Showing posts with label gordon brown. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gordon brown. Show all posts
Monday, 15 June 2009
Tuesday, 26 May 2009
THE EUROPEAN CONSTITUTION AND YOU
There is an endless list of why Britain should cut all ties with the European Parliament. If Britain doesn’t, then the British people will loose their sovereignty. The fact that the EU is doing everything in its power to force the sinister European Constitution onto the British public is a clear sign of the EU’s ambition of becoming a Superstate, in which they wish Britain to be a part of. We must resist this tyrannical, foreign body, otherwise we will become a mere state in the United States of Europe, and have no control over our nation.
The European Constitution will only have adverse effects for Britain. I have outlined a few of the issues that we would face under European rule.
1. The European Constitution would make it harder to fight crime.
The Constitutional Treaty would give the EU considerable power over crime, policing and our Law Courts. This sinister treaty would mean that that EU judges would gain power over justice and policing. Under the constitution, the European Court of Justice would become the highest court in the land and would also mean that a substantial amount of Britain’s laws would be created in Brussels; which is a huge transfer of our national sovereignty, as the government have admitted.
Under EU law, it would become illegal to try someone twice for the same crime. This would mean that criminals like Billy Dunlop would be walking the streets. In case you didn’t know; Billy Dunlop was successfully convicted of murdering Julie Hogg when new evidence came to light 15 years after he was acquitted.
The Constitutional Treaty also states that the severity of penalties should not be disproportionate to the criminal offence. This would undermine the discretion of British judges to keep infamous killers like Rosemary West in prison for life.
The treaty would allow the EU police force, Europol, to conduct investigations on British soil. This has worrying implications, because unlike the British police forces, Europol officers are largely unaccountable. They are completely immune to prosecution for acts performed in the course of their duties, and they are also not compelled to testify in court. Europol also has its own problems with fraud, for example, its offices were raided by Belgium police as part of a fraud investigation.
The European Prosecutor Eurojust, will also get sweeping new powers. A spokesman for Eurojust- Johannes Thuy- confirmed that “ we would compel the British police to make a prosecution.”
2. The European Constitution would give the EU power over our foreign policy and defence.
If the constitution does get accepted, it would mean that there will be an EU foreign Minister, an EU Diplomatic Service, and the constitution would give the right to the EU to sign treaties on our behalf.
The Spanish Prime Minister, Jose Zapatero, predicts that “ we will undoubtedly see European embassies in the world, not ones from each country, with European diplomats and a European foreign service. We will see Europe with a single voice in security matters. We will have a single voice within NATO”. At first the British Government opposed many of these proposals, but being weak kneed it soon gave in.
The Constitutional Treaty also would set up a “structured cooperation” group, in which the UK will be forced to be apart of. The treaty states that members would have to achieve “ approved objectives concerning the level of investment expenditure on defence equipment and bring their defence apparatus into line with each other”. In a European Federalists research paper they noted that “Structured Co-operation in the field of defence is a significant step toward a Single European Army”.
German Chancellor Angela Merkal has also expressed a want for a single European Army: “ Within the EU itself, we will have to move closer to establishing a common European army”.
Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi has said “ When I was talking about the European army, I was not joking. If you don’t want to call it a European army, don’t call it a European army. You can call it “Margaret”, you can call it “Mary Anne”, you can call it any name”.
The Spanish Prime Minister Jose Zapatero said that “ Europe must believe that it can be in 20 years the most important world power! The constitution is an important step in this direction”.
What all this means in practice is that while our troops are being undermined in Afghanistan and Iraq with poor equipment and a want for just the basic equipment, the EU wants to divert billions of pounds to wasteful projects such as the Galileo satellite System- all because of its desire to play the role of world “Superpower”. Put aside the fact that our troops should not even be in Afghanistan or Iraq, the above is bad for our armed forces.
3. The Constitution would mean that we would have less control over Asylum Seekers and immigrants.
Under the Constitution Treaty, the European Court of Justice would gain a considerably amount of new powers to determine the “rights” of Asylum seekers and immigrants to reside in Britain. The Government have admitted that with the introduction of the Constitution Treaty would come more expensive Asylum and immigration appeals. In November 2006 Geoff Hoon said: “There is clearly a risk that adding what is in effect an avenue of appeal at a very early stage in the process might be an opportunity of further complicating of further complicating our existing asylum and immigration processes.”
