Reckless waste that will cost Britain £22,000 every minute

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2225532/Reckless-waste-cost-Britain-22-000-minute.html

Britain’s deficit cut by a quarter since 2010. More than one hundred thousand government workers sacked in Greece. A public sector pay freeze in Spain. Seven billion euros of tax rises in France. Across Europe, belt-tightening budgets are the order of the day.

Everywhere that is, except Brussels. There, it’s quite the opposite.

Earlier this month, the European Parliament voted to increase the 2013 EU budget by 6.8 per cent, and the 2014-2020 budget by 5 per cent. By doing so, MEPs supported their political masters in the European Commission – and ignored the views of hundreds of millions of hard-pressed taxpayers.

Bucking the trend: The Euro budget is set to rise by 6.8 per cent in 2013, despite many of the member states taking large measures to try and reduce their spending

This self-serving, inflation-busting bonus for Brussels would force Britain to pay an extra £1.3billion next year in annual EU contributions, on top of our existing £11billion. That’s a hike of more than 10 per cent.

If the EU Commission gets its way, British taxpayers will soon be handing over £22,000 to Brussels every minute. It is time for EU institutions to experience the austerity they happily recommend to member states.
It’s certainly not hard to find savings, given that the EU’s 2012 budget is £105billion – four times what our government will spend on defence this year.

We should start by drastically cutting back the costly, unnecessary and largely irrelevant External Action Service – effectively the EU’s foreign office. Europe does not need a shared diplomatic service when every nation has its own. Where all EU member states agree on a foreign policy issue, intergovernmental co-operation will suffice.

 

More...

• Hungary 'to offer wealthy foreigners citizenship in return for investment'
• Dozens of Tory MPs the EU budget be cut but Downing Street tells them to be 'realistic'

It cannot be right to spend half a billion euros a year on an EU diplomatic service when our Foreign Office faces £40million in cuts.

Next on the list should be the EU Commission and the European Parliament. Extravagant and extraordinarily inefficient, they are a black hole for taxpayers’ money.

Although it has promised some job cuts, the Commission remains overstaffed. Between March 2010 and March 2011, the UK government cut 30,000 civil service posts. Out of the 35,000 people it employs, the EU Commission plans to cut just 121 jobs next year.

Twenty-five EU commissioners each take home a basic annual salary of £194,000 – almost £80,000 a year more than US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gets paid. Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso gets almost £242,000 a year.

Excessive: Jose Manuel Barroso, European Commission President is paid almost £242,000 a year, and in addition has housing, entertainment and travel expenses

And that does not include entertainment allowances, housing allowances, travel expenses or pensions. Of course, it is not just the commissioners who enjoy the perks our taxes provide. Two thousand EU civil servants earn over £81,000 a year, and help is at hand again for household costs, childcare, school fees and travel expenses.

Even officials sacked for incompetence are entitled to an £1,800-a-month ‘dismissal allowance’ for up to a year after being told to clear their desk.

For no apparent reason, the Parliament meets in two cities. MEPs are based in Brussels, but once a month travel more than 200 miles to a second parliament building in Strasbourg, which stands empty for more than 300 days a year. This pointless exercise costs £145million annually.
This reckless profligacy is disgraceful in any circumstances. In times of austerity, it is politically and morally unacceptable. Spending on government departments has fallen by 20 per cent in Whitehall: the EU Commission should watch, learn, and swiftly follow suit.

Inefficient: The European Parliament is a black hole for taxpayers' money

A large part of the EU is a subsidy machine – extracting money from taxpayers and allocating it to its pet projects. Sometimes it has a beneficial effect, but rarely does it justify its huge expense.

The inefficiency of this subsidy machine is demonstrated by the fact that a large number of its subsidies go to the richest nations, a clear symptom of badly focused policies. While European economies contract, the number of EU quangos is expanding fast. In 1990, there were three quangos.
Now there are 52, which will cost European taxpayers £2billion this year alone.

Some do valuable work, but others achieve nothing of note, or duplicate the work of others. There are four quangos to mull over workplace and employment issues, and two responsible for human rights. Most of these should be scrapped.

As well as the excessive cost of performing some of its core functions, the EU budget includes funds for activities it should not be involved in at all. Take cultural projects, for example. With the help of hundreds of ‘experts’, the EU spends £240million a year on cultural initiatives, including support for endangered languages and Austrian nomadic dance troupes.
The Commission admits this money is also used to attempt to convince Europeans ‘to give their full support to, and participate fully in, European integration’. Producing political propaganda under the banner of promoting culture is not a good or honest use of taxpayers’ money. Protecting national cultures would be better left to individual nation states.

Sadly, EU ‘culture’ spending sounds like good value compared with some of the other projects that receive EU funds. There was the £6.9billion Sicilian infrastructure improvement plan which repaired just five miles of railway, and actually worsened local water supply.

Spain has seen a massive crash in their economy and thus have introduce as strict pay rise for all public sector workers

Dishonourable mentions also go to EU funding for a group which campaigns for ‘social justice with a focus on forests and forest people’s rights’, and to a £320million grant for a Hungarian dog fitness centre that was never built.

Then there is agriculture. Roughly one third of the EU budget is spent on subsidies to farmers and landowners, regardless of whether they are engaged in any meaningful economic activity, with French farmers benefiting disproportionately.
Some experts on Europe believe Common Agricultural Policy reforms that would see subsidies more efficiently targeted could save as much as £19billion a year, money that would be better spent if it never left taxpayers’ pockets in the first place.

