The Guardian today published a photo of a bit of derelict yard where kids had been playing, as evidence that because of cuts the local council – Blackburn – could not afford a proper playground.
The reason Blackburn council cannot afford a proper playground is nothing to do with cuts. It is because. like most local governments in this country, it blows far too much money on the excellent lifestyles of fatcat senior officers. In the town hall of Blackburn there are an astonishing 16 council officers on over £75,000 per year plus allowances, gold-plated pension, car and benefits.
The chief executive is paid more than the Prime Minister. A council deputy leisure centre manager in Blackburn gets £42,000. A friend of mine is deputy food and beverages manager at a famous Central London hotel – he gets £26,000.
Yesterday saw the British establishment through pomp and show, and a display of jewels looted with violence and rape from foreign cities, announcing policies to worsen the lives of the poorest on benefits, and clamp down further on the immigrants who do so much to keep this ailing economy active. But despite their willingness to attack the vulnerable poor or foreign, what the political class do not do is attack their own. The point of the state is to divert money from the taxpayer to the political class and their paymasters.
The high-ups in Blackburn Council may be bottom feeders within that system of privilege, but boy! their bottoms are certainly getting fed. Doubtless they all take the Guardian, the newspaper of those “living high off the taxpayer” classes. Maybe they could have a whip round from their inflated salaries and build a little playground?
@Habbabkuk
1/ Her Majesty shouldn’t wear a crown when opening a session of Parliament.
2/. She should wear a cheap one.
3/. Free crowns should be distributed to all residents of the UK (includong illegal immigrants, of course.
4/. The crown should be sold and the money raised go towards reducing the state deficit.
All four of your guesses are wide of the mark, but still excellent ideas in their own right. Perhaps with the exception of the first which would be better expressed ‘Her Majesty shouldn’t exist, but if she did she should have no business opening a session of Parliament, but if she did, she might as well wear a silly crown.’
Anyway, you are getting warmer, keep going.
‘Thanks in advance, King! (better change that handle!)’
I’m afraid you’ll have to take that one up with my handle’s bestower: the literary reviewer of the Sunday Telegraph.
@ Indigo :
“Why ask me? How would I know. Ask her”
——
Terribly sorry! It was just that since
– the original poster never answers questions,
and more importantly
– you saw fit to invite yourself into the ‘conversation’
I thought you might care to answer on her behalf.
@ poster at 12h54 today :
“MPs have in the past asked in the Commons whether Geidt – now the Queen’s private secretary – was a member of MI6”
And what was the answer? Why is it important, what would it matter and what conclusions should be drawn from this if it’s true?
————
“PS The RI knows very well that I will never engage in useless circular conversations which would fill up Craig’s blog to no purpose.”
I think that that’s code for ‘I never answer questions about my comments nor justify them nor tell readers what I think could be inferred from them’, isn’t it?
I would add that the poster at 12h54 certainly knows a thing or to about filling up Craig’s bandwidth (whether on-topic of off) 🙂
I’m usually amazed at Craig’s posts, which so often express my opinions. Uncanny. Not this time.
I used to be a Councillor in a London borough and, for a time, Chair of Development. I was in close contact with the Director of Development and his Assistant Directors and met with the Chief Executive frequently. They had studied long and hard for their qualifications and worked tirelessly in their posts. The DD had assembled an excellent team and ensured that his department worked efficiently and effectively. There were no passengers.
They treated all Councillors from whatever party, with respect and consideration, it was not always reciprocated. Indeed, both Chief officers were booted out after I moved on because they had too much integrity.
I do not accept that the job of Deputy Director of Leisure is in any way comparable to any job in a hotel.
We all think we are experts in every aspect of the work of Local Government and are implacably convinced, that any Council Officer who does not see things in quite the way we do, is blind, ignorant, incompetent and probably corrupt.
