Saturday, March 25, 2006

A constitution, Electoral and Lords reform

It has become clear that this country needs more freedom and more democracy. This is the only way that we can end the corruption of our leaders and once again become a great country.

We are one of three of the only countries in the world that does not have a codified constitution, we are in league with New Zealand and that wonderful Israel. Therefore we need a constitution to stop our leaders abusing this country.

I will do what I think is needed making my own rules up and stealing them from other constitutions. Of course you will probably be able to see which ones are mine by the crappy wording but I can change that when I get my civil servants to work on it :)

1a. A citizens referenda, required in a free state must be given when atleast 60,000 petition the government for it.
1b. The financial tax bill of a failed citizens referenda must be levied on the people who petitioned the government for it.
1c. All referendums fall under 'citizens referenda' if they involve the whole country, whether all at the same time or during different time periods (eg 10th march in Scotland, 15 April rest of UK).
1d. All referenda campaigns (all choices-Yes and no) must be given equal funding and equal publicity must be given in all media outlets that publish information or opinion regarding the subject.
1e. All households of citizens eligible to vote must receive information from the government regarding the subject and have an adequate amount of time of atleast 8 days to read it.
1f. All future treaties will require a citizens referenda before it is signed.
1g. Britain cannot join any international groups without a citizens referenda. International groups that change their name are classed as a seperate international group and there must be a citizens referenda on membership.

2a. This constitution can only be changed through a citizens referendum requiring 50% of the votes to go in favour of the change and 40% of the adult citizens being in favour of it (40% of adult citizens in favour and only 50% of votes in favour would mean an 80% electoral turnout).
2b. This constitution is the supreme law of the UK and overrides all existing legislation that interferes with it.
2c. A Constitutional court which is the highest in the land will hear cases regarding the constitution. The job of the court is also to investigate changes to the constitution. If it is deemed that government officials - elected or none elected had been misleading the public they can publish a report saying that they have found evidence and have ruled that the officials had been misleading the public.
2d. Citizens can use deadly force against government officials that have been found to be misleading the public unless they admit they have been misleading the public, admit why they did it and hold another referendum which will be financed by the misleading government officials' financial assets. If the referendum goes in the opposite direction of what it had beforehand due to the misleading events of the government officials then they will be impeached.
2e. Judges of the constitutional court can have no political affiliation to any political party. They can also have no affiliation to any special interest group whose aims include changing the constitution or aims requiring implementing something that would require a change in constitution.
2f. Judges of the constitutional court can serve a maximum of 15 years in the constitutional court.
2g. There will be a minimum of 7 judges in the constitutional court.

3a. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a the House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, which shall consist of the House of Commons and House of Lords.
3b. The House of Commons shall be composed of members chosen atleast every five years by the people of the many constituencies.
3c. No person shall be a Member of Parliament who is not of voting age and a citizen of the United Kingdom for atleast 10 years.
3d. Members of Parliament should also live in the UK.
3e. The House of Commons shall be the only legislative power to initiate legislation.
3f. The House of Lords shall be the only body to hear impeachment cases when sitting for that purpose. The most senior constitutional court judge will be classed as the chief justice and will preside.
3g. The minimum sentence for those found guilty in impeachment cases is 3 years and shall mean removal of office and banning the holding of any elected office for 10 years after the sentence is up.
3h. All legislation must be voted on by parliament and must not be amended after the vote without another vote.
3i. All members of parliament shall have one vote.

4a. Citizens can have absolute freedom of speech, opinion including debate, peaceful assembly and protest and to petition the government for redress of grievances. Parliament shall make no law abridging any freedom in the constitution.
4b. The right to start a political party with members from a particular background shall not be infringed.
4c. Private employers may hire employees on whatever criteria they see fit.

5. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed unless they have not served in the military.

6a. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
6b. All citizens are equal before the law. Privileges based upon birth, sex, estate, class, or religion are excluded.

7a. No fines or forfeitures will be given without trial.
7b. Civilian Criminal trials shall not be given without a jury of a minimum of 9 who will decide the verdict.
7c. In all criminal trials the defendant shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the county and city wherein the crime shall have been committed, which county shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
7d. During trials the prosecution shall have to prove that the defendant committed a crime.

8. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United Kingdom, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

9. The right of citizens of the United kingdom to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United kingdom on account of sex, ethnicity or race.

