Psychiatric abuse is a criminal offence, and it is something which the Nazi's practiced on their political prisoners. Here it is again, in post Millenium Cardiff!
Please please pray for this man, Maurice Kirk.
Wednesday, 30 September 2009
Monday, 28 September 2009
ZOOMPAD INTERVIEW ON PINDOWN
This is part of a series of interviews concerning the child care system in the UK.
Friday, 25 September 2009
MARK FISHER MP FOR STOKE CARES MORE ABOUT BEER THAN CHILDREN!
From Notbornyesterday's excellent Political blog, a story which is very very interesting to me personally.
*********************************************************
WING SPECIAL:
Something a bit Fishy going on in Staffordshire, No 1
Last-remaining Labour Old Etonian and all-round bandwagon-jumper Mark Fisher has been MP for Stoke (Central) for 26 years.
Unquestionably a chap with a high opinion of himself, Mr Fisher stated at the time of the MPs' expenses row:
"I was one of the people at the forefront of Freedom of Information and I believe the public has a right to know what their money is spent on."
Mark Fisher is overstating that just a tad: and while he has voted consistently for transparency, he clearly (as a chap with a background of silver spoons) has ideas a bit out of kilter with the rest of us about what 'reasonable expenses' might be. For instance, in fiscal 2007/8, according to figures published by Parliament, the Stoke Central MP spent a whopping £95,941 employing people to help run his office. That rendered him the sixteenth most expensive employer in the House of Commons.
Overall in fact, based on the evidence available people could argue that he's a one for being in the forefront after most of the shooting is over - a believer, perhaps, in the adage 'I think you're right - and if you are, I'll be right behind you'. Following the death on his patch of delinquent 11 year-old Gareth Myatt in 2004 (a casualty he did little to predict or protect) Mr F declared the subsequent report into the tragedy 'brilliant'. In fact, he thought it so brilliant, locals allege he was in the forefront of the move to reduce it to a one-page summary.
In case you think this mere tittle-tattle, get an eyeful of this Hansard entry relating to the debate on Myatt's entirely avoidable death. To explain, there are first some obsequiously florid words from Fisher, which the Deputy Speaker then irritably condemns, and Baroness Keeble somewhat sarcastically contradicts:
Mr Mark Fisher: I knew Gareth Myatt; he often came to my advice surgery. He was an extremely difficult child, but he was tiny. My hon. Friend has given some statistics, but he was a shrimp of a young man. He was so small that he hardly existed, and he was frenetic. He was like an eel—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Even in an Adjournment debate, there is a distinction between a speech and an intervention. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is turning into a speech in the middle of a speech, and that is out of order. Perhaps he has made his point. He might make another intervention later, but the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) should be allowed to complete her speech.
Ms Keeble: I ask four things of my right hon. Friend the Minister. First, there should be a public inquiry into the use of restraint in secure training centres. I say “public” because there was a review in 2004, at the time of Gareth’s death. A 113-page report was produced, which I have with me. It was rewritten several times and was finally reduced to a one-page summary, which was posted on the Youth Justice Board website. That is completely inadequate. Internal reviews have not dealt with the issues, which only emerged into the public domain as a result of Gareth’s death and inquest. They would not have emerged if it had not been for the work done by an organisation called Inquest.'
Or - as some might rephrase and summarise that extract, 'We'll have none of your headline carpet-bagging, Fisher....and while we're at it, this has all the hallmarks of an Establishment cover-up'
Not that Marky-Mark sees himself as an Establishment figure: au contraire, he is a man for the Arts, and those who would decry Blairite art-bites as nothing more than empty piffle. Mind you, Mr Fisher only developed this viewpoint after he was summarily fired.....just one year after being appointed Minister for the Arts by, um, Tony Blair. Ah, the taste of sour grapes on the brisk wind of a Stoke morning.
Says fighting MP Mark Fisher on his website: 'Over the past 26 years I have campaigned continuously on local issues'. Well, we can't find any evidence of him campaigning on behalf of the unfortunates condemned to incarceration and separation from their children as a result of the chaotic Family Courts system in Staffordshire. But he is working very hard on two topics as I write: 'Axe the Beer Tax' and 'Campaign to save the Coachmakers' Arms'. Hmm. Mr Fisher may have a background in the peerage, but his foreground seems to be rather more to do with the beerage.
Before and after....the virtues of a good English pint
Defending the general idea of MPs charging for every last fart and broken window as part of their job ('£327 for new window and door locks at my flat after a burglary') Fisher wrote on his site, 'MPs are required to spend Mondays to Thursdays in London attending Parliament with business finishing at 10.30pm on Monday and Tuesday and 7pm on other days, clearly we can't get back to Stoke so have to have somewhere to stay in London: that's what the Second Home Allowance is for'.