Councillors are elected to represent the general public, with all their faults. They want Officers who, unquestioningly do their bidding, no matter how unreasonable or, sometimes, illegal. Lady Porter in Westminster showed the dangers of that.
The more intelligent Councillors eventually discover that things are not so simple, but, in the meantime, they have probably sacked a number of perfectly good Council Officers because they were too “obstructive”.
Thatcher’s belief that nothing had any value unless it produced a private profit, did much to damage the public service ethic.
Public servants should have respect and be well paid. Job security should be earned by efficiency, integrity and ability. The top ranks need to attract the best from our universities and colleges; people drawn to public service rather than private profit.
If Council officers are overpaid and underperforming, blame the Councillors. If manual workers are exploited, blame the Councillors. It is their responsibility.
@ KingofWelshNoir :
‘Her Majesty shouldn’t exist, but if she did she should have no business opening a session of Parliament, but if she did, she might as well wear a silly crown.’
————-
Thanks for that, I think we’re advancing.
Just to tease this out a little further
– why should Her Majesty have no business opening a session of Parliament? Is there any particular reason why she should not do so?
– what is specifically silly about the crown worn? Do you object to it for aesthetic reasons? Or does its silliness reside in the fact that it’s worth a lot of money?
Look forward to your considered (and always illuminating) response!
——-
PS – slight correction re your use of the subjunctive, if you permit. The sentence would better read : “Her Majesty shouldn’t exist, but since she does,she should have no business opening a session of Parliamentbut sonce she does, she might as well wear a silly crown”.
Let’s use the Quessn’s English on this blog, shall we? 🙂
and I’ll use the Queen’s spelling 🙂
Questionable behaviour ………..
QUESTION what point is the commenter trying to make?
QUESTION So my question remains. If the answer is so “bleeding obvious”, perhaps you, acting as a surrogate for the original poster, could spell it out for us?
QUESTION But she IS the Queen in waiting, isn’t she?
QUESTION But more importantly, could you perhaps, acting as the original poster’s surrogate, try to explain what her point was?
QUESTIONS What precisely are we supposed to deduce from that? Could it perhaps be that:
1/. Her Majesty shouldn’t wear a crown when opening a session of Parliament.
2/. She should wear a cheap one.
3/. Free crowns should be distributed to all residents of the UK (includong illegal immigrants, of course.
4/. The crown should be sold and the money raised go towards reducing the state deficit.
QUESTION But if that’s the case, why on earth was the poster at 09h05 going on about ‘Queens in waiting’ and Camilla being ‘positioned’ or ‘positioning herself’ to be Queen?
QUESTION What point was the post trying to make (were it any other poster, I should have dismissed the comment as mere spite, but given the identity of the poster, that couldn’t have been the reason, could it)?
QUESTION And what was the answer?
QUESTION Why is it important, what would it matter and what conclusions should be drawn from this if it’s true?
QUESTION I think that that’s code for ‘I never answer questions about my comments nor justify them nor tell readers what I think could be inferred from them’, isn’t it?
QUESTION – why should Her Majesty have no business opening a session of Parliament?
QUESTION Is there any particular reason why she should not do so?
QUESTION – what is specifically silly about the crown worn?
QUESTION Do you object to it for aesthetic reasons?
QUESTION Or does its silliness reside in the fact that it’s worth a lot of money
@Habbabkuk
The crown is silly in the same way that epaulettes and gold braid are silly; the way swagger sticks and periwigs are silly; the way hotel doormen in buckled shoes are silly, and the way the acres of medals that periodically appear across the chest of that renowned man of arms, Prince Charles, are silly. It is silly the way bishops are silly, the ones who purport to represent a humble carpenter’s son who preached poverty, meekness and humility, and yet dress themselves in gold and finery; silly the way young men give their lives up for a piece of tin hanging from a ribbon; silly because it symbolises the pathetic pomposity and vanity of men who believe a piece of gold braid means they are special; and silly in that the crown embodies the daftest notion on the planet, namely that this family of German carpet-baggers are destined to rule over us and live in splendour at our expense by dint of some supposed genetic licence given to them by God.
