|
|
By  David Craig, on November 28th, 2014 You might remember an horrific story from India at the end of May about two Indian girls, cousins aged 12 and 14, reportedly raped and lynched by men from a higher caste after going into the fields at night to relieve themselves because their ramshackle homes did not have toilets.
Police reluctantly arrested five men over the case in Uttar Pradesh after the girls’ families accused authorities of failing to act because they came from a lower caste than the alleged rapists and murderers. But the men were freed almost immediately
Now, after a 5-month investigation worthy of FIFA, the Indian Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has concluded that the girls were not gang-raped and murdered by local men from a higher caste as previously thought, but had actually committed suicide. “Based on 40 scientific reports, CBI has concluded that the two girls had not been raped and murdered as had been alleged in the (initial police report),” the agency said in a statement.
The Hindustan Times quoted a CBI official as saying the girls took their own lives “because of family pressure owing to disapproval of their friendship with a villager”.
I’m no forensic pathologist. But I would have imagined it would only have taken at most a day to establish if two young girls of 12 and 14 had been gang-raped by local men from a higher caste. But it took the Indian authorities no less than five months to concoct their more than unlikely story.
India and Pakistan are probably two of the countries with the highest rates of rape and murder of women in the world. This might lead one to think that the expression “safe sex” means something quite different in India and Pakistan than it does in Britain:
Though, thankfully with multiculturalism, as tens of thousands of young mostly white girls in Britain’s larger towns have found, we’re now seeing our country being enriched with practices that have brought a new vigour to our society.
But perhaps we shouldn’t criticise too much. After all, with the antics of the much-loved Jimmy Savile and with signs of a massive cover-up of stories of well-connected MPs and military leaders murdering young boys in violent sex orgies here, we may have an awful lot to hide too.
By David Craig, on November 27th, 2014 Oh dear. Supposed ‘charity’ Save The Children is in the news again. And not for the right reasons. I did a piece on Save The Children just a few days ago. But given this charity’s latest blunder, it perhaps deserves another glowing mention.
Apparently Save The Children’s US branch has given some kind of humanitarian ‘Global Legacy Award’ to the (IMHO) repulsive, grasping, lying war criminal Tony Blair – the man who apparently lied to get Britain involved in the Iraq war and then threw our military into Afghanistan with no real plan of what to do once there and inadequate equipment which contributed to the deaths of over 450 troops and the maiming of thousands more.
So, why did Tony get this prestigious award? Could it be linked to the fact that the £168,653-a-year chief executive of Save The Children is one Justin Forsyth, formerly a special adviser to Blair for three years, and Jonathan Powell, Blair’s former chief of staff, is currently on the board of Save The Children? Of course, not. After all, in a statement Save The Children stressed that the award was given by the US arm of the charity, not by Save The Children UK or Forsyth. Ah, so it’s not a case of the ruling elites all looking after each other with our money.
In addition to this farcical award to the (IMHO) slimey, warmongering, megalomaniac Blair, here are just a few other reasons why we should all boycott the self-serving, snouts-in-the-trough Save The Children.
1. The salary bill for the 39 Save The Children managers earning £60,000 or more a year is a cool £3,113,000. Just to pay Save The Children’s managers would need 51,883 people contributing £5 a month by direct debit. In fact, you’d need 2,811 people giving £5 a month just to pay the salary of the Save The Children chief executive. Laughable!
2. Save The Children already gets around £150.7m (around half its income) directly from our taxes, whether we want to donate or not. So, you might wonder why we should be giving this charity/business any more cash when it already takes so much from us. When asking us to donate, Save The Children never seems to mention how much money we are already forced to give it.
3. Save The Children’s charity shops raised £8.496m while costing £6.758m, So, only 28p of every £1 taken by the shops was available for administration and charitable activities. This is in spite of the fact that most of what the shops sell is donated free, the shops are mainly staffed by unpaid volunteers and the charity doesn’t pay much if any rent on its shops. But then, I imagine Save The Children needs lots of levels of management to run its shops and managers cost money.
