without pain”

Pte Shelton, whose right ankle is also severley damaged, said he could walk up 400m but it left him in pain.

He said: "It's taken a long time and a lot of hard work by myself and the Ministry (of Defence) to get myself back on my feet."

"[Without the car] I'll be stuck to my house. My nearest shop is 700m (2,300 ft) away, I won't even be able to walk to my nearest shop."

Pte Shelton, who wants to become a taxi driver, said he could not use public transport because he could not manage stairs and taxis were too expensive.

A spokeswoman for the Department for Work and Pensions said: "Issues such as this one are why we are making changes to the way we assess eligibility to DLA.

"We want to introduce a new, more objective assessment to ensure the system is fairer and targets those most in need.

"We can't talk about individual cases, but if a someone feels that a decision is wrong they can get in touch with us and we will look at again. Disability Living Allowance isn't paid based on the condition someone has, but on the extra costs they may have because of their specific needs or difficulties."
 

Keith

Moderator
I am happy to assist David add to the text of his post #376 including pics.

Disgraceful!

"Perspective and priorities"

Two planes landed in England the other day :

One carried a group of over paid, under achievers who had the audacity to complain that they were tired and missed their families after two weeks in five star accommodation.





Picture1-12.jpg




The other carried the coffins of 7 fallen soldiers who had spent months away from loved ones living in tents in a war zone, giving their lives for their country.

Picture2-2.jpg





Who are the REAL Heroes ??,

I know where my priorities lie. R.I.P lads.

Remember these soldiers earn £15k to £30k a YEAR not a DAY like Rooney & co.

If you believe that the England team should donate their wages to Help the Heroes

Write to your MP NOW
 

David Morton

Lifetime Supporter
Coalition Military Fatalities By Year

<TABLE class=Smalltable id=ctl00_ContentPlaceHolder1_GridView1 style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" cellSpacing=0 rules=all border=1><TBODY><TR class=contactDept><TH scope=col>Year</TH><TH scope=col>US</TH><TH scope=col>UK</TH><TH scope=col>Other</TH><TH scope=col>Total</TH></TR><TR><TD class=contact>2001</TD><TD class=contactNumber>12</TD><TD class=contactNumber>0</TD><TD class=contactNumber>0</TD><TD class=contactNumber>12</TD></TR><TR><TD class=contact>2002</TD><TD class=contactNumber>49</TD><TD class=contactNumber>3</TD><TD class=contactNumber>17</TD><TD class=contactNumber>69</TD></TR><TR><TD class=contact>2003</TD><TD class=contactNumber>48</TD><TD class=contactNumber>0</TD><TD class=contactNumber>9</TD><TD class=contactNumber>57</TD></TR><TR><TD class=contact>2004</TD><TD class=contactNumber>52</TD><TD class=contactNumber>1</TD><TD class=contactNumber>7</TD><TD class=contactNumber>60</TD></TR><TR><TD class=contact>2005</TD><TD class=contactNumber>99</TD><TD class=contactNumber>1</TD><TD class=contactNumber>31</TD><TD class=contactNumber>131</TD></TR><TR><TD class=contact>2006</TD><TD class=contactNumber>98</TD><TD class=contactNumber>39</TD><TD class=contactNumber>54</TD><TD class=contactNumber>191</TD></TR><TR><TD class=contact>2007</TD><TD class=contactNumber>117</TD><TD class=contactNumber>42</TD><TD class=contactNumber>73</TD><TD class=contactNumber>232</TD></TR><TR><TD class=contact>2008</TD><TD class=contactNumber>155</TD><TD class=contactNumber>51</TD><TD class=contactNumber>89</TD><TD class=contactNumber>295</TD></TR><TR><TD class=contact>2009</TD><TD class=contactNumber>317</TD><TD class=contactNumber>108</TD><TD class=contactNumber>96</TD><TD class=contactNumber>521</TD></TR><TR><TD class=contact>2010</TD><TD class=contactNumber>260</TD><TD class=contactNumber>80</TD><TD class=contactNumber>60</TD><TD class=contactNumber>400</TD></TR><TR class=contactDept><TD>Total</TD><TD align=right>1207</TD><TD align=right>325</TD><TD align=right>436</TD><TD>1968</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
 

David Morton

Lifetime Supporter
At long last the Law Lords have ruled:



Former MPs charged with abusing expenses will face criminal trials

Three former Labour MPs and a Conservative peer cannot use parliamentary privilege to avoid a criminal trial for allegedly abusing their expenses, three of the country’s most senior judges have ruled.



By Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter
Published: 11:49AM BST 30 Jul 2010
<!-- COMMENTS DISABLED IN SECTION PROPERTIES -->

chargedMPs_1572827c.jpg
(L-R) Elliot Morley, David Chaytor, Jim Devine and Lord Hanningfield Photo: PA/UPPA/CLARE KENDALL


The Court of Appeal judges said they were “unable to envisage” how “ordinary criminal activities” by MPs and Lords could ever come under the protection of the ancient defence.

They ruled that “the criminal justice system should take its normal course, unaffected by any groundless anxiety that they might constitute an infringement of the principals of Parliamentary privilege”.

<!-- BEFORE ACI -->
Related Articles

Elliot Morley, Jim Devine, David Chaytor, and Lord Hanningfield had appealed against an earlier ruling by Mr Justice Saunders that they should be tried by a criminal court after being charged with fraud following disclosures in The Daily Telegraph.
They argued that they were protected from prosecution by the Bill of Rights of 1689, which states that “proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament”.
But the three judges, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, and the President of the Queen’s Bench Division, Sir Anthony May, unanimously dismissed the appeal.
The four men are now expected to take their case to the Supreme Court for a further appeal, meaning any trials, which had been expected to start at Southwark Crown Court in London in November, might now be delayed until next year.
Giving the reasons for the judgment, the judges said it was “impossible to see how subjecting dishonest claims for expenses to criminal investigation” would contravene parliamentary privilege.
In the same way that an assault on another person committed in Parliament would be an “ordinary crime” to be dealt with by the police, there was no “logic” in the argument that fraud should be treated any differently, they said.
“It can confidently be stated that parliamentary privilege or immunity from criminal prosecution has never, ever attached to ordinary criminal activities by Members of Parliament,” they added.
“The stark reality is that the defendants are alleged to have taken advantage of the allowances scheme designed to enable them to perform their important public duties as members of parliament to commit crimes of dishonesty to which parliamentary immunity or privilege does not, has never, and, we believe, never would attach,” the judges said.
“Even stretching language to its limits we are unable to envisage how dishonest claims by members of Parliament for their expenses or allowances begin to involve the legislative or core functions of the relevant House, or the proper performance of their important public duties.
“In our judgement no question of privilege arises and the ordinary process of the criminal justice system should take its normal course, unaffected by any groundless anxiety that they might constitute an infringement of the principles of parliamentary privilege.”
The judges added in their written judgment that: “We are not in the least surprised that no attempt has been made by the Speaker or Lord Speaker to seek to intervene in these proceedings, nor even to draw the attention of the court to any potential difficulty in the context of parliamentary privilege.”
Mr Chaytor is accused of falsely claiming more than £20,000 for rent and IT services, Mr Morley with falsely claiming £30,428 in interest on a mortgage he had paid off, and Mr Devine of falsely claiming more than £8,000 for various services. Lord Hanningfield faces charges relating to travel expenses.
All four men deny theft by false accounting.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We, the general public, who pay for these arseholes to have a jolly good time at our expense are at least going to have some satisfaction. At long last things are going our way. There should have been many more. Lets hope they keep finding irregularities
and charge more of them tarring them all with the same brush.
 
Last edited:

David Morton

Lifetime Supporter
Mean while that horrendous ugly stupid bitch Jaqui Smith, ( remember her who put all sorts of bullshit down on her expenses claims include porn DVDs for her so called husband ) has applied for a part time job at the BBC. Yes - she expects us to carry on funding her in a highly paid part time job. You really have to write to the Director General of the BBC and complain about this. I for one will withold my licence fees if she is given this job and I will stand up in court and say why:

Jacqui Smith applies for top BBC job: £77k a year for just 2½ days a week... and all the expenses former minister can claim

<SCRIPT src="http://scripts.dailymail.co.uk/js/diggthis.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT>
By Glen Owen

Last updated at 2:24 PM on 1st August 2010
Former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has sparked fury by bidding for a top BBC job less than three months after her political career ended in disgrace.
The ex-cabinet minister, who famously charged taxpayers for the cost of watching two pornographic films, is lobbying to become vice-chairman of the BBC Trust.
The plum position pays £77,000 a year for a two-and-a-half-day week and also offers generous perks.