The Charter of Fundamental Right, which is legally binding under the sinister constitution, would mean that Britain would not be able to deport terror suspects and other foreign criminals. This would mean, on top of all the other immigrants draining tax payers money away, we would have to pay for these criminals, and we would have to subsidize asylum seekers who are waiting for their case to be heard. It currently takes two years before the European Court of Justice even begins to hear an appeal.
Under the constitution there will be a new “burden sharing” requirement, which means that British taxpayers, who are already burdened with immigrants, will have to pay for immigrants in other countries.
Noone can disagree that under the Constitutional Treaty the European Court of Justice would end up making what is essentially political decisions. It wouldn’t matter if the entire British public disagreed with what the EU were doing, it would be impossible to overturn the rulings.
4. The Constitutional Treaty would mean the EU had more control over our public services.
HEALTH AND EDUCATION
The Constitutional treaty means that the EU would have complete control over the British Health service, and the British people would have no right to reject legislation in this area. This would mean that the EU would regulate medical standards. A new “right to preventive healthcare2 would open the NHS up to influx of costly ambulance-chasing lawsuits. The constitution would end the right to reject legislation concerning trade agreements in public services like health and education. In other words, our Parliament would no longer have a say over deals which will determine how these services are managed.
TRANSPORT: Under the constitution, the British people would loss the right to reject legislation concerning transport. Jacques Barrot, EU Transport Commissioner, recently revealed that the EU wants to run EU wide road pricing operations, but as the AA point out, this would lead to a huge loss of privacy.
The above is only a few of the issues that Britain face if the UK accepts the wretched Constitutional Treaty, and in doing so accept the tyrannical rule of the European Union. Below I have outlined some of the policies of the National front which relate to the above issues.
European Union.
The National Front supports the right of self-determination for all European nations and demands that right for Britain. It seeks a Europe where each nation is friendly to all others but where no nation seeks to dominate or interfere in the affairs of another. Consequently the NF would withdraw Britain from the European Union.
The NF would encourage the development of cultural and sporting links between other European nations. It would encourage the cultural diversity between the nations of Europe and resist attempts to eliminate this. It totally opposes the monetary and political merging of the separate nations into a super-state.
Defence
The protection of the British people at home and throughout the world is the responsibility of the government. It is for this purpose (and this purpose alone) that we require our armed forces, which have such a proud record in defending our nation. No British politician wants a war but it is a sad fact that Britain must always be prepared for a whole range of eventualities including the less likely ones. This is particularly true when the Middle East is in a period of change and uncertainty.
There is no realistic defence without a basic defence strategy. The National Front's defence strategy is that Britain must maintain a defence capability able to inflict massive damage on any other countries in the world should they act as an aggressor. The only other requirement is the ability of our forces to defeat any internal terrorist threat. The equipment with which our forces are armed must be designed and built in the UK and must remain solely under the control of this country.
The National Front totally opposes the use of British troops by the United Nations to carry out their political adventures. It also opposes any attempt to form a European army under foreign control and will withdraw Britain from NATO.
Race and immigration
The National Front believes that the world contains a rich diversity of races and consequent cultures. We believe in the preservation of these races. As each race has evolved it has developed its own social structures, its own customs and its own culture. These are different for each race and have been built up to suit the character of each separate race.
In the case of Britain the National Front upholds the wish of the majority of British people for Britain to remain a white country, with customs and a culture which have been developed to suit our character. Consequently the National Front would halt all non-white immigration into Britain and introduce a policy of phased and humane repatriation of all coloured people currently resident here. Such a policy would be expected to extend over 10-15 years and its completion would thus depend on the recurrent election of successive NF governments.
The National Front believes that this is the only way to halt the steadily rising racial tension and violence that is becoming part of everyday life in modern Britain.
In regards to white immigration, this would only be allowed where there are particular reasons such as the possession of particular skills or in the case of political refugees. Until the problem of unemployment is solved, the NF would seek to keep such immigration to a minimum
NHS
The National Front would provide an entirely free National Health Service and this would include the abolition of prescription charges. When people fall ill they are likely to be losing money in any case and we can see no justification in prescription charges. However, checks on doctors' prescriptions would be made to make sure the Health Service is not wasting money.
Whilst the NF expects all parts of the NHS to use money efficiently and carefully, a National Front government would make available sufficient funds to eliminate all waiting lists for medically needed operations and treatments. This will take priority over other items of expenditure.
