Thursday, 22 March 2012

Pensioners Mugged To Pay For Jellyby's White Elephant

The present £10,660 income tax age allowance for pensioners is being frozen at the behest of the LimpDims so that everyone will have a £9,205 allowance next April. Labour claim that the freeze is to pay for the cut of the maximum tax rate from 50% to 45%. Well they are in opposition.

However, none of the institutional parties admit that the real cause for the cut in British Pensioners' incomes is the willy-waving 35% increase of the deeply unpopular and wasteful Department for International Development budget over four years:

Amazingly, they claimed that the budget was being cut by £1 billion - by which they mean the cumulative reduction of the planned increase over three years!

So British Pensioners are hated by the bipartisan Jellybys with their telescopic philanthropy. I cannot understand why foreigners are subsidised at the expense of the welfare of British citizens, after all when our pensioners were beginning their taxpaying careers, their contemporaries in countries now receiving British Borrowed Money were eager to divest themselves of British involvement. What part of Go Away doesn't Andrew Mitchell understand?

With an extra £11 billion available to them, just imagine how many British Pensioners wouldn't freeze in winter, or be denied humane healthcare.

Wednesday, 14 March 2012

Only Connect

British Police Forces will get access to mobile water cannons within months in order to prevent similar breakdowns of law and order to last year's English riots.

Just days after water use restrictions have been announced in the South and East of the country.

So water cannons will be introduced at the same time as hosepipe bans? Will they only fill them with rainwater off Police Station roofs and used washing up water? Will kettling be banned?

Sunday, 11 March 2012

The Many Not The Few: Buy This Book!

Click here for a link to Amazon.

Dr Richard North has written an excellent, well-researched and highly readable book which provides a reversionist, "worms-eye-view" of the Battle of Britain. It does what it says in the title, proving that the war was won not just by the brave Brylcreme Boys of Fighter Command but by the rest of the RAF, the RN, the Army, the Merchant Navy and the civilian population whose resilience against the Night Blitz was greater than the Luftwaffe's strength in the  time available befor the bombers were sent East to prepare for Operation Barbarossa.
Every O Level History student knows the quote that "History is written by the victor." Unsurprisingly, the history of the Battle of Britain was rewritten to protect reputations, cover up mistakes and boost favoured people. Hitler was banking on the morale of the British people to crumble, but our ancestors gave him the old Ralph Richardson in The Battle of Britain and carried on scared, half starved and community-singing while making thingummybobs.
This book deserves a place on your bookshelf next to the well-thumbed copies of Stephen Bungay and Clive Ponting's books. Buy It! Go on, open your mind to another opinion, it's only £13.00 - or 1/385 of a Spitfire.

Tuesday, 6 March 2012

What Is The Point?

I intended to have a picture to illustrate this post but they are all too upsetting.

The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter and Killing) Regulations 1995 as amended, also known as WASK,enacts EU Directive 93/119/EC which sets out how animals are slaughtered. This is the applicable legislation.

Put simply, animals (except pigs and birds) must be stunned before slaughter - Regulation 9(c). 

The slaughter of animals in slaughterhouses and knackers' yards

9. Where any soliped, ruminant, pig, rabbit or bird is brought into a slaughterhouse or knacker’s yard for slaughter, that animal shall be—

(a)moved and lairaged in accordance with Schedule 3; .
(b)restrained in accordance with Schedule 4; .
(c)subject to regulation 22, stunned before slaughter in accordance with Parts I and II of Schedule 5; and .
(d)bled or pithed in accordance with Schedule 6.

Failure to do this is an offence under Regulaion 26.

Offences and penalties

26.—(1) Any person who contravenes any provision of these Regulations shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) Any person guilty of an offence by virtue of regulation 4(2) or (3) or 24(1)(a) or (b) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(3) A person guilty of an offence by virtue of regulation 24(1)(c) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(4) A person guilty of any other offence under these Regulations shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or both.

(5) Paragraph (1) above shall not apply to anything done or omitted by the Minister or an authorised veterinary surgeon in exercise of functions conferred by these Regulations.

There is an exception, Part IV (Regulations 21- 22)



Additional requirements relating to slaughter by a religious method

21. Schedule 12 shall have effect in relation to the slaughter of any animal by a religious method.

Exemption for slaughter by a religious method

22. Schedule 5 (which relates to the stunning and killing of animals) shall not apply to any animal which is slaughtered in accordance with Schedule 12 (which relates to slaughter by a religious method).

for slaughtering animals according to religious methods for the food of Muslim and Jewish people that is set down in Schedule 12 of the Regulations. That's fair enough, because strongly held religious beliefs, despite their lack of scientific reasoning, should be tolerated according to Mark Twain's dictum even though I would ideally prefer that slaughtering without prior stunning was banned.