4. Save the Children pays an amazing £3.346m a year rent on its UK offices including its head office (I think in one of the most expensive parts of Central London) and another £4.576m on its offices around the world, many of them in some of the world’s poorest countries where rents should really be quite low. Assuming it costs say £10m or less to build a nondescript office block somewhere ghastly like Rochdale or Birmingham, then Save The Children may be paying enough in rent on its UK offices to build a new office block every three years! But hey, it’s only ordinary people’s money and I imagine the charity’s bosses prefer to be based in Central London. So, who cares how much of our money is wasted on Save The Children’s bosses’ comfort?
5. Save The Children’s top executives all had wonderful inflation-protected, final salary pensions. The pension scheme for Save The Children’s bosses had assets of £83.9m but liabilities of £117.5m meaning it had a deficit of £33.6m. However, Save The Children was paying in about £4.332m extra of our donations into this pension scheme each year to ensure its retired bosses and bosses yet to retire will never go hungry. You’d need 72,200 people paying £5 a month by direct debit just to make up the shortfall in the Save The Children’s bosses’ pension scheme!!!
6. Moreover, the growth projections for the Save The Children’s bosses’ pension fund are 7% per annum. Given that interest rates on most bonds are less than 2% and that average stock-market returns are less than 4%, we can be certain that the Save The Children’s bosses’ pension scheme shortfall will rise and ever more of our money, that should be spent saving children, will actually go into saving Save The Children’s bosses’ pensions
7. The charity was invoiced £584,394 (2011: £258,268) for advertising and creative services provided by Adam & Eve DDB during the year, one of whose directors is the brother of the charity’s Chief Executive
Still feel like donating to Save The Children a ‘charity’ run by the vile Tony’s chums possibly mainly for the benefit of vile Tony’s chums?
And if you know anyone who might be tempted into donating to Save The Children, perhaps you could send them a link to today’s blog?
By David Craig, on November 26th, 2014 Day after day we get article after article telling us that the UK economy is booming while the Eurozone is mired in recession. But few journalists seem to want to mention our massive, rapidly rising debt (click to see more clearly)
I’m not an economist. But here’s some simple arithmetic. Let’s say the UK economy is ‘growing’ by 2.8% a year. Then that’s equivalent to around £48bn in ‘growth’. But the useless Coalition is borrowing and spending about £100bn a year – that’s equivalent to 5.9% of GDP.
So, it looks like the supposed ‘growth’ is actually just the Government borrowing and spending money it doesn’t have and which is increasing the interest we have to pay each year. In fact, the interest we’re paying is already about £50bn a year.
In summary, being an economic ignoramus, as far as I can see the Government is borrowing £100bn a year. Half of this borrowing is being used to pretend the economy is growing by around 2.8% a year and the other half is being used to pay the interest on our ever-increasing debt.
If this is economic success, I’d hate to think what failure looks like!
By David Craig, on November 25th, 2014 Apparently our lying PM, Dave ‘Cast-Iron-Promise’ Cameron is going to make an ‘important speech’ about immigration in the next few days. Well, that’ll be something to look forward to.
What will be in Dave’s great speech? He’ll definitely promise to clamp down on benefits paid to immigrants. What? Just like he clamped down on the possibly £20m or more a year in benefits (nobody appears to know the real figure) paid to (often non-existent) children who don’t even live in Britain? Germany only pays child benefits to children who actually live in Germany. So, Cameron could have stopped this £20m or more scam years ago, but did nothing.
Or will he promise to ‘further reduce immigration’ which has actually been rising recently, particularly from Asia (Pakistan). This chart only shows non-EU immigrants as it just tracks the number of visas granted (click to see more clearly)
If you were to add in immigrants from the EU, you’d probably be near to 800,000 arriving here every year. This is rather higher than the supposed ‘net migration’ figure of 243,000 (up from 175,000 last year) that our rulers like to use.
And will Cameron claim we still have room in Britain for those who want to ‘work hard’ and contribute to our country? Probably. But where will we put the 800,000 people arriving each year?
England is already the sixth most densely populated country in the world.
It’s difficult to predict the future. But I predict Cameron’s great speech will be a vomitarium of lies, deceit and totally empty, undeliverable ‘promises’. You know, the kind of ‘promises’ that Home Secretary and future Tory leader, Theresa May, will later claim were only ‘comments’.
