Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Coffee Shop Bredgar
On a lighter note for those who live in the Sittingbourne Area can I suggest you visit the Coffee Shop in Bredgar near the Duck Pond lovely little place especially in the Summer Tell them I sent you
Monday, March 29, 2010
Town Hall Nazis
As the eletion looms the articles in Newspapers become better and the reporting on BBC4 becomes more aggressive to the Torries I wonder why. I love this article by Richard LittleJohn
I never imagined the town hall Nazis would go quite so madBy Richard Littlejohn
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1261423/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-I-imagined-town-hall-Nazis-quite-mad.html#ixzz0jZcrhGdl
I never imagined the town hall Nazis would go quite so madBy Richard Littlejohn
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1261423/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-I-imagined-town-hall-Nazis-quite-mad.html#ixzz0jZcrhGdl
Sunday, March 28, 2010
No to English Speaker
Dear Editor
One of my Tenants went for a Job on the Isle of Grain he was asked if he could speak Spanish or Polish he replied he could not, He was refused the job because the majority did not speak English therefore he could be a danger to the work force.
So now being English and living in England is a hindrance if you only speak English!
Do you blame the Spanish and Polish Workers NO the blame must be with the Government and Employers most who are English, who will pay these workers a pittance compared to English Workers. The English employers should hang their heads in shame as they greed is putting fellow Englishman on the bread line. Where are the Unions instead of getting well paid Cabin Crew to strike how about supporting the English Unemployed?
Martin Clarke Sittingbourne
One of my Tenants went for a Job on the Isle of Grain he was asked if he could speak Spanish or Polish he replied he could not, He was refused the job because the majority did not speak English therefore he could be a danger to the work force.
So now being English and living in England is a hindrance if you only speak English!
Do you blame the Spanish and Polish Workers NO the blame must be with the Government and Employers most who are English, who will pay these workers a pittance compared to English Workers. The English employers should hang their heads in shame as they greed is putting fellow Englishman on the bread line. Where are the Unions instead of getting well paid Cabin Crew to strike how about supporting the English Unemployed?
Martin Clarke Sittingbourne
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
Married Couples stay together longrer
As some one who has been married for 40 years I obviously believe in it so I was pleased to see the following article in the Mail
Cohabiting couples twice as likely to part as married partners
By Steve Doughty
Statistics show that couples who live together are twice as likely to break up as married partners
Couples who live together are twice as likely to break up as married partners, according to an official analysis.
The survey of hundreds of thousands of families found that four out of five married couples were still together after ten years.
But in the same period two out of five cohabiting couples had parted.
Another two in five had cemented their partnership by marrying, and only one in five were still living together.
The study by the Office for National Statistics said that marriage was more stable than cohabitation even when outside factors that might influence the fate of the relationship were considered.
This means that married couples are more likely to stay together than cohabitees regardless of their age and whether they have children, and no matter the state of their health, their level of education, their social class or whether or not they had a job.
The finding undermines the claim of ministers that marriages are no more stable than informal partnerships once the influence of age and status is taken into account.
In January, Children's Secretary Ed Balls, who is leading Labour's campaign against Conservative plans to give tax breaks to married couples, said: 'Once you adjust for the fact that people who are married tend to marry older, be better educated and have higher incomes, you find it is not the legal form, it is the strength and stability of the relationship which is most important.'
The study was based on more than 750,000 couples who filled in the census in both 1991 and 2001.
It found that 18 per cent of those who were married in 1991 were living apart ten years later, compared to 39 per cent of the cohabitees.
More...The infidelity map of England: Study reveals where unfaithful spouses live
Among the cohabiting couples, 22 per cent were still cohabiting with the same man or woman and 39 per cent had married their partner.
One in ten of the cohabitees of 1991 were living with someone else by 2001, and another one in ten were married to someone else.
More than one in five, 21 per cent, were living without a partner. This figure was more than twice as high as the one in ten of separated husbands and wives who were living on their own in 2001.
The ONS said the reason for the success of marriage might be that people who want, or are capable of, sustaining long-term partnerships are more likely to marry.
'Those adults who are more likely to have stable relationships may also be more likely to marry rather than cohabit,' it suggested.
'Married and cohabiting populations have different characteristics and it may be these different characteristics rather than the partnership arrangements themselves that result in the differences in stability,' the report added.
