Dad Charged with Christmas Quad Bike Fatality

Finally we are told.

Does anyone apologise to the driver of the other vehicle for all the slurs, suggestions of fault, innuendo about drink driving and carelessness? I bet it has been hell for them.

Obama to meet Blair before Brown

In a word: Delicious.

Welfare Reform or more Monopoly?

James Purnell announces new Welfare Reform, moving towards a Workfare model and everyone is waiving their hands around in glee as if a new age has begun.

Reading between the lines I see a massive programme of private monopolies being tendered for. More taxpayers money diverted into what will become, IMHO, an inefficient, unprofitable, target-driven catastrophe. The pilots have not shown their ability to scale or maintain headway over time.

The private companies are likely to focus on those easy to place or easy to bully. Will they go out and reform the truly entropic? Let us see, but I seriously doubt it.

When New Labour embarks on a big plan there is almost always some form of private "contract" to be "bid for" these days where the winner gains a monopoly. It is entrenching Corporatism and is highly unlikely to do anyone any good.

Keep up my mortgage payments, says Phillips (Track Changes)

Pay my mortgage Fight class divide, says Phillips

Mr Phillips said he was people were "very keen" for change

The Equality and Human Rights Commission must be given something to do the power to fight the class divide in Britain, its rent-seeking chairman has said.

Trevor Phillips told BBC Radio 4's World at One he would launch a "new assault" on common sense inequality and wanted an excuse for extension to the organisation's existence remit.

The economic slowdown meant his people were "very keen" for something to do change.

Everyone was "happy to take some of the payment pain as long as that payment pain is shared amongst me and my mates fairly", Mr Phillips added.

'Extremely self important'

A report by the commission now says there is too much "vertical" division in Britain between social classes.

It states: "We are not just limiting our job description [of inequality] by gender or race but we are also looking at this extremely important issue of our mortgage payments class."

Mr Phillips said: "We have decided to invent tackle the causes that supposedly drive inequality in our society to suit our warped, self-serving agenda and I think, to be honest, the public is very, very easily misled keen on this at the present time.

"People can see the economic slowdown coming. Everyone but us is happy to take some of the pain as long as that pain is shared fairly and what we want to do is to make sure that the burden doesn't fall on us unfairly on some groups rather than others."

BBC home affairs editor Mark Easton said this was "a radical departure which is likely to be criticised by some as an implicitly political policy from a statutory body that must remain independent of party ideology". No sh*t, Sherlock!

It would "mean taking on the wealthy and educated middle class who are already struggling to keep their heads above water despite the best efforts of rent-seeking parasitical self-loathers adept at playing the system to the advantage of their families", he added.

The commission was invented established in 2007, replacing the Equal Opportunities Commission as the QANGO keeping Phillips in free sandwiches and to give him a reason to put on silly glasses and shave his peanut-shaped head of a morning..

My apologies to the BBC.

Brown Meets Nigerian President

An unexpected development has just occurred with the meeting of Gordon Brown and the Nigerian President. We can now share with you the letter received by Gordon Brown that triggered the meeting:

FROM THE DESK OF GOODLUCK JOHNATHAN
VICE PRESIDENT
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
SUITE 1202 OMEGA PLAZA
ABUJA -NIGERIA.
Please Reply To This Email:(johnfed11@yahoo.fr)

Dear Friend Mr Brown Gordon,
I crave your indulgence for the unsolicited nature of this letter, but it was borne out of desperation and current development. Please bear with me. I am Barrister Chukwuma John a solicitor at law. I am the Personal attorney to the Vice President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria His Excellency Mr Goodluck Johnathan. Herein after shall be referred to as my client.