The EU needs to do less, and it needs to do it better. A robust approach, more focused policies and the curbing of the EU’s sillier ambitions could save European taxpayers a quarter of the budget.

So our stance must be more aggressive: we must ensure that in these times of austerity, Brussels bureaucrats shoulder at least as much of the burden as the member states during a eurozone crisis for which they are largely responsible.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2225532/Reckless-waste-cost-Britain-22-000-minute.html#ixzz2B9WLXpPG
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

This isn't just the politics of envy, Mr Clegg. It's a war on Britain’s whole economic future Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2207539/Nick-Cleggs-politics-envy-war-Britains-economic-future.html#ixzz27PdRZF2u Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Once upon a time, the Lib Dems were gently mocked as woolly,  organic yogurt-eating sandal-wearers — harmless eccentrics who could be indulged because they would never get their hands on power.
Now, however, we can see that they are about as harmless to the body politic as strychnine — and the Conservative Party, apparently helpless in their thrall, is meekly helping administer the poison.
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has launched a two-prong attack on the middle classes. First, he declared yesterday that the ‘top ten per cent’ — around three million people earning more than £50,500 a year — should face more taxes.

Audience: Nick Clegg fielded an hour of questions from the gathered party faithful

Attack: Nick Clegg said that the 'top ten per cent' earning more than £50,500 a year should face more taxes

And in another move believed to be forced through by a gung-ho Lib Dem leader, the Coalition intends to target everyone with a home worth more than £1 million as a presumed tax-dodger.
A squad of computer and legal experts will comb through all the assets of such people — their property, savings and income. If this hit squad thinks the homeowners are not paying enough tax, it will have the power to knock on their front door and force them to account for every penny they are worth.

This is simply oppressive, offensive and utterly indefensible.
New wealth taxes — including possible changes to inheritance tax and the tightening of rules governing pensions — for people who earn just over the £50,500 limit would affect some teachers, senior nurses and top Army officers. These are not exactly the mega-rich.
Of course suspected tax evasion should be investigated and, where proved, punished. But this is not targeting tax evasion, which is a crime, but tax avoidance, which is perfectly legal.

More...

• It’s raining, he’s been told off by activists, and his 'Sorry' song only just scraped into the Top 150 in the charts. What a way for Nick and Miriam Clegg to celebrate their wedding anniversary!
• Mortgages from the Bank of Nan and Grandad: Nick Clegg reveals plan for pension pots to help younger generation get on the first rung of the housing ladder
• Right-wingers 'in secret plot to replace Clegg' and Labour-Lib Dem Coalition being planned
• Taxman to target all £1m home owners in new anti-affluence crackdown as government widens net on tax dodgers

The Business Secretary Vince Cable claims that the one shades into the other. Well, some tax avoidance schemes are so elaborate and convoluted they may well be deemed intolerable and should indeed be shut down.
The Lib Dems appear to be suggesting, however, that all tax avoidance is wrong. But there is no moral duty to pay more tax than you actually need to, and any attempt to pretend that there is would seem therefore to be coercive and itself immoral.
In fact, it is clear that this policy is not actually about tax avoidance at all. If that were the case, the Treasury would be setting its attack dogs on everyone who pays their cleaner or builder in cash — and on the builders and cleaners themselves.
No, the Lib Dems are not trying to catch up with tax cheats but rather to punish everyone they consider to be rich.

Danny Alexander has said as 'the wealthiest did best in the boom years and it is right they should pay more now'

That’s why the Lib Dem Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander insists: ‘The wealthiest did best in the boom years and it is right they should pay more now.’ In other words, this is nothing other than the old politics of envy — that sour and destructive doctrine which helped consign the Labour Party to oblivion until it finally realised that this was a recipe for suicide both for itself and the nation.
Yet now the Coalition has actually set up a special unit for fleecing the better-off. It’s called the Affluence Unit. Did you know such a unit existed? No, neither did I.
And just who is to be targeted by this Affluence Unit? It turns out it was set up to single out for harassment some 300,000 people who are said to be worth more than £2.5 million — and now it will widen its net to drag in another 500,000 people worth more than £1 million.
But the flaw in this ‘soak the rich’ policy is obvious. A £1 million or even a £2.5 million house does not necessarily mean its owner is wealthy at all (any more than is someone on £50,500 per year). It may simply mean that house prices have risen a great deal in recent times.
There are plenty of houses now worth this amount, in London and the South-East in particular, which are nevertheless pretty ordinary homes.
And their owners may have relatively modest incomes. Yet these are the people who may now find the tax inquisition on their doorsteps, feeling their  financial collars.
Indeed, anyone with a £1 million-plus home will be treated as if they are suspected of tax-dodging just because they own it.
Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence? Or the equally fundamental doctrine that it is wrong to trawl for offences without due cause for suspicion?
And in any event, the better-off already do pay more in tax than those on more limited incomes.
But for the Lib Dems, it appears that anyone whose assets are worth more than they think reasonable is to be treated as an enemy of the people.

Flaw: A £1million house does not necessarily mean its owner is exceptionally wealthy - it may just mean that house prices have risen a great deal in recent times

Thus Nick Clegg told his party’s conference: ‘I want to reward people who put in a proper shift, not those who sit on a fortune. People for whom a bonus means a few extra quid at Christmas, not a million-pound windfall.’ So on preposterous Planet Clegg, working is good — as long as you don’t actually make any money, other than ‘a few extra quid at Christmas’.
All those who work hard enough to buy a house whose value goes up a lot are to be given no credit for industriousness or prudence, but to be treated as if they had won the Lottery — which justifies the State grabbing some of this ‘windfall’ for itself.
And note also Clegg’s implicit assumption that the only worthy form of work is to be employed. Those who do the employing, however, are to be punished for making money.
This is an attack not on wealth but on wealth creators.