Decades of research have shown that children from single parent or broken families are more likely then others to do badly at school, suffer ill health and fall into crime, drug abuse and unemployment when they become adults.
Jill Kirby of the centre-right think tank Centre for Policy Studies said: 'Cohabitation is no substitute for marriage.
'The assumption that marriage makes no difference to family stability is clearly wrong.
'The best prospect for children is growing up with both parents, and the best guarantee of that is for those parents to be married.'
Cohabiting couples twice as likely to part as married partners
By Steve Doughty
Statistics show that couples who live together are twice as likely to break up as married partners
Couples who live together are twice as likely to break up as married partners, according to an official analysis.
The survey of hundreds of thousands of families found that four out of five married couples were still together after ten years.
But in the same period two out of five cohabiting couples had parted.
Another two in five had cemented their partnership by marrying, and only one in five were still living together.
The study by the Office for National Statistics said that marriage was more stable than cohabitation even when outside factors that might influence the fate of the relationship were considered.
This means that married couples are more likely to stay together than cohabitees regardless of their age and whether they have children, and no matter the state of their health, their level of education, their social class or whether or not they had a job.
The finding undermines the claim of ministers that marriages are no more stable than informal partnerships once the influence of age and status is taken into account.
In January, Children's Secretary Ed Balls, who is leading Labour's campaign against Conservative plans to give tax breaks to married couples, said: 'Once you adjust for the fact that people who are married tend to marry older, be better educated and have higher incomes, you find it is not the legal form, it is the strength and stability of the relationship which is most important.'
The study was based on more than 750,000 couples who filled in the census in both 1991 and 2001.
It found that 18 per cent of those who were married in 1991 were living apart ten years later, compared to 39 per cent of the cohabitees.
More...The infidelity map of England: Study reveals where unfaithful spouses live
Among the cohabiting couples, 22 per cent were still cohabiting with the same man or woman and 39 per cent had married their partner.
One in ten of the cohabitees of 1991 were living with someone else by 2001, and another one in ten were married to someone else.
More than one in five, 21 per cent, were living without a partner. This figure was more than twice as high as the one in ten of separated husbands and wives who were living on their own in 2001.
The ONS said the reason for the success of marriage might be that people who want, or are capable of, sustaining long-term partnerships are more likely to marry.
'Those adults who are more likely to have stable relationships may also be more likely to marry rather than cohabit,' it suggested.
'Married and cohabiting populations have different characteristics and it may be these different characteristics rather than the partnership arrangements themselves that result in the differences in stability,' the report added.
Decades of research have shown that children from single parent or broken families are more likely then others to do badly at school, suffer ill health and fall into crime, drug abuse and unemployment when they become adults.
Jill Kirby of the centre-right think tank Centre for Policy Studies said: 'Cohabitation is no substitute for marriage.
'The assumption that marriage makes no difference to family stability is clearly wrong.
'The best prospect for children is growing up with both parents, and the best guarantee of that is for those parents to be married.'
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Teaching maths
Maths in the UK
1. Teaching Maths In 1970
A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100.
His cost of production is 4/5 of the price.
What is his profit?
2. Teaching Maths In 1980
A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100.
His cost of production is 80% of the price.
What is his profit?
3. Teaching Maths In 1990
A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100.
His cost of production is £80.
How much was his profit?
4. Teaching Maths In 2000
A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100.
His cost of production is £80 and his profit is £20.
Your assignment: Underline the number 20.
5. Teaching Maths In 2005
A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habit of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. Your assignment: Discuss how the birds and squirrels might feel as the logger cut down their homes just for a measly profit of £20.
6. Teaching Maths In 2009
A logger is arrested for trying to cut down a tree in case it may be offensive to Muslims or other religious groups not consulted in the felling licence. He is also fined a £100 as his chainsaw is in breach of Health and Safety legislation as it deemed too dangerous and could cut something. He has used the chainsaw for over 20 years without incident, however he does not have the correct certificate of competence and is therefore considered to be a recidivist and habitual criminal. His DNA is sampled and his details circulated throughout all government agencies. He protests and is taken to court and fined another £100 because he is such an easy target. When he is released he returns to find Gypsies have cut down half his wood to build a camp on his land. He tries to throw them off but is arrested, prosecuted for harassing an ethnic minority, imprisoned and fined a further £100. While he is in jail the Gypsies cut down the rest of his wood and sell it on the black market for £100 cash. They also have a leaving Barbeque of squirrel and pheasant and depart leaving behind several tonnes of rubbish and asbestos sheeting. The forester on release is warned that failure to clear the fly tipped rubbish immediately at his own cost is an offence. He complains and is arrested for environmental pollution, breach of the peace and invoiced £12,000 plus VAT for safe disposal costs by a regulated government contractor.