10a. In case of the removal of the Prime Minister from office or of his death or resignation, the Deputy Prime Minister shall become Prime Minister.
10b. In case of the removal of both the Deputy Prime Minister and Prime Minister the next in line in the Cabinet will become PM.
10c. In case of the entire cabinet losing their jobs the office of Prime Minister will be given to the highest military general unless so many government ministers lose their jobs that they are no longer the party with a majority.
10d. Within three months of a new Prime Minister being inaugurated after the death or expulsion of the last one there must be a general election.

11a. The Prime Minister can nominate all his cabinet from Parliament.
11b. There will be a maximum of 22 cabinet positions.

12a. The Church of England shall be the Established Church of Britain.
12b. The monarch shall be a member of the Church of England or an Atheist.

House of Lords

The House of Lords needs to be compatible with a modern democracy without destroying centuries of tradition and this is how we will do it:

1. The present Lords can stay including future hereditary peers.
2. There will be an elected element in the Lords which will be the amount of around 10% of the Commons which would be 65.
3. The 65 elected Lords will be the ones acting as a jury in impeachment cases and will decide the verdict but will not decide the sentence unless they are presiding over the case as Chief justice.
4. The elected Lords will serve a 3 year term.
5. Elected Lords will not be allowed to be part of any political party.
6. To run for election they must pay £5000 and will not get their deposit back.
7. Elected Lords must not receive funding from unions, political parties or members of political parties.
8. Lords will not be paid unless they are on official business (having a part in impeachment cases or being a member of a committee) or are elected.
9. Elected Lords will be required to serve on committees when asked. MPs will not serve on committees unless there is a shortage of willing lords
10. When the Parliament Act is used it will not immediately send legislation through but it will stop all lords from voting on it. Only the elected lords can vote on it.
11. All elected lords that have legal experience will be required to serve on the constitutional court. If there isn't enough with legal experience they will be taken from the Lords who will serve until there is an elected lord with the required experience.

Electoral reform

The voting system would be changed to something like STV but it would be slightly different.

On the voting slip in each constituency there will also be an option of 'None of the above'. If this is voted for most then another vote will be called a month later and the people who were running for the election in that constituency will be banned in that constituency from running for the election and the parties will have to choose someone else.

At present 66% of MPs fail to gain 50% of the vote in their constituency. This is a problem.

In the new electoral system there will be more than one round of voting if no candidate receives atleast 50% of the vote. If that happens then the 2 most voted for candidates will go into another round 1 week later. If the 'None of the above' option is voted for atleast 10% of the time then that will also go into the second round.

The percentage of the vote the winning party gets in the first round will be important. Their percentage of the vote in the first round will then be doubled and thats the amount of their manifesto they can bring in. The rest must be voted on through a citizens referenda. This would mean the manifesto would be a contract and they won't be allowed to bring in anything that wasn't in their manifesto unless it is an issue of national security.

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

General election coming this year?

Sleaze and deceit will hasten Blair's exit. Now expect a surprise general election in the autumn.

IN BRITAIN, the Prime Minister is not above the law, particularly in awarding honours. The law of the sale of honours is largely contained in two statutes, the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act, 1925 and the broader Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889.

The 1925 Act concentrates on corrupt procurement. “Any person who accepts or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or another the grant of a dignity or title of honour is guilty of a misdemeanour, and liable on conviction to imprisonment for two years or a fine of £500 or both.” The 1925 Act was a response to the scandal of the Lloyd George peerages and the activities of his agent Maundy Gregory.

The latest public opinion polls suggest that a 3-1 majority of the public do in fact believe that the Prime Minister has sold peerages. The public suspicion of sleaze is very damaging to the Labour Party; it may force a change of leader.

In May the local elections are expected to be disastrous for Labour. If they are, Tony Blair’s position will be weakened still further. If Mr Blair does not go now, as he should, July should be the latest month. Gordon Brown is the obvious successor.

Mr Brown would then have to decide whether to establish his own mandate by holding an early election. There would be a strong case for him to do so. Like all parties that have been in office for a long time, Labour’s underlying support is falling; even at the past election their vote fell by 1.2 million. By 2010, the last year for the next general election, they are likely to have become even more unpopular. The last year in which Labour could win an overall majority could well be 2006.

