The Telegraph

I must say i do like the Telegraph's redesigned website. It feels good on the eye.
I particularly like the font use in the main headline What is it? I need it!




I can see the Times site being redesigned soon. It now looks a bit stale in comparison.

Heathcliff the Hedgehog

And they call this "Policing"

The police say they are studying photographs of those who attended and that arrests, if necessary, will be made at the "most appropriate time" from the BBC

"Most appropriate time" could be translated as meaning "never", or, "we'll pick them up... after they've blown themselves into a hundred pieces on the underground."

I'm more angered by the reaction of the police and some politicians more than by the protesters and their vile placards.

What message are we sending out with this picture? Numerous placards covered with messages that are inciting murder, and praising terrorists, and the police simply walking alongside as if they are accompanying a protest by a handful of blue-haired old ladies from the local womens institute. Obviously they have been ordered to do anything in their powers NOT to arrest anybody. We wouldn't want to cause a very public scene, now would we?

from the Times
"People who tried to snatch away what they regarded as offending placards were held back by police. "

"what they regarded..."

I would have thought all law-abiding people would regard the placards inciting murder as being offensive.

What kind of sick age are we living in that the police are not doing their job, and then prevent members of the public from doing what they should be doing themselves?

The police should have arrested those who were commiting crimes whether it increased the risk of there being a full scale riot or not. The long term consequences of this kind of ultra-liberal policing will be far more negative than the odd potential violent confrontation. Would they have arrested a far right group with placards calling for the murder of muslims? Or would they hold back for the "most appropriate time" again? The most appropriate time to arrest a criminal is when a crime is taking place i would have thought. We are losing more than is gained with our softly softly approach to extremists. We must be a laughing stock in the eyes of extremists in this country and beyond.

Why doesn't that idiot Ian Blair go the whole way and give each copper a little white flag to stick into the top of their helmets.

Islam: A Peaceful & Tolerant Religion

13%, and going down

A YouGov poll for the Telegraph has been published today and it's not a pretty sight for the Lib Dems. They come out of it with a measly 13% support as opposed to Labour with 40% and the Tories with 39%. Worringly, (for those of us who sit on the Tory side of the fence) it could appear that 80% of the Lib Dem's losses have drifted in Labours direction. (Tories up 1% and Labour up 4%).
Most of the poll respondents will have made their choice before the Hughes story broke this week. Things are going from bad to worse for them. Next month we could be seeing support for the party fall into single figures. If only the successor to Kennedy had been chosen by the pointing of 61 fingers in Ming's direction with the words "he'll do!" exclaimed in unison by all, then [almost] all would be well now, and the skeletons wouldn't have come tumbling out of cupboards at every turn, and the reputation of two of the party's top MPs would have been left untarnished.

God, Intelligent designer

Horizon may be worth looking at tonight.
.
Horizon BBC2 21:00
A War on Science. Series exploring topical scientific issues. The story of how one of science's greatest theories is facing one of its greatest threats. The theory of evolution is under attack from a controversial new idea called intelligent design, an idea that claims to give an alternative explanation for the origin of life on earth. This new movement claims to be scientific but to many it threatens to replace science with God.

Documentaries are not what they used to be, though. I have little doubt this will be another of those with a narrator, who is usually female because the BBC thinks that science is too male dominated, say the same things again and again and when you get to the end of the 50 minutes you realise the programme makers could have comfortably squeezed all that was needed to be said into a 10 minute programme and you could have spent the time better by watching Celebrity Big Brother instead.

How dare God threaten to make a comeback and tear the theory of evolution limb from limb in the process! He has some nerve.

I have to admit i've only seen the phrase "intelligent design" used at most once or twice in this context, I have no knowledge of the theory whatsoever, but I can't help but wonder if those who put their name to the theory (and are featured in the programme) are perceived by the BBC collective mindset as being nutty american christians.

We shall see.... unless something else is on that looks more interesting.

The above programme synopsis could be quite revealing about the collective mindset of the left-wing propaganda machine that we have no choice but to feed with our money. Note the words "war", "threats", "threatens", "under attack", and "controversial". All very emotive words. Everything that doesn't fit into the BBC collective mindset is usually described as "controversial". "This new movement claims to be scientific..." which is designed to pull the viewer into thinking this movement is not what it seems and that it has some sinister agenda and is not to be trusted.

Oh heck, I am beginning to think i've spent too long reading Biased BBC.

Simon Hughes, Gay. I don't believe it!

