Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Wonder they haven't found anythink on Benny Hill , one of the girls on the show's said he use to ask for a BJ , and she gave him one. Think it was said on a BBC program, mainly it was about who had his money when he died

Here's a Statement from Paul Dunham giving evidence in relation to his extradition proceedings:

http://www.friends-extradited.org/_filestore/Dunham_p_proof_of_evidence_19-04-13.pdf

Their mental illness appears to be depression and the cause of it is said to be the court case. I just read the transcript of the High Court case to deny extradition it looks like they should be going back. He was the President and CEO of the company in the US. The charges relate to $1.7m of fraud that was investigated and then the FBI was involved. They were aware of the court case in the US and did not respond to it or go back to stand trial. Subsequent to that an arrest warrant was issued to which they did not respond. It is normal practice to issue extradition warrents without warning as the subject might flee. They have had their chance of fighting the extradition in the High Court after previous hearings. The warrents seem to be in order and nothing seems to be any different to other extradition requests. Send them back.

I have already read his statement. It is just his version of events and evidence to be used in a trial that he is trying to avoid. If a company here had a CEO accused of fraud and the SFOvwas involved, we would seem extradition from the US or any other country that we had an extradition with. This case looks to be no different. A stay Kent by someone is just that. It may be the truth or an attempt to avoid justice.

He he, briliant fair tickled me............

Could the truth be stranger than Esther McVey’s Wikipedia entry?
27
Sunday
Apr 2014
Posted by Mike Sivier in Conservative Party, People, Politics



It appears that somebody with a social conscience has edited Esther McVey’s Wikipedia entry to provide what some might call a more accurate description of her Parliamentary responsibilities.

For a short period earlier today, it seems the entry began: “Esther Louise McVey (born 24 October 1967) is a British Conservative Party politician who has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for Wirral West since 2010, and the Assistant Grim Reaper for Disabled People since 2012, second only to Iain Duncan Smith. She was previously a television presenter and businesswoman before deciding to branch out into professional lying and helping disabled people into the grave.” [Italics mine]

The edits have since been erased but at the time of writing, the entry starts: “Esther “no brains” McVey (born 24 October 1767)”.

Also embarrassing for the Employment Minister is the section on her Twitter faux pas during the memorial service on the 25th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster (April 15 this year). It reads: “McVey was criticized by social media users for attacking the Wirral Labour Group in a tweet published at the time a memorial service for the Hillsborough Disaster was being held at Anfield Stadium. She later, in a radio interview with BBC Radio Merseyside, claimed to regret the mistiming of her communication. During this interview, a voice can clearly be heard whispering, ‘Say I didn’t send it’.”

Addendum: Apparently another edit has appeared on Wikipedia as follows (thanks to our friends on Twitter for providing this):

Hays Hays Hays............

electionista @electionista ·
UK - YouGov #EP2014 poll:

UKIP 31%
LAB 28
CON 19
LD 9
GRN 8

We will see. The Polks taken based on those certain to vote and those who voted last time give a different picture.

The only poll that matters is the GE next year and that looks to be very different.

i think that's a fair comment
i'm certain ukip will have a stonking result at the eu polls, and perhaps even in local elections, but the general election is likely to throw up a very different picture

Yep a labour outright majority.

Easter polls are notorious for getting it wrong.

This one is the last reliable one you can trust........

electionista @electionista · Apr 24
UK - YouGov/Sun poll:

CON 32%
LAB 38%
LDEM 8%
UKIP 14%

And dont forget Hays we have AXLEgrease starting work for labour from next monday.


Im afraid he'l take linton Crosby to the cleaners.

Shrewd ED at work again.

meanwhile, max clifford facing a very uncomfortable few years

sticky - i just walked past a newsstand and noticed today's lead headline from The Times

Labour's core vote hit hard by UKIP


obviously this must be about the eu elections and i have no idea about the rest of the of the article, but any thoughts or comment?

and ukip isn't middle class when led by NF, ex public school etc etc?????

i would have imagined labour voters going to ukip almost exclusively because of labour's (non)stance on eu and that good old chestnut of immigration

I see the Ukraine leader is leading the EU and the US. He runs a bankrupt country, but is leading Obama and others in G7. This country has become so important for the west that it is allowed to play with our livelihood.