On June 23, 2008 , my client came by a massive deposit of oil in one of our remote provinces currently experiencing rebel activity. I have contacted you to assist in expatriating the oil contained, hoping you will use the money for your Good Works. I am the only person who knows about this as his personal Attorney. Nobody knows that his is the real owner of the oil, because i helped him to register the field with another name (Bernard Manning) so as to prevent the Federal Ministry of Finance from probing the operation I seek your consent, to present you as the beneficiary of this resource, so that the proceeds of this Consignment valued cash of USD$81.2 billion dollars can be transfer to you.

Secondly, this will give us the power to continue the Good work of my client. He built many motherless baby homes all over the world and is Wish is to use this Fund to build one of the world biggest less privilege home in Vietnam and other parts of the world . So i advice we put this fund into her Good life style. This means 10% of the original fund is for me, 30% for you and 10% for our Legal fee for carrying out the Wish of a public servant and 50% for his unwritten (WILL) which is building of orphanage homes, schools, churches and others.

I would get all the necessary legal documents that would be needed to back up this claim. All I require is your honest co-operation to enable us see this deal through by meeting His Excellency the President. I guarantee that this will be executed under a legitimate arrangement that will protect you from any breach of law. I have all documents backing the fund.

Please get in touch with me through my private e-mail: johnfed11@yahoo.fr
Please! Do not fail to send me your telephone number and fax number for essay communcations, so that we can discuss extensively one-on-one as regards this deal with exchange of headed notepaper and banking sort codes. I look forward to your urgent response and in anticipation of deal His Exellency President Umaru Yar'Adua will be visiting your country in the next few days.

Best Regards,
Barr. Chukwuma John (SAN).

Exam Question

Question #94.

It takes 47 minutes for an examiner to mark a paper and each examiner can only work a maximum of 7 hours a day.
If you have 153,942 papers to mark in 3 weeks, how many examiners will you need to hire?

For full marks, please show all workings.


Question #95.

How long will it take for people to realise that the State tends towards monopoly and is the most awful, incompetent shopper of services?

Swindon loses access to a teat. Stops feeding the cow.

We see that Swindon Borough Council (Con) has decided to take their jumper away from the footie game by refusing to pay £400k towards speed cameras.

Hurrah you say. Yes indeed. However, this was not a sincere act of common sense, but a reaction to the fact that HM Treasury, desperate for any brass farthing they can steal from the cups of beggars, have decided to keep the revenue themselves instead of it going to the Council.

Thus the £400k "investment" to keep a revenue stream now becomes a cost and so has been reviewed. The Council will now spend that money on a department it DOES control...

Swindon has now stopped doing the wrong thing because the financial incentive to keep doing the wrong thing has now been withdrawn. Not noble nor even proactive, it is at least doing the right thing at last.

Such a cause and effect should be a lesson to anyone who does not understand the damage caused by the Welfare State.

Unions demand Intimidation rights in return for Labour party bribe

Unions demand intimidation strike action rights in return for Labour party bribe donations


Trade unions are demanding that the Government relaxes laws restricting secondary picketing strike action in exchange for their bung financial support for the Labour Party.

At a meeting with ministers and senior Labour figures later this month, trade union leaders are expected to make demands including relaxing laws against secondary picketing.

They will also seek "clarification" of strike laws to make it cheaper and easier for them to consult a selected few members on strike action, balloting by easily fudged email or telephone instead of using more reliable ballot papers.

The union demands on Labour's National Policy Forum have alarmed employers and just about anyone else with any decency.

John Cridland, CBI Deputy Director-General, said: "We are completely opposed to any changes in the rules around secondary picketing, and recent strikes have demonstrated how damaging it would be to the economy."

Trade unions are hoping to win concessions on employment laws by exploiting their monopoly position growing financial importance the Labour Party.

Labour has debts of around £16 million and many of the millionaires who have previously provided money have been realising there is not much more to be had withdrawing their support.

The drop in investment contributions from wealthy individuals means that between 80 and 90 per cent of Labour donations now come from the unions.

Francis Maude, the Conservative Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office, said the unions are flexing their financial muscles.