@ A Node :
Thank you for listing all the legitimate questions arising from a couple of posts from some of the usual Eminences.
And now….the answers?
@ KingofWelshNoir :
Leaving aside the fact that answering a question like “why is the crown silly” by commenting “because epaulettes and gold braid are silly”, etc, is not really a very persuasive answer, I note from your screed that you appear to have something against uniforms, decorations and gold braid.
But why?
@ KingofWelshNoir:
” the crown embodies the daftest notion on the planet, namely that this family of German carpet-baggers are destined to rule over us….”
I see that you have used the superlative (“daftest”).
This means that you think that there is no notion on this planet which is dafter than that of the British royal family.
That,if I may say so, is itself a daft statement. And certainly the daftest one on this particular thread.
(But of course I know you’re just trying to pull my leg, you old devil! 🙂
Habba,
Could it be that you are the one who wrote to Tampax complaining that you had been using their products for years, but still could not swim, ride a horse or a bicycle?
Or, for that matter, spell, read or write?!
So, do you usually read your own posts after the event? Why not read them before? Why not also think before you speak or write? Anything to do with toilet training? Hope not! And if so, its never too late to correct it now. Life IS beautiful, but it is also long — long enough to sort yourself out. Perhaps it is one’s main purpose?
I once read a bumper-sticker which read “Windsurfer’s do it Standing Up!”. Wonder if all your stand-up (and be counted) crapping here is not your main problem.
Life IS good and its good to reflect on life.
Btw, Sophie seems to have turned out alright?
When I was a youngster, my brothers and I would walk 2km to the local dump and play amongst the filth and discarded treasures from our much better off neighbours. We called it ‘having fun’. These days, mum takes an anti-depressant pill, gives Billy his tantrum-calming medication and they both go off to a sterile, govt constructed playground with all its gaudy colours and ‘child-safe’, govt-approved equipment imported from socialist Sweden. How things have changed.
The details of being ‘force fed’ and its effects are shocking. Note the deprivations of soap and bedding too.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/death-is-preferable-to-life-at-obamas-guantanamo/5334556
‘Although a few days after his first inauguration, Obama promised to shutter Guantanamo, it remains open. “I continue to believe that we’ve got to close Guantanamo,” Obama declared in his April 30 press conference. But, he added, “Congress determined that they would not let us close it.” Obama signed a bill that Congress passed which erected barriers to closure. According to a Los Angeles Times editorial, “Obama has refused to expend political capital on closing Guantanamo. Rather than veto the defense authorization bills that have limited his ability to transfer inmates, he has signed them while raising questions about whether they intruded on his constitutional authority.”
“I don’t want these individuals to die,” Obama told reporters. In fact, Obama has the power to save the hunger strikers’ lives without torturing them. Eighty-six – more than half – of the detainees remaining at Guantanamo have been cleared for release for the past three years.’
Obama is a hollow vessel.
“Obama is a hollow vessel.”
Maybe, but unlike the poster at 08h27 and others of her ilk he – and other public figures – actually have to act, make choices and take decisions (and therefore also run the rusk of making mistakes) rather than just bitch, whine and jeer from the sidelines.
I was not aware that the CoE was a ‘business’!
Canterbury Cathedral may ‘close for business’ after losing lottery bid
Christchurch Gate, which acts as the cathedral’s entrance, is particularly vulnerable to erosion
Godwine Charter to go on display
In pictures: Archbishop enthroned
Is the archbishop ‘for’ Canterbury?
Canterbury Cathedral has said it may have to close to visitors after it missed out on £10m of lottery funding.