I would have been surprised by the revelation of Hughes' homosexuality if it had come out last week as it had never crossed my mind that he may be that way inclined. The first i had an idea was at the weekend while wandering in blogland and reading about the Outen business. People were genuinely surprised about Outen and saying how they thought Hughes had been more likely to have had skeletons in the cupboard. I then wondered, does that mean Hughes is unmarried?

Yes.

Hughes, aged 54 and unmarried, that can only mean one thing, i thought. Apparently he denied last week that he was gay (that story passed by without me seeing it). Hughes' chances appeared to have increased significantly with a poll being published this week. His support among the Mr and Mrs Average was probably most helped by the fact that Mr and Mrs Average have barely heard of the other candidates in the Lib Dem leadership contest.

The Lib Dems are not having a good week are they? Out of the three most likely to win the leadership, one is definitely out of it (Outen's early departure from the contest almost certainly connected to the emerging scandal) and another has had his chances seriously damaged. Has Ming got something to hide too? I doubt it. If there is some kinky sex antics scandal, i bet a Stannah stairlift will have been involved.

Ming's age is obviously an issue to some, but how much of an issue is it really? I mean, it's not quite like the Tories contest with Clarke, with them requiring a leader for the next four years and then to become Prime minister for a few more. It's unlikely that the Lib Dems are going to form a government in four years time. My money would be on the [one-time] dark horse. Huhne. At the rate things are going he may only need to sit and wait and not fall off his chair for the leadership to be thrown into his lap.

Tory Leadership Election - Round 2

By 5:30pm this evening the Tories may have elected a new leader. But for that to happen it would require Davis or Fox (whoever finishes second) to pull out before the membership vote which would hand the victory to Cameron. I can see Davis withdrawing (as he did four years ago) if he suffers badly enough in today's ballot. But then again if he suffers too badly he will be in third place and out of the running anyway. If Fox improves on his impressive first round result and makes it into second place he will be less likely to withdraw early. Cameron has won the second ballot before it even takes place. He could end up with more than half of the available votes. His support will be greatly increased by the vast majority of the 38 former-Clarke supporters and further increased by Davis supporters who have lost all hope of their candidate winning and thus move their support to him. I doubt Cameron will take too many votes from Fox though. Fox has a realistc chance of finishing second this afternoon by taking a significant amount of votes from Davis. It certainly won't be too surprising if whoever finishes second does withdraw though, because as it currently stands, they would have no chance in the membership vote, unless something was to come along and knock a wheel or three off the Cameron campaign wagon in the coming weeks.

The Telegraph this morning published the results of a YouGov poll of party members which shows that Cameron is effectively unbeatable.

Cameron 59%
Fox 18%
Davis 15%

I was pretty close in predicting the votes in the first round. Lets how close i can get with this one. This round is harder to forecast as the potential for tactical voting is much greater. There's also the likelihood that many previous supporters of Davis and Fox may decide to vote for Cameron simply to increase the chance of it hastening the end of the election because they know he has all but won it. That's what i think will happen to some extent. If the election does end six weeks early, those who don't support Cameron won't be too amused, but i can't see Cameron supporters minding too much.

My prediction for the second round of voting.
Cameron: 108
Davis: 45
Fox: 45

After winning the 1st round prediction competition on PoliticalBetting.com I put in my 2nd round prediction yesterday which is a bit different to the one above (DC:96 - DD:51 - LF:51)


Result Update: The 198 votes were shared as follows...
Cameron: 90
Davis: 57
Fox: 51

I sense some tactical voting was involved to save Davis from third place.

Close

I was almost completely accurate in predicting Tuesday's Tory leadership vote. These were the actual results.
*my predictions in brackets.
Davis 62 (62)
Cameron 56 (56)
Fox 42 (40)
Clarke 38 (38)
I got them all right except for being two votes below Fox's total.
I wish I had given him those non-existent abstentions now.

Hmmm...maybe I should pick some lottery numbers this weekend.

Tory Leadership Election - Round 1

At last, the day has come. The first round of voting in the Tory leadership election takes place today with the result being announced at some time around 5:20pm.

Will the tory members get it right this time and elect someone who has half a chance of winning the next election? (or at least put Labour under pressure for the next four years). It will partly depend on what choice the MPs give them. The most likely scenario is a Cameron v Davis final. The general consensus is, that whoever Cameron is up against he will emerge as the winner. But what if a little bit of tactical voting goes on in rounds one or two? Is it possible that Cameron could be voted out this week and we'll be left with a Davis v Clarke final, or even worse a Davis v Fox final. After what happened to hot favourite Michael Portillo in 2001 nothing can be taken for granted. In the leadership election of 2001 Portillo had led the field by 10 and 8 votes in the first two rounds only to lose out on the reaching the membership vote when he finished one vote behind IDS in round three.
It's most likely Cameron will be elected leader in early December. I don't see the same happening to him as happened to Portillo. Some believe that Portillo was the victim of tactical voting, which isn't unlikely as the voting was very close. I think Cameron has strong enough support to avoid being prematurely ejected from the election in the same way. He has managed to keep the momentum going since his conference speech even though he has had "the question" weighing down on his shoulders for the past week. It's interesting to see that the issue regarding "the question" has had no obvious negative effect on his campaign. Five years ago it would have had a noticable detrimental effect.