Nick Clegg told the conference: 'I want to reward people who put in a proper shift, not those who sit on a fortune'

But when the rich are targeted in this way — as we can see from France, where President Hollande has imposed the kind of swingeing taxes on the rich that the Lib Dems doubtless dream of inflicting upon Britain — the tax-take actually goes down, and the wealthiest flee the country.  
Indeed, at precisely the moment that Britain urgently needs more wealth to be created if it is to struggle out of recession, the Coalition has set up a unit whose sole purpose is to target affluence as if it were some kind of disease to be stamped out.
This is not just the politics of envy — it’s the politics of sheer asinine imbecility.
It really is so utterly bonkers that it can only be explained as driven by the zeal of a fanatic.
There was a whiff of this from Danny Alexander when, trying to show he was not as wealthy as David Cameron or George Osborne, he declared: ‘I have a two-bedroom flat in London worth £300,000 to £400,000 and a home in Scotland worth a bit less.’
Ah yes: the knee-jerk sanctimoniousness of the ideologue who draws an artificial line in the moral sand — only £400,000! — and then damns everyone beyond it.
Such posturing is even more distasteful since the Chief Secretary himself avoided paying capital gains tax when his London property was designated his main home for tax purposes, even though he described it as his second home to maximise his expenses claims as an MP.
As we all know, the Lib Dems desperately want to impose a ‘mansion tax’ on all homes worth more than £2 million, a move blocked by David Cameron. Targeting the ‘affluent’ who own homes worth more than £1 million looks very much like a sneaky way of getting this ‘mansion tax’ by the back door.
So is the Prime Minister going to roll over and let this happen? What on earth are Tories for if not to protect the country from this kind of socialist wrecking ball?

This war on affluence is nothing less than a war on prosperity and on Britain’s whole economic future.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2207539/Nick-Cleggs-politics-envy-war-Britains-economic-future.html#ixzz27PdbDLuM
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Will they ever heed the voice of Britain? Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2206910/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Will-heed-voice-Britain.html#ixzz27PcToz5b Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

For three decades, an official annual report has highlighted the widening chasm between the views of the British people and those of the metropolitan, liberal elite who control the levers of power.
Indeed, the findings have become so familiar that the 30th British Social Attitudes survey, published this week, has attracted only perfunctory coverage.
Yet it reveals a crisis in our democracy that screams out for attention. It calls into question the very integrity of our system of government, as an inward-looking and increasingly isolated political class blocks its ears to the views of the people it is supposed to represent.
Take immigration. The survey finds that 75 per cent of the public want it reduced immediately, while more than half – up from 40 per cent in 1995 – say it should be cut by ‘a lot’.
For the first time, too, a majority reject claims that migrants are good for the economy, with resentment highest among the low paid (who, unlike the bien pensant advocates of open borders, have to compete with foreigners for work).
Defying public opinion, however, the Coalition allowed net immigration to hit a record 252,000 last year.
Meanwhile, the BSA report finds that just a third believe immigration has been of cultural benefit, while 48 per cent say it has had a negative effect.
But you won’t find a single mainstream politician who speaks for that 48 per cent. Indeed, with one voice, the major parties argue vociferously against their views.

More...

• Half the British population think immigration 'is bad for the economy' as public support for welfare state falls to record low

Or take the welfare state. A resounding 62 per cent say unemployment benefits are too high and discourage work, while increasing numbers believe disability benefit claimants have been wrongly classified as unable to work.
These are not the findings of some Right-wing think tank with an axe to grind. This is the Government’s own research, funded by the Department for Work and Pensions.
Yet the widely-held views voiced in the BSA survey are either ignored or howled down by the publicly funded BBC – by far our most powerful news organisation, which has relentlessly pushed the liberal line and vilified the views of the people.

 

   

More from Daily Mail Comment...

•   A destructive plan to soak the middle class 23/09/12
•   DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Planning free-for-all is a blueprint for discord 20/09/12
•   DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Grayling must prove Ken Clarke wrong 19/09/12
•   DAILY MAIL COMMENT: What will they tell the next war widow? 18/09/12
•   DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Rigorous exams are vital for our future 17/09/12
•   DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Will Miss Greening turn off the aid tap? 16/09/12
•   The Duchess and the irony of privacy laws 14/09/12
•   A 23-year stain on the British establishment 13/09/12
•   VIEW FULL ARCHIVE

Meanwhile, even the feeblest attempts to match official policy to the public’s beliefs are fiercely resisted on both government and opposition benches.
No wonder voters are close to despair that their crosses on the ballot paper will ever make a difference.
When will the political class reconnect with the people – and remember the meaning of democracy?

Money to burn

As state borrowing spirals out of control and most ministers search desperately for cuts, the Department for International Development has the opposite problem.
For so bloated is its budget that officials are struggling to spend it fast enough to meet David Cameron’s target of increasing it to a blistering £12billion.
Earlier this week, it emerged that DfID splashed out almost £500million last year to aid consultants – while one  firm alone, as the Mail reports today, scooped contracts worth £100million in just nine months.
Yet, as evidence mounts that aid often does more harm than good to the needy, Mr Cameron still speaks of making it illegal for DfID to spend less than 0.7 per cent of the UK’s income.
This is madness. The Mail believes firmly in rich societies’ duty to alleviate the suffering of the world’s poorest – and Britain’s charitable donors are already the most generous in Europe.
But while families at home are suffering, how much longer can the Coalition go on squandering billions this country doesn’t possess, just so that politicians can feel good about themselves?