Fisherman might have a case had his focus been forever on his constituency during that 25 years of dedication to the survival of local pubs serving cheap ale. But it was not always so: once hired (and after being fired) as Arts Minister, the word in Stoke-on-Trent (Central) was that their MP spent much of the time available among his literati friends in Oxford. A prominent former member of the Stoke Labour Party told nby this week, "While Mark Fisher was off swanning about in Oxford, real Labour Party activists took his surgeries for him year in year out".
One such was the late and much-loved local lawyer Richard Wise. A whirlwind in the cause of justice, The Independent wrote at length (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/if-he-cant-spring-you-nobody-can-1347699.html) several times in the 1990s on the subject of Richard's efforts on behalf of those left out and behind in Cool Stokenia.
At the 2001 General Election, Richard Wise felt so strongly about Fisher remaining as the sitting MP, he stood against him as an Independent - thus potentially splitting the vote for the Party he loved. Another colleague from those days has told us, "There wasn't a nasty bone in Richard's body anywhere. To do what he did, you have to feel he thought Fisher wasn't doing his job". And a victim of Staffordshire's appalling record on care-system abuse, Barbara Richards, gave this statement to nby:
'Richard Wise, my own solicitor, died suddenly in 2002. He stood against Mark Fisher in the 2001 election in Stoke on Trent. Richard Wise was a really good man.... He was Human Rights Solicitor of the Year. I suspect Mark Fisher lied to me about Pindown. He said he knew nothing about it - I have his email - but he was on a TV documentary with Virginia Bottomley discussing the evils of the Pindown scandal....'
In such cases, how can we know who is vamping the veritas, and who promoting porkies? Well, a good way is to look at the record and then make one's own mind up.
More on this matter anon.
*********************************************************
WING SPECIAL:
Something a bit Fishy going on in Staffordshire, No 1
Last-remaining Labour Old Etonian and all-round bandwagon-jumper Mark Fisher has been MP for Stoke (Central) for 26 years.
Unquestionably a chap with a high opinion of himself, Mr Fisher stated at the time of the MPs' expenses row:
"I was one of the people at the forefront of Freedom of Information and I believe the public has a right to know what their money is spent on."
Mark Fisher is overstating that just a tad: and while he has voted consistently for transparency, he clearly (as a chap with a background of silver spoons) has ideas a bit out of kilter with the rest of us about what 'reasonable expenses' might be. For instance, in fiscal 2007/8, according to figures published by Parliament, the Stoke Central MP spent a whopping £95,941 employing people to help run his office. That rendered him the sixteenth most expensive employer in the House of Commons.
Overall in fact, based on the evidence available people could argue that he's a one for being in the forefront after most of the shooting is over - a believer, perhaps, in the adage 'I think you're right - and if you are, I'll be right behind you'. Following the death on his patch of delinquent 11 year-old Gareth Myatt in 2004 (a casualty he did little to predict or protect) Mr F declared the subsequent report into the tragedy 'brilliant'. In fact, he thought it so brilliant, locals allege he was in the forefront of the move to reduce it to a one-page summary.
In case you think this mere tittle-tattle, get an eyeful of this Hansard entry relating to the debate on Myatt's entirely avoidable death. To explain, there are first some obsequiously florid words from Fisher, which the Deputy Speaker then irritably condemns, and Baroness Keeble somewhat sarcastically contradicts:
Mr Mark Fisher: I knew Gareth Myatt; he often came to my advice surgery. He was an extremely difficult child, but he was tiny. My hon. Friend has given some statistics, but he was a shrimp of a young man. He was so small that he hardly existed, and he was frenetic. He was like an eel—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Even in an Adjournment debate, there is a distinction between a speech and an intervention. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is turning into a speech in the middle of a speech, and that is out of order. Perhaps he has made his point. He might make another intervention later, but the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) should be allowed to complete her speech.
Ms Keeble: I ask four things of my right hon. Friend the Minister. First, there should be a public inquiry into the use of restraint in secure training centres. I say “public” because there was a review in 2004, at the time of Gareth’s death. A 113-page report was produced, which I have with me. It was rewritten several times and was finally reduced to a one-page summary, which was posted on the Youth Justice Board website. That is completely inadequate. Internal reviews have not dealt with the issues, which only emerged into the public domain as a result of Gareth’s death and inquest. They would not have emerged if it had not been for the work done by an organisation called Inquest.'