/..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-22500071
‘Around 15 per cent (over £160 million) comes from the Church Commissioners who manage assets of £4.4 billion (at the end of 2008) on behalf of the Church:
•
Over the past ten years, the Church Commissioners achieved an average annual return of 5.7 per cent on their investments, substantially outperforming the comparator index of more than 200 similar funds.’
http://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/facts-stats/funding.aspx
Has anyone noticed this;
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bedroom-tax-victim-commits-suicide-1883600
My parents were born in 1901 and 1904 and lived through the Crash of the 20s and 30s. It was caused in the same way as the crash of 2008 i.e. banks recklessly speculating and losing other peoples’ money while paying bankers vast sums for their incompetence. The response of the Tories and most of Labour was also the same, make the poorest pay.
Dr Simon Duffy of Birmingham University has shown that, on average the poorest 10% pay 45% of all their income in taxes, a much greater proportion than any other sector. This will increase now that more will have to pay a portion of Council Tax.
My parents hated Tories and Toryism with a deep and bitter hatred. What we are seeing now is that leopards do not change their spots.
Let them shut Canterbury Cathedral. Why should these CoE leeches, sitting on such investments, get their hands on gambling money mostly spent by poor people.
Why can gamblers not opt for worthy causes, rather than being nannied by the Government on what to spend it?
If churches are not sustainable and their flock not dedicated enough to pay for the upkeep of their holiest of houses, why should lottery players come up with the cash, when many of them are not connected to CoE or other religions taking cash from gambling.
Its like the sheriff of Nottingham is running the church.
And Obama is as hollow as his words sound these days, a man who is working to preserve war and military expenditure. He is too weak to stand up to fascists like Netanyahu or the NSA in his own country.
Quite agree there Nevermind. Where is Jesus to cast out the moneylenders when you want him? A long distance away from Welby & Co.
Blegburnduddoo I thought it was extremely sad to hear of that woman’s suicide. Sky News have been at great pains to emphasize the Samaritans’ comment that suicide is committed for more than one reason. What do the well paid reporters and presenters on Sky News know about someone’s desperation?
It’s ‘controversial’ according to their Ms Ridge.
http://news.sky.com/story/1089813/bedroom-tax-blamed-for-womans-suicide
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/thread/1368346374.html
Discussion on Medialens.
By the by and seen on a hoarding at Zurich railway station.
‘Every day Israel abuses Palestinians’ human rights
65 years of Israel, 65 years injustice to the Palestinians
In Great Britain there are now Jews who say:”It’s kosher to boycott Israeli goods” ‘
http://www.flickr.com/photos/95647039@N05/8730204219/in/photostream
Ref. the downplaying of the reason for that suicide –
The Samaritans’ CEO on ITV’s Daybreak here http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-05-02/samaritans-economic-crisis/
According to their accounts, the highest paid employee, who I assume is the CEO, receives between £120-£130k. Their total income and expenditure is over £11m, just under £1m of which comes from HMG and other state bodies and they spend £2.5m on generating income!
£4.1m expenditure goes on staff costs.
My late husband was a Samaritan. He used to go off to do overnight duty on a rota. It was more of a ‘brown paper and string’ set up in those days I think compared to the present day ‘bells and whistles’ version. The local branch raised its own funding.
http://www.samaritans.org/about-us/our-organisation
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends32/0000219432_ac_20120331_e_c.pdf
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=219432&SubsidiaryNumber=0
Blegburnduddoo 12 May, 2013 – 12:34 pm
”
I believe this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the true situation. Financial crashes are deliberately caused by manipulation of the money supply – they are not accidents. The bankers do not recklessly speculate – they follow a strategy designed to cause a crash. They are not rewarded despite their incompetence, they are rewarded for their competence in causing a crash.
The bankers don’t just control the money supply, they create the money supply. All central banking uses the fractional reserve system whereby they can lend out more than they have on deposit. Usually, for every one pound/dollar they have in the bank, they can lend out ten. If you go to the bank and borrow a thousand pounds, they don’t transfer it from some account to you, they just create it out of nothing and lend it to you. This means that when the bankers make a lot of loans, there is plenty of money in the system and everybody is wealthy, but when they stop lending, the money supply dries up as people repay their previous loans. This is called boom and bust and it is the bankers’ major tool of control.