Your assignment: How many times is the logger going to have to be arrested and fined before he realises that he is never going to make £20 profit by hard work, give up, sign onto the dole and live off the state for the rest of his life?
7. Teaching Maths In 2010
A logger doesn’t sell a lorry load of timber because he can’t get a loan to buy a new lorry because his bank has spent all his and their money on a derivative of securitised debt, related to sub-prime mortgages in Alabama and lost the lot, with only some government money left to pay a few million pound bonuses to their senior directors and the traders who made the biggest losses.
The logger struggles to pay the £1,200 road tax on his old lorry however, as it was built in the 1970s it no longer meets the emissions regulations and he is forced to scrap it.
Some Bulgarian loggers buy the lorry from the scrap merchant and put it back on the road. They undercut everyone on price for haulage and send their cash back home, while claiming unemployment for themselves and their relatives. If questioned they speak no English and it is easier to deport them at the governments expense. Following their holiday back home they return to the UK with different names and fresh girls and start again. The logger protests, is accused of being a bigoted racist and as his name is on the side of his old lorry he is forced to pay £1,500 registration fees as a gang master.
The Government borrows more money to pay more to the bankers as bonus's are not cheap. The parliamentarians feel they are missing out and claim the difference on expenses and allowances.
You do the maths.
8. Teaching Maths 2017
أ المسجل تبيع حموله شاحنة من الخشب من اجل 100 دولار. صاحب تكلفة الانت=D 8ج من
الثمن
1. Teaching Maths In 1970
A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100.
His cost of production is 4/5 of the price.
What is his profit?
2. Teaching Maths In 1980
A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100.
His cost of production is 80% of the price.
What is his profit?
3. Teaching Maths In 1990
A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100.
His cost of production is £80.
How much was his profit?
4. Teaching Maths In 2000
A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100.
His cost of production is £80 and his profit is £20.
Your assignment: Underline the number 20.
5. Teaching Maths In 2005
A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habit of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. Your assignment: Discuss how the birds and squirrels might feel as the logger cut down their homes just for a measly profit of £20.
6. Teaching Maths In 2009
A logger is arrested for trying to cut down a tree in case it may be offensive to Muslims or other religious groups not consulted in the felling licence. He is also fined a £100 as his chainsaw is in breach of Health and Safety legislation as it deemed too dangerous and could cut something. He has used the chainsaw for over 20 years without incident, however he does not have the correct certificate of competence and is therefore considered to be a recidivist and habitual criminal. His DNA is sampled and his details circulated throughout all government agencies. He protests and is taken to court and fined another £100 because he is such an easy target. When he is released he returns to find Gypsies have cut down half his wood to build a camp on his land. He tries to throw them off but is arrested, prosecuted for harassing an ethnic minority, imprisoned and fined a further £100. While he is in jail the Gypsies cut down the rest of his wood and sell it on the black market for £100 cash. They also have a leaving Barbeque of squirrel and pheasant and depart leaving behind several tonnes of rubbish and asbestos sheeting. The forester on release is warned that failure to clear the fly tipped rubbish immediately at his own cost is an offence. He complains and is arrested for environmental pollution, breach of the peace and invoiced £12,000 plus VAT for safe disposal costs by a regulated government contractor.
Your assignment: How many times is the logger going to have to be arrested and fined before he realises that he is never going to make £20 profit by hard work, give up, sign onto the dole and live off the state for the rest of his life?
7. Teaching Maths In 2010
A logger doesn’t sell a lorry load of timber because he can’t get a loan to buy a new lorry because his bank has spent all his and their money on a derivative of securitised debt, related to sub-prime mortgages in Alabama and lost the lot, with only some government money left to pay a few million pound bonuses to their senior directors and the traders who made the biggest losses.