The National Front believes that the NHS should be made available to all foreign visitors who fall ill during their stay, however this system is being abused by people who arrive in this country fully aware of an existing health condition - this would be stopped. The NF is opposed to abortion on principle and would only sanction one where a mother has conceived as a result of rape, where medical opinion asserts that there is a genuine and serious danger to the health or life of the mother if the pregnancy is allowed to continue, or where medical opinion asserts that the foetus is seriously damaged or malformed. All such abortions are dependent on the mother's consent. Under a National Front government the days of abortion being used as a form of post-coital contraception will end.
FREEDOM
For the last thousand years the British people have fought, and sometimes died, to preserve our basic freedoms. The National Front wholeheartedly believes that these freedoms must be maintained. Consequently the National Front believes in the introduction of a bill of rights to guarantee basic freedoms including:
Equal and free access to justice
Freedom of speech and publication and distribution of printed matter
Freedom of access to publicly owned assembly facilities
Freedom for orderly demonstrations in public
The right to vote and stand for election for public office without onerous financial or other qualifications
Freedom from arbitrary arrest
Those are a few of our policies which I think are relevant here.
Moving on.
WHAT WILL THE SWINDON NF DO TO HELP STOP THE EUROPEAN CONSTITUTION BEING ACCEPTED IN BRITAIN.
The National Front, up and down the country, will continue to campaign against EU dictatorship in Britain. However on a local level I have started a campaign. Its an attempt to make central Government stick to their promise and give the British people a referendum. And everyone of you can help. In actual fact, I need everyone of you to help. Whether you live in Swindon or not, it doesn’t matter. As long as you have a voice than you can help.
Basically, I have found a way in which to bring about a referendum in a Parish council which poses the question: “ should there be a national referendum on Britain’s membership in the EU?” More Councils- district councils, parish councils ect- that hold a referendum and with more “yes” votes, the more likely that Brown will hold a referendum.
I will give anyone who is willing to try and make a difference all the guidance and advice they will need- everything from lists of legislation that gives them the right to hold a referendum, to how you can insure you will get a good turn out.
If you are interested please email me at Swindon@yahoo.co.uk, and we will win this fight together.
BRITAIN FIRST- VOTE NATIONAL FRONT
The European Constitution will only have adverse effects for Britain. I have outlined a few of the issues that we would face under European rule.
1. The European Constitution would make it harder to fight crime.
The Constitutional Treaty would give the EU considerable power over crime, policing and our Law Courts. This sinister treaty would mean that that EU judges would gain power over justice and policing. Under the constitution, the European Court of Justice would become the highest court in the land and would also mean that a substantial amount of Britain’s laws would be created in Brussels; which is a huge transfer of our national sovereignty, as the government have admitted.
Under EU law, it would become illegal to try someone twice for the same crime. This would mean that criminals like Billy Dunlop would be walking the streets. In case you didn’t know; Billy Dunlop was successfully convicted of murdering Julie Hogg when new evidence came to light 15 years after he was acquitted.
The Constitutional Treaty also states that the severity of penalties should not be disproportionate to the criminal offence. This would undermine the discretion of British judges to keep infamous killers like Rosemary West in prison for life.
The treaty would allow the EU police force, Europol, to conduct investigations on British soil. This has worrying implications, because unlike the British police forces, Europol officers are largely unaccountable. They are completely immune to prosecution for acts performed in the course of their duties, and they are also not compelled to testify in court. Europol also has its own problems with fraud, for example, its offices were raided by Belgium police as part of a fraud investigation.
The European Prosecutor Eurojust, will also get sweeping new powers. A spokesman for Eurojust- Johannes Thuy- confirmed that “ we would compel the British police to make a prosecution.”
2. The European Constitution would give the EU power over our foreign policy and defence.
If the constitution does get accepted, it would mean that there will be an EU foreign Minister, an EU Diplomatic Service, and the constitution would give the right to the EU to sign treaties on our behalf.
The Spanish Prime Minister, Jose Zapatero, predicts that “ we will undoubtedly see European embassies in the world, not ones from each country, with European diplomats and a European foreign service. We will see Europe with a single voice in security matters. We will have a single voice within NATO”. At first the British Government opposed many of these proposals, but being weak kneed it soon gave in.
The Constitutional Treaty also would set up a “structured cooperation” group, in which the UK will be forced to be apart of. The treaty states that members would have to achieve “ approved objectives concerning the level of investment expenditure on defence equipment and bring their defence apparatus into line with each other”. In a European Federalists research paper they noted that “Structured Co-operation in the field of defence is a significant step toward a Single European Army”.