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2206910/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Will-heed-voice-Britain.html#ixzz27PcPw7pZ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

The EU

From http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/debate/article-2203926/124-billion-reasons-time-brought-curtain-tragic-EU-pantomime-Camerons-powerful-Tory-critic-argues-new-Common-Market-Europe.html

124 billion reasons why it's time we brought the curtain down on this tragic EU pantomime: Cameron's most powerful Tory critic argues for a new Common Market in Europe

By LIAM FOX

PUBLISHED: 01:43, 16 September 2012 | UPDATED: 01:44, 16 September 2012

• Comments (0)
• Share

Former Defence Secretary Liam Fox is calling for a new Common Market in Europe

Now that our magnificent Olympic games are over, politics is returning to normal and the harsh reality of the problems we face are coming back into focus. The problems of economic debt and worries about global security have made headlines in recent days – but the issue of Europe is again rapidly rising up the political agenda.

There are two separate but related issues for Britain’s politicians to deal with – the self-created crisis of the eurozone and the vexed question of Britain’s long-term relationship with the European Union itself.

It is very clear that a number of EU countries intend to move much closer to political and economic union. Only last week,  European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso tried to use the euro crisis to justify  a new push to what he called ‘a federation of nation states’.

He said ‘pooled sovereignty means more power not less’.

My response to that is, yes, more power to the very people in Brussels who got us into this mess. When will Mr Barroso and Co learn? The answer is not more Europe, but less.

But all this should come as no surprise to us.

The very first line in the Treaty of Rome talks about ‘ever closer union’. This was not, of course, what the British people were sold in the referendum of 1975, but it is nonetheless what we were buying and history has shown that the Eurocrats and the European political class have continued without deviation down this path.

This latest chapter is simply a continuation of the ratchet process applied treaty by treaty to achieve the ambition of a federal European state by stealth.

The latest developments represent a historic milestone in the development of the EU and we had better understand their importance. Frankly, if the sign on the front of the bus says ‘ever closer union’ and that is not  the destination we want, then the logical thing to do is to get off the bus. We may not be alone  in seeking a different direction. In Finland, the Netherlands  and the Czech Republic, public opinion seems to be moving away from the assumption that ever closer integration is desirable. 

Cracking under pressure: The EU is doing its best to weather the storm and come out the other side

In any case, the eurozone represents only 17 out of 27 European countries and that number is likely to shrink as the full  horror of the eurozone disaster begins to sink in. How wise John Major’s Government looks in retrospect to have kept Britain out of the euro at a time when Tony Blair’s Labour Party, the BBC and the Guardian were telling us that we would be economically doomed if we stayed out of the project. It is impossible  to say exactly when the euro project will start to fall apart but the contradictions within it make it inevitable. 

How will the Eurocrats in Brussels react to events? History suggests that they will try to do nothing and hope they can continue their project encompassing as many countries as possible. They will throw European taxpayers’ money at the problem for as long as they can – after all, they are not accountable to those who pay the taxes.

 

More...

• Cameron in secret referendum threat to EU leaders over power grab plans that could create a ‘federal Europe’
• Iceland to be fast-tracked into European Union to stop economic meltdown
• $1m an hour to schmooze sheiks? No wonder Mr Blair's preening like the new peacocks on his country estate

When that is exhausted as an option they will probably try to do the minimum damage to their political ambition and that is most likely to mean a Greek exit from the euro. This could be the worst possible option. Once the markets recognise that the principle of membership can be breached, it will be a one-way bet forcing one country after another to leave under constant market bombardment. It will be the ERM writ large. There is a strong body of opinion, which I share, that suggests if a number of countries leave simultaneously that will at least send a signal to the markets that the remnant currency has  a real prospect of maintaining  its value.

Throughout this tragic pantomime, Britain will be largely a spectator waiting to see how much damage will be done to our collective economic prospects, before an inevitable economic reality sets in.

Beyond the Eurozone crisis, there is still a much wider issue of Britain’s relationship with the European Union. The British people have never given their agreement to political union. They voted in 1975 for an economic and trade relationship.  I believe it is time to keep faith with the British people. It is time to get back to a common market. Let’s just look at the financial and legal implications of our current position.

It's clear not everyone wants Brtiain in the EU as Hazel Prowse is shown burning the EU flag during a demonstration by UKIP supporters

The think-tank, Open Europe, has estimated that the total cost of new regulations on the UK economy as a whole in the decade up to 2010 was £176 billion and of this £124 billion, or 71 per cent, had its origin in the EU.

When people say that we should not talk about Europe and focus on the economy, they are missing the point that a great deal of the cost and regulation of our economy comes from Europe. The issues are indivisible.

To get an idea of where this burden has fallen on Britain we need only look at three individual EU regulations.

The Working Time Regulations have cost Britain £17.8 billion to date, the Vehicle Excise Duty Regulations – implementing the EU pollution directive – have cost British motorists  £10.4 billion and the Data Protection Bill, implementing the data protection directive, has cost British taxpayers more than £8 billion.

Policemen clash with protesters during an anti-austerity rally in Athens

These costs are on top of Britain’s contributions to the bloated EU budget – a budget that its own auditors refuse to sign off. This has continued to rise despite the austerity programmes being imposed by national parliaments on their own people. It is a disgrace that spending will rise by 6.8 per cent this year while only six out of 41,000 Eurocrats will have their posts cut.

Against the clear mood of the British electorate, the UK is  the third highest contributor  to the EU and our cheque to Brussels this year will be a cool  £6.9 billion net.