Clearly, Ukraine has nothing to lose by playing dangerous games.

ukraine playing dangerous games? ...... wrong party surely?

if you actually meant russia, then she is indeed playing a dangerous game, for though russia has a stranglehold on that particular pipeline, don't forget that russia's economy is is in dire straits so also desperately needs the eu's income

Why these things can't be easily settled with a quick game of tug-o-war I do not know!

What UKIP Won’t Tell the Voters: The Fascistic Illiberalism at the Heart of the Party



Nigel Farage, Fuhrer of UKIP, whose policies allegedly include the removal of the vote from the unemployed and the sterilisation of the disabled.

I’ve reblogged another of Mike’s pieces from over at Vox Political, Does UKIP’s Euro election poll lead really reflect the People’s view? In it, Mike analyses some of the comments about UKIP posted on the Vox Political Facebook page. He concludes that UKIP’s electoral lead in the Euro elections is driven by disillusionment with the existing parties, rather than an outright endorsement of UKIP in itself. It’s a protest vote, caused by fears over mass immigration from eastern Europe. The article’s well worth reading for a glimpse into how people really feel about UKIP in their own words, rather than what UKIP’s own publicists and mainstream media commentators tell you.

I’ve remarked on how it is extremely suspicious and highly sinister that UKIP does not mention its domestic policies, preferring to concentrate instead exclusively on the issue of the EU and immigration. When you do find out about them, they’re horrifying. They have been described as ‘Tories on steroids’ because they advocate the complete destruction of the welfare state and privatisation of the NHS. One of their policies, for example, is the removal of the worker’s right to paid annual leave.

But if one of the commenters on Mike’s Facebook page is to be believed, that’s the very least of it. The party has other policies that verge dangerously close to the Far Right. Bette Rogerson posted the following about them:

“Why would you vote for a party that says it hates Europe, but at the same time takes lots and lots of money from the European parliament? Why vote for a party whose members advocate policies like less tax for the wealthiest, cutting of maternity leave and forcible sterilisation of the disabled? Why vote for a party who wants to take the vote away from the unemployed? Is your job really that secure? Lastly but not least, why vote for a party which claims it wants British jobs for the British and then hires an Irish actor to model as a poor Briton whose job has been taken away by a foreigner?”

Various Conservative politicians and mouthpieces, like the Daily Mail, have also attacked maternity leave on the grounds that its an expensive burden for business. At times this has verged into attacks on women working, as the requirement to supply paid leave for women to have children and raise a family, according to the Tory Right, makes employing women prohibitively expensive. Thus it sometimes forms part of an attack on feminism and just about every attempt to give women access to jobs outside the home since the Equal Opportunities campaigns of the 1970s.

The really frightening stuff, however, if Bette Rogerson is correct, are the demands to sterilise the disabled and deny the vote to the unemployed. The sterilisation of the disabled was a major part of the eugenics campaign in Britain and America during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It was based on fears that the ‘dysgenic’ – the mentally and physically handicapped – would outbreed the sane, intelligent and able-bodied, and place an unbearable burden on the rest of society. By the 1920s, about 22 American states had passed legislation providing for the sterilisation of the ‘unfit’. It became a central part of the Nazi programme when they took power, with the Nazis themselves boasting that they had introduced nothing new in this regard. In propaganda films like I Don’t Want To Be Born the Nazis promoted the abortion of disabled children. Their eugenics programme finally culminated in the organised murder by the SS of mentally handicapped individuals taken from Reich mental asylums under the direction of Hitler’s doctor.

