Ed Balls' and Ed Miliband's role in the sale of much of UK gold must be recalled and they must be reminded of it - £10bn cost so far

'In 1997 Gordon Brown decided to consider disposing of part of this nation's Gold reserves. With Gold in a prolonged bear phase, happily the treasury consulted the advice of key figures in the financial markets, commodities and gold analysts not to mention their friends at the Bank of England

To a man they said, by all metrics and technical analyses, Gold was coming to the end of a bear phase, and to sell, especially at a time when the coffers were relatively healthy would be folly. So Brown, the man who said to parliament and the nation that he knew better than the market, ignored them.

Treasury documents released under a freedom of information request in 2010 showed that Ed Balls and Ed Miliband were both copied into correspondence on the gold sale, while working as Special Advisers to Gordon Brown at the time. Ed Balls is cc-ed in to the correspondence on pages 5, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17 of the documents released by the Treasury. Ed Miliband is also cc-ed on p. 14 of the releases.

As the Times reported at the time, ‘Key Treasury advisers including Ed Balls and Ed Miliband, were copied in to the correspondence', as were David Miliband and Shriti (now Baroness) Vadera, for whose green shoots of 2009 the nation still waits.

It has been argued that there was something about Gold - the fact that it remains a sedentary instrument, producing nothing, acquiring value for its own sake - that offended Brown and Balls' political sensibilities. At the time, the Treasury said it wanted to "achieve a better balance in the portfolio" by increasing the proportion of reserves held in foreign currency. With nearly 50 percent of the net foreign currency reserves invested in Gold, the exposure to a single asset was too great, it said.

So the idea was to sell Gold and to put the money to 'better use'. To this end one is minded of the child who, finding a tin of paint, is minded to make Daddy's Jag look nicer. Gordon decided to invest in interest-bearing Bonds by dint of the fact that they would produce an income. Work for the nation or some such nonsense. You can hear the crash of endowment investors' heads smashing against desks across the land. As one wag put it, "Brown seemed to only have one eye on the market, and it wasn't the good one."

Defenders of Brown, and therefore the two Eds, posit the bizarre argument that it was done with the best of intentions, that there was sound fiscal reasoning behind wanting a more secure diversified portfolio etc etc. Furthermore, that at the time the price was realistic and that no-one can tell the future, and so on.

But woeful ignorance of the markets and incompetence is not the real sin here. What is, and remains forever unforgivable, is the breathtaking arrogance with which Brown and Balls completely ignored expert advice not only that Gold could well be at the bottom of a bear cycle, but also as to how NOT to conduct a sale of that size.

And let's not be politically partisan about this. This from the lefties at Liberal Conspiracy: "When it comes to the matter of how the Gold was sold, it really does seem that Brown didn’t know how to best sell gold – and more damningly – didn’t try to find out the best way either. By announcing the sale in advance it is reckoned that he depressed the market by around 10%. Record numbers of investors took up “short” positions on Gold in anticipation of the sale."

That arrogance alone cost the nation something in the region of £350m and it really does beg the question why Brown behaved in such a fashion. Ed Balls still hasn't explained that one away.

According to the BBC's Robert Peston, the sale was 'the least well-timed investment decisions of this or any age. Gordon Brown’s sale of 395 tonnes of our gold in 17 auctions between July 1999 and March 2002 achieved in those disposals, $275.6/oz.

At the time Peston revealed, "The $3.5bn of revenue raised in the sales was invested in interest-bearing assets denominated in dollars, euros and yen to the extent of 40%, 40% and 20% respectively. So to calculate the true net loss to the taxpayer, I would have to adjust for the yield on these assets and movements in the value of those currencies. And I don’t have enough information on precisely what was bought and when to make that calculation." Indeed.

However, since then, estimates put the net proceeds of Brown's trading efforts on the plus side at £3bn, so at today's price, around $1600/oz, the nation is still nursing a net loss of just under £10bn and climbing.'

That's Jonathan Bracey-Gibbon from an article in The Commentator.

The failure of the 'Conservative' Prime Minister and his 'Conservative' Chancellor to try and hold the last Labour government to account for the stupidity or wilfully destructive nature of many of their decisions appals me. The Labour government were blaming the 1979-1997 for all the ills of the country for most of the 1997-2010 period. The Labour government were aided in this by the BBC who were happy to blame the Conservatives for everything that was wrong. Since 2010 the BBC have happily reset the clocks to zero and all problems are due entirely to Torry toffs being out of touch.

The US State Department under Barack Obama's Presidency seem ready to sell Israel out on the whole of Jerusalem not just 'East Jerusalem'

Thanks to Theo Spark for the spot.

An option for the Royal Navy?

Euro Weekly News reports that:

'SPAIN’S Navy is considering mothballing the Principe de Asturias aircraft carrier as well as six Santa Maria-class frigates.

The ships would remain on “restricted duties” awaiting a return to operational duties, Navy sources said.

This could be the first step towards decommissioning the ships, experts believe. The medium term economic situation was unlikely to improve and ships deteriorate quickly when not in constant use, they pointed out.

The vessels’ age also meant that they would require such substantial refits before returning to active service that this might not be cost-effective.

By 2018 the Principe de Asturias will be 30 years old - the usual extent of a warship’s life cycle.

Nine years ago it was due for a complete refit which was never carried out, owing to the €400 million this would have cost.'

Now the Principe de Asturias is analogous in many respects to the British Invincible class. So how about the Royal Navy buying the Spanish ship, refitting it and having a carrier capable of launching Harrier s?

Michelle, now do you remember the song?

Divinyls - 'I Touch Myself'

What is the European Stabilization Mechanism (ESM)?

Whilst the BBC and much of the rest of the British media distract us with the Jubilee, a coup is taking place in Europe.

Junge Freiheit explain what the ESM will mean for the EuroZone, the EU and indeed beyond. It is explained in terms and detail that the BBC would never give. Be under no illusions the supranational EU is being foisted on Europe and don't expect our politicians to do anything about it.