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the EU Structural Funds are particularly iniquitous. While the UK will have contributed £33.7 billion to the CAP between 2007 and 2013, we will receive only £26.6 billion back. Per hectare, France and Germany will receive £236 and £251 respectively while Britain will get only £188.

The EU Structural Funds are supposed to provide investment across the whole of the EU but there are only two regions in the UK that are net recipients.

If you are reading this in the West Midlands, you pay £3.55 to the fund for every £1 you receive. This whole sorry picture is a far cry from what the British people thought they were signing up to in 1975.

What should be done? I believe that the best way forward is for Britain to renegotiate a new relationship with the European Union – one based on an economic partnership involving a customs union and a single market in goods and services.

This would be, in effect, a common market without the political interference that the British people have found it increasingly difficult to tolerate and which politicians of both parties have discovered makes governing our own country increasingly difficult.

We should work with our European partners where it is in our mutual interest to do so.

But we must keep separate the levers that enable us to act as a sovereign and independent country where necessary.

When we have determined the relationship we seek we must set a negotiating timetable with a referendum at the end.

We must be willing to trust  the judgment and wisdom of the British people.

Our destiny should be decided on our own shores and nowhere else.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2203926/124-billion-reasons-time-brought-curtain-tragic-EU-pantomime-Camerons-powerful-Tory-critic-argues-new-Common-Market-Europe.html#ixzz26cWAIuVN

Girl gang who kicked woman in the head while yelling 'kill the white slag' freed after judge hears 'they weren't used to drinking because they're Musl

Yobs ripped lump of hair from Rhea Page's head during High Street attack
Three sisters and cousin escape with six-month suspended sentences
Maximum term for assault occasioning actual bodily harm is five years' jail
Judge: 'Those who knock someone to the floor and kick them in the head can expect to go inside, but I'm going to suspend the sentence'

By Andy Dolan and Katherine Faulkner

Last updated at 11:14 PM on 6th December 2011

Comments (1242)
Share

A gang of Muslim women who attacked a passer-by in a city centre walked free from court after a judge heard they were ‘not used to being drunk’ because of their religion.

The group – three sisters and a cousin – allegedly screamed ‘kill the white slag’ as they set upon Rhea Page as she waited for a taxi with her boyfriend.

Miss Page, 22, was left with a bald patch where her hair was pulled out in the attack and was left ‘black and blue’ after suffering a flurry of kicks to the head, back, arms and legs while motionless on the pavement.
Attack: Three of the attackers can be seen setting upon Rhea Page, 22, in the centre of Leicester. Despite leaving her traumatised, they were handed suspended sentences

Attack: Three of the young women can be seen setting upon Rhea Page, 22, in the centre of Leicester. Despite leaving her traumatised, they were handed suspended sentences
Thugs: Rhea Page is seen lying on the ground after being attacked. The four girls had screamed 'kill the white slag' as they kicked her

Thugs: Rhea Page is seen lying on the ground after being attacked. The four girls had screamed 'kill the white slag' as they kicked her

Victim: Rhea Page, 22, lost her job after being traumatised by the attack by a gang of Somalian girls

Victim: Rhea Page, 22, lost her job after being traumatised by the attack by a gang of Somalian girls

Ambaro Maxamed, 24, students Ayan Maxamed, 28, and Hibo Maxamed, 24, and their 28-year-old cousin Ifrah Nur each admitted actual bodily harm, which carries a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment.

But Judge Robert Brown gave them suspended jail terms after hearing mitigation that as Muslims, the women were not used to being drunk. The Koran prohibits Muslims from consuming alcohol, although Islamic teachings permit its use for medicinal purposes.

After the sentencing, Ambaro Maxamed wrote on her Twitter account: ‘Happy happy happy!’, ‘I’m so going out’, and ‘Today has been such a great day’.

Yesterday Miss Page, a care worker, called the sentence ‘disgusting’ and said the gang deserved ‘immediate custody’.

More...

Girlfriend 'Tasered then buried alive': Victim was left to die in shallow grave, jury told
Terror of ex-lover stalked by high-flying banker... all the way across the Atlantic
'Woman on a tram' to spend Christmas behind bars 'for her own protection' after court views video of alleged racist rant

‘It’s no punishment at all,’ she said. ‘And for them to say they did it because they were not used to alcohol is no excuse. If they were not supposed to be drinking then they shouldn’t have been out in bars at that time of night.

‘Even after the police came and they all ran away, one of them came running back to kick me in the head one last time.

‘I honestly think they attacked me just because I am white. I can’t think of any other reason.’

Miss Page was treated for bruises and grazes after the attack in June last year as she walked to a taxi rank with boyfriend Lewis Moore, 23, in Leicester city centre.

At the time she worked caring for people with autism and learning difficulties but gave up the job after repeated absences because of stress and flashbacks.

She is still having counselling and suffers panic attacks.

She said: ‘We were just minding our own business but they kept shouting “white bitch” and “white slag” at me. When I turned around one of them grabbed my hair then threw me on the ground.