At present, Labour has a majority of 64, which means it holds 32 more seats than the other parties combined. On the present timetable about half that majority will be removed by redistribution of the constituencies. That, however, will probably not take place until January 1, 2007. Any election held in 2006 would be fought on the existing boundaries.

If Mr Blair does resign by July the brave course for Mr Brown would be to go to the country in late September or October.

I hope Blair does go soon and there is an election. I can't see an election happening though, Labour will still be financially recovering from the last election. I honestly don't think they will hold an election if they dont think they can afford it themselves.

If it does happen it can only be good news for the BNP. Muslims have been protesting over the cartoons, there were riots in Birmingham, Blair has given up part of our rebate and wants to make us have ID cards. He has also tried to have Nick Griffin sent to jail for speaking his mind. I can't see how that wouldn't benefit the BNP as it is all relatively fresh in our minds unless like Labour, the BNP have very little money to fight a general election.
House of Lords does it again

A school which was told it unlawfully excluded a Muslim pupil for wearing a traditional gown has won its appeal at the House of Lords.

The Court of Appeal had said Denbigh High School had denied Shabina Begum the right to manifest her religion in refusing to allow her to wear a jilbab.

But in a unanimous ruling, judges at the House of Lords overturned that.

Yet again the House of Lords have shown why we need them. I am liking the House of Lords more and more as time goes on.

I am glad that she lost. I think that the hijab and burqua should be banned in all public places including mosques. If muslims don't want to live our way they can live their way in another country.

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Scotland Yard to arrest Blair?

SCOTLAND Yard was drawn into the alleged "cash for honours" scandal today to investigate complaints that Labour broke the law.

The Metropolitan Police's specialist crime directorate has launched a probe into the alleged sale of peerages by the Labour Party - after receiving three complaints over suspected breaches of a 1925 law.

Scottish National Party MP Angus MacNeil complained to Met Commissioner Sir Ian Blair and the Director of Public Prosecutions last week after it was revealed that several wealthy individuals had been nominated for peerages after giving Labour loans running into millions of pounds.

I don't know anything about this law but if Scotland Yard are on the case it must be an arrestable offence with (hopefully) jail time. Lets hope Blair finally gets what he deserves, a couple of years in jail sharing a cell and becoming his cell mate's bitch. I doubt anything serious will happen though. There will just be an investigation and nothing will come of it.

Monday, March 20, 2006


Two years from now, the European constitution will be in force - certainly de facto and probably de jure, too. Never mind that 15 million Frenchmen and five million swag-bellied Hollanders voted against it.

The Eurocrats have worked out a deft way of getting around them. Here's how they'll do it.

First, they will shove through as many of the constitution's contents as they can under the existing legal framework - a process they had already begun even before the referendums.

Around 85 per cent of the text can, with some creative interpretation, be implemented this way.

True, there are one or two clauses that will require a formal treaty amendment: a European president to replace the system whereby the member nations take it in turns to chair EU meetings; a new voting system; legal personality for the Union.

These outstanding items will be formalised at a miniature inter-governmental conference, probably in 2007. There will be no need to debate them again: all 25 governments accepted them in principle when they signed the constitution 17 months ago.

We shall then be told that these are detailed and technical changes, far too abstruse to be worth pestering the voters with.

The EU will thus have equipped itself with 100 per cent of the constitution, but without having held any more referendums.

Don't take my word for it: listen to what the EU's own leaders are saying. Here is Wolfgang Schüssel, Chancellor of Austria and the EU's current president: "The constitution is not dead."

Here is Angela Merkel, leader of Europe's most powerful and populous state: "Europe needs the constitution… We are willing to make whatever contribution is necessary to bring the constitution into force."

Here is Dominique de Villepin, who, in true European style, has risen to the prime ministership of France without ever having run for elected office: "France did not say no to Europe."

And, on Tuesday, our own Europe minister, Douglas Alexander, repeatedly refused to rule out pushing ahead with the bulk of the text without a referendum.

For the purest statement of the Eurocrats' contempt for the voters, however, we must turn to the constitution's author, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing.

Here is a man who, with his exquisite suits and de haut en bas manner, might be said to personify the EU: so extraordinarily distinguished, as Mallarmé remarked in a different context, that when you bid him bonjour, he makes you feel as though you'd said merde.