' Final Warning
by Michael Paulwitz

1. The ESM institutionalizes the breaking of the treaty, intends to eliminate economic laws with floods of billions and is making permanent the politically rubber-stamped dragging-out of the bankruptcy of the failed protective shield.

2. The ESM cements the transfer and debt union and introduces Europe collective bond issues by the back door. Article 21: The ESM can sponsor borrowing “in fulfillment of its tasks,” i.e., financing overextended countries and their banks at the cost of the more solvent ones. The German-French window-dressing argument about Euro bonds is only distraction. The fact is…

3. The ESM removes the ban on central bank financing of national debts — a ban already as full of holes as a Swiss cheese because of the tender of trillions and the buying of bonds by the ECB (European Central Bank). The ESM will become a shadow central bank which is allowed to do everything still formally forbidden to the ECB. The ECB is degraded to a money-printing machine. Reason:

4. The ESM can operate as a supra-national bank. It can make loans to Euro countries (Article 16), subscribe to bonds of Euro countries (Article 17), deal with national bonds (Article 18), re-capitalize banks (Article 15), set up lines of credit for Euro countries (Article 14), establish interest rates (Article 20) and issue Eurobonds (Article 21). The bank license France and Italy intend to issue it would be the icing on the cake. Then — using high yield bonds as “security” — the ESM could supply itself directly and without limit with money from the ECB, to buy bonds and turn them in as security… a never-ending loop. Alternatively:


5. The ESM is a mega “bad bank” and super hedge fund rolled into one. It can buy national bonds that no one else wants; extend non-performing loans to countries no one wants to loan to anymore; like a gamer, use “leverage” to quadruple lending volume. And:

6. The ESM can increase its capital itself, anytime. In fact — Article 10 — by decision of the “governing council.” So Euro finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble’s reassurance that German liability risk is covered is just a lie. He can simply be outvoted. The Bundestag can only say yes and amen. For,

7. The ESM annuls parliamentary budget law with a keystroke. If the “governors” decide that they need money, the states must pay inside of seven days. If one of them fails, the others must compensate. In the end, Germany is the last resort paymaster. When the bill comes due, it will already be too late:

8. The ESM has no clauses for dissolution or withdrawal. For better or worse, we, our children and our children’s children are guaranteeing the debts of others. The carousel will keep on turning until Germany too is broke. Judicial review is off the table:

9. The ESM is above statute and law. State norms, rules of overview and control do not apply to it now or in the future. It is released from the obligations of regulation and licensing for credit institutions (Article 32). No court can arraign or impound it . But it has the right to take legal action against all or any. Not even heads of state enjoy such a privilege. No wonder Schäuble wants to stay on when he was scheduled to become head of the “Euro Group.” The reason:

10. The ESM is becoming a self-service store — not only for insolvent nations but for its own “governors” and staff. They set their own stipends — secretly, of course; they are exempt from national taxes and fees (Article 36) and have immunity from legal prosecution (Article 35), even if they willfully gamble monies away. Fact:

11. The ESM secret cabinet is a putsch against sharing of powers and the sovereignty of peoples. To avoid plebiscites, the ban on collective debt (“no bailout”) in Article 125 is cancelled in a “simplified treaty alteration procedure” by means of an “amendment” to Article 136 of the Lisbon Treaty. Result:

12. The ESM stands the legal basis of the EU on its head and contravenes constitutional law and the decision of the federal constitutional court of September, 2011. The ESM law transfers national authority in unprecedented measure to an uncontrollable European mega institution. This self-castration of the parliament can never be legitimately decided without asking the people whether it agrees to the dismantling of its national state.'

Read point 11 again and understand that this putsch is real, happening and almost unstoppable.

'To avoid plebiscites, the ban on collective debt (“no bailout”) in Article 125 is cancelled in a “simplified treaty alteration procedure” by means of an “amendment” to Article 136 of the Lisbon Treaty.'

The EU has always been anti-democratic but the ESM takes the degree of supranational control to a whole new level. Don't expect any criticisms or even warnings from the Europhiles that control so much of the British media and politics. From the Europhile BBC to the EU placemen, such as Nick Clegg and Peter Mandelson, at the heart of British politics the pro-EU narrative has been set.

Thnaks to Gates of Vienna  for the translatiom of the original article.

Scarlett Johansson in the new Avengers film - A Rule 5 Friday post

Two real images and one that I fear may not be!

Just three territories named?

The World Health Organisation seems to have become as politicised as the United Nations and other supranational bodies. Its Sixty-fifth World Health Assembly  'concluded Saturday after adopting 21 resolutions and three decisions on a broad range of health issues. The six days of discussions involved nearly 3000 delegates, including health ministers and senior health officials from amongst the 194 WHO Member States, as well as representatives from civil society and other stakeholders.'

Only three territories are deemed worth of a resolution, can you guess why?:

'Occupied Palestinian territory: The World Health Assembly adopted a resolution on the health conditions in the occupied Palestinian territory including east Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan. The need for full coverage of health services was reaffirmed while recognizing that the acute shortage of financial and medical resources is jeopardizing access of the population to curative and preventive services. ' 

 So long as supra-national bodies allow the Islamic bloc to control parts of policy, Israel will continue to be singled out for criticism. Does anyone seriously believe that health conditions in the Palestinian territories, East Jerusalem and 'occupied Syrian Glan' are the worst in the world? Worse than a dozen areas in Africa, worse than areas in the indian sub-continent etc. Of course not, this is about hatred of Jews and wishing the destruction of Israel.

A massive factual error in The Spectator this week

Roger Alton in this week's Spectator has made an incredible statement. He claims that '... that miraculous Moscow 800 metres final when Seb Coe just pipped the favourite, Steve Ovett, to the gold.'

Fact check: Seb Coe was the favourite for the Olympic 800 metres, he was the then world record holder. Steve Ovett was the favourite for the 1500 metres. Steve Ovett pipped Seb Coe to the 800 metres gold and then Seb Coe managed to come back and beat Steve Ovett in the 1500 metres final (Ovett actually finished third).