German Chancellor Angela Merkal has also expressed a want for a single European Army: “ Within the EU itself, we will have to move closer to establishing a common European army”.
Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi has said “ When I was talking about the European army, I was not joking. If you don’t want to call it a European army, don’t call it a European army. You can call it “Margaret”, you can call it “Mary Anne”, you can call it any name”.
The Spanish Prime Minister Jose Zapatero said that “ Europe must believe that it can be in 20 years the most important world power! The constitution is an important step in this direction”.
What all this means in practice is that while our troops are being undermined in Afghanistan and Iraq with poor equipment and a want for just the basic equipment, the EU wants to divert billions of pounds to wasteful projects such as the Galileo satellite System- all because of its desire to play the role of world “Superpower”. Put aside the fact that our troops should not even be in Afghanistan or Iraq, the above is bad for our armed forces.
3. The Constitution would mean that we would have less control over Asylum Seekers and immigrants.
Under the Constitution Treaty, the European Court of Justice would gain a considerably amount of new powers to determine the “rights” of Asylum seekers and immigrants to reside in Britain. The Government have admitted that with the introduction of the Constitution Treaty would come more expensive Asylum and immigration appeals. In November 2006 Geoff Hoon said: “There is clearly a risk that adding what is in effect an avenue of appeal at a very early stage in the process might be an opportunity of further complicating of further complicating our existing asylum and immigration processes.”
The Charter of Fundamental Right, which is legally binding under the sinister constitution, would mean that Britain would not be able to deport terror suspects and other foreign criminals. This would mean, on top of all the other immigrants draining tax payers money away, we would have to pay for these criminals, and we would have to subsidize asylum seekers who are waiting for their case to be heard. It currently takes two years before the European Court of Justice even begins to hear an appeal.
Under the constitution there will be a new “burden sharing” requirement, which means that British taxpayers, who are already burdened with immigrants, will have to pay for immigrants in other countries.
Noone can disagree that under the Constitutional Treaty the European Court of Justice would end up making what is essentially political decisions. It wouldn’t matter if the entire British public disagreed with what the EU were doing, it would be impossible to overturn the rulings.
4. The Constitutional Treaty would mean the EU had more control over our public services.
HEALTH AND EDUCATION
The Constitutional treaty means that the EU would have complete control over the British Health service, and the British people would have no right to reject legislation in this area. This would mean that the EU would regulate medical standards. A new “right to preventive healthcare2 would open the NHS up to influx of costly ambulance-chasing lawsuits. The constitution would end the right to reject legislation concerning trade agreements in public services like health and education. In other words, our Parliament would no longer have a say over deals which will determine how these services are managed.TRANSPORT: Under the constitution, the British people would loss the right to reject legislation concerning transport. Jacques Barrot, EU Transport Commissioner, recently revealed that the EU wants to run EU wide road pricing operations, but as the AA point out, this would lead to a huge loss of privacy.
The above is only a few of the issues that Britain face if the UK accepts the wretched Constitutional Treaty, and in doing so accept the tyrannical rule of the European Union. Below I have outlined some of the policies of the National front which relate to the above issues.
European Union.
The National Front supports the right of self-determination for all European nations and demands that right for Britain. It seeks a Europe where each nation is friendly to all others but where no nation seeks to dominate or interfere in the affairs of another. Consequently the NF would withdraw Britain from the European Union.
The NF would encourage the development of cultural and sporting links between other European nations. It would encourage the cultural diversity between the nations of Europe and resist attempts to eliminate this. It totally opposes the monetary and political merging of the separate nations into a super-state.
Defence
The protection of the British people at home and throughout the world is the responsibility of the government. It is for this purpose (and this purpose alone) that we require our armed forces, which have such a proud record in defending our nation. No British politician wants a war but it is a sad fact that Britain must always be prepared for a whole range of eventualities including the less likely ones. This is particularly true when the Middle East is in a period of change and uncertainty.
There is no realistic defence without a basic defence strategy. The National Front's defence strategy is that Britain must maintain a defence capability able to inflict massive damage on any other countries in the world should they act as an aggressor. The only other requirement is the ability of our forces to defeat any internal terrorist threat. The equipment with which our forces are armed must be designed and built in the UK and must remain solely under the control of this country.
The National Front totally opposes the use of British troops by the United Nations to carry out their political adventures. It also opposes any attempt to form a European army under foreign control and will withdraw Britain from NATO.