The logger struggles to pay the £1,200 road tax on his old lorry however, as it was built in the 1970s it no longer meets the emissions regulations and he is forced to scrap it.
Some Bulgarian loggers buy the lorry from the scrap merchant and put it back on the road. They undercut everyone on price for haulage and send their cash back home, while claiming unemployment for themselves and their relatives. If questioned they speak no English and it is easier to deport them at the governments expense. Following their holiday back home they return to the UK with different names and fresh girls and start again. The logger protests, is accused of being a bigoted racist and as his name is on the side of his old lorry he is forced to pay £1,500 registration fees as a gang master.
The Government borrows more money to pay more to the bankers as bonus's are not cheap. The parliamentarians feel they are missing out and claim the difference on expenses and allowances.
You do the maths.
8. Teaching Maths 2017
أ المسجل تبيع حموله شاحنة من الخشب من اجل 100 دولار. صاحب تكلفة الانت=D 8ج من
الثمن
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Friday, March 12, 2010
Read about a Real Man
This is a heart warming story, that came from a friend in CA
The future is not some place we are going, but one we are creating. The paths are not to be found, but made. And the activity of making them changes both the maker and their destination.
-- John Schaar
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're a 19 year old kid. You're critically wounded and dying in the jungle in the Ia Drang Valley , on 11-14-1965, Vietnam . Your infantry unit is outnumbered 8 - 1 and the enemy fire is so intense, from 100 or 200 yards away, that your own Infantry Commander has ordered the MediVac helicopters
to stop coming in.
You're lying there, listening to the enemy machine guns and you know you're not getting out.
Your family is 1/2 way around the world, 12,000 miles away and you'll never see them again.
As the world starts to fade in and out, you know this is the day..
Then - over the machine gun noise - you faintly hear that sound of a helicopter..!
You look up to see an un-armed Huey!! But.... it doesn't seem real because no Medi-Vac markings are on it.
Ed Freeman is coming for you..!!
He's not a Medi-Vac so it's not his job, but he's flying his Huey down into the machine gun fire anyway even after the Medi-Vacs were ordered not to come.
He's coming anyway!
And he drops it in and sits there in the machine gun fire, as they load 2 or 3 of you on board..
Then he flies you up and out through the gunfire to the Doctors and Nurses.
And, he kept coming back..!! 13 more times..!!
He took about 30 of you and your buddies out who would never have gotten out.
Medal of Honor Recipient, Ed Freeman, died last Wednesday at the age of 80 in Boise, ID
May God Rest His Soul..
I bet you didn't hear about this hero's passing, but we've sure seen a whole bunch about Tiger Woods!!!
Housewife gets it right
Thought you might like to read this letter to the editor of a British newspaper~ever notice how some
people just seem to know how to write a letter?.
This one sure does!
Here is a woman who should run for Prime Minister!
Written by a housewife, to her local newspaper. This is one ticked off lady.
“Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was itnot started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September11, 2001 and have continually threatened to do so since?
Were people from al over the world, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from the nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania ?
Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?
And I'm supposed to care that a few Taliban were claiming to be tortured by a justice system of the nation they come from and are fighting against in a brutal insurgency.
I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11..
I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere belief of which is a crime punishable by beheading in Afghanistan
I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.
I'll care when the cowardly so-called 'insurgents' in Afghanistan come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques and behind women and children.
I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.
I'll care when the British media stops pretending that their freedom of speech on stories is more important than the lives of the soldiers on the ground or their families waiting at home to hear about them when something happens.
In the meantime, when I hear a story about a British soldier roughing up an Insurgent
terrorist to obtain information, know this:
I don't care.
When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank:
I don't care.
When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and 'fed special food' that is paid for by my tax is complaining that his holy book is being 'mishandled,' you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts:
I don't care.
And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled 'Koran' and other times'Quran.'
Well, believe me,
You guessed it,
I don't care!!
If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your E-mail friends.
Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behaviour!
If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button. Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great Country!
And may I add:
Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But the Soldiers don't have that problem.
I have another quote that I would like to add, AND.......I hope you forward all this.
Only five defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
1. Jesus Christ
2. The British Soldier.
3. The Canadian Soldier.
4. The US Soldier,
and
5. The Australian Soldier
One died for your soul, the other 4 for your freedom.