Oddly four years later Seb Coe was again beaten into second place in the Olympic 800 metres final, this time by the Brazilian Joaquim Cruz. An unwell Steve Ovett finished last in the 800 metres final. Going into the 1500 metres final in Los Angeles Steve Ovett was the world record holder but was so unwell that he actually failed to finish the race. Seb Coe beat Steve Cram to win the race and thus become a double gold and silver Olympic medallist. As a side note, Peter Elliot was the third British athlete entered in the 800 metres and he finished fourth in his quarter-final.

I hate it when people get their athletics facts wrong!

The BBC and Muhammad Morsi

Muhammad Morsi is the Muslim Brotherhood's candidate for Egyptian President who recently said that he will "achieve the Islamic conquest of Egypt for the second time, and make all Christians convert to Islam, or else pay the jizya," this being the Islamic tax required to be paid by non-Muslim 'dhimmis' in Islamic states.

This was reported in El Bashayer on May 27. Muhammad Morsi apparently made these comments while speaking with a journalist at the headquarters of the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party. He is alleged to have added "We will not allow Ahmed Shafiq [his opponent for President] or anyone else to impede our second Islamic conquest of Egypt."

Muhammad Morsi was asked what he thought about the large numbers of Christian Copts who were, not surprisingly, coming out to vote for his more secular opponent, Muhammad Morsi reportedly said that "They need to know that conquest is coming, and Egypt will be Islamic, and that they must pay jizya or emigrate."


I can't find these comments on the BBC news website. Are the BBC still pushing the lie that the Arab spring has brought forth democracy and that the Muslim Brotherhood are not at all Islamist but are multicultural democrats?

Do as she says, not as she does

Christine Lagarde, the head of the International Monetary Fund, recently blamed Greece's economic woes on Greece having a population ‘who are trying to escape tax all the time’. This is fair comment, however Christine Lagarde is paid a salary of £298,926 under an employment contract which states that it ‘shall be net of income taxes’. In addition to this enormous tax-free income, Christine Lagarde is also paid by the IMF an additional tax-free sum of £53,490; ‘to enable the Fund’s leader to maintain, in the interests of the Fund, a scale of living appropriate to your position as managing director and to the Fund’s need for representation’. On top of that Christine Lagarde is entitled to expenses for ‘entertainment’ and travel and hotel costs for her and her partner when the IMF meets in Washington DC. Oh and on top of all of that in a time of economic crisis, her five year contract also entitles her to a pay increase every July.

Who said 'hypocrite'?

Why is Alastair Campbell allowed to pollute our airwaves

I see that tonight's Have I Got News for You will be presented by the vile Alastair Campbell. Before watching it maybe you should cleanse your palate with this video of Michael Howard speaking truth to evil.

Alastair Campbell and Peter Mandelson did more to destroy my faith in British politics than anybody else. A couple of truly vile individuals whose survival as pundits and acceptable personalities speaks volumes about the standards and prejudices of the BBC.

And less we forget here's Alastair Campbell faking emotion on the Andrew Marr show, emotion that stops him from having to answer the pertinent and inconvenient question.

Sometimes the left's concept of 'facts' pisses me off

There is a twitter account @injusticefacts that is really pissing me off. I have submitted plenty of fact-checks to them but what really gets my goat (pun intended) is their endless attacks on the injustices perpetrated by Israel, the USA, UK and generally the democratic countries of the world, whilst ignoring the often greater injustices perpetrated by Socialist or Islamic countries.

Here's a recent example, along with my response...

I may document more of these as the left wing bias of the misleadingly named Injustice facts deserves recognition.

Inside the BBC newsroom and mindset?

The sheer stubborn attitude of the BBC in refusing to identify suspects as Muslims unless absolutely unavoidable as exemplified by yesterday's piece reminded me of this American sketch (from InTheBullpen) from a few years back...



Too close to the truth?

Remember Toni Basil's hit 'Mickey'?

Toni Basil - 'Mickey'



It was a cover version, the original was recorded  by Racey in 1979

Racey - 'Hey Kitty'

The song was written by the inestimable Chinn & Chapman.


In case there any kids out there who don't know who Racey are then here's their biggest hit 'Some Girls'

'A 19-year-old man'

This BBC report struck me as odd:

'Luton police in talks over Sikh protest

Police have said they are talking to community leaders following a protest by hundreds of Sikhs at a Luton police station.

About 250 people gathered at Buxton Road at 21:00 BST on Tuesday over an allegation that a young Sikh woman had been sexually assaulted.

Police said the report was being investigated.

A 19-year-old man charged with common assault in connection with the allegation is due in court later.
'Aired responsibly'

Before the protest, senior officers had attended the Gurdwara in Dallow Road to meet Luton Sikh community leaders to explain the investigation into the report of an assault on Monday, a police spokesman said.

"This concluded satisfactorily and the officers left," he added.

"An hour later a wider group, including Sikhs from outside of the town, arrived at the Buxton Road police station to discuss the issues further.

"After considerable negotiation with representatives from the group, who were invited into the police station to talk, the protesters left at 11pm."

Ch Supt Mike Colbourne said: "Obviously we have a duty to facilitate lawful, peaceful protest and if people have concerns it is right they are aired responsibly.

"Our priority first and foremost, however, is with the victim in this matter and her family."'

It's that description of the person who will appear in court simply as 'a 19-year-old man'. So I did some digging and found this article in Luton Today that included a piece of video. Do watch the video and see if you can spot a clue as to the background of the '19-year-old man'... The key moment comes at around 1:20. Why would some 'Muslim lads' come and taunt the Sikhs protesting at the alleged sexual assault on one of the young women in their 'community'. Is the accused 'a 19-year-old' Muslim man? Why is the victim's racial background relevant but not the accused attacker's? Why does the BBC seem to go out of its way to protect the Muslim 'community' from criticism?

Is there VAT on that hot/warm/cold lunchtime snack?

Thanks to City AM for the image.

That's one ingenious cat

Oscar the freezer opening cat.