"Let's be clear about this," pronounced Giscard a couple of weeks ago. "The rejection of the constitution was a mistake that will have to be corrected."

He went on to remind his audience that the Danish and Irish electorates had once been presumptuous enough to vote against a European treaty, but that no one had paid them the slightest attention.

The EU is proceeding as if the constitution were already in force. Most of the institutions and policies that it would have authorised are being enacted anyway: the External Borders Agency, the European Public Prosecutor, the External Action Service, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the European Defence Agency, the European Space Programme.

Born out of a reaction against the Second World War, and the plebiscitary democracy that had preceded it, the EU is based on the notion that "populism" (or "democracy", as you and I call it) is a dangerous thing.

Why does anyone think the EU is democratic if they just ignore what the people want? It might be time for a couple of these Europhiles to get their head bashed in. Once these idiots realise that they have to obey the will of the people or get their head smashed in more of them will get the message. Yes I am advocating extreme violence and MURDER against anyone on the EU payroll. If they don't do what we say we, the people can beat them until they are either dead or in a coma. I mean, who do these people think they are?

I like many others are sick of our elected (and unelected) officials deciding what happens to our country when we vote against it happening. It's time some people died. Death or extreme violence is the only thing these people understand and once some die they will get the message. If they dont get the message they will have to die too.
My advice being taken?

There should be a £50,000 limit on donations to political parties and a ban on loans, says David Cameron.

The Tory leader is also pushing for new state funding of political parties in the wake of Labour's loans controversy.

Parties with MPs would get £1.20 from the taxpayer for every vote they won at the last general election - plus an annual payment of 60p per vote won.

That would mean Labour and the Tories getting more than £30m and the Lib Dems about £20m over a four year term.

The Tories are considering cutting the number of MPs to fund the plans.

They say the number of MPs could be reduced from 646 to less than 600. The costs of government special advisers and regional government would also be cut to pay for the changes.

Mr Cameron says he also wants the limit on each party's spending at elections to be cut from £20m to £15m.

His proposals follow Labour's admission it received £14m in undeclared loans.

The Tories are demanding a total ban on loans unless they are from "financial institutions on fully commercial terms".

Looks like thay are taking part of my advice. A couple of news posts ago I said there should be a limit of £50,000 on donations. I don't believe taxpayers should have to fund political parties by the tens of millions.

I also don't believe there should be a limit on party spending if the max donations are £50,000 and I will only support reducing the number of MPs if all constituencies have the same number of people in them unlike now where Labour candidates need the least number of votes to win and the Lib Dems need the most to win which is obviously unfair for the Lib Dems.

Sunday, March 19, 2006


FIREFIGHTERS are being equipped with language phrase cards so they can help foreign residents stuck in a blaze.

Grampian fire chiefs have developed a set of language cards with words and pictures in 13 different languages now carried on every rescue tender.

Totally stupid. If foreigners don't want to learn english they can burn to death. It's really up to them.
Whose side are they on?

DIPLOMATS stalled the hunt for the killers of six Red Caps in Iraq because they wanted to be politically correct and save the savages from the gallows.

They blocked Army cops from handing Iraqi authorities vital case files that identified the culprits — so there would be no arrests.

Foreign Office bosses insisted the 18-month delay was necessary to prevent the barbaric tribesmen from facing the death penalty as that would breach THEIR human rights.

A deal done behind closed doors last year means the killers can now only face life in jail. The files on them were handed over at that time.

The delay in the investigation into the massacre almost three years ago now means families may never see justice.

It has given key suspects for the horrendous crime time to flee and made it far harder to secure any convictions in court as witnesses’ recall of events will have diminished.

Whose side are these dipomats on? Why should those murdering savages have the liberty of any human right especially the right of life? They didnt exactly live up to the same standards when it came to the human rights of our soldiers.

Those diplomats that stalled the hunt for the killers should be arrested for murder and helping criminals to escape and whatever else they can think up. After that the diplomats should be rounded up and lynched from the nearest lampost.

This is definately a new low for the leaders of this country. Will political correctness ever be destroyed?

Saturday, March 18, 2006

Who is really frustrating the will of the people?

MPs are locked in a twin stand-off with the House of Lords over identity cards and anti-terrorism laws.

Peers have three times defeated the government over proposals to force all passport applicants to get ID cards.