‘They were taking turns to kick me over and over. I thought they were going to kill me.’
Approach: The girls can be seen walking towards Miss Page, a care worker, 22, as she walks with her boyfriend through Leicester

Approach: The girls can be seen walking towards Miss Page, a care worker, 22, as she walks with her boyfriend Lewis Moore, 23, through Leicester
Attacker: Hibo Maxamed, 24
Attacker: Ambaro Maxamed, 24

Yobs: Sisters Hibo and Ambaro Maxamed, both 24, who attacked Rhea. They were both given six month suspended jail sentences
Ayan Maxamad
Girl gang: Ifrah Nur, 28, who was the cousin of the three other girls involved in the attack in Leicester

Girl gang:Ayan Maxamad, 28, left, and her cousin Ifrah Nur, 28, who were also involved in the attack in Leicester
Bruised: Police picture of Rhea page's arm after the attack by the gang of Somalian girls

Bruised: Police picture of Rhea page's arm after the attack by the gang of Somalian girls

None of the defendants was charged with racial aggravation. Nur claimed Mr Moore, a fence builder, had been racially abusive, but this was not accepted by the prosecution.

Gary Short, mitigating for Ambaro Maxamed, said the attack was down to alcohol. He said: ‘Although Miss Page’s partner used violence, it doesn’t justify their behaviour.

‘They’re Somalian Muslims and alcohol or drugs isn’t something they’re used to.’

The four women, who all live in Leicester, were each sentenced to six-month jail terms, suspended for 12 months, at Leicester Crown Court last month.

Hibo Maxamed also received a four-month curfew between 9pm and 6am, while the others were ordered to carry out 150 hours of unpaid work.

Judge Brown said that ‘those who knock someone to the floor and kick them in the head can expect to go inside’.

But he said he accepted the women may have felt they were the victims of unreasonable force from Mr Moore as he tried to defend his girlfriend, and handed the defendants a suspended sentence.

Speaking at her home, Hibo Maxamed said: ‘I’m not proud of it, it’s not something I want to talk about. I just want to get on with my life.’

When asked if she wanted to apologise, she replied: ‘What, to the public? I really don’t care.'

Victims: Rhea, 22, was with her partner Lewis Moore, 23, when she was attacked. He tried to defend her, the court was told

Victims: Rhea, 22, was with her partner Lewis Moore, 23, when she was attacked. He tried to defend her, the court was told


Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
Messenger
LinkedIn
Digg it
Newsvine
Fark
Nowpublic
Reddit

Print article
Email article

Ads by Google:
Domain Names just £2.99.uk £2.99 .com, .net, .org, .tel, .mobi, .eu, .be, £9.99 .info £1.99!www.123-reg.co.uk
"Online Dating" In The UKRecommend Your Single Friends Or Get A Friend To Set You Up!MySingleFriend.com/Online-Dating

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070562/Muslim-girl-gang-kicked-Rhea-Page-head-yelling-kill-white-slag-FREED.html#ixzz1g7fl8l2L

An interesting read

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/labour-mps-expenses/#at

Another day......

This blog could almost write itself at the moment.

Tony Mcnulty's been ordered to pay back £14,000 out of £72,000 expenses for his 'second home' - where his parents have been living.

Not even going to bother commenting on that one.

Open door policy on immigration

It seems that since 2000, Labour has had an open door policy on immigration, unbenowns to the public that voted for them, so as to create a multicultural society, remove any idea of British identity, and make the Conservatives look like racist bigots should they dare to raise any form of protest against it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

Utterly beggars belief. Sooner we dum this lunatic load of labour the better.

Jacqui Smith - another shining example

Jacqui Smith yesterday 'apologised' (no doubt through gritted teeth with both fingers firmly crossed - for claiming her sisters home in London as her primary residence, and her family home as her second home - in Redditch.

Mrs Smith will not have to pay back the £64,000 claimed!

“I don’t believe that making a different decision would have resulted in better value for money,” Smith said in a written response to the report. “I am disappointed that this process has not led to a fairer set of conclusions.”

Sounds like a sincere apology to me!

Let the squirming begin

Mps received a letter yesterday detailing the overpayments of expenses claimed, and asking to either repay, or say why they should not have to.

For a change, the sounds of politicians rushing to microphones is deafening - by its absence.

Yo can almost hear the squirming of bottoms on seats, as some, reportedly, face repayments of anything up to £200,000.

Some are threatening legal action (so it is rumoured), saying that the expenses were all claimed within the rules.

Some are saying that the rules were so complicated, how were they supposed to understand them. Just a note to your good selves - you created them (duh!), and even if you couldn't understand them, what right did you have to take blatant and flagrant advantage of them.

Some are saying that the letter's not in fact a demand for repayment, its only for information, and that there could be no basis for enforcement.

They just don't get it do they. This has nothing to do with whether these 'expenses' were within the rules or not - its all about sticking fat snouts in the trough, and taking the electorate of this country for a ride. The whole system was corrupt (whether it stilll is or not remains to be seen), and any politician taking advantage to line their own pockets should be summarily booted out, with no end of term compensation packages or anything, and be forced to repay ALL expenses.

That would clean up politics faster than you could say Jack Flash.

Footnote - praise for Gordy and Cameron (for a change) - at least they will be returning any inappropriate expenses, Gordy £12,000 odd and Cameron has said to Conservative Mps 'Pay up, or you won't be standing at the next election'

Harriet Harman crash

Harriet Harman faces a police investigation for allegedly driving off after hitting a parked car as she chatted on her mobile.

The deputy Labour leader is said to have wound down her window, telling a witness, "I'm Harriet Harman - you know where you can get hold of me," before leaving the scene.

According to one person who claims to have seen the prang, she did not give her insurance details or registration to anyone.

No one was injured.

She was reported to ave been still on the phone after the accident.

Now, its a criminal offence to leave an accident scene with leaving personal and insurance details. Yet again, its one rule for them, and another for the rest of us. This is waht it sounds like to me.

"I'm Harriet Harman - you know where you can get hold ofme, I don't need to wait because I'm more important than you."