Some midweek humour

After a long night of making love, the guy notices a photo of another man, on the woman's nightstand by the bed. He begins to worry.

'Is this your husband?' he nervously asks.

'No, silly,' she replies, snuggling up to him.

'Your boyfriend, then?' he continues.

'No, not at all,' she says, nibbling away at his ear.

'Is it your dad or your brother?' he inquires, hoping to be reassured.

'No, no, no! You are so hot when you're jealous!' she answers.

'Well, who in the hell is he, then?' he demands.

She whispers in his ear, 'That's me before the surgery.'

Addressing the media's bias against Israel

This slideshow from Honest Reporting is well worth watching. I wonder if I should send a copy to the BBC's Middle East editor...

http://www.slideshare.net/HonestReporting/defending-israel-against-claims-of-excessive-force

The equivalent of almost £100, 000 a year gross salary

The Telegraph report the case of the family whose benefits amount to around £50,000 a year. Of course this is even more extravagant than it first appearance as this is NET income and is the equivalent of almost £100,000 a year before Tax. The other point is why are we paying people to breed and live off of benefits, family of 12?!
'A family of 12 who receive £50,000 a year tax-free on benefits have told how they are "taking advantage of the system" as the Department of Work and Pensions condemned their case as "outrageous".
Stephanie and Ian Fennessy-Sharp, who live in a five-bedroom home, said they would be "silly not to take advantage of the system" and admitted benefits are "too easy to get if you don't work."
The Department of Work and Pensions will now be looking into the case and said people would be "astonished" to hear of benefit claimants receiving higher incomes than those in work.
...
The Fennessy-Sharp family, from Erith, Kent, told Closer magazine they had been moved into a privately-rented house with large garden because their old house was damp.
Mrs Fennessy-Sharp, a 29-year-old charity shop volunteer, said: ""We're taking advantage of the system, but that's the system's fault – we'd be silly not to with so many mouths to feed.
"I feel this situation has been forced upon us by the Government. The minimum wage is too low and you lose your benefits if you work, but they're too easy to get if you don't work.
"If I have to get a job I want a good one. For now, I have to make the most of the system."
The family are understood to receive £20,400 in housing benefit, £14,456 in child tax credits, £8,320 incapacity benefit, £4,524 child benefit and £1,200 council tax benefit.
Mr Fennessy-Sharp, 56, said he suffers light-headedness, migraines every three weeks and feels ill and stressed if he works for more than an hour. He used to be employed in a factory but has been unable to work for 20 years.
The couple have ten children between them: Mrs Fennessy-Sharp has three under ten years old from a previous relationship and her husband has seven aged between three and nine years.
She told the magazine she felt guilty about claiming so much money but that she was financially better off volunteering than working, adding: "I know taxpayers are being punished – I hate taking their money. But we're being allowed to get away with it."'

Do we live in a democracy? An autocracy? No we live in an ineptocracy

Thanks to Theo spark for the spot.

Why is the EU and beyond in this economic mess?

Devils Kitchen has the explanation:

'The simple fact is that the people of the Developed Nations have selfishly continued to vote for politicians who promise to give them more of other people's money.

The Western social democratic model is bust—but there is no shortage of ideological idiots and selfish morons who think that things can carry on as before.

This is dangerous stupidity.

A step change in the attitude of the Western demos is required—for it is, let us to beat about the bush, they (we) who are at fault.

I propose that the first start should be an attitudinal change: whenever someone receives benefits, they should also get a covering letter with the following inscribed in large, red, block type:

This money was stolen by force from your neighbours. You are a thief and an extortionist. Enjoy!

It's a small thing, but might be a first step in to pointing out the intrinsic truth of our benefits system.'

Does anyone seriously disagree? if so, why?

Tony Blair at the leveson Inquiry - an interesting revelation

From The Telegraph:

'The Telegraph's Rowena Mason writes:

Tony Blair has admitted “intervening” on Rupert Murdoch’s behalf with the Italian Prime Minister when the media tycoon was trying to buy a multi-billion pound business.

The former Prime Minister said he took his Cabinet Secretary’s advice on “propriety” before raising the issue of whether Mr Murdoch would be allowed to acquire part of the Mediaset Group.

At the time in 1998, Downing Street furiously denied media reports that Mr Blair had brought the deal up during a telephone call with Romano Prodi, the Italian leader.

In evidence to the Leveson Inquiry, Mr Blair said there was nothing wrong with asking his Italian counterpart about the possibility of a deal and betrayed frustration at the furore about the call at the time.'

Is Tony Blair admitting that his Downing Street spokesmen lied in 1998?

The latest Prometheus clip

"Big things have small beginnings..."

Are the figures too large for you?

Do you find the billions and billions of the UK debt and deficit too large to visualise? Try this comparison...

The United Nations are beyond parody

The UNITED has just announced that African megalomaniac, Robert Mugabe, and his Zambian sidekick, Michael Sata, have been appointed United Nations international tourism ambassadors in recognition of the promotion and development of tourism. The UN through the United Nations World Tourism Organisation will officially confer
the status to the two presidents at a function to be held in Victoria Falls this week and officiated by the UNWTO secretary general Mr Talib Rifai. The honour comes even though the European Union and U.S. have imposed travel bans on Mugabe and many of his senior government officials due to widespread human rights abuses.

Much attention has been paid to the plight of Zimbabwe's terrorized mostly Anglo farmers whose fields were seized under President Mugabe's ill-conceived and disastrous land appropriation program. But the abject ruination the Mugabe regime has wrought on the small landlocked country has affected all of its citizens regardless of race or tribal affiliation. Mugabe's fight to convert white-minority-ruled Rhodesia into the modern African state of Zimbabwe was once considered a noble cause but under his despotic rule, Zimbabwe's decline has been absolute and has effectively turned this relatively wealthy functioning model of black-white co-existence into an impoverished country that now has one of the lowest life expectancy rates and one of the worst HIV/AIDS infection rates in the world.