YOU MIGHT WANT TO PASS THIS ON, AS MANY SEEM TO FORGET ALL OF THEM.
AMEN!”
GIVE THIS LADY A STANDING OVATION. SHE HAS INDEED TICKED ALL THE BOXES
people just seem to know how to write a letter?.
This one sure does!
Here is a woman who should run for Prime Minister!
Written by a housewife, to her local newspaper. This is one ticked off lady.
“Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was itnot started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September11, 2001 and have continually threatened to do so since?
Were people from al over the world, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from the nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania ?
Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?
And I'm supposed to care that a few Taliban were claiming to be tortured by a justice system of the nation they come from and are fighting against in a brutal insurgency.
I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11..
I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere belief of which is a crime punishable by beheading in Afghanistan
I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.
I'll care when the cowardly so-called 'insurgents' in Afghanistan come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques and behind women and children.
I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.
I'll care when the British media stops pretending that their freedom of speech on stories is more important than the lives of the soldiers on the ground or their families waiting at home to hear about them when something happens.
In the meantime, when I hear a story about a British soldier roughing up an Insurgent
terrorist to obtain information, know this:
I don't care.
When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank:
I don't care.
When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and 'fed special food' that is paid for by my tax is complaining that his holy book is being 'mishandled,' you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts:
I don't care.
And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled 'Koran' and other times'Quran.'
Well, believe me,
You guessed it,
I don't care!!
If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your E-mail friends.
Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behaviour!
If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button. Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great Country!
And may I add:
Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But the Soldiers don't have that problem.
I have another quote that I would like to add, AND.......I hope you forward all this.
Only five defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
1. Jesus Christ
2. The British Soldier.
3. The Canadian Soldier.
4. The US Soldier,
and
5. The Australian Soldier
One died for your soul, the other 4 for your freedom.
YOU MIGHT WANT TO PASS THIS ON, AS MANY SEEM TO FORGET ALL OF THEM.
AMEN!”
GIVE THIS LADY A STANDING OVATION. SHE HAS INDEED TICKED ALL THE BOXES
Monday, March 08, 2010
Gordon Brown Luvs Gypsies
Female campaigner for gipsy rights 'ran £2.6m benefit scam for Romanians'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256175/Campaigner-gipsy-rights-ran-2-6m-benefit-scam.html#ixzz0hZieqGxi
A campaigner for Roma gipsies' rights has been charged with helping scores of Romanians illegally claim millions in benefits.
Lavinia Olmazu, 30, and her boyfriend Alin Enachi, 29, are said to have masterminded a scam by which 172 Romanians claimed £2.6million.
Olmazu, who was arrested last week, was working as an 'inclusivity outreach worker' to Roma gipsies for both Haringey and Waltham Forest councils in North London.
Fake documents: Lavinia Olmazu allegedly helped Romanian migrants to claim millions in benefits
The academic, who has campaigned for greater understanding of gipsy culture, is accused with Enachi of using a supposedly charitable organisation called Roma Concern to help coordinate the fraud.
The couple appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Friday alongside six gipsies, each of whom is alleged to have pocketed thousands of pounds from the scam.
Under rules introduced when Romania joined the EU in 2006, Romanian migrants cannot get a National Insurance number - which is the key to getting benefits - unless they can prove they have paid employment
These Gypies can not help themselves it is in theie culture to lie cheat and steal so why was they let into the country another reason to get rid of this government and come out of the eu
Sunday, March 07, 2010
Cameron luvs Homosexualls
I can not believe that people will still vote Labour and Brown in the next election but according to the Polls it looks as if they will get a victory. One must ask the question could all the immigrants hold the balance of power in a future election? if so was this orchestrated by the Labour party?
But Cameron's does shoot himself in the foot sometimes instead reassuring the Conservative faithful by keeping to some of their values I refer to:
After Tory leader reveals his list of ethnic and gay candidates,
Cameron's Rainbow 1st
In the latest development in his campaign to show how dramatically the Tories have changed, David Cameron has published the party’s first-ever official list of openly gay MPs.
The Conservatives say they have 20 openly gay candidates standing in the Election. Of those, 11 told party chiefs they were ‘happy’ to be named in the first authorised list of gay Conservative candidates.