The police are said to be investigating this. Lets see what happens. One rule for you, another for you........

Policewomen childcare

Yet another groan I don't believe it moment.

" policewomen have been told they can't reciprocally look after each others children while they work, because the childcare they receive from the other parent consitutes 'reward', unless they register as child minders

The rules also state that you have to be a registered child minder if you look after somone elses child for more than 2 hours, or if its after 2.00 in the morning. No more sleep overs then.

For crying out loud. On the one hand they want to try to get mothers working again, on the other hand they they put as many barriers as possible in the way of doing so.

Oh, I wonder what the fee for registration is?

Some Labour conference ideas

So, every old age pensioner in the country is to get free home care.

How? Who's going to pay for it? It won't really be free will it?

Crackpot idea from a dieing government.

Snubby Brown

Oh dear. Gordy's been clamouring to get a a chat with Barack, about stuff, and got 15 minutes in the kitchen, on a 'walk and talk'. But Downing Street officials failed in their frantic attempts to get 'face time' with the US President.

Perhaps the stink of Lockerbie and the 'compassionate' release of the convicted Libyan terrorist has something to do with it.

Or perhaps its because Obama doesn't want to be associated with the weakest excuse for a UK cling-on PM in the last 100 years thats about to oversee the downfall of the current labour government. And boring too.

The picture says it all

Middle class familioes to pay more for students

In a move of incredible blind stupidity, and groping to claw back mobey from the banking fiasco, the CBI's higher education task force has come up with a plan to make the middle class pay more, yet again,

Essentially :

• The £3,100-a-year cap on fees should be lifted, suggesting that a rise to £5,000-a-year would deliver £1.25 billion more for universities;
• Student loans, which are subsidised by the Government at present, should be charged at commercial interest rates – significantly increasing the amount graduates will repay;
• The threshold for grants should be lowered. At the moment, students from families earning less than £60,000 are eligible for a partial grant, but the CBI says that this should be lowered to £38,000. Only students from families earning less than £17,910 should receive a full grant – instead of the present £25,000.

The latter would hit middle class families the hardest.

The utterly ridiculous goal of getting 50% of school leavers in universities (most of which are mickey mouse nedia studies courses), will leave the universities filled with children of rich people (ie politicians), and the children of single parent, ethnic minority, lesbian and gay parents.

The rest of us (the silent majority) will still struggle to send our children to universities, where they will be saddled with £30,000 of debt on graduation, in the hope that they will be able to make a decent living and contribute to the coffers of the country.

Frankly, whats the point. This countries higher education system is going down the pan, no matter what any think tank comes up with. The only reason for the crackpot 50% goal was to reduce the number of school leavers hitting the streets, and reduce the unemployment statistics. Oh yes, this recession has been building for a lot longer than anyone thinks!

Gordon Brown - action man!

It's getting close to election time. We know because strange things are happening.

Gordy (et al) sent in special forces to get out a kidnapped journalist Stephen Farrell, and it was made damn sure that we all knew about it.

Never mind the fact that 2 people died ( a spec ops, and a translator), but our boys got him out.

As far as I know this doesn't usually happen like this. Normal there's days or weeks of intense hostage negotiations to try and resolve the situation before armed intervention is required.

But that doesn't really make the news does it?

Prisoner compassion

Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi released by a snivelling Kenny McAskill, on 'comapassionate' grounds, with no 'compunction' from any sources other than 'compassion' for a dying man.

Like no one else dies in prison, or everyone who's about too gets released? The Scottish government's been suspiciously quiet about how many other 'compassionate' releases there have been.

And of course there's been no 'under the counter' oil deals with Libya. Our government would never do that, would they? Apart from all the leaks that have been appearing about whos said what to who when (honestly, theres so much stuff, I can barely be bothered to list it).

I know this is a little late, but whats compelled me to write this is the decision by the justice secretary Jack Straw to pardon Michael Shields.

Michael was convicted, rightly or wrongly, in Bulgaria for manslaughter in 2005, and was allowed back to prison in the UK on compassionate grounds, with the expectation by the Bulgarian government that he would serve his time here.

It seems like more than happy coincidence to me that this happened so soon after Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi was returned to Libya. One could see this as a cynical ploy by our gov to gain popularity, or to show that compassion is paramount in our justice system.

But I just can't get it out of my head that this is a diversion from Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi's release, to show that the reaction that the Libyan people gave was very similar to that shown by Michael's supporters, and that the Libyan people's reaction was in actual fact not so bad, and only to be expected, and fair enough, and we can show compassion to our people too, no matter how much it may annoy the Bulgarian government.

MoD challenges payments for injured soldiers

Bloody hell, I am inwardly seething about this. Soldiers go and give their lives, and receive horrific injuries, and then Gov challenges further payments because they have already been compensated, and the new injuries are subsequent complications and not the origiginal ones.

IF THEY HAD NOT RECEIVED THE ORIGINAL INJURIES THEY WOULD NOT HAVE THE COMPLICATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lets send a few of the fat cat politicians across to Afghanistan, and see how much of a hue and cry they would create if their living 'expenses' were affected.

Its a bloody disgrace. The compensation alone barely amounts to the same level as one MPs expenses claim.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/28/veterans-injured-soldiers-compensation

• Ministry wants to overturn tribunal's bigger payouts
• Anger and criticism from veterans and families

• Buzz up!
• Digg it

• Richard Norton-Taylor
• guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 28 July 2009 22.04 BST
• Article history

Diane Dernie, right, criticised MoD efforts to overturn awards to injured soldiers. Her son Ben Parkinson, centre, received £540,000. Photograph: Fiona Hanson/PA

The Ministry of Defence today brushed aside criticism of its attempt to cut compensation for wounded soldiers, telling the court of appeal that payments should be limited to the soldier's initial injury and not include subsequent disabilities.