The United Nations is a sock joke. They honour murderers and vile regimes the world over but attack one of the few true democracies, Israel. The UN is dominated by Islamic states and other nasty regimes - true democracies should leave the UN.

I think I employ this cleaner...

Anyone else know the feeling?

Euro meltdown?

This morning bond markets continue to reflect the tensions in the EuroZone with the spread between 10-year Spanish and German bonds rising to 5.05 percentage points, this is a record difference.

If you think Spain is the biggest economy in the EuroZone to worry about then please note that Italian government bond yields are also higher this morning, rising to 5.87%.

Just what the world needs - another Islamist state

The BBC report that:

'Mali Tuareg and Islamist rebels agree on Islamist state

Two rebel groups that seized northern Mali two months ago have agreed to merge and turn their territory into an Islamist state, both sides say.

The Tuareg MNLA, a secular rebel group, and the Islamist group Ansar Dine signed the deal in the town of Gao, spokespeople said.

Ansar Dine, which has ties to al-Qaeda, has already begun to impose Sharia, or Islamic law, in towns such as Timbuktu.'

Do read the whole article and wonder at the desire for Islamic states amongst so many people and how many non-Muslim Mali people will have to flee from The Islamic Republic of Azawad to escape persecution for being non-Muslims.

Interestingly the BBC seem reluctant to inform their readers what an Islamic state means for 'ordinary people'. CNN are less coy:

'In the besieged towns, drinking, smoking, listening to music, watching soccer on TV and playing video games have been banned in what now seems to be a preparation for the creation of an Islamic state.'

So another African country succumbs to Islam, and violent Islam at that. Who's next?

How Credit Suisse see the markets (allegedly)

Credit Suisse quote: "The market is currently like a strapless bra; half of us are wondering what is holding it up and the other half are waiting for it to drop so they can grab the opportunity with both hands".

Thanks to Theo Spark for the spot.

For the BBC, revenge is sweet

If you are wondering why the BBC are so excited by the questions surrounding the Conservative Party co-Chairman, Baroness Warsi, then rest assured that it is not just the BBC's usual hatred for a Conservative. The BBC are also targeting Baroness Warsi because it is less than a month since she upset the BBC by daring to speak the truth. It was Baroness Warsi who let the cat out of the bag and contradicted the politically correct consensus of the BBC, the left, the race hustlers and the Police over the Rochdale sex abuse of young girls case when she said:

"There is a small minority of Pakistani men who believe that white girls are fair game... and we have to be prepared to say that. You can only start solving a problem if you acknowledge it first... This small minority who see women as second class citizens, and white women probably as third class citizens, are to be spoken out against."

From the moment she said that, she moved near the top of the BBC hit list; now they think they have 'got her' and they won't let up until she's gone.

Egypt after the Arab Spring - nice place?

Asian News reports the following:

'Islamo-Christian violence in Minya: life imprisonment for 12 Copts, eight Muslims acquitted
The conviction for the death of two Muslims, during the assault on a Christian village. At the base of the fighting, a street brawl, which ended with a beating. Activists and legal experts criticized the ruling, which is not appealable. Only the military council has the power to seek a new trial.

Cairo (AsiaNews/Agencies) - An Egyptian court has sentenced 12 Coptic Christians to life imprisonment and acquitted eight Muslims, in a trial heavily criticized by human rights activists and legal experts. The ruling came yesterday, at the end of a trial called to shed light on the sectarian violence last year in the province of Minya, in the southern part of the country, about 220 km from Cairo. Ishak Ibrahim, a researcher and expert on Egyptian law, emphasizes that "the acquittal of the eight Muslim defendants" shows that "the investigations started from the beginning by the attorney general are unfair and wrong" because there was "clear evidence of guilt against them, for having set fire to Christian properties."

The accused Christians were sentenced for inciting public disorder, possession of illegal weapons and the murder of two Muslims. The incident happened in April 2011 and has helped to exacerbate a situation of deep inter-religious tension in the area of ​​Upper Egypt, which then continued in the following weeks (see AsiaNews 06/27/2011 Upper Egypt, violence against Christians on the rise. Eight houses burned).

The violence erupted when a Muslim minibus driver, angered by the presence of a speed bump outside a house owned by a wealthy Christian, got into a fight with the house's security guards. Upon returning to his home village, the Muslim driver assembled a group of people to get revenge for the alleged wrong and the violence suffered.

The retaliation squad was joined by groups of Islamic extremists, who surrounded the homes of Coptic Christians, intending to launch an attack. In fear of being overwhelmed, the inhabitants opened fire from the roofs of buildings, killing two people in the crowd and wounding two others. In the days following, Muslim groups torched dozens of Christian houses and shops to avenge the dead.

The eight Muslims on trial were accused of illegal possession of weapons and having burned the Christians' buildings. However, the court ruled for aquittal of the charges.

The judgment delivered by the judges of the State Security Court is not appealable and the 12 Christians risk spending the rest of their lives in prison. Only the military council could - in what is a very remote hypothesis, moreover - request a retrial. '

At some time maybe people will realise that to be anything other than a devout Muslim (of the correct sect) in much of the Middle East and beyond is to be, at best, a second class citizen and at worst to be at risk of imprisonment or death.

"How dare you threaten us with the bogeyman, you ARE the bogeyman."

I am fedup with the EU and its placemen in national governments trying to scare us with 'what mights'. The Snow Wolf would seem to be even more pissed off with the likes of Nick Clegg. It's a very sweary article but worth a read; here is how it starts:

'

A collapse in the eurozone would create the “ideal recipe for an increase in extremism and xenophobia”, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has warned.

No. Not quite. It is the imposition of an anti-democratic organisation, the pressure exerted on national governments to adopt the single currency and the promises of jam today and jam tomorrow that has put in place the conditions for extremism and xenophobia.

Your organisation, Mr Clegg, and let us not pretend that you are anything but an EU placeman, has ridden roughshod over the national identities of most of Europe. You have swept away history and heritage continent-wide. You have lied to and continue to deceive millions, you have denied them a voice. You have chivvied them, nagged them, and badgered them into putting your plans into place. Now your plans are bearing the fruit that so many predicted they would, you turn once again to the little people and warn them that if they don’t vote in line with your wishes that the bad people will get in.'