It has led some to suggest jokingly that the Tories might change the party’s traditional blue colour to the rainbow flag of the gay movement.Who cares what their sexual preferences are what should be said can they do the job, to be honest if I was a Conservative and live in a constituency that had a Parliamentary Candidate imposed by Central Office I would not vote
Our priority is to get rid of this government not mess around with Cameron's new friends
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256098/After-Tory-leader-reveals-list-ethnic-candidates-Camerons-Rainbow-1st-Eleven.html#ixzz0hTlHJ6xU
But Cameron's does shoot himself in the foot sometimes instead reassuring the Conservative faithful by keeping to some of their values I refer to:
After Tory leader reveals his list of ethnic and gay candidates,
Cameron's Rainbow 1st
In the latest development in his campaign to show how dramatically the Tories have changed, David Cameron has published the party’s first-ever official list of openly gay MPs.
The Conservatives say they have 20 openly gay candidates standing in the Election. Of those, 11 told party chiefs they were ‘happy’ to be named in the first authorised list of gay Conservative candidates.
It has led some to suggest jokingly that the Tories might change the party’s traditional blue colour to the rainbow flag of the gay movement.Who cares what their sexual preferences are what should be said can they do the job, to be honest if I was a Conservative and live in a constituency that had a Parliamentary Candidate imposed by Central Office I would not vote
Our priority is to get rid of this government not mess around with Cameron's new friends
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256098/After-Tory-leader-reveals-list-ethnic-candidates-Camerons-Rainbow-1st-Eleven.html#ixzz0hTlHJ6xU
IMMIGRANTS AGAIN
British taxpayers to fork out millions more in benefits for EU migrantsBy Christopher Leake
Last updated at 1:11 AM on 07th March 2010
Comments (0) Add to My Stories Taxpayers face paying millions of pounds in extra benefits to Eastern European immigrants because of changes to EU regulations.
For the past seven years, immigrants from eight countries due to become full members of the EU were banned from claiming benefits in the UK until they had worked here for 12 months.
But from April 2011, immigrants from Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia and the Czech Republic – where income levels are 40 per cent of the European average – will be allowed to claim Jobseekers’ Allowance and other benefits after
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256108/British-taxpayers-fork-millions-benefits-EU-migrants.html#ixzz0hTiIK63n
This is provided they can prove that they have been actively seeking work, undergone training or attended job interviews.
Unlike many other European nations which closed their labour markets to the so-called Accession Eight countries, Britain has allowed their nationals to work here.
This was on condition that they abided by the Government’s Worker Registration Scheme, which denied them benefits for a year.
More...Labour's migrant policy has damaged my son's education, says Minister
But the scheme runs out next spring because seven years is the maximum transition period under EU law and no extension can be granted.
It means Eastern European immigrants entering Britain will be subject to the same benefits rules as they are in established EU countries like France and Germany.
Although there are no official Government figures, the latest academic surveys suggest there are now 1.2 million Eastern European nationals living in Britain.
Most former Soviet bloc countries pay lower unemployment benefits than Britain. In Latvia, the monthly unemployment allowance is £57.20 compared with the UK’s £200-£256.
Sir Andrew Green, chairman of MigrationWatch UK, said last night: ‘Now is the time to engage the EU in a renegotiation of the welfare arrangements to ensure that we do not face a wave of benefit shoppers when these countries become full members.’
A Department for Work and Pensions spokesman said: ‘Of those who do come here, the vast majority do not claim benefits.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256108/British-taxpayers-fork-millions-benefits-EU-migrants.html#ixzz0hTilWq7w
Friday, March 05, 2010
Truth abou Foot
Why is it as soon as a Politician dies he becomes a hero Take Michael Foot left wing friend of the Russians someone who wanted GB to become a communist state well read
Good Old Footy? No, a dangerous, deluded hypocrite
By Richard Littlejohn
Last updated
Someone telling the truth
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1255529/Michael-Foot-good-Old-Footy-No-dangerous-deluded-hypocrite.html#ixzz0hIG8Kuxl
Good Old Footy? No, a dangerous, deluded hypocrite
By Richard Littlejohn
Last updated
Someone telling the truth
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1255529/Michael-Foot-good-Old-Footy-No-dangerous-deluded-hypocrite.html#ixzz0hIG8Kuxl
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
CIVIL PARTNERSHIP
CIVIL PARTNERSHIP
When the Civil Partnership started to be muted and thought of I thought what a good idea, I know it was instigated by Homosexuals and their friends, but why should two people who have lived together for along time and contributed to each others mode of living not have protection under the law but as usual an excellent idea got high jacked by a small minority. Initially I was led to believe this was not about a person’s sexual preference but putting a wrong right. There were many people who live together for years but do not have a sexual relationship which were not treated fairly under the law for example an Uncle and nephew, aunt and niece, two spinsters, two brothers or just a couple of friends I could go on. My idea of this civil partnership was that the couple would go to a magistrate and sign up for a Civil Partnership very much like a business partnership but no the militant Homosexual lobby had to make it into an alternative to marriage and only for those who were Lesbian and Homosexual a blatant act of discrimination. A good idea ruined.
