Comic Relief – Plaything of the Chipping Norton Set – Makes Money Out Of Misery

 

 

 

When is a charity not a charity? When it is the toy of the, CHIPPING NORTON SET. Money for the boys and girls in power.

The Comic Relief Charity allegedly inappropriately invested, (£630,000) of the charities money, in Weapons Manufacturer BAE (The Serious Fraud Office Investigated).

Comic Relief bosses were left with red faces (as opposed to noses) yesterday when the BBC reported that the charity had invested in funds holding shares in arms and tobacco companies.

Of the various revelations uncovered by Panorama, the most richly ironic is surely the £630,000 invested in BAE Systems, while giving millions of pounds in aid to children in Tanzania.

 

 

The poverty-stricken country of TANZANIA HAS NO AIRFORCE.

But that didn’t stop them paying BAE Systems for a £28m on an out-of-date military aircraft control system that they didn’t need.

Not only was the deal massively inappropriate to the country’s requirements — it had been lubricated by at least £7.7m of what BAE euphemistically refer to as “commission payments to a marketing adviser”, known to the rest of the world as “bribes”.

When prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office, BAE reached a deal last year which involved at least £29.5m going towards educational projects in the East African state.

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2013/12/comic-relief-bae-systems-investment-tanzanian-radar-deal/

 

 

Advertisements

Rigging the Currency

21 JUL 2014

Britain’s anti-fraud agency has launched a criminal investigation into alleged rigging of the $5.3 trillion (3.1 trillion pounds)-a-day currency market.

“The director of the Serious Fraud Office has today opened a criminal investigation into allegations of fraudulent conduct in the foreign exchange market,” the agency said in a statement.

It is alleged that traders used online chat-rooms to collude in the fixing of benchmark prices.

Scrutiny is focused on activity around London’s 4 p.m. currency fix, a 60-second window where key exchange rates are set. These prices are used as reference rates for trillions of dollars of investment and trade globally.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/07/21/uk-fx-investigation-britain-idUKKBN0FQ19M20140721

UK Treasury Useless in Times of Trouble

Performance Report Alistair Darling.

This is the chappie who graced our television screens last week. The damming article, (attached) provides details of his utter incompetence whilst in office as Chancellor. He is so brazen that he claimed the first he knew of any problems with the Royal Bank of Scotland etc. was when he received a telephone call, at home, watching television. He then had the audacity to ask the Scottish public to trust Westminster and reject independence. This time however the joke is on him. Scotland has woken to the corruption that is the Westminster political system. Vote, “Yes” in the referendum. Send them home to London, (or possibly second tax payer funded home) to contemplate upon their rejection by the Scot’s.

For more than a century the British Treasury has been by far the most feared, powerful and respected of all government departments. It has wielded near-dictatorial powers, and its superbly trained officials have been famed for their intellectual ferocity and rigour. The tradition of Treasury excellence has been of inestimable value to Britain, meaning that we have been unusually well equipped to cope with financial disasters such as the secondary banking collapse of the mid-1970s when dozens of small banks faced bankruptcy, or with Black Wednesday in 1992 when all looked lost as sterling was driven out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism.

Today, however, Britain faces economic and financial crisis on a scale that far outweighs even these catastrophes of the 1970s and 1990s. This time the Treasury is utterly unable to cope. Indeed, it is facing the greatest crisis of confidence in its history. This week two glaring examples of Treasury ineptitude have come to the surface courtesy of a National Audit Office report into last year’s banking crisis.

The first of these is the revelation that during the crisis the Treasury paid no less than £150million for advice from large city firms such as Goldman Sachs. For instance, the Treasury spent more than £80 million on consultancy fees relating to the bailouts of HBOS and the Royal Bank of Scotland.

In all previous financial crises it would have been unthinkable for the Treasury to contract out this kind of highly sensitive work to the private sector. Apart from the conflicts of interest involved, it would have been regarded as insulting to the highly trained Treasury officials whose job it is to sort out financial problems.

But such is the degradation of Treasury competence and morale under Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and the department’s supine Permanent Secretary Nick Macpherson that it is now considered normal to sub-contract out this kind of work, which ought to be meat and drink to Treasury mandarins.

The National Audit Office report contains a second, and equally devastating, example of Treasury ineptitude.
Even after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, Treasury officials were clueless about what was going on in financial markets.

It reveals that just a week before the collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland in October last year ‘internal papers prepared by the Treasury suggested that RBS’s capital position was reasonably strong’.

In other words, even as late as October 2008, and therefore after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, Treasury officials were clueless about what was going on in financial markets.