He said: "Those venal collectivist Trotskyite Trade union leaders look at the snotgobbling, slack-jawed Prime Minister and see a kindred Communist spirit weakness. Gordon Brown and his bunch of equally spineless troughing Labour Ministers seem incapable of unwilling to take on the union barons since the Labour Party is now yet again totally enslaved to dependent on union funding to stave off well deserved bankruptcy."

Privately, some ministers are deeply worried about organised labour's growing influence on the Government and fear that the Conservatives will gain further ground by exploiting the issue. No Sh*t Sherlock!

Through the policy forum, the GMB union is also planning to propose that the national insurance be raised for other people middle earners. The 11 per cent rate of NI is levied on income up to £40,040, and the union vindictively wants its own bit of class war and envy politics and have that ceiling raised.

Publicly, ministers insist they will not allow the unions to reverse the key labour reforms put in place by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s but we know they are a bunch of spineless amoebae.

Ahead of the policy forum meeting oleagenous David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary and a possible future party leader after Gordon has lost the next election, will next month address the political conference of Unison, the State enforced monopoly public service union.

Mr Miliband is expected to tell the union that Labour cannot go back to traditional left-wing policies and stay in power but he will agree behind the scenes anyway.

Despite such rejections, union officials are increasingly confident that their bung financial clout will prove decisive in the talks, for whomsoever pays the piper....

Baroness Prosser, a former Labour treasurer, this week said that the party is now unhealthily dependent (huh? since when is it ever healthily dependent?) on the trade unions for money and said Mr Brown must take personal charge of improving the party's finances. Baroness Prosser also said the sky was blue and water was wet.

It has also been reported that the unions will tell ministers at the National Policy Forum meeting to spend even more taxpayers money on tat that nobody in an open market would buy procure more goods and services from Britain instead of from abroad.



Apologies to James Kirkup, Political Correspondent

State to Take Action against All Parents

Jacqui Smith demands wants more state intervention in family life

Children as young as 5 will all be identified as being at risk of becoming criminals or troublemakers unless deemed otherwise under government plans to tackle free thinking and self-responsibility offending and disorder on the streets.

Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, called for a huge expansion of state intervention in family life as a way of controlling preventing young people from all problem families insert excuse here drifting into antisocial behaviour and crime.

She also said that parents who fail to look after their children properly should have to sign a useless piece of paper contracts forcing them to laugh contemptuously in the faces of the idiotic and naive exercise control.

In an interview with The Times to mark her first disasterous year as Assistant HR Manager in a buscuit factory Home Secretary, Ms Smith also warned the drinks industry that action is imminent to require it to be a proxy to control the way law abiding people consume alcohol enforce responsible standards on alcohol consumption.

RELATED LINKS
Youth alcohol ban does bugger all cuts violence
Jacqui Smith bribes and bludgeons woos rebels on 42-day detention
Zero Lower penalties needed for breaching ASBO

A study by the accounting group KPMG has found that voluntary codes are not working in certain areas because people dare to be people and not sheep. “We have reached a bit of a watershed moment,” Ms Smith declared pompously.

It has been a rollercoaster year for the Home Secretary. Her appointment was one of the big facepalms surprises of Gordon Brown’s first Cabinet reshuffle. Within days there were attempted bombings in London and Glasgow and her cleavage response won praise. Then, as the Government’s fortunes sank, there was Whitehall gossip that Ms Smith was losing out in a turf war with Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, and other ministers, and clear evidence suggestions that she was might have been overpromoted.

The obscene victory over 42-day detention has changed that perception amongst amoebae and nematode worms and even lifted her into the list of possible successors to Mr Brown bwahahahhehahahehaha. Your kidding, right?. Now she clearly wants to focus all energies on cutting crime and raising public delusion confidence that the streets appear to be but are not safe in the least.