Or - as some might rephrase and summarise that extract, 'We'll have none of your headline carpet-bagging, Fisher....and while we're at it, this has all the hallmarks of an Establishment cover-up'
Not that Marky-Mark sees himself as an Establishment figure: au contraire, he is a man for the Arts, and those who would decry Blairite art-bites as nothing more than empty piffle. Mind you, Mr Fisher only developed this viewpoint after he was summarily fired.....just one year after being appointed Minister for the Arts by, um, Tony Blair. Ah, the taste of sour grapes on the brisk wind of a Stoke morning.
Says fighting MP Mark Fisher on his website: 'Over the past 26 years I have campaigned continuously on local issues'. Well, we can't find any evidence of him campaigning on behalf of the unfortunates condemned to incarceration and separation from their children as a result of the chaotic Family Courts system in Staffordshire. But he is working very hard on two topics as I write: 'Axe the Beer Tax' and 'Campaign to save the Coachmakers' Arms'. Hmm. Mr Fisher may have a background in the peerage, but his foreground seems to be rather more to do with the beerage.
Before and after....the virtues of a good English pint
Defending the general idea of MPs charging for every last fart and broken window as part of their job ('£327 for new window and door locks at my flat after a burglary') Fisher wrote on his site, 'MPs are required to spend Mondays to Thursdays in London attending Parliament with business finishing at 10.30pm on Monday and Tuesday and 7pm on other days, clearly we can't get back to Stoke so have to have somewhere to stay in London: that's what the Second Home Allowance is for'.
Fisherman might have a case had his focus been forever on his constituency during that 25 years of dedication to the survival of local pubs serving cheap ale. But it was not always so: once hired (and after being fired) as Arts Minister, the word in Stoke-on-Trent (Central) was that their MP spent much of the time available among his literati friends in Oxford. A prominent former member of the Stoke Labour Party told nby this week, "While Mark Fisher was off swanning about in Oxford, real Labour Party activists took his surgeries for him year in year out".
One such was the late and much-loved local lawyer Richard Wise. A whirlwind in the cause of justice, The Independent wrote at length (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/if-he-cant-spring-you-nobody-can-1347699.html) several times in the 1990s on the subject of Richard's efforts on behalf of those left out and behind in Cool Stokenia.
At the 2001 General Election, Richard Wise felt so strongly about Fisher remaining as the sitting MP, he stood against him as an Independent - thus potentially splitting the vote for the Party he loved. Another colleague from those days has told us, "There wasn't a nasty bone in Richard's body anywhere. To do what he did, you have to feel he thought Fisher wasn't doing his job". And a victim of Staffordshire's appalling record on care-system abuse, Barbara Richards, gave this statement to nby:
'Richard Wise, my own solicitor, died suddenly in 2002. He stood against Mark Fisher in the 2001 election in Stoke on Trent. Richard Wise was a really good man.... He was Human Rights Solicitor of the Year. I suspect Mark Fisher lied to me about Pindown. He said he knew nothing about it - I have his email - but he was on a TV documentary with Virginia Bottomley discussing the evils of the Pindown scandal....'
In such cases, how can we know who is vamping the veritas, and who promoting porkies? Well, a good way is to look at the record and then make one's own mind up.
More on this matter anon.
RUMBLINGS OF THUNDER FROM THE BBC
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2009/sep/23/bbc-greg-dyke
Dyke's BBC conspiracy theory
Comments (11)
Buzz up!
Digg it
I have just been discovered that the former BBC director general, Greg Dyke, made an extraordinary claim at a Lib Dem conference fringe meeting on Sunday.
The story appeared that evening on the BBC's news website under the headline, Dyke in BBC 'conspiracy' claim. It was also published by The Herald in Scotland here and, supposedly, by the Belfast Telegraph (though I can't locate it).
Several bloggers have picked up on it too. But the national press appears to have ignored it, or missed it altogether. Yet the claim should have generated widespread interest. If true, it requires more probing. If false, it should severely dent Dyke's credibility.
In his speech, about MPs' expenses, he called for a commission to look into the "whole political system", adding: "I fear it will never happen because I fear the political class will stop it."
Then, according to the BBC report, he said that during his tenure as director general (2000-2004) he had wanted to make major changes to the BBC's coverage of politics. However, these were blocked.
Here are the key quotes:
"The evidence that our democracy is failing is overwhelming and yet those with the biggest interest in sustaining the current system - the Westminster village, the media and particularly the political parties, including this one - are the groups most in denial about what is really happening to our democracy...
"I tried and failed to get the problem properly discussed when I was at the BBC and I was stopped, interestingly, by a combination of the politicos on the board of governors, one of whom was married to the man who claimed for cleaning his moat, the cabinet interestingly - the Labour cabinet - who decided to have a meeting, only about what we were trying to discuss, and the political journalists at the BBC.