His refusal to answer the question about drugs could well have had the opposite effect and brought his campaign to a halt and ended any hopes he had of becoming leader. It seemed that common sense thing to do would have been to answer the question as early on as possible to get it out of the way to prevent it hindering a crucial stage of the election campaign. I don't personally believe it would have done him any harm to have done that. But doing that would have almost certainly given the story a shorter shelf life and the amount of media exposure that Cameron had last week wouldn't have come about without it. Could the refusal to answer actually have been a brilliant piece of campaign strategy by the Cameron team to make sure their candidate would remain in the media spotlight all last week knowing his profile would be significantly raised among the general public with the story being prominently broadcast on every television, radio and newspaper for the duration of the story's life. The fact that very few people actually knew who he was had it's effect on the opinion polls. Clarke did well in the polling of the general public simply because he was the most well known Tory in the leadership line-up. Clarke is popular, there's no doubt about that, but I wonder how popular he will be after a year or two as leader. I feel he'd run out of steam if he should be unexpectedly elected leader. He would be a novelty for a while but for longer term success Cameron has to be the one chosen from the four candidates. As for Davis, he is summed up perfectly in the following...

"IDS with hair"
If the MPs don't give the members the choice of voting Cameron then they will effectively be handing Gordon Brown the keys to number 10 four years before the election even takes place.

The current odds are
Cameron 4/9 - Davis 11/4 - Fox 8/1 - Clarke 14/1.


Fox should do better than many forecasts suggest as he takes on board some of those covertly fleeing from Davis' rapdily sinking ship.

Liam Fox: "The George Bush of UK politics" (well, thats what they claim.. but they are usually Lib-Dem supporters)


I was impressed at how well Cameron dealt with "the question" question on last Thursday's Question Time, and the audience appeared to be warm towards the tory former Etonian throughout the whole programme, despite QT coming from Stanley, County Durham (which can hardly be considered to be a tory heartland). Rather than the drugs issue hindering his campaign it appears to have actually helped it which is illustrated clearly in the ever-tightening odds on a Cameron victory. In the aftermath of the QT I've become increasingly confident that Cameron will win the leadership vote (as long as he isn't knifed in the back by tactical voting)

Cameron managed to get through the weekend without any of the Sunday papers publishing evidence which could have killed his leadership hopes. He did seem very confident prior to the weekend that nothing was going to trip him up despite the fact that at least two sunday papers were supposedly digging deep to find something incriminating. Maybe he had absolute confidence that there was nothing to be found.

Cameron is the only one of the candidates who will be able lead the tories to an election victory in four years time (with plenty of hard work and a little luck)

Save the Conservative party (from itself)

Vote Cameron!

Here's my prediction for the first round.
Davis 62
Cameron 56
Fox 40
Clarke 38




Bye Bye Ken.

"Super-diversity" and the BBC

I find it odd that this article on the BBC is actually declared as being an "opinion". There seems to be less "opinion" in that article than in most other non-opinion articles on the BBC.

It certainly doesn't compare to this piece by Matt Wells published a couple of weeks ago. Astoundingly that article was published originally without "viewpoint" included in the title. I don't think its original absence was an error. It was more likely to have been deliberate. Only when people started to question such opinionated bilge did they add it to cover themselves. The BBC seems to be increasingly showing its true colours recently. They can't report on anything to do with Bush, or America in general without their biases showing through.

Those at the BBC ought to remember they are supposed to remain impartial.

We don't pay their license tax so that they can shove their one-sided political beliefs down our throats.

Tory leadership election

If you fancy a flutter on the upcoming Tory leadership election these are the latest odds from William Hill.

D Davis
8/13
K Clarke
2/1
D Cameron
6/1
L Fox
14/1
M Rifkind
20/1

It is very possible that any of the top three could win. Those three have their good and bad points. What would be perfect is a mix of all three.