But MPs have again reversed the defeats as Home Secretary Charles Clarke told opponents to stop "frustrating the will of the people".

How are they 'frustrating the will of the people'? I am pretty sure that in the Labour party manifesto they said ID cards would be voluntary and not compulsory. The Lords are just trying to get Labour to do what they promised in their manifesto which the Lying Labour party have no intention of doing.

The Labour party are the ones frustrating the will of the people and the Lords should continue to vote against the plans until Labour go back to the manifesto commitments.

You know this is why we need manifestos to be contracts. That way our governments couldn't lie to us and get away with it.
State funding of political parties

TONY Blair yesterday opened the door to state funding of political parties.

The move, which could cost taxpayers £40million to fund general election campaigns, was one of several reforms proposed in a bid to end sleaze rows threatening his survival.

Mr Blair also said he said he wished to renounce the right to nominate people for honours except in rare cases.

Labour last night refused to comment on a Channel 4 report it received "somewhere in the region" of £12million in undisclosed loans last year.

Lenders were later put forward for peerages by the PM but appointments have been stalled by the independent appointments commission.

Mr Blair made his shock announcement of a new look at taxpayers' cash for political parties at his monthly press conference.

He said: "We should look again at party funding, whether we can further enhance state support."

In exchange parties could accept a "cap" on donations, he explained.

Blair should not be allowed to nominate peers anymore especially when he only allows them in for giving him money.

Personally I like the idea of PARTIAL state funding but with my way it wouldn't cost £40 million. It would be far less with my way. With my way each party would get £10,000 for every MP they get elected which would add up to £6,460,000. They would still be able to get private donations but there would be a cap of £50,000 per year and unions would be banned from giving any money. Unions should use their money to fight for their workers and not try and change the political situation. Political parties should also have to declare all their sources of finance including loans and grants.

It has become clear that no government can be trusted with the House of Lords therefore it should be partially elected. Keep the life and heridary peers that we have now. This is how the election of the lords would go:

There will be 65 elected lords (close enough to 10% of MPs) and the country would be split into 65 lord constituencies.

They will not be allowed to be part of a political party or receive donations from political parties or unions. This is because at the moment the Lords that are part of political parties always go with their party. Independent Lords (in theory) would do what they think is best for the country and not what their party or financer wants them to.

To run they have to pay $5000 (the Lords are supposed to be elitish-We cant have just anyone becoming a lord) which they will not get back even if they win unlike House Of Commons elections where those who get 5% of the vote get their deposit back.

They would be elected for 2 years. Those who have been elected none stop for 20 years will automatically become a life peer. Those who are elected for 30 years none stop (if they continue after being a life peer) will become a partial hereditary peer and their first born child will be allowed to sit in the Lords as a lord but the child dies it won't pass on through the family anymore.

Elected lords will be much more powerful than others. When the Commons uses the Parliament Act after the House of Lords sends a bill back to the Commons the elected lords will meet up. Once the Parliament act is used it still won't go through. It will be given a vote and this time only elected Lords will be allowed to vote on the bill.

I think that would be good enough. What do you guys think?
Elite security in House of Commons

A TERROR suspect allegedly linked to al Qaeda has visited the Houses of Parliament — as the guest of a Labour peer.

Former detainee Mahmoud Suliman Ahmed Abu Rideh even sat in the Commons public gallery for a debate.

He was invited to Westminster on Tuesday by Lord Ahmed, who met him at Regent’s Park mosque three weeks ago.

The father of five — suspected of being a money man for terror groups — was given a SECURITY sticker for his Parliamentary visit.

And he boasted yesterday of sitting in the Commons gallery, adding: “It was very interesting.”

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis last night said Abu Rideh had been able to “walk around one of the UK’s biggest terror targets”.

Lord Ahmed confirmed he invited Abu Rideh, 34, to see him — and said he QUIZZED him over the suspected al Qaeda link.

You thought that was stupid? Well it gets better...Lord Ahmed asked the terror suspect ‘Have you ever been linked with al Qaeda?’ and he denied it. Well you surely can't get better security than that.
Hung parliament at next election?

A cabinet minister will warn Labour tomorrow that it faces the prospect of a hung parliament after the next general election.

Peter Hain, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Wales, will urge Labour to turn its guns on to the Liberal Democrats, accusing the third party of conspiring with the Tories to push Labour out of office.