It sounds incredible but it really is (nearly) that simple. Money is the key to understanding the world today.
Here’s an excellent video that spells it out very clearly and easily ….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqvKjsIxT_8
…. and if that whets your appetite for a more comprehensive analysis, I recommend:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U71-KsDArFM
John Adams , founding father of the American constitution
― James Garfield assassinated president of the USA
William Lyon Mackenzie King, former Prime Minister of Canada
Sir Josiah Stamp (attributed) (A director of the Bank of England in the 1920s)
Thomas Jefferson
@ the Obsessive Poster at 13h59 today gets it wrong and/or twists the facts again in one and the same para :
“Sky News have been at great pains to emphasize the Samaritans’ comment that suicide is committed for more than one reason. What do the well paid reporters and presenters on Sky News know about someone’s desperation?”
———
Sky News is not claiming “to know” anything, it is reporting something the Samaritans said.
Which is presumably why the Obsessive Poster’s next post is about the Samaritans.
@ A Node :
OK, so short of abolishing money (which I suppose even you wouldn’t be in favour of), what is the solution to this grave problem you point to at such length?
Thank you.
“Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of sovereignty of Parliament and of democracy is idle and futile… Once a nation parts with control of its credit, it matters not who makes the nation’s laws… Usury once in control will wreck any nation.”
William Lyon Mackenzie King, former Prime Minister of Canada
Banks create money and control nations. This used to be much better known than it is now. The American War of Independence was not about slavery …. it was for control of the money supply. Lincoln was fighting for the right of America to create its own currency. He was fighting against the European bankers. Lincoln won, but it was short lived. Soon after, the bankers formed the privately owned Federal Reserve, and from that moment onwards, every dollar created has been lent to the USA … with interest!
“The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing.”
William Paterson, founder of the Bank of England in 1694, then a privately owned bank.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.”
Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.”
The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can and do create money. And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hand the destiny of the people.”
Reginald McKenna, as Chairman of the Midland Bank, addressing stockholders in 1924.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Money plays the largest part in determining the course of history.”
Karl Marx writing in the Communist Manifesto (1848).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To be clear, the first paragraph above is my words, the others are quotes.
@ A Node :
Interesting quotations, but still no answer to my question at 16h03 as far as I can see.
Unless your answer is in the following, from your quotation at 16h48 :
“Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government”
If this is so, (1) what does that actually mean and, specifically, what does that mean in practice? and (2) can you nominate any UK government since WW2 to whom you would have happily entrusted this “sacred responsibility” as Mackenzie King called it?
What dictates the course of history?
It’s not politicians – the bankers appoint politicians
It’s not the oil industry – the bankers own the oil industry
It’s not the military – the bankers fund the wars
It’s not scientific advancement – the bankers control the direction of research
It’s not the ordinary people? – the bankers have made us ignorant and docile
It’s the bankers
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The government should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers. By adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity.”
Abraham Lincoln, US President 1861-5. He created government issue money during the American Civil War and was assassinated.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The death of Lincoln was a disaster for Christendom. There was no man in the United States great enough to wear his boots and the bankers went anew to grab the riches. I fear that foreign bankers with their craftiness and tortuous tricks will entirely control the exuberant riches of America and use it to systematically corrupt civilisation.”
Otto von Bismark (1815-1898), German Chancellor, after the Lincoln assassination.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“If the American people ever allow private banks to control issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations will grow up around them, will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”
Thomas Jefferson in the debate over The Re-charter of the Bank Bill (1809).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.”
Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of France.
@ A Node :
Oh, I get it at last. The solution is : abolish the banks and bankers.
That’s very helpful – and practical.
What a shame that all the great (and powerful) men you quote with such admiration didn’t get round to doing it!
There must have been a little snag somewhere…..