As I've not been taking as much notice of politics and news for a while I think now might be a good time to read up on what's happening. I may even find out what David Cameron stands for before the votes are cast. I personally think the odds on Clarke winning aren't very generous. Shop around! (as they say) I'm sure I glimpsed some bookmaker elsewhere yesterday that was offering 4/1 on him winning, or maybe i just imagined it.

Paddy Power has it as an even closer contest

David Davis
4 - 7
Ken Clarke
2 - 1
David Cameron
4 - 1
Liam Fox
12 - 1
William Hague
16 - 1

If it wasn't for the BBC...

I would be so culturally unaware.

I got my fix of other cultures today (and now i feel good about myself) by clicking a link to an article which was about a new muslim faith centre being opened today somewhere in Britain (probably Cardiff) and Cat Stevens has the honour of opening it. His name isn't Cat anymore of course, it's Yusuf. Yusuf Islam. Every article you read about him has to contain the obligatory "previously known as..." or "formerly known as..." or to a lesser extent, "the artist formerly known as...". He's never going to get away from his past life.

I learned today that Cat, i mean, Yusuf, no I do mean Cat, became a muslim in 1977. Cat is one of the good guys - a moderate muslim. Lets forget the little problem of his [alleged]* funding of middle eastern terrorist groups.

Look, he's a moderate! ok? He is a fine figurehead for moderate muslims. Along with all those other moderates the media refers to who support the killing of innocent jews. Centre director

Sophie Gilliat-Ray said Cardiff was an ideal location for the venture because the city was home to one of the oldest Muslim communities in Britain. "Few people know that the first mosque in the UK was established in Cardiff in 1860," she said.

Wow, that's a long time ago. Maybe only "few" people know that fact because it isn't really relevant to the lives of the average briton in 2005.

Singer Islam opens faith centre

I think i'll go and impress people with my cardiff mosque knowledge now to show how culturally aware i am.

*I inserted [alleged] last. You can never be too careful.

I still haven't written the article promised in the last post. Be patient!

Tensions in Basra

Apparently two British soldiers were arrested yesterday in Basra for allegedly shooting at policemen (maybe they had good reason) and ended up in the hands of Shia militants. (Although, there does seem to be slightly differing accounts about what exactly happened, but isn't there always)

Dramatic stuff
All hell broke loose as tanks, armoured vehicles, and helicopters descended upon the police station where they had been held. But the soliders were no longer being held there (according to the Times and the BBC) and had been handed over to Shia militia. No doubt those at the police station quickly decided it was in their best interests to co-operate with people who had just come crashing through the walls in their tanks (it was an accident says the MOD and the mass escape of prisoners wasn't part of the plan) and they generously gave them information which led to the rescue operation being successfully completed at a nearby house just a few hours after the soliders had been seized.

Whilst all this was going on an angry mob saw an opportunity to express themselves by throwing petrol bombs at the armoured vehicles, with their occupants having to make a swift exit. (as is clearly evident in the above picture) and the video footage.

The Telegraph
Troops free SAS men from jail

I am always amused by the BBC and its habit of not publishing little facts that other news sources do. Nowhere on the page of the BBC article do they mention that the soldiers were special forces. The nearest they get to this is in a caption under a picture of the soliders whilst in captivity where it says "British officials would not say if the two men were working undercover"
A good clue might be in the fact that the MOD requested the media to conceal their identities.

We might be in an age where news arrives on our screens within minutes (or as it's happpening) but there are still times that you can find crucial little facts published, dare i say, in the Sun, many hours, or even days before the BBC touches them. The SAS example maybe minor in the grand scheme of things, but many more obvious examples are commonplace. The BBC isn't always so backward with delivering details, though, which brings me on neatly to my next post.

Not so neatly as i'd like, as i haven't written it yet.

Success!

I have somehow managed to add links! It's quite an achievement due to the fact this template doesn't have them pre-inserted. The longer i've been using the net and computers the more technologically incompetent i've become. I hate technology and technology hates me.

Am i back?

I do believe i am.

Blair's plane struck by lightning

So... Lightning does strike twice. First time being when he flew to Washington two years ago.

"BBC producer Will Walden said many of the journalists were asleep when the incident happened over London at about 1400 BST."

Is that what journalists usually do at two o'clock in the afternoon in the middle of a general election campaign? Haven't they got articles that need to be written and tight deadlines to be met? People generally sleep at night, and, as campaigning in the middle of the night is likely to be rather scarce wouldn't that be a good time to sleep?

One journalist was talking privately to Mr Blair and when she suggested the lightning strike could have been a missile, the Labour leader just shrugged his shoulders and "didn't bat an eyelid".

Sounds like Blair was asleep too.

Breaking news

There's been a defection from labour to the Lib Dems today.