Now why would Nick Clegg say that?

PA are reporting:

'Greek exit from the euro could set off a "chain reaction of uncertainty" which would result in a "grinding slowdown in economic activity" across Europe, including the UK, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has warned.

Mr Clegg dismissed arguments that Greece's economic woes and the instability in the single currency could best be served by a swift return to the drachma, insisting that "no-one rational" could want such an outcome.'

When I read this why do the words 'EU  pension' come to mind? And why do I remember the fact that EU pensions are paid on the understanding that the EU can remove this pension, if in the view of the Commission or the Luxembourg Court, they "fail to uphold the interests of the European Communities".

Just listen to what they say

Last week the Iranian military chief Major General Hassan Firouzabad said that “the Iranian nation is standing for its cause and that is the full annihilation of Israel”

Could he make it any plainer? I suppose that is why the BBC seem not to have reported what he said.


In February Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, said that Israel was a "cancerous tumour that should be cut and will be cut".

Could he make it any plainer? I can't see this quotation on the BBC news website although I did find this:

'Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has warned that any attempt to attack his country's nuclear programme will meet a forceful response.

His comments come a day after Israel's defence minister told a security meeting that time was running out to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions.

American officials, including the defence secretary, Leon Panetta, have expressed concern that Israel may be positioning itself for an early attack on the Islamic Republic.'

Why are the BBC so keen to hide the Iranian regime's plans for Israel? Is it because they secretly would quite like to see Israel 'taught a lesson'?

Because once land has been Muslim land it must always be Muslim land

Under Islam, land once possessed by Islam, if subsequently lost to an invader, remains land that is holy to Islam. It is especially imperative that such lost lands be restored to the rightful rule of Islam. Historically, of course, such lost lands now lost to Islam include not only Israel but large portions of Southern Europe, Spain and North Africa.


So is it at all surprisng to anyone who understands this concept that Typically Spanish reports this:

'Al Qaeda group wants to recover Al-Andalus

The group, Ansar Al Din, talks about its plans in an internal document intercepted by the Spanish State Security Forces.

Granada, Valencia, Sevilla and Córdoba, are named as terrorist objectives for Al Qaeda.

The Jihadist group, Ansar Al Din, has released an internal document which said the cities ‘which were governed by the Muslims’ must be liberated and Al-Andalus must be restored.

Spanish State Security Forces are giving credence to the threat after they intercepted the internal communication. After study they concluded that Spain remains one of the main targets of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.'

The best part of four years ago Militant Islam Monitor was reporting in great detail, here'sa short extract:

'It is in Southern Spain, though, that one can really speak of a trend of rapid "re-Islamization." For a period of about 800 years Southern Spain was ruled by Muslims and this vast area was then known as "Al-Andalus." (At one stage, Muslims even occupied nearly two-thirds of Spanish territory.) The Muslim rule came to an end on January 2, 1492, when Granada, the last Muslim stronghold, capitulated to the Roman Catholic kings. But even after the victories of the "Reconquista" ("reconquest"), a demographical problem continued to play a part in 16th and 17th century Spanish politics. The birthrate among Muslims ("Moriskos") was much higher than among Christians ("Cristianos"). In the Kingdom of Valencia, for example, the Muslim population saw an increase of about 70 percent between 1563-1609. The Catholic Spanish rulers decided to expel large numbers of Muslims many of whom settled in Northern Africa.3

There is now a widespread feeling among Muslims that the territories they lost during the Spanish "Reconquista" still belong to them. That they have a right to return and establish their rule there. This is based on the Islamic idea that terrorities such as "Palestine" and Southern Spain which were once occupied by Muslims must remain under Muslim domination forever. This also applies to individuals: once a Muslim, always a Muslim. The Koran says that "apostates" must be killed. In Muslim lands Christians are not allowed to make any converts among Muslims whereas Muslim missionary activities are not restricted at all.

There are two ways to achieve the goal of re-conquering lost territories: by holy war ("jihad") or by massive emigration to the areas from where Muslims were once evicted.

Al-Qaida's claim to "Al-Andalus"

A Syrian immigrant named Mustafa Setmarian Nasar ("Abu Musab-Al-Suri") arrived in Spain in early 1985. He was a member of the outlawed Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. He joined the jihadists in Afghanistan and would later become a close associate and friend of Osama bin Laden's. Al-Suri first lived in Madrid, later he moved to Granada, a city which he liked to call "the last Muslim stronghold in Andalucia."

...

It is not just the extremists and the terrorists who lay claim to parts of Spanish territory. In a recent article the German weekly "Focus" pointed out that Muslim immigrants in Southern Spain become increasingly assertive. Muslim businessmen now own whole streets in the city of Granada. They invest large sums of money in private property and are willing to pay much more than the market price. A local butcher no longer sells traditional "Serrano ham" but "halal sheep meat." In Granada there are now parallel societies and Muslims demand that traditional Sharia law be applied there instead of Spanish law. They also demand Muslim education and special Muslim schools for their children. They even want an equal share in the money made with ticket sales for the Alhambra which they regard as part of the cultural heritage of their Muslim ancestors.

A growing number of women wear the veil or even the gloomy black "niqab" which covers most of their face. A huge new mosque has been built recently, largely paid by money donated by Muslims from Morocco, Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates. Muslim couples are rumored to receive extra money for children born during the marriage. The more children the more money. In this way Muslims will sooner or later demographically outweigh the Spanish population of the city. 14

It was in October 2007 that Amr Moussa, the Egyptian Secretary-General of the Arab League made a special request to the Spanish government: why should not Muslims be allowed to also worship in the cathedral of Córdoba? This building was a mosque in the times of "Al-Andalus," it later became a Roman Catholic cathedral. The Arab League now proposes that the original functions of the cathedral be partly restored and Muslims be allowed to worship there with a view to introducing the Friday afternoon prayer service. The "mosque-cathedral" should then be used jointly by Catholics and Muslims. Remember, the same Arab League showed a lot of understanding for Sudanese president Omar Hassan Al-Bashir after he was charged with war crimes and genocide by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Now the Arab League uses the fine Western forum of a "Conference on Intolerance and Discrimination" in Córdoba to launch a proposal for Muslim Friday afternoon prayers in Córdoba's cathedral. This conference, by the way, was sponsored by the Spanish socialist government which, apparently, regard "Islamophobia" as a mortal danger to society.'