Ms Smith’s enthusiasm for more early intervention in family life as a way of entrenching control of the individual, making them constantly look over their shoulders improving the behaviour of youngsters will deepen revive criticism of Labour’s “nanny state” instincts. But she is an unrepentant Authoritarian old cow.

She said work was already under way in which agencies identify early the people and families who will end up engaging in violence. “I believe it is about invading the privacy and lives of everyone then identifying families in which you are going to interfere intervene at an early stage, where you will expect certain behaviour and if that does not happen there will be bugger all done about it sanctions.”

There has been success with family intervention projects that provide assistance as basic as teaching parents how to get themselves their children out of bed. “We need to see more of that,” Ms Smith said, hinting that an expansion of meaningless, tokenistic and misleading pilot projects will be in next month’s youth crime action plan.

She said she “fundamentally disagrees” with the “nanny state” charge: “It is part of the role of government not to wait till crime has been committed but, for the good of rent-seeking social service commissars the wider community and the other Authoritiarians families themselves, to declare people guilty until proven innocent step in later earlier when it is obvious to all with half a brain agencies that this is the type of situation should have been avoided by not encouraging, funding and housing feckless chavs that can end in tragedy.”

Ms Smith said the first time a young person was given an antisocial behaviour order, there should be a parenting order to go alongside it: “If an under18 is caught on the streets with alcohol, their parents should be punished involved the first time that happens.”

Ms Smith also gave a clear hint that government patience with the drinks industry is running out over its failure to fund the Labour Party enforce voluntary codes of practice on the sale and promotion of alcohol.

The area causing most concern within the Home Office is the continuing practice in some pubs of offering promotions such as "we want your custom" “order two glasses of wine, get the rest of the bottle free”.

She said that the voluntary code suggested that the industry should be able to tackle cheap drink promotions in bars. “We need to see whether there are further outrages on the freedom of the individualelements we need to consider making mandatory,” Ms Smith said. The Department of Health is awaiting a report on the Post Hoc fallacy link between price and alcohol consumption, due in August, but ministers are already considering Communist style price controls banning loss-leader drink promotions, particularly in supermarkets that no longer fund the Labour Party.

Ms Smith’s mutton-headed lickspittles close advisers say that her preoccupation is to show the country that policies on crime are working whether or not the policies actually ARE working.

Although the 42-day detention row is only halfway through - the whole battle has to be replayed in the Lords - the Home Secretary is determined to push on with this outrage against liberty it even if it means relying on votes from any old rancid authoritarian that can be bought out for the price of a Library the opposition parties. The nine Democratic Unionists shame on them were the difference between victory and defeat two weeks ago.

So when the Bill comes back to the Commons from an expected mauling in the Upper House, Ms Smith would take help from wherever it came. “Yes, even Stalin and Co all-comers are welcome,” she said.

Ms Smith accepts that the Government is in trouble but she believes the situation to be recoverable if Labour lose at the next election. Her remedy: “Be clear about what it is we are seeking to do (control everybody). Be clear about the way we have responded to public concerns (i.e. not). Be clear that when the country is going through difficult economic times, our Prime Minister, with his record, is the sort of person you would want keel hauled at the helm.”

my apologies to Richard Ford and Philip Webster

Army Rejects "Teaching Propaganda"

The NUT says it visits barracks only when invited

Army Chiefs have decided to oppose educational recruitment activities in camps if they employ "misleading propaganda".

Young people must be given a true picture of Educational life, not a "marketised version", the Joint Chiefs of Staff heard.

The National Union of Teachers (NUT) denies actively recruiting in barracks but says it does visit to raise awareness when invited in by COs.

Some officers complain the NUT uses sophisticated methods of recruitment.

Bgdr Paul McGarr said only when recruiting materials gave a true picture of the classroom would he welcome them into his camp.

'Mislead and possibly indoctrinate'

These would have to say: "Join the NUT and we will send you to carry out the socialist indoctrination of other people's children," Brgdr McGarr said.