It's Brian Sedgemore! What a shock. Can you believe it... i can't. Who would have thought that good ol' redder than red Brian would ever leave the bosom of the Labour party.

Hmmm... but wait a minute. Who the hell is Brian Sedgemore? I've never heard of him, and i don't think anyone else has either. Even the deputy Prime minister (that's John Prescott if you'd forgotten.. i regularly forget that Prescott even exists) claims he's never heard of him (slight exaggeration there, John?)

This is a non-story. No one will remember who Brian Sedgemore is in a week's time. They didn't know who he was last week and they won't know who he is next week.

I don't know which constituency he represented for 27 years. It's irrelevant anyway when you learn that he isn't even standing at this election. Do the lib dems believe that his defection will bring their party more votes? They can't seriously think that.

The headline on this story should be...
"Some former labour old codger emerges from the woodwork of the backbenches and tells us to vote for the nice Mr. Kennedy and not the nasty lying Tory Blair"

It's a non-story. If he had been a candidate at this election then it would have carried more weight, but he knows he has got nothing to lose. Most importantly... his seat.

Brian whatshisname asks Charlie Kennedy "who am i?" while Charlie looks on with a blank expression on his face.

No hair today... political career gone tomorrow

Oh no... It's back. I thought it had receded, but the importance of politicians' hair upon their electoral success has been brought to my attention again.

Bald truth about attracting voters

Apparently bald/balding politicians are at a major disadvantage. So my tongue-in-cheek remarks in the past about women voting for the party leader with the best hair-do may well contain some truth. Not that that little theory was my own creation, the mainstream media helpfully tipped me off a couple of elections ago. As the Blair/New Labour image machine sparked into life in the mid-90s it brought with it an increased focus on image rather than the substance of party policies.

Some might think i'm being sexist. If so, then i blame the BBC et al for bringing this image thing up at every election. I honestly don't believe that male voters' (in general) have their opinions swayed a great deal by how a politcian looks. You only have to look at the evidence from past elections to see that that belief holds water (and plenty of it).

It was Blair that increased the number of women voting for his party. Obviously Neil Kinnock just didn't appeal to them. (Thatcher's hair was clarly something Kinnock just couldn't compete with)

I mean, just look at the evidence.

Poor guy, he never had a chance did he.

What was Labour thinking of. They let a bald man lead their party to 3 consecutive general election defeats and even when he almost got Labour into govt they threw it away at the last minute with the victory celebration (otherwise known as the Sheffield rally, the night before the polls opened). Looking back it's hard to figure out why Kinnock was leader for so long. Was there no one else seen as being a suitable leader? (a bit like a latter day tory party). At least with the tories you know they will elect a new leader after every defeat. So that's something to look forward to.

Hair apparent (sorry I couldn't resist it)
If hair really is so important then I suggest Michael Howard resigns immediately and...

Step forth Mr. Boris Johnson... your country needs you!

It's ok Boris, Mr. Howard probably won't stand down yet.. at least not for a few days.

The blatant bias of the BBC

The news that BBC employees provided microphones for hecklers during a speech last Wednesday by Tory leader Michael Howard is absolutely scandalous! Heads should roll, and not just of those immediately involved. This incident goes to show how virulent the culture of left-wing bias is in the corporation which is supposed to be politically impartial, but time and time again evidence shows that this obviously isn't the case.

Two of the slogans the hecklers were shouting were....

"Michael Howard is a liar"

"You can only trust Tony Blair"

Yeah, maybe they're right. That's the kind of guy that Blair is. Trustworthy.

(don't mention the dossier)

The conservatives have made a complaint. A letter of complaint to the BBC. They should be making this into a much bigger issue. The letter should be just the beginning.

They claim the BBC equipped three hecklers at the meeting in Horwich near Bolton last Wednesday with microphones to “generate a false news story...and embarrass or ridicule the leader of the Conservative Party”.

Tories Accuse BBC of Bias after Hecklers Target Howard

The tories haven't got a chance of electoral victory when they're not only fighting Labour, but also the BBC. It's about time the BBC balanced the political leanings of it's employees a little more evenly. It's well known that a large percentage of BBC staff are on the left of politics, and those in the minority who are more conservative generally keep their heads down.

It's not always easy to figure out what is bias and what isn't. It's hard to prove that a specific article is biased. In my opinion the BBC is as biased as they think they can get away with. Subtle propaganda is probably the most effective, as it can be drip fed to the masses much of the time.

The BBC does report the heckling story on the election page but it's only a text link.
Tory anger over BBC heckler show

The scandal is more important than that. It should be the top story.