Amid uproar from veterans and their families, the ministry argued that compensation must be based on objective criteria and not take into account an individual's particular circumstances.

The MoD is seeking to overturn a pensions appeal tribunal ruling that increased payments to Corporal Anthony Duncan, who was shot in 2005 while on patrol in Iraq, and Royal Marine Matthew McWilliams, who fractured his thigh in a military exercise the same year.

Duncan was awarded £9,250, but this was increased to £46,000 by the tribunal. McWilliams's £8,250 award was increased to £28,750. If the ruling stands, they will also both benefit from a guaranteed annual income when they leave the services.

The appeal court heard that although Duncan had undergone 11 operations, took two years to recuperate and one of his legs was shorter than the other, he was now "fully deployable". It emerged that he is fighting on the front line in southern Afghanistan. McWilliams is still in the Royal Marines, the MoD said.

The impact of disability may "vary considerably" depending on the individual, Nathalie Lieven QC, representing Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, told the court. The compensation scheme was specifically intended to measure objectively the impact of the injury.

"It was not about the level of disablement suffered at any particular date," she told Lord Justices Keene, Elias, and Carnwath.

Compensation should not be "tailored" to an individual's particular case, she said. If the tribunal had its way, she added, appropriate medical treatment would enable a soldier to claim more money. "That can't be right," Lieven told the court.

The MoD is due to review its compensation scheme next year. A spokeswoman said that it went to court to seek clarity on the scheme's basic principle – that the most seriously injured would receive the highest compensation.

However, with British casualties mounting in Afghanistan, the MoD's appeal has provoked strong and widespread criticism.

Diane Dernie, 51, mother of Lance Bombardier Ben Parkinson who was blown up in Helmand in 2006, said the appeal showed the MoD was out of touch. She told the BBC: "It just beggars belief and proves that yet again they don't understand how people feel about our troops."

Dernie said the scheme is designed to make compensation claims quick and easy to process but does not recognise the possible long-term needs – both physical and mental – of injured soldiers.

Her son lost both his legs and suffered 37 other injuries including brain damage when the vehicle he was travelling in was blown up. He was initially awarded £152,150 in compensation, but after a high profile campaign by his mother the government ruled that service personnel would be awarded cash for all the injuries they receive in a single incident – rather than just the three most serious.

Parkinson, 25, had his compensation raised first to £285,000, then £540,000.

Simon Weston, a former Welsh Guardsman who suffered severe burns during the Falklands war, said the government was being "petty". He added: "It seems awful – it is almost car crash politics when they start doing something like this."

Lieutenant Colonel Jerome Church, of the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association, told Radio 4's Today programme: "This case is obviously appalling timing for the Ministry of Defence. The [current] scheme is an improvement over the old war pension in many ways. It is unique that it compensates people in service ... so that is an advantage." However, he said it was based on a "complex" tariff system that applied "remorseless logic".

Lawyers for Duncan and McWilliams argue that the compensation scheme must take into account the effect of the initial injury on an individual, including medical treatment.

The Conservative MP James Arbuthnot, who is chairman of the commons defence committee, said: "If the Ministry of Defence is appealing to keep the costs of looking after injured servicemen as low as possible, it sends the wrong message to people who are wondering whether to join the armed forces."

The hearing continues tomorrow.

In a separate development today, the MoD said 150 British service personnel are to be withdrawn from southern Iraq. The move follows the failure of the Iraqi parliament to ratify an agreement covering their status as trainers for the Iraqi navy. The MoD said the personnel are being withdrawn to Kuwait but will return to Iraq in September if not sooner.

A company with 600 employees

Saw this email the other day

Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 600 employees, with the following statistics

29 accused of spouse abuse
7 arrested for fraud
9 accused of writing bad cheques
17 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 have done time for assault
71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
14 have been arrested for drug related charges
8 arrested for shoplifting
21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
54 have been arrested for drink driving in the last year

And collectively they have cost the taxpayer £92,993,748 in expenses, this year alone!

Guess the organisation.

Its the 635 members of the House of Commons, the same organisation that cranks out hundreds of new laws each year to keep the rest of us in line.

And just to top it all, they have the best corporate pension scheme in the country.

Middle classes left behind?

It seems that young people are being selected for the 'top' jobs, on the basis of parental affluence, and as a results large numbers of lower and middle class youngsters are being left behind.

There is a proposal to do some 'social engineering' to get these lower achievers into the 'better' universities.

Another load of ineffectual fiddling nonsense. The problem starts at the beginning of school life, not at the end. Those with lower qualifications have not done the work to achieve, or deserve, those places, no matter what the parental cause, and no amount of entry requirement adjustment is going to change those individuals capacity or desire to study, learn, and attain the grades in these hallowed centres of learning.

Far better to stream on academic (or other talent) capability early in life, help those children that require it more, and help those children that would benefit more too (ie teach according to capability), and reduce university fees to realistic levels, re introduce grants, and stop trying to get every Tom, Dick and Sally into Micky Mouse media studies courses.

(recently heard there's even a course on 2nd life at Lancaster University!!!!)

With the average unemployed time for university grad now 2 years, prospective students should be asked, what's the point of university, apart from getting pissed, and having a damn good time? Ok, fair point. Keeps them off the streets for 3 years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/5879286/Alan-Milburn-Middle-classes-being-left-behind.html