The BBC respond

The BBC have responded rather promptly to my recent complaint:

'RE: Complaint

NewsOnline Complaints

Dear Mr MaybeaGoat,

Thank you for your comments regarding
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18149573

The report never led the BBC News site or the Middle East page. It was a
feature by-lined by a correspondent in Jerusalem.

There is a great deal of violence by Palestinians, settlers and soldiers
that we do not report unless it causes serious injury or death.

In this case, we had detailed and revealing video footage of the
incident. It involved firearms aimed and fired at unarmed people while
IDF soldiers were on the scene. As you say, we reported that the
violence has disputed causes - all parties were given a say. What is not
disputed is that settlers fired on unarmed Palestinians, though they
were throwing stones, while IDF soldiers stood by.


Best regards and thanks,

Tarik Kafala
Middle East editor
BBC News website

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle.shtml'

I have responded to Tarik Kafala thus:

'Nota Sheep
07:57

to NewsOnline

Dear Mr Kafala,

Thank you for your prompt response.

I never said that the report was 'the lead story' but that it was 'a lead story'. The report sat for some time on your Middle East News front page in the section that comprises just headlines rather than headline and short summary.

Is your explanation that: 'There is a great deal of violence by Palestinians, settlers and soldiers that we do not report unless it causes serious injury or death.' BBC policy? Is all violence that leads to 'serious injury or death' in Israel/Palestinian territories reported by the BBC? Will it be in the future?

I understand your point re your coverage of this incident, my complaint is not simply that you reported this incident but that you fail to report others.

I do understand the importance, to deciding whether to run a story, of the availability of good video of the event. Is the availability of video of an attack very important in deciding whether or not the BBC cover a story in Israel / Palestinian Territories?

Kind regards

NotaSheep MaybeaGoat'

Let's see if Mr Kafala is as prompt to reply this time. I have asked for nothing that is unreasonable and I estimate that a reply should take him much less than five minutes.

The prejudice that dares speak its name (update)

Further to this blogpost I have written to AQA to ask them the question that I ended my original piece with.

'why do some people hate Jews?'

Nota Sheep
07:17

to: mailbox@aqa.org.uk

I understand that the above was a question on a recent religious studies GCSE exam paper. Leaving aside the reasons why this question appeared on an examination paper, I would be interested to see the suggested marking guidance for this question. In other words, what constitutes a correct answer. Could you provide this please.

Regards

NotaSheep MaybeaGoat'

Let us see how they respond and if they do provide them, what constitutes a correct answer.

The prejudice that dares speak its name

The JC this morning reports this:

'Education Secretary Michael Gove has strongly criticised an exam board over a GCSE religious studies question in which pupils were asked: “Explain, briefly, why some people are prejudiced against Jews.”

Last Thursday more than 1,000 students — including pupils at JFS — sat the paper, which was set by one of the three major English exam boards, AQA.

Mr Gove declared: “To suggest that antisemitism can ever be explained, rather than condemned, is insensitive and, frankly, bizarre. AQA needs to explain how and why this question was included in an exam paper.”

He said that it was “the duty of politicians to fight prejudice, and with antisemitism on the rise we need to be especially vigilant”.

A spokesperson for AQA said: “The board is obviously concerned that this question may have caused offence, as this was absolutely not our intention”.

But, she added, the question “acknowledges that some people hold prejudices; it does not imply in any way that prejudice is justified”.'

I would like to see the marking scheme for this question. What are 'acceptable' answers? As this is a religious studies question is quoting from the Koran as an explanation allowed?

Just One Minute

Will the International Olympic Committee (IOC) spare just one minute to remember the 11 Israelis killed by Palestinian terrorists at the 1972 Munich Olympics? Of course not, in 1972 they barely paused the Olympics. 11 Israelis are of nothing to the IOC, let alone the Muslim countries that will be at the 2012 Olympic opening ceremony. Do you think that the delegations from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Pakistan, Indonesia, Algeria and other Muslim states would observe the minutes silence, or would there be some sort of protest - on behalf of the Palestinians? Indeed the  (IOC) have stated that to introduce such a specific reference to the Munich massacre could alienate and offend some members of the Olympic community. Alex Gilady, an Israeli IOC official, told BBC News Online: "We must consider what this could do to other members of the delegations that are hostile to Israel."

Complaint made to BBC

I know it's pretty pointless and I can almost write the brush-off that I will receive but I have taken the time to complain to the BBC about the bias shown by their choice of what Israel/Palestinian stories to report and which not to report.

Type of complaint: BBC News (TV Radio Online)

What is your complaint about: BBC News Online

URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18149573

Complaint category: Bias

Contacted us before: No

Complaint title: Bias in the way the BBC report attacks

Complaint description:

The BBC coverage of the alleged shooting by 'Jewish settlers' at Palestinians was front page news for the BBC news website and only today has it stopped being a lead story on the Middle East News page. No deaths and only a few injuries were the result of this incident, an incident which even the BBC have to report has disputed causes. Here is a list of the attacks by Palestinians on Israelis over the two days leading up to this story being headline news for the BBC. None of which have been reported by the BBC: May 20, 2012 Rock attacks at the Shoafat checkpoint cause moderate injuries to an Israeli policeman’s leg. Rock attacks near Adam cause heavy damage to vehicles. May 21, 2012 Border police near Issowiya are subjected to rock attacks. 2 rock attacks on Israeli vehicles near the Arab school in Tekoa cause damage to car windshields. Rock attacks between Bet Umar and El Arub on the Gush Etzion-Hebron Highway. Border police located at the A-Tur neighborhood near Jerusalem are attacked by dozens of Arab terrorists. Israeli Security forces arrest 5 of the agitators.' Am I right in assuming that to the BBC attacks by Israelis on Palestinians are newsworthy but attacks by Palestinians on Israelis are not? If I am not right then why the disparity in coverage?