As for the removal of the vote from the unemployed, this seems to be another throwback to the 19th century. The extension of the franchise enacted by Disraeli in the 1870s gave most working men the vote. But not all. The franchise was still connected to property and the payment of rates. Martin Pugh in his book, British Fascism between the Wars, points out that the idea of universal suffrage based on the rights of the individual, was rejected as ‘too abstract’ and French in origin. He makes the point that the undemocratic nature of the franchise, which also excluded women until 1918, was partly one of the factors that turned the Conservative Right towards Fascism. Large sections of the establishment were afraid and disliked the extension of the vote to all of the great unwashed, particularly groups connected with the Raj and the colonial bureaucracy. That makes sense. The British government of India was a European elite of official and bureaucrats ruling a vast sub-continent without any kind of democratic accountability to the millions they governed. They clearly took the same attitude towards their Indian subjects back with them to their fellow countrymen in the British working class.

More recently, Right-wing politicians and polemicists have also criticised the extension of the liability for jury duty beyond the traditional restrictions based on property qualifications. According to them, Roy Jenkins’ removal of the property qualification in the 1960s was one of the causes of the rising crime rate in the 1970s. Those with a proper investment in bricks and mortar were more socially responsible, according to these Right-wingers, and more aware of criminals as a threat to society than those without such property, who were consequently much more irresponsible regarding the proper punishment crims deserved. This was the point made by one such Tory writer, whose book was reviewed in the Financial Times in the 1990s. UKIP’s supposed policy to exclude the unemployed from the franchise does sound similar to this complaint.



Workfare: It’s almost Nazi forced labour under the Tories. Under UKIP, it would be the real thing.

And lastly, apart from the threat to democracy posed by the denial of the vote to the unemployed, simply for being without a job, it also turns the unemployed themselves into helots – state slaves – under the Work programme. I’ve criticised the government’s welfare to work programme, along with Johnny Void and many others, for constituting a form of slavery. At the moment one of the major factors stopping it from being real slavery is that those on the Work Programme still possess the franchise. They are, in theory, still electorally free. This would deny them that freedom, and so make them virtual serfs of the government and the private industries, to whom they would be rented out under the Welfare to Work rules. And needless to say, it would also provide a strong incentive for government and big business to shed more paid jobs, in order to create an army of state serfs denied the franchise and forced to work for a pittance in Jobseekers’ Allowance, rather than a living wage.

This is how the free citizens of the Roman Empire became the feudal serfs, labouring on the estates of the nobility in the Middle Ages, folks. See the relevant chapter on the decline of the Roman empire in R.H.C. Davies, Europe in the Middle Ages.

If this is all correct, and these are UKIP’s domestic policies, then Farage and his stormtroopers are dragging us back to the worst and most exploitative aspects of 19th century capitalism. It’s not quite Fascism, but very close. Oswald Mosley, the Fuhrer of the British Union of Fascists, in his autobiography, My Life, sneered at the concept of freedom under liberal democracy. For him, such freedom meant only the freedom for the poor and unemployed to sleep on a park bench. Mosley himself was a terrible man – a vicious racist and anti-Semite, who fancied himself as the British Mussolini or Hitler. But If this is correct about UKIP, then under Farage you wouldn’t even have the freedom to do that.

There's a simple solution to this Euro-elections sham

Westminster politicians are well placed to do a good job in Brussels and Strasbourg





By Boris Johnson

8:40PM BST 27 Apr 2014


It seems incredible that there is only a month to go, only a few nailbiting weeks until that climacteric in geo-politics – the chance for us all to flood to the polling stations, snatch our ballot papers and VOTE in the Euro-elections. Across this continent of 27 nations and 510 million people, we will be deciding who should serve us in Strasbourg and Brussels. It’s one of the biggest global exercises of democracy – and it’s a complete sham.


Let me ask you a question. No peeking at the internet; no conferring. Can you tell me the name of your Euro-MP? OK, I thought not. Can you tell me what he or she does?



More flannel here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10791873/Theres-a-simple-solution-to-this-Euro-elections-sham.html



But as usual, the best of it is in the comment section, people are a little sceptical of Boris:

Box of Frogs • an hour ago


Boris the 'wind sock' Johnson. Which ever way the winds of fortune are blowing he will be full of it.

sure as hell i have no idea who my MEP is


does anyone know what role any of the ukip MEPs play in strasburg?
did i hear, "they don't do anything other than trouser their juicy pay packets"?