Race and immigration
The National Front believes that the world contains a rich diversity of races and consequent cultures. We believe in the preservation of these races. As each race has evolved it has developed its own social structures, its own customs and its own culture. These are different for each race and have been built up to suit the character of each separate race.
In the case of Britain the National Front upholds the wish of the majority of British people for Britain to remain a white country, with customs and a culture which have been developed to suit our character. Consequently the National Front would halt all non-white immigration into Britain and introduce a policy of phased and humane repatriation of all coloured people currently resident here. Such a policy would be expected to extend over 10-15 years and its completion would thus depend on the recurrent election of successive NF governments.
The National Front believes that this is the only way to halt the steadily rising racial tension and violence that is becoming part of everyday life in modern Britain.
In regards to white immigration, this would only be allowed where there are particular reasons such as the possession of particular skills or in the case of political refugees. Until the problem of unemployment is solved, the NF would seek to keep such immigration to a minimum
NHS
The National Front would provide an entirely free National Health Service and this would include the abolition of prescription charges. When people fall ill they are likely to be losing money in any case and we can see no justification in prescription charges. However, checks on doctors' prescriptions would be made to make sure the Health Service is not wasting money.
Whilst the NF expects all parts of the NHS to use money efficiently and carefully, a National Front government would make available sufficient funds to eliminate all waiting lists for medically needed operations and treatments. This will take priority over other items of expenditure.
The National Front believes that the NHS should be made available to all foreign visitors who fall ill during their stay, however this system is being abused by people who arrive in this country fully aware of an existing health condition - this would be stopped. The NF is opposed to abortion on principle and would only sanction one where a mother has conceived as a result of rape, where medical opinion asserts that there is a genuine and serious danger to the health or life of the mother if the pregnancy is allowed to continue, or where medical opinion asserts that the foetus is seriously damaged or malformed. All such abortions are dependent on the mother's consent. Under a National Front government the days of abortion being used as a form of post-coital contraception will end.
FREEDOM
For the last thousand years the British people have fought, and sometimes died, to preserve our basic freedoms. The National Front wholeheartedly believes that these freedoms must be maintained. Consequently the National Front believes in the introduction of a bill of rights to guarantee basic freedoms including:
Equal and free access to justice
Freedom of speech and publication and distribution of printed matter
Freedom of access to publicly owned assembly facilities
Freedom for orderly demonstrations in public
The right to vote and stand for election for public office without onerous financial or other qualifications
Freedom from arbitrary arrest
Those are a few of our policies which I think are relevant here.
Moving on.
WHAT WILL THE SWINDON NF DO TO HELP STOP THE EUROPEAN CONSTITUTION BEING ACCEPTED IN BRITAIN.
The National Front, up and down the country, will continue to campaign against EU dictatorship in Britain. However on a local level I have started a campaign. Its an attempt to make central Government stick to their promise and give the British people a referendum. And everyone of you can help. In actual fact, I need everyone of you to help. Whether you live in Swindon or not, it doesn’t matter. As long as you have a voice than you can help.
Basically, I have found a way in which to bring about a referendum in a Parish council which poses the question: “ should there be a national referendum on Britain’s membership in the EU?” More Councils- district councils, parish councils ect- that hold a referendum and with more “yes” votes, the more likely that Brown will hold a referendum.
I will give anyone who is willing to try and make a difference all the guidance and advice they will need- everything from lists of legislation that gives them the right to hold a referendum, to how you can insure you will get a good turn out.
If you are interested please email me at Swindon@yahoo.co.uk, and we will win this fight together.
BRITAIN FIRST- VOTE NATIONAL FRONT
Sunday, 3 May 2009
GOVERNMENTS’S £200 MILLION SCHEME TO STOP FAMILIES LOSING THEIR HOMES HELPS JUST ONE HOUSEHOLD!!
Figures released last week reveal that a Government scheme to stop families from losing their homes has only helped one household since its launch in January… So basically, just another failure to add to Labour’s ever increasing list.
The £200 million Mortgage Rescue Scheme was supposedly aimed to protect the most vulnerable homeowners by enabling them to sell all or part of their property to a registered Social Landlord. But insanely, out of the 452 households that applied since January, only ONE has so far been helped, according to the figures.
Even the Lib-Dems have noticed how appalling this is. The Liberal Democrat Shadow Housing Minister Sarah Teather said the following; “ Tens of thousands of families will face the misery of repossession and homelessness this year but the government’s scheme has helped just one household. This is an appalling failure by a Government that is more interested in headline-grabbing then in helping families through the economic crisis.” I couldn’t of said it better myself.