Ms Smith is hoping to replace the current vice-chairman, Chitra Bharucha, who is stepping down at the end of October.


article-0-0AA47FB0000005DC-978_468x445.jpg
Ready for more: Jacqui Smith and her husband Richard. Both became early victims of the expenses scandal last year. It was revealed she claimed the cost of two adult films that she later said had been watched by her husband

Last month Ms Bharucha, who is deputy to Chairman Sir Michael Lyons, was at the centre of her own expenses furore when it was revealed that she had claimed back the cost of a Sky TV subscription from the BBC.

It was part of more than £60,000 of claims made by the 12 members of the trust in just six months.
The Government is likely to be alarmed by news of Ms Smith’s bid at a time of growing friction between ministers and the BBC.

Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt - who would have to approve any new BBC trustee - recently attacked the organisation’s ‘extraordinary and outrageous’ waste, particularly in relation to its executives’ lavish pay and perks.

article-0-0041C8D000000258-558_233x423.jpg
BBC Trust vice-chairman: Mrs Smith hopes to replace Dr Chitra Bharucha, who herself was embroiled in an expenses scandal

He said he could ‘absolutely’ see viewers being asked to pay less than the current licence fee of £145.50.

A BBC source said there had been ‘a certain degree of surprise’ when Ms Smith’s CV arrived two weeks ago.

‘I am not sure she is quite what we are looking for at a time when we are desperately trying to repair our own battered image,’ the source said.
Yesterday, when contacted by The Mail on Sunday, Ms Smith said: ‘How did you know that I had applied?’
Asked whether she thought her bid was likely to succeed, she said: ‘I have made an application, that’s all I know’, before adding ‘f*** off’ and terminating the conversation.
The deadline for applications for the vice-chairman post expired last week. An announcement about the successful candidate is expected to be made by the end of the summer.
Last night, Conservative MP Philip Davies said: ‘I have no idea what she thinks she has to offer the BBC Trust. Maybe she wants to go down with another sinking ship, like she did with her Government.

'The last thing they need is another Labour luvvie. I just hope they have the sense to blast it out of court.’
Ms Smith, 47, became one of the earliest victims of last year’s expenses scandal when The Mail on Sunday revealed that she had designated a house in London owned by her sister as her main residence, enabling her to claim Commons second-home allowances on her constituency house in Redditch, despite claiming on her website that she lived in the town.
Over six years, the then home secretary banked more than £116,000 for items including a flat-screen TV and scatter cushions.
Ms Smith’s embarrassment deepened when it was disclosed that she had charged the taxpayer for a &shy;telecoms bill containing four pay-per-view films, including two adult titles.

She blamed her husband &shy;Richard Timney, who worked as her &shy;parliamentary adviser, for watching the films while she was away.


article-0-06CBC6EE000005DC-679_468x364.jpg
Commons apology: Mrsi Smith was forced to make a statement in the House of Commons after she had breached rules on second-home expenses

Parliamentary Standards Com&shy;missioner John Lyon later concluded that Ms Smith was in breach of &shy;Commons rules for claiming for the films and stating that her constituency home was not her main home.

Ms Smith, who was forced to make a personal statement of apology to the Commons, said she was ‘disappointed that this pro&shy;cess had not led to a fairer set of circumstances’.

Ms Smith returned to the back benches last summer in Gordon Brown’s Cabinet reshuffle, before losing her seat in May’s General Election.

She was entitled to receive a Commons ‘parachute payment’ of £32,300 to help her adjust to life outside &shy;Parliament and a ‘winding-up allowance’ of up to £42,000 towards the costs of closing down her offices, including a redundancy payment for her husband.

As a former MP, she is also entitled to a gold-plated pension worth an estimated £20,000 a year, which she can pick up when she turns 65.

But the couple will need to find work: they have two children, and are still paying the mortgage on the detached home in Redditch which they bought six years ago
for £300,000.