"Why? Because, collectively, they are all part of the problem. They are part of one Westminster conspiracy. They don't want anything to change. It's not in their interests." [My italics]
The governor in his reference is Baroness (Sarah) Hogg. What is unclear is exactly what she allegedly stopped. A discussion?
To add to the confusion, he spoke after the meeting to the BBC reporter about holding an internal review of the BBC's political coverage.
He is quoted as saying: "There was a lot of pressure from the government of the day not to change anything."
He also denied the BBC had caved in to pressure from the government but added: "A lot of the governors were what I call semi-politicians and they liked the present system and... maybe they were right - it's not the job of the BBC to change the political system and to start questioning the political system.
"I happen to not agree with that but, you know, we didn't get anywhere."
He also denied that his comments were meant as a criticism of BBC journalists and then added: "In the end, political journalists live in the same narrow world as politicians do and they don't see a need to change because they think it's the world. They just don't understand that out there it's very different."
So what was the nature of the so-called conspiracy? Or does it amount to a conspiracy at all in the accepted sense of the term? Baroness Hogg and her former colleagues on the board of governors may wish to know.
Sources: BBC/Herald Hat tip: journalism.co.uk
Dyke's BBC conspiracy theory
Comments (11)
Buzz up!
Digg it
I have just been discovered that the former BBC director general, Greg Dyke, made an extraordinary claim at a Lib Dem conference fringe meeting on Sunday.
The story appeared that evening on the BBC's news website under the headline, Dyke in BBC 'conspiracy' claim. It was also published by The Herald in Scotland here and, supposedly, by the Belfast Telegraph (though I can't locate it).
Several bloggers have picked up on it too. But the national press appears to have ignored it, or missed it altogether. Yet the claim should have generated widespread interest. If true, it requires more probing. If false, it should severely dent Dyke's credibility.
In his speech, about MPs' expenses, he called for a commission to look into the "whole political system", adding: "I fear it will never happen because I fear the political class will stop it."
Then, according to the BBC report, he said that during his tenure as director general (2000-2004) he had wanted to make major changes to the BBC's coverage of politics. However, these were blocked.
Here are the key quotes:
"The evidence that our democracy is failing is overwhelming and yet those with the biggest interest in sustaining the current system - the Westminster village, the media and particularly the political parties, including this one - are the groups most in denial about what is really happening to our democracy...
"I tried and failed to get the problem properly discussed when I was at the BBC and I was stopped, interestingly, by a combination of the politicos on the board of governors, one of whom was married to the man who claimed for cleaning his moat, the cabinet interestingly - the Labour cabinet - who decided to have a meeting, only about what we were trying to discuss, and the political journalists at the BBC.
"Why? Because, collectively, they are all part of the problem. They are part of one Westminster conspiracy. They don't want anything to change. It's not in their interests." [My italics]
The governor in his reference is Baroness (Sarah) Hogg. What is unclear is exactly what she allegedly stopped. A discussion?
To add to the confusion, he spoke after the meeting to the BBC reporter about holding an internal review of the BBC's political coverage.
He is quoted as saying: "There was a lot of pressure from the government of the day not to change anything."
He also denied the BBC had caved in to pressure from the government but added: "A lot of the governors were what I call semi-politicians and they liked the present system and... maybe they were right - it's not the job of the BBC to change the political system and to start questioning the political system.
"I happen to not agree with that but, you know, we didn't get anywhere."
He also denied that his comments were meant as a criticism of BBC journalists and then added: "In the end, political journalists live in the same narrow world as politicians do and they don't see a need to change because they think it's the world. They just don't understand that out there it's very different."
So what was the nature of the so-called conspiracy? Or does it amount to a conspiracy at all in the accepted sense of the term? Baroness Hogg and her former colleagues on the board of governors may wish to know.
Sources: BBC/Herald Hat tip: journalism.co.uk
Thursday, 24 September 2009
A great political blog
I have found a blog, called "Not Born Yesterday" that is well worth taking a look at. There's an interesting story on there right now, about Gordon Brown's failing eyesight.
http://www.notbornyesterday.org/brownsightdenialetal.htm
http://www.notbornyesterday.org/brownsightdenialetal.htm
Monday, 21 September 2009
Wednesday, 16 September 2009
British police stealing a newborn child
Listen to a real life police state in action. This is the true audio tape of a child being taken by POLICE. Raided in early morning, which is their favourite time for this kind of unscrupulous activity, just as it was for Hitler's Nazi SS squad.
Police said the baby was ill and dying. (the baby was born with a cataract and discharged safely by the NHS).Since when have people died of cataracts?
Police said the baby was ill and dying. (the baby was born with a cataract and discharged safely by the NHS).Since when have people died of cataracts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)