Figures show that a total of 1,104 households approached their local authority asking for help as they are getting swamped under with mortgage difficulties during March, of which 407 were deemed to be in a priority need category due to the fact that they had young children or were elderly. This is the miserable situation that Britain finds itself in, due to the incompetent Labour Government. However, even though they caused this mess, they are not doing anything to remedy the situation.
Some may point to the Government’s Homeowner Mortgage Support Scheme. The simple fact is this folks, the scheme was revealed back in December, but it has come available to homeowners with certain lenders this month. During this period a total of 28,000 families have lost their homes.
The government are not doing what is needed to help out homeowners. The council of Mortgage Lenders has estimated that repossessions will soar to 75,000 this year, up from 40,000 last year, which is the highest figure for 12 years. The Government should stop with pointless schemes, meant only to give the impression of them being pro-active, and instead should actually give help to British families who are struggling in this economic hell-hole they created.
Saturday, 25 April 2009
Every phone call, email or website visit 'to be monitored'! POLICE STATE BRITAIN!
Every phone call, email or website visit will be monitored by the state under plans to be unveiled next week.
The proposals will give police and security services the power to snoop on every single communication made by the public with the data then likely to be stored in an enormous national database.
The precise content of calls and other communications would not be accessible but even text messages and visits to social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter would be tracked.
The move has alarmed civil liberty campaigners, and the country's data protection watchdog last night warned the proposals would be "unacceptable".
Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, will argue the powers are needed to target terrorists and serious criminals who are taking advantage of the increasing complex nature of communications to plot atrocities and crimes.
A consultation document on the plans, known in Whitehall as the Interception Modernisation Programme, is likely to put great emphasis on the threat facing Britain and warn the alternative to the powers would be a massive expansion of surveillance.
But that will fuel concerns among critics that the Government is using a climate of fear to expand the surveillance state.
Information Commissioner Richard Thomas, the country's data watchdog, told the Daily Telegraph: "I have no problem with the targeted surveillance of terrorist suspects.
"But a Government database of the records of everyone's communications – if that is to be proposed – is not likely to be acceptable to the British public. Remember that records – who? when? where? – can be highly intrusive even if no content is collected."
It is understood Mr Thomas is concerned that even details on who people contact or sites they visit could intrude on their privacy, such as data showing an individual visiting a website selling Viagra.
Chris Kelly, Facebook's chief privacy officer, last month revealed he was considering lobbying ministers over the proposal, which he described as "overkill".
The proposed powers will allow police and security services to monitor communication "traffic", which is who calls, texts, emails who, when and where but not what is said.
Similarly they will be able to see which websites someone visits, when and from where but not the content of those visits.
However, if the data sets alarm bells ringing, officials can request a ministerial warrant to intercept exactly what is being sent, including the content.
The consultation is expected to include three options on how the "traffic" information is then stored: a "super database" held by the Government, a database held and run by a quango or private company at arms' length, or an order to communication providers to store every detail in their own systems, which can then be accessed by the security services is necessary.
A memo written by sources close to the project and leaked last year revealed it was fraught with technical difficulties.
Ms Smith has already claimed local authorities will not have access to the data but the Tories have warned of the "exponential increase in the powers of the state'', while the Liberal Democrats have dubbed the plans "Orwellian" and deeply worrying.
Security services fear a failure to monitor all forms of communications effectively will hamper their ability to combat terrorists and serious criminals. Sir Stephen Lander, chairman of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, said: "Any significant reduction in the capability of law enforcement agencies to acquire and exploit intercept intelligence and evidential communications data would lead to more unsolved murders, more firearms on our streets, more successful robberies, more unresolved kidnaps, more harm from the use of Class A drugs, more illegal immigration and more unsolved serious crime."
( This article can be viewed at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5215413/Every-phone-call-email-or-website-visit-to-be-monitored.html)
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
GORDON BROWN TO APPEAR IN SOUTH PARK.
On a lighter note, I thought I would post this. Apparently, Gordon Brown is to appear in an episode of South Park. The creators have decided to include him in a forthcoming episode about the credit crunch. He will be a leader of an international party which steals money from aliens to stimulate the economy.
Given our Prime Ministers desperate state of mind, and the fact that his excuses are wearing increasingly thin, don’t be surprised to hear him declare, “ This is an intergalactic recession which began in Outer space….”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
