Son of Star wars, or Son of a Bliar?

Well it appears we nearly have another done deal with the US about hosting their missile defence system nicknamed “Son of Star Wars” after the original Strategic Defence Initiative - or Star Wars.

One would not be surprised to learn that having such a system sited here in the UK would actually make it more dangerous for us. However that really doesn't seem to be a problem that Bliar wants to get in the way of yet another sop to the US of A, so much so that he decided to start the deal rolling without the decency of speaking to our elected representatives about it.

Bliar will leave office with a legacy, but not the one he wants. He'll be remembered for dragging us into wars and exposing us to the increased threat of a nuclear attack that would be triggered in Washington or Moscow with nothing we could do about it, other than to die of course.

Spies in your computer

Have a look at this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYOUolZnGIs&eurl

If you don't think it's happening, then think again.

Here we go again!

With the Trident vote only weeks away combined with the looming threat of war spreading to Iran, I now think I am feeling just as concerned as my parents were during the Cuban missile crisis.

With two young children, whose future I now fear for, I think we should all speak up against this latest rush to war and the funding of a wholly unnecessary missile system.

The ratcheting up of pressure to get Iran to bend to the will of George Bush is wholly unacceptable. He sends in carrier fleets like James T Kirk puts the Enterprise into orbit - threatening total destruction, 'shock'n'awe', unless his idea of good order is imposed, regardless of justice or international law.

There are many countries who have developed nuclear know-how, but we never threaten nor invade them. We did trample all over Iraq (and you know my views on that) because they were weak, so why are we surprised that another country George doesn't like (more unfinished business I think) strengthens their weapons capability?

If we didn't allow the neocons to attack the defenceless and pulled out of these brutal overseas adventures, then we would not see the scramble for the bomb.

Turning to Trident, I see no contradiction, even in the current circumstances, in opposing this unnecessary weapon when we can't even provide care for the vulnerable in society.

We have hospital units closing in all over the UK, dozens of community nurse posts being cut throughout the country (the very people the Health Secretary says will pick up the shortfall in hospital provision) and pensions wiped out. This blog is too short to allow me to list all the problems.

A fraction of the £billions we intend to spend on this latest bomb to end all bombing, would give us all a standard of living and free public services we could only dream of.

I oppose the march to war with bigger and better bombs and would ask that you too voice opposition to these looming disasters.

Petition claims first victim - the truth!

Only Bliar could turn recent events around to sound like he is the victim.

In a recent article, Tony gave off about people criticising him for allowing the debate on road pricing via No. 10's on-line petition. He whined about the criticism he was under for allowing the petition, but left out a few facts:-

1. The public did not criticise this petition, it was one of his own ministers who wanted to know who the “prat” was who dreamt up the idea; and

2. The only criticism the public have is that he refuses to take 1.5 million people seriously and is 'driving' through the scheme despite those millions of protesters.

Why are we not surprised?

Why do the media hate George?

What is it with the so called mainstream media and their witch-hunt of 'Gorgeous' George Galloway?

The Serious Fraud Office confirmed that recent allegations in the Guardian and Evening Standard were without basis in fact. To top it, they didn't even ask for a comment that would have checked their 'error'.

We have seen photos and reports of Galloway meeting the Iraqi dictator, whilst those of Donald Rumsfelt squeezing his hand and providing weapons are forgotten.

It seems the papers push their own agenda (for it is no coincidence that we have elections in May) because they know that RESPECT would move to curtail the gutter press from reporting tittle-tattle and they'd have to write something that had content.

It's a pity we have to once more witness such drivel.

Charter flight to hell

For the third time in less than two years, a 'charter flight' left RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on 12 February carrying 38 Iraqi-Kurdish asylum seekers, who had been rounded up and arrested across the UK, to Erbil, Kurdistan (Northern Iraq).

AMNESTY have said that forcing people back to Iraq will put people's lives at risk and they remain opposed to any forcible return of asylum-seekers to Iraq, including to the Kurdish region.

What message do we send out when we return people to a hell-hole that every sane person wants our own troops out of?

Maybe those who deport for political reasons should take time to look at the impact their actions have on these poor souls.

We are each one a "prat" then!

Well, Douglas Alexander for the government states that over one million people signing No. 10's own web petition, and who oppose road pricing, are only “one contribution to the debate”. Indeed, so valued is their contribution that a pilot is going ahead anyway.

What is all the more interesting is not the issue itself, but the response of this government to people actually expressing their views.

Firstly Alexander states that “It's no doubt that those people who initiated the petition had a particular point of view in mind”. What a genius! Of course they do; that is what a petition is all about!

Indeed, not only does he respond negatively to the size of the petition, but we actually have spokespeople from No. 10 who actually think that debate in itself does not produce policy. If debate does not, then what does? Is this not what a democracy is actually about?

Another but more disturbing response is that of a yet to be named minister reported on by the BBC who labelled the controversial on-line petitions on Downing Street's website as an own-goal thought up by a "prat".

Now there's a minister who values debate in our modern democracy, as long as it agrees with government policy.

HUD secret today - actually out a while ago!

Head-up displays (HUD) were pioneered in fighter jets. For the pilots of these craft, information overload was a big problem and this nifty device solved it.

We now see the US government and military going ballistic given that a video of their HUD with voice recording showing the fatal attack on the patrol that killed Lance Corporal Matty Hull, is now out for all to see.

Well don't worry – it's been out for years!

The writer purchased a computer game in 1997 that was called “A10 Cuba”. It featured the opportunity for wannabe A10 pilots to sit in the cockpit of an A10 and (you guessed it), use a HUD.

Full switches and an explanation of how it worked was included and you could blow things up all day if you wanted, delivering ordinance with pinpoint accuracy- thanks to the HUD!

So, all you spies just slip into the local gaming outlet and see more than the grainy images now on TV and the net could ever reveal. Meanwhile, could the MOD and US government stop telling lies to Matty's widow ?

Public Money; Private Profit

Well not surprisingly, an article in the British Medical Journal by Professor Allyson Pollack and his colleagues at University College London dismissed government claims that its private finance initiative (PFI) provides a good deal.

Despite this, the government still deny that this is indeed the case. What a surprise!

They say their findings are wrong, but deny them access to vital documents that would allow them to compare and contrast. What have they got to be scared of if it is such a good idea? Despite this, the report came in with the goods and the interested parties supporting PFI's must hate them for it.

So what is a PFI?

Public Private Partnerships (PPP) are basically the private companies running public services for profit, not a sense of public concern. The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) is the most frequently used type of PPP. The key difference between PFI and public funding to provide public services, is that the public does not own the asset (hospital, school etc.). That is, whilst we pay a huge “rent”, as do their children and children's children, we the public never own what should be a our asset financed by our taxes.

These companies are usually a consortia including a building firm, a bank and a facilities management company. Even if the scheme starts in “British” hands, soon the companies sell on their interest to anyone and we have the ridicules situation where anyone with a dollar can own elements of the public services we need in the UK. How can we plan, when any Tom, Dick or Harry hold the asset?

The fact is we cannot, as we have to service the rent payments to make things attractive for the potential landlord The powers that be will concentrate services in places that are not necessarily the most appropriate place in respect of provision, but instead serve the number crunchers in government who are falling over themselves to make the investment appealing and well off the ledger to give the impression that the books balance.