"Join the NUT and we will send you to dumb-down, mislead and possibly indoctrinate fellow human beings.

"Join the NUT and we will send you probably poorly equipped into situations where people will try to suspend or fire you because you are corrupting other people's children.

"Join the NUT, and if you survive and come home, possibly injured or mentally damaged, you and your family will be shabbily treated."

Delegate Col Chris Kelly, said he was offered free interrogation materials, which he only later discovered were from the NUT.

"We must also ask ourselves why the NUT are in there influencing the way our soldiers view the NUT in the 21st Century.

"They find it difficult to recruit into the teaching profession and are trying to encouraging them to join up," he said.

Decision

Group Captain Martin Reed said young people should have the means to make an informed choice when deciding whether or not to sign up for a Teaching career.

He gave the example of the Army careers service which warned on its website that soldiers should not make this decision lightly.

It warned that teaching could be dangerous and that there were intellectual and sociological casualties, he said.

Another soldier, Stefan Simms, said those that were recruited would "come back knowing the horrors of teaching, maybe having committed the horrors of indoctrination."

A spokesman for the NUT said: "We do not recruit in Army camps.

"The single-service military teams visit about 100 barracks a year between them only at the invitation of the CO - with the aim of raising the general awareness of their educational forces in society, not to recruit."

But some soldiers argue these visits have a wider purpose.

'Patronising'

The MoD will now convene a summit of Officers, Military specialists and others to consider the issue of educational recruitment in schools.

Commanding Officers who opposed recruitment activities based on "misleading propaganda" would be supported.

An ex-teacher, Terry, told BBC Radio Five Live that the Army's attitude was patronising.

"Now soldiers are not kids - they know, they know their mind," he said.

"If they are not sure what they want to do and they are just tinkering with the idea of just going into Education - nowadays they can go to a School, they go on a six-week teaching assistant's course and they find out what it's like.

"If its not for them, they have the choice to leave."

My apologies to Hannah Goff at the BBC.

Who Will Rid Us...

...of this turbulent Priest?

The bearded old goat Archbishop of Canterbury, thinks that adoption of elements of Sharia in the UK is "inevitable".

I suppose anything bad is "inevitable" when you are a self-loathing, guilt-ridden fifth columnist like "Dr"* Rowan.

He is an imbecile. A dangerous "useful idiot", a panderer, an appeaser. I suppose he is hoping for a seat at some religious table, but you bet he would be happy with a subordinate seat, as long as he had a seat. He is a loathsome creature.

Let us not be mistaken. Anyone who thinks that Sharia will remain an option once it gets its claws into the system is a fool. It is Totalitarian creed practised by Totalitarians. I suspect it is touted as an option, a "voluntary" code as long as both sides wish it. Do you really think for an instant that this will remain so? Very soon it will become mandatory, maybe not in law, but by brute aggression. Muslims will be intimidated to conform to Sharia "courts". It is easy to see how it can be done - if you do not, you are not "muslim", but apostate...and we all know what that can lead to. Once this is entrenched, we will see demands for any dispute or legal action involving a Muslim to be performed via Sharia "courts". Sharia "courts" will become the "superior" system, and by superior I do not in any way suggest better - quite the reverse - just in terms of precedent over people's lives.

Sharia "courts" operate the inquisitional system as happens in Europe. A "judge" collects evidence and makes a judgement. There is no right to your day in court, no right to cross examine. It is not the adversarial system we have where defence and prosecution work to produce the evidence before a jury which is then advised by a judge, but who's advice the jury can decline to take. We are judged by our peers in the UK, for all its faults, not some self-absorbed, bearded totalitarian with a chip on his shoulder.

Inquisitional systems are VERY BAD for Rule of Law.

We have recently seen the moonbattery that is paying out benefits to imported illegal extra wives. We see more hints at pandering:

"If there are specific instances like stamp duty, where changes can be made in a way that's consistent with British law and British values, in a way to accommodate the values of fundamental Muslims, that is something the Government would look at." Gordon Brown.