The latest attack for the Homo Militants is the Church they demand that Lesbians and Homosexuals can get married in Church and it seems that once again with help by the Government they will get their way. The first question I must ask what right has the government to get involved in religion? Can I remind our politician what Jesus said Luke 20:25 And He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." You politicians deal with Man’s Law not God’s Law. It says something about a government that they want to change the way we worship and what we are to believe in. Most of the main religions believe that Homosexual Act is sinful and most preach forgiveness of sins i.e. you can not change what you are but do not practise the physical act. You may not agree with that statement but it is a fact and if you want carry on that life style that is for you decide rightly so and you should not be persecuted for that fact. Yet Homosexuals should also respect the fact that not everyone agree with what they do I would suggest the great majority.
Marriage is about the unification of two people the extension of the family and the procreation of children and if done in a Church it is of very high religious significance for Catholics it is a sacrament. Marriage is not a way to make a political statement by some militant organisation.
I will put my trust in God before I put my trust in a Government
Martin Clarke Sittingbourne
When the Civil Partnership started to be muted and thought of I thought what a good idea, I know it was instigated by Homosexuals and their friends, but why should two people who have lived together for along time and contributed to each others mode of living not have protection under the law but as usual an excellent idea got high jacked by a small minority. Initially I was led to believe this was not about a person’s sexual preference but putting a wrong right. There were many people who live together for years but do not have a sexual relationship which were not treated fairly under the law for example an Uncle and nephew, aunt and niece, two spinsters, two brothers or just a couple of friends I could go on. My idea of this civil partnership was that the couple would go to a magistrate and sign up for a Civil Partnership very much like a business partnership but no the militant Homosexual lobby had to make it into an alternative to marriage and only for those who were Lesbian and Homosexual a blatant act of discrimination. A good idea ruined.
The latest attack for the Homo Militants is the Church they demand that Lesbians and Homosexuals can get married in Church and it seems that once again with help by the Government they will get their way. The first question I must ask what right has the government to get involved in religion? Can I remind our politician what Jesus said Luke 20:25 And He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." You politicians deal with Man’s Law not God’s Law. It says something about a government that they want to change the way we worship and what we are to believe in. Most of the main religions believe that Homosexual Act is sinful and most preach forgiveness of sins i.e. you can not change what you are but do not practise the physical act. You may not agree with that statement but it is a fact and if you want carry on that life style that is for you decide rightly so and you should not be persecuted for that fact. Yet Homosexuals should also respect the fact that not everyone agree with what they do I would suggest the great majority.
Marriage is about the unification of two people the extension of the family and the procreation of children and if done in a Church it is of very high religious significance for Catholics it is a sacrament. Marriage is not a way to make a political statement by some militant organisation.
I will put my trust in God before I put my trust in a Government
Martin Clarke Sittingbourne
Monday, March 01, 2010
Are you a traitor if you vote Labour
I am quite open when it comes to supporting the Conservative Party not because it is necessarily the party that represents my views but because of our voting system you really only have a choice of two parties Labour or Conservative the others are no more the a protest vote. What I can not understand is the recent polls showing the Labour party in with a chance to win the next Election, Here is a party and government that has all but destroyed this country, it lied about referendums,wars, bullying, NHS it squanders our money puts Englishman on the dole but lets immigrants flood in and people still vote for them. I consider anyone WHO votes Labour a traitor to the true people of England ,.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