Mr Hain is the first minister to raise the prospect that Labour may lose its overall majority. Academics believe there is a stronger possibility of a hung parliament than for many years if the Tories maintain their recovery under David Cameron. They predict that a Tory lead of between one and 12 points over Labour in the share of the vote would leave no party with an overall majority.

"Equally, the Liberals' anti-Labour strategy means that their best bet is a hung parliament and joining David Cameron in a coalition," he will say. "Votes for the Lib Dems risk giving the Conservatives a chance to undo all the achievements we have fought for."

Mr Hain will say: "The Cameron camp know they would be defying political gravity to win outright next time: they are coming from too far back, and they don't have the lift-off they need. Indeed they have struck a plateau in the polls nowhere near high enough for the huge swing they need."

Personally I can't see a Liberal-Conservative coalition government but if this hung parliament happens then its going to be a good thing. I dont think any coalition will last for the full 5 years so they will have to call for another election. The more elections there are the more it will benefit the BNP in the long run.

A Liberal-Conservative coalition I think would last a maximum of maybe two years. The fact that the Liberals are in favour of proportional representation and the Conservatives are against it would make the coalition crash and burn.

But anything has to be better than Labour right? Well I dont know, we might end up having the worst of both worlds but a worse country there is then a better chance for the BNP getting into power.

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

New global warming theory

A new theory to explain global warming was revealed at a meeting at the University of Leicester (UK) and is being considered for publication in the journal "Science First Hand". The controversial theory has nothing to do with burning fossil fuels and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. According to Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the apparent rise in average global temperature recorded by scientists over the last hundred years or so could be due to atmospheric changes that are not connected to human emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of natural gas and oil. Shaidurov explained how changes in the amount of ice crystals at high altitude could damage the layer of thin, high altitude clouds found in the mesosphere that reduce the amount of warming solar radiation reaching the earth's surface.

Shaidurov has used a detailed analysis of the mean temperature change by year for the last 140 years and explains that there was a slight decrease in temperature until the early twentieth century. This flies in the face of current global warming theories that blame a rise in temperature on rising carbon dioxide emissions since the start of the industrial revolution. Shaidurov, however, suggests that the rise, which began between 1906 and 1909, could have had a very different cause, which he believes was the massive Tunguska Event, which rocked a remote part of Siberia, northwest of Lake Baikal on the 30th June 1908.

The Tunguska Event, sometimes known as the Tungus Meteorite is thought to have resulted from an asteroid or comet entering the earth's atmosphere and exploding. The event released as much energy as fifteen one-megaton atomic bombs. As well as blasting an enormous amount of dust into the atmosphere, felling 60 million trees over an area of more than 2000 square kilometres. Shaidurov suggests that this explosion would have caused "considerable stirring of the high layers of atmosphere and change its structure." Such meteoric disruption was the trigger for the subsequent rise in global temperatures.

Global warming is thought to be caused by the "greenhouse effect". Energy from the sun reaches the earth's surface and warms it, without the greenhouse effect most of this energy is then lost as the heat radiates back into space. However, the presence of so-called greenhouse gases at high altitude absorb much of this energy and then radiate a proportion back towards the earth's surface. Causing temperatures to rise.

Many natural gases and some of those released by conventional power stations, vehicle and aircraft exhausts act as greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide, natural gas, or methane, and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are all potent greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide and methane are found naturally in the atmosphere, but it is the gradual rise in levels of these gases since the industrial revolution, and in particular the beginning of the twentieth century, that scientists have blamed for the gradual rise in recorded global temperature. Attempts to reverse global warming, such as the Kyoto Protocol, have centred on controlling and even reducing CO2 emissions.

However, the most potent greenhouse gas is water, explains Shaidurov and it is this compound on which his study focuses. According to Shaidurov, only small changes in the atmospheric levels of water, in the form of vapour and ice crystals can contribute to significant changes to the temperature of the earth's surface, which far outweighs the effects of carbon dioxide and other gases released by human activities. Just a rise of 1% of water vapour could raise the global average temperature of Earth's surface more then 4 degrees Celsius.

The role of water vapour in controlling our planet's temperature was hinted at almost 150 years ago by Irish scientist John Tyndall. Tyndall, who also provided an explanation as to why the sky is blue, explained the problem: "The strongest radiant heat absorber, is the most important gas controlling Earth's temperature. Without water vapour, he wrote, the Earth's surface would be 'held fast in the iron grip of frost'." Thin clouds at high altitude allow sunlight to reach the earth's surface, but reflect back radiated heat, acting as an insulating greenhouse layer.