This is quite simply terrifying – and it shows that something has gone fundamentally wrong at the heart of British government.But Treasury naivety and incompetence does not stop there. For the fact is that the department seems to have lost any notion of what is happening to the real economy.

Chancellor Alistair Darling should be forced to own up to the Treasury’s consistent failure to grip the nature and scale of the economic recession. This failure is on such a scale that it amounts to negligence – for what it shows is that Mr Darling has been in no position to make the hugely important economic judgments that the country desperately needs at a time of crisis.

To understand the depth and seriousness of the problem, it is necessary to go back 18 months to the Budget of March 2008. This was in retrospect a dangerously complacent event. Neither Darling nor his Treasury officials showed even the remotest awareness that the UK was starting to plunge into the gravest economic recession since World War II.

The hapless Darling blithely – and inexcusably – predicted comfortable growth rates of 2 per cent or more for years ahead. Incredibly Darling had still not woken up six months later, when he delivered last year’s Pre-Budget statement in December 2008.

Darling was just as far out of his depth when he discussed future borrowing. For instance, in last year’s Pre-Budget Report he predicted a shortfall of just £118 billion for the current financial year – the true figure is likely to clock in at nearer £200 billion.

Meanwhile, Treasury officials who did their constitutional duty by giving impartial advice or telling the truth about Britain’s economic position were frozen out. In some cases their careers were ruined. Over a period of years Brown’s suppression of original thought, and encouragement of a tiny clique, destroyed the Treasury esprit de corps.

Matters have been made worse by Alistair Darling’s sheer cowardice as Chancellor. Senior Treasury officials have said that he succumbed to pressure from Gordon Brown in 10 Downing Street to project a more optimistic outlook than was justified by the facts.

A grave problem persists. The Treasury is no longer ‘fit for purpose’, to return to the damning phrase once used by the Cabinet Minister John Reid about the Home Office. This would be a matter of grave concern at any time, let alone a moment of grave economic crisis.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1233368/PETER-OBORNE-A-rudderless-economy-great-treasury-thats-fit-purpose.html

Is the BBC Impartial? NOT

Impartiality Summit.

The BBC has been subject to a deal of criticism regarding it’s heavily biased, (anti, “Yes” campaign) coverage of the Scottish referendum. Again and again BBC spokesmen trot out the same bland lie that the corporation is impartial. What dross and they, each of them can look in the mirror each day and smile. The attached article provides the evidence which denounces the corporation. Believe nothing emanating from the mouths of liars. Vote, “Yes” in the referendum. Free Scotland from the clutches of the BBC and it’s bent reporting.

It was the day that a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.

At a secret meeting in London last month, (October 2006) hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.

Political pundit Andrew Marr said: ‘The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people.

Quoting a George Orwell observation, Randall said that the BBC was full of intellectuals who ‘would rather steal from a poor box than stand to attention during God Save The King’.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html

A leaked account of an ‘impartiality summit’ called by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the war on terror.

It reveals that executives would let the Bible be thrown into a dustbin on a TV comedy show, but not the Koran, and that they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden if given the opportunity. Further, it discloses that the BBC’s ‘diversity tsar’, wants Muslim women newsreaders to be allowed to wear veils when on air.

A veteran BBC executive said, “There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness. unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC’s culture, that it is very hard to change it.”

In one of a series of discussions, executives were asked to rule on how they would react if the controversial comedian Sacha Baron Cohen, (known for his offensive characters Ali G and Borat)- was a guest on the programme Room 101. On the show, celebrities are invited to throw their pet hates into a dustbin and it was imagined that Baron Cohen chose some kosher food, the Archbishop of Canterbury, a Bible and the Koran. Nearly everyone at the summit, including the show’s actual producer and the BBC’s head of drama, Alan Yentob, agreed they could all be thrown into the bin, except the Koran for fear of offending Muslims.

In a debate on whether the BBC should interview Osama Bin Laden if he approached them, it was decided the Al Qaeda leader would be given a platform to explain his views. And the BBC’s ‘diversity tsar’, Mary Fitzpatrick, said women newsreaders should be able to wear whatever they wanted while on TV, including veils. Ms Fitzpatrick spoke out after criticism was raised at the summit of TV newsreader Fiona Bruce, who recently wore on air a necklace with a cross. The full account of the meeting shows how senior BBC figures queued up to lambast their employer.

Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to ‘correct’, it in his reports. Webb added that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it ‘no moral weight’.

Former BBC business editor Jeff Randall said he complained to a ‘very senior news executive’, about the BBC’s pro-multicultural stance but was given the reply: ‘The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism: it believes in it and it promotes it.’ Randall also told how he once wore Union Jack cufflinks to work but was rebuked with: ‘You can’t do that, that’s like the National Front!’ There was another heated debate when the summit discussed whether the BBC was too sensitive about criticising black families for failing to take responsibility for their children.