This is the road to serfdom. Let me say that again. This is the road to Serfdom. Very soon we will see the need to get "approval" from the MCB or whohaveyou to ensure that any new tax is "Islamic". They will have a veto, or even finagle an exemption. They will get to see the budget before anyone else and their approval will be sought. It is utterly unacceptable. We saw hints of this when the MCB were worming their pimply backsides into meetings to "pre approve" anti-terror raids. MADNESS.

To "Dr" Williams, Gordon Brown, Jack "shit" Straw, the MCB and all totalitarian mysogenistic bearded goats out there I have a message for you:

If you want a disgusting inquisitional legal system, live in a place that practices it. England has the finest legal system known to mankind - HANDS OFF.

* "Dr of fairy tales" does not really wash with me, frankly.

Housing: It's The State, Stupid.

We see some extraordinary nonsense from the hatchet-faced angler fish Caroline skin Flint, suggesting the unemployed be denied access to council housing.

The unemployed will gravitate towards subsidised housing, and council housing is the vast bulk of that. Who does she think will be in council housing?

Well, for me the interest is an issue behind the inanity, imbecility and general puffery of her "policy" which is being and has been well shredded in the press and on blogs. I need not go into the point that she is systematically an awful, nasty piece of work. An arrogant, robotic Blears-in-waiting sound-bite generating question swerving, ladder-kicking lickspittle of the political class. Anyone who saw her in "reset mode" during the Politics Show when she projected a reality distortion field around the question of denying some bearded hate-mongering scrote entry into the UK that the Town Clerk of Britain refused to confront should be used in evidence and played as a backdrop to her eventual air tap dance.

But I digress...

For me the real issue is the involvement of the State in housing. If the State were not landlord of last resort or a builder and operator of vast housing stocks, interfering Authoritarian rent-seekers like Flint would not be able to get her polished fingernails into people's lives in this way - it would just not be her business. The remit of the State would be about if people are entitled* to various benefits such as unemployment or housing, not to give it out with moralistic strings, or, as Samizdata's Guy Herbert coins, Moralitarianism **

This "policy" is just the tip of the evil iceberg that is Statism and the Authoritarianism that it fosters. Once you get the State "in charge" it cannot help but grab control. Once you make the State responsible you prevent people being responsible for themselves and the consequences of their actions. You infantilise people via the poisoned chalice of Welfarism. You make them dependent and thus a client. The dependency implies strings and strings ask to be tugged and teased, like some grotesque Mafia Godfather. This is no surprise. The State is Enforcer in Chief, after all.

The answer is to remove the temptation. The State should not provide vast amounts of housing directly. Look at what they become - economic deserts. If anyone uses the term 'deprived', let them know what entity, if any, does the depriving - the State. Who stops people moving from one location to the other, treating people like cattle? The State.

I believe the key to State/subsidised housing lies in a simple rule: that nobody in receipt of State benefits including housing benefit in cash or in the form of subsidised State housing should be able to increase said allocation of housing. This specifically applies to those who enlarge their families via births, marriages, taking on more "dependents"***, importing family members, bigamous foreign-wed wives or whathaveyou. If you are living in State housing with your mum and you pop a sprog, tough - there you stay. No more rooms. No separate flat. No bump up the list. You want more kids, then do what all the poor working taxpayers have to do - earn more to pay for it, squeeze up or move under your own steam.

* sorry, I hate this word.

** another term came up in that thread - "benetax" a form of tax and benefit mix loved of the FibDumbs. Sounds like a haemorrhoid cream, and quite right as that hits to me at where I think it deserves to be shoved.

*** technically they cannot be "dependents" as someone who is dependent on another - in this case the State - is not really in a position to have their own dependents in truth.