Water vapour levels are even less within our control than CO2 levels. According to Andrew E. Dessler of the Texas A & M University writing in 'The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change', "Human activities do not control all greenhouse gases, however. The most powerful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapour, he says, "Human activities have little direct control over its atmospheric abundance, which is controlled instead by the worldwide balance between evaporation from the oceans and precipitation."

As such, Shaidurov has concluded that only an enormous natural phenomenon, such as an asteroid or comet impact or airburst, could seriously disturb atmospheric water levels, destroying persistent so-called 'silver', or noctilucent, clouds composed of ice crystals in the high altitude mesosphere (50 to 85km). The Tunguska Event was just such an event, and coincides with the period of time during which global temperatures appear to have been rising the most steadily - the twentieth century. There are many hypothetical mechanisms of how this mesosphere catastrophe might have occurred, and future research is needed to provide a definitive answer.

Monday, March 13, 2006

BNP get a Mayoress!

THE Mayoress of Keighley has been stripped of her position after shocking colleagues by joining the British National Party.
Mayor Tony Wright said after former independent councillor Rose Thompson, 49, told him of her decision that he, "along with many parts of the Keighley community would find her affiliation offensive''.
He also called on her to stand down from the position she has held since the formation of Keighley Town Council four years ago, but she has refused.
The timing of her decision has come at a politically sensitive time in Bradford. Voters will turn out on March 23 in Bradford Council's Keighley West ward to elect a district councillor to replace BNP councillor Angela Clarke who resigned recently.

Fantastic news and just in time for the elections but why was she stripped of her position? Is this normal when someone changes party or is it because she is part of the BNP? If it is because of the BNP then it is totally ridiculous. Why should anyone be stripped of powers that they were elected to just because they have a different political party affiliation and a different political opinion than others?

Why would anyone find her affiliation offensive? Are they offended by freedom and democracy? If so who cares about them. This is a democratic and free country and if people dont like that they can leave.

Hopefully this will give the BNP a boost in their electoral effort in Yorkshire.

Sunday, March 12, 2006

Blog of the month

The blog of the month for this month is BNP And Me. This blog gets 7 out of 10.


Thursday, March 09, 2006

Financial collapse coming soon?

The Treasury Department has started drawing from the civil service pension fund to avoid hitting the $8.2 trillion national debt limit. The move to tap the pension fund follows last month's decision to suspend investments in a retirement savings plan held by government employees.

In a letter to Congress this week, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow said he would rely on the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund to avoid bumping up against the statutory debt limit.

They are running out of money so much that they have to steal from the retirement fund. Could financial collapse happen soon?

I think it is eventually going to happen and this will only delay it.

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Mentally ill destroying nursery rhymes

TRADITIONAL nursery rhymes are being rewritten at nursery schools to avoid causing offence to children.

Instead of singing “Baa baa, black sheep” as generations of children have learnt to do, toddlers in Oxfordshire are being taught to sing “Baa baa, rainbow sheep”.

The move, which critics will seize on as an example of political correctness, was made after the nurseries decided to re-evaluate their approach to equal opportunities.

Stuart Chamberlain, manager of the Family Centre in Abingdon and the Sure Start centre in Sutton Courtenay, Oxfordshire, told the local Courier Journal newspaper: “We have taken the equal opportunities approach to everything we do.

“This is fairly standard across nurseries. We are following stringent equal opportunities rules. No one should feel pointed out because of their race, gender or anything else.”

In keeping with the new approach, teachers at the nurseries have reportedly also changed the ending of Humpty Dumpty so as not to upset the children and dropped the seven dwarfs from the title of Snow White.

Why are these people doing this? The people doing this are mentally ill and need to be in a padded room for life.

Personally I can't ever remember getting upset when Humpty Dumpty couldn't be put back together again and if anyone does get upset they arent going to get far in life if they get upset over silly things like that.

Someone should make up something like an 'anti political correctness day' where we just sing these nursery rhymes outside schools that have changed them and do a small snow white play. Would be funny when the escapee mental patients (liberals) got up in arms about it. I can see it now.