What does Schedule 12 say?

Slaughter by a religious method

2. In this Schedule references to slaughter by a religious method are references to slaughter without the infliction of unnecessary suffering—

(a)by the Jewish method for the food of Jews by a Jew who holds a licence in accordance with Schedule 1 (which relates to the licensing of slaughtermen) and who is duly licensed— .

(i)in England and Wales by the Rabbinical Commission referred to in Part IV of this Schedule; or .

(ii)in Scotland by the Chief Rabbi; or .

(b)by the Muslim method for the food of Muslims by a Muslim who holds a licence in accordance with Schedule 1.

I have italicised the key point, namely that according to the Regulations, animals may only be slaughtered by religious methods for the food of Jews and Muslims. It is therefore an offence to slaughter animals by the religious methods if their meat is eaten by non-adherents. The maximum fine is £1000.
So I was rather surprised to receive this reply today to my query from DEFRA:
"The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 (WASK) are intended to regulate activities in relation to animal welfare at the point of slaughter in a slaughterhouse. Although WASK provides powers to require the production of relevant documents or records necessary for the enforcement of the regulations, there is no requirement in WASK for business operators to keep records demonstrating who the final consumer of meat is or what their religion is. Further the Government currently have no powers to require the traceability of meat and meat products slaughtered by a religious method through the supply chain. In view of this it is simply not possible to obtain evidence to demonstrate; (i) at the point of sale (rather than slaughter) who has consumed meat from any particular animal, and (ii) to prove that that particular animal was slaughtered by a particular method, and, at the point of slaughter (rather than sale), that animal was intended for someone other than a Muslim or Jewish consumer."
Thus, the WASK Regulations are not fit for purpose and provide no safeguard either to animals or consumers. There have never been any prosecutions. It is unlikely that the implementation of the replacement EU Council Regulation 1099/2009 in UK Law on 1 January 2013 will alter the current state of affairs that was apparently nodded through by Parliament on a Friday afternoon unless you contact your MP and the DEFRA Secretary of State, Caroline Spelman,  to demand traceability of meat and meat products slaughtered by a religious method through the supply chain to the consumer. 

 As the Soviet dissident Alexander Esenin-Volpin wrote in 1965, "Уважайте советскую конституцию (Respect the Soviet constitution). "  British law should be respected too.  What is the point of Parliament passing regulations that cannot, or more likely for political reasons, the government does not intend to, be enforced?

Sunday, 4 March 2012

Anna Raccoon Needs Our Help

Click here to help someone who's helped so many others.

Saturday, 3 March 2012

Cameron Pictured Riding Nearly Dead Horse

David Cameron has admitted to riding a horse loaned to News International redhead Rebekkakakakakah Brooks by the Metropolitan Police.

The real story is that horses loaned by the Met, are retired and not for riding. It would appear that faux Eurosceptic jelly-veto wielding Cameron has form as they used to say (is a  member of the differently scrupled community, as PC PCs now say).

The real, real story is that the paragraph about retired horses has been edited recently. Or an attempted cover up has been made. On 1 March 2012 the relevant paragraph* read:

 "At the end of the Police Horses working life the animal is re-homed at one of many identified establishments who have previously contacted the Mounted Branch with a view to offering a home. The Mounted Branch is looking for suitable homes for retired horses, that is homes where the horse will not be ridden. Anyone in the southeast of England offering such a home will be considered first."

Now it reads in full ( I've highlighted the altered section):

"Horse retirement

At the end of a police horse’s working life the animal is re-homed at one of many suitable establishments who have contacted the Mounted Branch offering a home.
Before any horse is re-housed Mounted Branch officers conduct an inspection of the potential new home to ensure appropriate accommodation and welfare standards. If the applicant passes this inspection the move can then go ahead.
Whilst responsibility for feeding the animal and paying vet bills passes to the person entrusted to its care at its new home, the horse remains the property of the Metropolitan Police Service.
Before we re-home any of our horses, we seek veterinary advice about whether the horse should continue to be ridden. Whilst some horses are rideable on retirement, some are not.
We’re currently appealing for anyone who can offer a home to a horse that can’t be ridden. Anyone in the southeast of England offering such a home will be considered first."

''Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive and spin to help the PM.''  Pre-Leveson this could all have been sorted out away from the eyes and ears of the little people with a jolly nice lunch at the Ivy Club.

Dave should have vetoed riding Raisa. It wouldn't have prevented anyone else from riding her but he would have gained the moral satisfaction of being left to shovel barrowloads of horse shit, just like he did in the EU.

* I left a comment here.