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

Expenses law - hooray - I think

So the expenses law has been passed with much aplomb.

Well most of it, anyway.

Well some of it at least. And it doesn't apply the Lords.

Ah, sod it, its a just a few lines of hot air, cos MPs didn't like being restricted, or threatened with (god forbid) laws that 'other' people have to follow.

Here's the text from the BBC new site

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8163502.stm

Revised 'expenses law' defended

Mr Brown said the bill was a world first

Gordon Brown has insisted laws passed to "clean up" Parliament in the wake of the MPs' expenses scandal are a world first - despite major concessions.

The Parliamentary Standards Bill became law after just three weeks of scrutiny in the Commons and the Lords.

But plans for a legally binding code of conduct and two new criminal offences had to be dropped to get it through.

The prime minister said the "essential elements", including an independent body to run expenses, were "intact".

Mr Brown announced in May he wanted a legally binding code of conduct for MPs and in June the government outlined plans for three new criminal offences for MPs.

Commons defeat

The code of conduct was dropped, as were two of the three offences as the bill progressed through Parliament, amid heavy criticism.

A third contentious issue - allowing MPs' words, usually protected by Parliamentary privilege, to be used against them in court - was defeated in a Commons vote when 20 Labour MPs rebelled.

Initial plans to have the bill apply to the Lords too were dropped and the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority had some of its enforcement powers removed.

We are the first in the world to do something like this Gordon Brown The new rules for MPs explained Expenses clean-up bill is passed

As MPs debated the final stages of the bill on Tuesday, Tory backbencher Mark Field said: "They may get a few good headlines tomorrow morning about how they've got the bill through but the bill has itself already been emasculated."

At his last press conference before the summer recess, Mr Brown was asked why his pledges had "disappeared".

"It has not disappeared at all. The central elements of the bill are there," he said.

Mr Brown said the bill meant an end to self regulation by creating an independent authority to regulate their affairs and handing it the power to develop financial interest rules for MPs.

He added that the important new offence had survived and it created a criminal offence for fraudulent expenses claims.

"Just as local government and just as in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, where there is fraud that is now punishable by a particular offence related to members of Parliament, a year in prison."

"So all the essential elements of the legislation are not only intact but we are the first in the world to do something like this that makes all self regulation a thing of the past and moves towards statutory regulation for the future."

Not sure who said this

Heard something priceless on the radio today, not sure who said it as only caught a snatch, or what the context was, but I recognised the voice as one of our esteemed female MPs

"We're not going to fritter away tax payers money"


!!!!!!!!!!!!