Before winning the Redditch seat in 1997, Ms Smith worked as a schoolteacher. Mr Timney trained as a civil engineer before joining his wife’s payroll.
Yesterday, her former constit&shy;uency agent Graham Vickery said that Mr Timney was setting up a public-sector consultancy business. ‘It is only exploratory at the moment, but I am sure it will go well,’ he said.

When asked about Ms Smith’s BBC application, he said: ‘It was not something I thought she would do. I thought she would involve herself in academic work, where she is &shy;particularly strong.’
In the wake of Ms Smith’s election defeat, Mr Vickery admitted that she had been ‘blindly optimistic’ about her chances of keeping her seat, which she held with a 2,700 majority.

But at the polls she lost to the &shy;Conservatives’ Karen Lumley by a margin of nearly 6,000.

He said at the time: ‘I don’t think Jacqui knows what she will do next.’

The trust was set up as the BBC’s governing body in October 2006 by Tessa Jowell when she was culture secretary.

Independent of the BBC’s management, it is respon&shy;sible for setting the corporation’s stra&shy;tegic direction and for ‘acting in the best interests of licence-fee &shy;payers’.
Appointments are made by the Queen on the recommendation of government ministers.

Those who apply to be trustees are shortlisted and interviewed by a panel chaired by a senior civil ser&shy;vant.

The panel sends its recommendation to the Culture Secretary.
Ms Bharucha was among four trustees who were heavily criticised in February 2008 for spending £20,000 of licence-payers’ money to take a group of ‘opinion-formers and stakeholders’ to the Wimbledon tennis tournament.
Last month it was disclosed that the trust had spent £60,000 in expenses over a six-month period.

That figure included more than £16,000 claimed by Sir Michael, in addition to his annual £142,000 &shy;salary and use of a car and driver valued at £27,499.

Ms Bharucha included a claim for £175 to cover the cost of seven months of her
Sky TV subscription.

The chairman is expected to spend three to four days a week on trust business, the vice-chair about two-and-a-half days and other trustees just two days.

Mr Hunt has said publicly that he doubts the efficacy and usefulness of the trust, but he has granted it a stay of execution in the run-up to next year’s licence-fee negotiations.

Last month he said: ‘There are huge numbers of things that need to be changed at the BBC. They need to demonstrate the very constrained financial situation we are now in.’

A spokeswoman for the BBC trust said: ‘We would not comment on what is an ongoing recruitment process. Although the trust chairman sits on the interview panel, the final decision on the appointment will be made by the Government.’
A spokeswoman for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport also said it would be inappropriate to comment on an ongoing appointments process.



Read more: Jacqui Smith applies for top BBC job... two and a half days a week for £77k and expenses, naturally | Mail Online
 

Keith

Moderator
Vehemently + 1 David in fact I think she should apply for a position that gives assistance to bereaved military families - an honourary post to be sure but one that might eventually lead her onto the path of righteousness and redemption but I'm not holding my breath.

Totally champagne socialist and a betrayer (one of many) of the electorate...

Fat Cow.
 

David Morton

Lifetime Supporter
Keith,
Say it as it is.
Seems you don't like the fat cow.......
If I was in charge of a firing squad she would be the first to go.
 

David Morton

Lifetime Supporter
How these arseholes feather their nests when they lose their Membership seats in Parliament:
She was entitled to receive a Commons ‘parachute payment’ of £32,300 to help her adjust to life outside &shy;Parliament and a ‘winding-up allowance’ of up to £42,000 towards the costs of closing down her offices, including a redundancy payment for her husband. (Probably to help him rehabilitate from his porn movie addiction now the tax payers don't fund it for him ?)
All of these costs were voted in by these MPs and believe me, they milk it for all it's worth.

Maybe our soldiers on completion of their service in the army should receive such payments to help them adjust to life outside ?
 

David Morton

Lifetime Supporter
From Richard Littlejohn in the Daily Mail.

How about this for a bad joke:

When asked about her application to join the BBC, Jaqui Smith told the reporter asking the question to "Fuck Off".
So no change there then.

and how about this for gross negligence:

Labour blew £1.2 billion on the swine flu epidemic that never was.
A new study says all the money spent on patronising advertising campaigns, vaccinations, anti-virals and face-masks probably saved just 26 lives.
Each case cost £46million, which would have paid for six months of cancer drugs for 3,000 patients.


Read more: RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: And the same to you, Jackboots | Mail Online
 
Back
Top