We will see...

Just one more reason why I hate the BBC's coverage of the Israel / Palestinian conflict

The BBC coverage of the alleged shooting by 'Jewish settlers' at Palestinians was front page news for the BBC news website and only today has it stopped being a lead story on the Middle East News page. No deaths and only a few injuries were the result of this incident, an incident which even the BBC have to report has disputed causes.

Here thanks to Algeminer is a list of the attacks by Palestinians on Israelis over the four days leading up to this story being headline news for the BBC. Have the BBC reported any of them?

'May 18, 2012

1. A border policeman is injured after rocks were thrown by Arab terrorists near Nebe Zalach.


May 19, 2012

1. A border policeman is injured from a rock attack by Arab terrorists near the Shoafat checkpoint.


May 20, 2012

1. At the Gush Etzion Junction, an Arab terrorist attempts to stab an IDF officer but stabs himself in the struggle.
2. Near Chirbat Adir on the Efrat-Tekoa Road, Israeli vehicles are damaged by rock attacks.
3. Near Na’alin on Road 446, rock attacks on Israeli vehicles cause damage to car windshields.
4. Rock attacks at the Shoafat checkpoint cause moderate injuries to an Israeli policeman’s leg.
5. Rock attacks near Adam cause heavy damage to vehicles.


May 21, 2012

1. Border police near Issowiya are subjected to rock attacks.
2. 2 rock attacks on Israeli vehicles near the Arab school in Tekoa cause damage to car windshields.
3. Rock attacks between Bet Umar and El Arub on the Gush Etzion-Hebron Highway.
4. Border police located at the A-Tur neighborhood near Jerusalem are attacked by dozens of Arab terrorists. Israeli Security forces arrest 5 of the agitators.'

Am I right in assuming that to the BBC attacks by Israelis on Palestinians are newsworthy but attacks by Palestinians on Israelis are not? If I am not right then why the disparity in coverage?

Could he make it any plainer?

On Sunday, the Iranian military chief Major General Hassan Firouzabad said that “the Iranian nation is standing for its cause and that is the full annihilation of Israel”

Could he make it any plainer? I suppose that is why the BBC seem not to have reported what he said.

Tomorrow is another day

I just couldn't get enough time to post anything worthwhile today, but tomorrow will be a whole other matter... BBC bias beware.

An image (or set of images) that I find quite meaningful

Thanks to Michael Zach on Twitter for the spot.

The myth of 'Arab East Jerusalem'

The BBC line on East Jerusalem is normally a form of the following:

'The Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of a future state. It was captured by Israel from Jordan in 1967. Israel subsequently annexed the land and declared all of the city its undivided capital. The move is not recognised by the international community.'

This makes it seem as though pre-1967 East Jerusalem was, and always had been, under Jordanian control and that Jerusalem had always been split into a Jewish West and Muslim East. This is of course a lie. East Jerusalem had been under Israel control from 1948 and was only captured by Jordan in 1967. Whilst under Jordanian control, East Jerusalem was barred to Israelis, synagogues were destroyed and the Western 'Wailing' Wall, the holiest remaining site in Judaism was used as a toilet. Contrastingly, since 1967 Muslims are allowed to pray in their mosque on top of the Temple Mount, and indeed Israel has ceded control of this site to Islam.

Jerusalem was never divided into a Jewish and Muslim half except between 1948 and 1967, here is a history for you to watch and learn from


So why does the BBC push this lie? Would explaining the truth about israel mean the BBC having to accept that there were Jewish (as well as Muslim) refugees in 1948?

Public sector 'workers'? (update)

On Saturday I blogged about the extraordinary working arrangements of many public sector worker. My post attracted a rather indignant response from 'The Rev' which I quote in full here:

'I would advise anyone reading this extraordinary piece of propaganda in the Failygraph to also read the comments section on the website. Here you will learn that this "perk" has actually existed since 1973. Scarcely a current news item! Why haS this suddenly become "controversial" after 40 years? 

The article has been so phrased as to give the impression that we Civil Servants are being given three free days off a month. Hardly.

All flexitime means is that we can take up to three "flexi" days a month off if we have worked that extra time over and above our contracted hours. What on earth is wrong with that? If you worked overtime would you not expect either to be paid for it or given time off in lieu?

It is one of the few remaining privileges in a Civil Service which is completely unrecognisable from the tea-swilling days of the past. Our call centres operate until 8pm each evening not 5.30 and are extremely pressured environments in which to work. And anyone taking more than 8 days sick a leave in my department would likely be disciplined. Notch that up to 12 and you have a good chance of being out of the door.

I wouldnt mind following a Failygraph journalist around for a day to find out how stressful his job truly is...'

Good grief.... OK so the perks have existed for even longer than I thought, that makes it worse not better that they exist at all. But the passage that annoyed me most was this one:

'All flexitime means is that we can take up to three "flexi" days a month off if we have worked that extra time over and above our contracted hours. What on earth is wrong with that? If you worked overtime would you not expect either to be paid for it or given time off in lieu?'

In the private sector I know people who regularly (more than twice a week) work more than an hour extra a day. They do not get paid overtime or receive time off in lieu. In the private sector we have to work hard to try and keep our jobs, in the public sector the position is somewhat different.



Likewise regarding the sick leave point. Eight days sick a year is the cut-off for reasonableness? You might be sacked for taking for than 12 in a year? In my experience, in the private sector any more than three or four a year is looked at with suspicion.

As to your call centres point, are these the same people working from 8 to 8 or are there two shifts?

I really don't care what you claim, we know the facts: much of the public sector in this country is mollycoddled, overpaid, massively over pension funded and less interested in the people they should be serving than in protecting their perks.