MP Advice Packs Proposed

New MP's should be told not to touch people's money without permission, spit on our traditions or milk the system, Communities Secretary Hazel Blears has said.

Ms Blears proposed that Parliament issue welcome packs to MPs explaining UK customs, including advice on queuing.

The government says it wants to help newcomers integrate into Britain.

Public funding should also be aimed at the whole community, not single troughing groups, to "strengthen what we have in common", Ms Blears added.

The proposals are being introduced following the Commission on Parasites and Corruption, which held a 10-month review into the challenges caused by the Political Classes.

'Legitimate and necessary'

Under the government's plans - which are being published for consultation - information packs produced by Parliament would suggest how new MPs could contribute to the legislative process and avoid community tensions.

This would include promoting shared values like respect for the law.


ADVICE TO NEW MPs

Don't drink and drive
Don't drop our Sovereignty
Turn up for voting on the correct day
Make sure everyone's children can attend a decent school
Get a licence before you go fishing for bribes
Don't touch people's cash without their permission
Respect the law
Avoid spitting on our Nation
Don't play the system too obviously

According to new guidelines, bodies which distribute taxpayers' money to projects would have to consider whether they allow people from different backgrounds to integrate or whether they cause division.

Ms Blears said that Britain had a proud tradition of welcoming new MPs from constituencies who come to the House to work hard.

She added: "It is only right that we expect MPs to play by our rules. In return we have a role in explaining just what those rules are.

"Information packs are a way of getting that info across - providing a rough guide to the country, the county and the city and helping to ensure that new arrivals avoid doing or saying things that might upset decent taxpayers or getting into trouble with the law."

Amit Kapadia of the group HMSP Forum, which campaigns on behalf of skilled MPs, said he welcomed the introduction of the packs.

He added: "But this shouldn't just be targeted at one section of the Political Class - as well as being an introduction to the House, the packs can act as a reminder to people who are MPs and Councillors already."

Apologies to the BBC.

Political Cancer UK pt.5: Peter Hain

Peter Hain has been rumbled paying is 80 year old Mum £5,400 for secretarial services. Now, it is nice that The Right Robusall Member for Not Paying Attention gives money to his Mum, but HOW ABOUT USING YOUR OWN CASH FOR A CHANGE!

Hat tip, Guido.

Double Dose of Moonbattery: Hygene and Polygamy

We see two examples of utter moonbattery.

First, some Mulsim medical students are refusing to wash themselves properly due to the fact they consider it "immodest". Fine, they are free to think that and to not wash themselves, so long as they don't become a nurse or a doctor. I cannot see how such a person, once "qualified" would be able to properly treat a male stranger anyhow. Ah, lets follow this logic. Once qualified, such practitioners will go on to demand to be given roles in "women only" environments attended by women who also do not want to be treated by "men", i.e. special Muslim Women environments. Of course, once these are in place, the bleating and complaining will ensure that such a unit shall not be less funded or have lower standards than any other facility otherwise the discrimination flag will be raised. Think about that for a moment: no worse than any other, sounds innocent enough, doesn't it? Or does it - that means at least equal to the best, or better than the best. DO NOT PRESUME THIS WILL NOT BE THE CASE. Cannot the Government see how the wedge is being slowly put in place?

No, I forgot our Government is chock full of self-loathers, panderers and imbeciles.

Talking of which, we also see that the DWP is to give additional benefits for polygamy, i.e. benefits for Muslim men. It includes housing support, so I suspect we will see a room for each wife and all the 6 and 7 bed properties snapped up by the State to provide subsidised housing! Who decided that nonsense? There is absolutely NO reason to have even put this forward. Which pressure group was behind this? Why on EARTH even spend a microsecond considering if such an idea was even worth considering? Who went totally out of their way to put this forward? Why was it not thrown out immediately? Have they not enough things to spend our money on? Who ARE these people? Who lobbied for this?

I WANT NAMES!