Head of news Helen Boaden disclosed that a Radio 4 programme which blamed black youths at a young offenders’, institution for bullying white inmates faced the axe until she stepped in. But Ms Fitzpatrick, who has said that the BBC should not use white reporters in non-white countries, argued it had a duty to ‘contextualise’ why black youngsters behaved in such a way. Andrew Marr told The Mail on Sunday last night: ‘The BBC must always try to reflect Britain, which is mostly a provincial, middle-of-the-road country. Britain is not a mirror image of the BBC or the people who work for it.’

Truth. We can handle the truth 19 July 2007. The BBC faced a grave crisis of public trust last night after admitting that a series of flagship children’s and charity phone-in programmes had deliberately deceived viewers. Children in Need, Comic Relief and Sport Relief all featured fake competition winners, the corporation said.

Cash keeps rolling in for BBC’s six-figure big shots

Cash keeps rolling in for BBC’s six-figure big shots

Bloated indeed. This lot have been taking the Scottish public to the cleaners for years. Time to clear them out. Vote, “Yes” in the referendum.

The BBC is facing a row over its bloated bureaucracy after an investigation revealed salary rises for some of its most highly paid staff, with more than 80 earning in excess of £150,000.

Despite pledges to cut bureaucracy, and a pay freeze in the public sector, the number of senior executives earning more than £100,000 has increased under Lord Hall, its new director-general, according to an official BBC register of elite staff.

The register also shows that thirteen executives earning more than the prime minister’s £142,500-a-year salary have had rises of as much as 10% in the past year. There are at least 82 executives on more than £150,000, well above the official target of 70

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article1382227.ece

Another £13billion Write Off.

£13billion Write Off.

This is another example of the Westminster political system at it’s wasteful best. Scotland does not need to accept this level of incompetence. Vote, “Yes” in the September referendum.

The Labour government, in 2002 decided to computerise NHS records in England so that, at the touch of a button a patients records could be displayed on screen anywhere in England. The hidden purpose of the development, (to be completed by 2004) was to install computer systems so that financial reporting could be introduced allowing billing to be introduced.

Six years after it was conceived and blessed by a widely grinning Tony Blair, the disastrous National Health Service IT scheme was cancelled and the sum of £13billion written off, having been been officially classified as, “deeply in the doo-doo”.

Well-documented delays, generously estimated at four years, and chaos (Eyes passim ad nauseam) stem from the big-is-beautiful approach adopted by the IT experts who set up the programme. Rather than set standards to which hospitals with hugely varying requirements should develop their own systems, regional monopoly contracts were awarded to four big IT consultancies, who themselves turned to large but completely unprepared software companies.

An NHS chief conceded to a committee of MPs that the main software, provided by US firm Cerner, was “based on billing, and, developed in America, and does not take into account a whole series of issues around 18-weeks and patient tracking with result that all aspects of the software would need to be rewritten.

Another software firm, iSoft, had an even worse record. The new “Lorenzo” system promised for March 2004 was, nearly five years later, “only now, being very tentatively tested”. Way to go!

In the years since major problems were identified, instead of ditching the project, those in charge simply reset the start date again and again at an ever increasing cost of many hundreds of £millions to the taxpayer.

http://www.sunray22b.net/big_government_big_business.htm

Labour Sinks to New Depths in Cancer Leaflet

Labour Sinks to New Depths in Cancer Leaflet

This is Westminster politics at it’s dirtiest. Scotland deserves better. Vote, “Yes” in September

I always thought this would develop into the dirtiest campaign ever, but I didn’t think it would happen this quickly. The Sunday Times front page carries the story of how Labour have sent out 250,000 postcards to cancer sufferers warning them what might happen if those wicked Tories came to power.

Labour has become embroiled in a row about the use of personal data after sending cancer patients alarmist mailshots saying their lives could be at risk under a Conservative government. Cards addressed to sufferers by name warn that a Labour guarantee to see a cancer specialist within two weeks would be scrapped by the Tories. Labour claims the Conservatives would also do away with the right to be treated within 18 weeks.

Cancer patients who received the personalised cards, sent with a message from a breast cancer survivor praising her treatment under Labour, said they were “disgusted and shocked”, and feared that the party may have had access to confidential health data. Labour sources deny that the party has used any confidential information. However, the sources admit that, in line with other political parties, it uses socio-demographic research that is commercially and publicly available. See the article;

http://iaindale.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/labour-sinks-to-new-depths-in-cancer.html