Come on Dave – entertain us! We need cheering up!
By David Craig, on November 24th, 2014 Immigration is rather a political hot potato at the moment and it seems our rulers play all kinds of tricks to make it seem lower than it actually is. For example:
1. Using ‘Net’ not ‘Gross’ immigration – Net migration is at a record 234,000 – 17,500 people a month, over 1,000 immigrants every working day. But net migration is the total number arriving minus the number leaving. Last year around 316,000 people left the UK. So, the real level of new arrivals is actually 550,000 a year – 47,800 a month, around 2,450 every single working day. This is confirmed by the fact that about 46,000 new NI numbers are issued to foreigners every month
2. Not mentioning the quality of immigrants – Of the 316,000 people who left Britain last year, 131,000 were British citizens and 185,000 were foreign nationals. Of the 131,000 British citizens, around 20,000 were retirees. So, those would tend to be people with reasonable pensions who would not be a burden on the countries they were moving to. Most of the rest were skilled workers. But what are we getting in exchange? Around 280,360 of the 538,817 visas issued in the last 12 months have gone to people from Asia. Around 30% of these were from China and India. Many of the rest will be from Pakistan, will tend to be low-skilled and belong to the Religion of R*pe. I would humbly suggest that the quality of people leaving Britain greatly exceeds the quality of many who are being welcomed to our country to create havoc and bankrupt us
3. The great passport give-away – Britain grants more passports to foreigners than any other European country. Last year it was, I think, over 210,000 – 17,500 a month, just under 1,000 every working day. Of course, this doesn’t affect figures of the number of foreign-born people living in the UK. But it does allow our rulers to reduce the number of non-British citizens living in the UK by making them ‘British’. This trick was first used by the Blair government. When under pressure to reduce the number of asylum seekers, it started throwing British passports at anyone who might claim asylum before they registered their claim. This made it look like the number of asylum seekers was falling, while the Blair government kept very quiet indeed about the massive increase in the number of British passports being issued (click to see more clearly)
Conclusion – Ghastly as the immigration figures are, the truth is probably much worse for our crumbling, over-crowded, increasingly Third-World country than the official figures suggest.
By David Craig, on November 23rd, 2014 Apparently there’s a new service being offered by a website called “CHARITY CHOICE” where you can search for any charity and see how much is spent on good causes. This is meant to help you decide which charity to give to.
There’s only one problem. CHARITY CHOICE seems to use the charities’ own accounts as a basis for their figures. And anyone who believes a charity’s accounts is either extremely naive or worryingly intellectually-challenged or a Guardian reader or a BBC journalist or all of these put together.
For example, Oxfam claims £8.40 of every £10 donated is spent “saving lives”. Lie. The real figure is probably around £6.35:
The RSPB puts the £4m it spends on administering its membership into ‘charitable expenditure’ and claims to spend £7.18 of every £10 raised on ‘charitable purposes’. The real figure (as both Sir Ian Botham and I have pointed out) is nearer to £2.57.
My dog has just been looking through the accounts of Save The Children and has raised a few concerns. Save The Children had income of £312.4 in the last financial year and spent £274.8m on ‘charitable expenditure’. Save The Children thus claims that 88p of every £1 raised is “spent on saving children’s lives and giving them a better future”. So, it’s clear that this is a charity that really makes excellent use of our money, isn’t it?
However, my dog points out:
1. The charity’s shops raised £8.496m while costing £6.758m. So, only 28p of every £1 taken by the shops was available for administration and charitable activities
2. Overall, Save The Children raised £312.4m for a cost of £28.4m. That’s £11 raised for every £1 spent on fundraising. But as around £150.7m of Save The Children’s money comes directly from our taxes, whether we want to donate or not, and it gets other money from various foundations and legacies, it’s actually only raising about £103.7m from us – that’s just £3.65 raised for every £1 spent fundraising – not great
3. My stupid dog was also concerned by the rent Save the Children pays – an amazing £3.346m a year on its head office and another £4.576m on its offices around the world many of them in some of the world’s poorest countries where rents should really be quite low
4. In addition, my dog noticed that Save The Children’s top executives all had wonderful inflation-protected, final salary pensions. The pension scheme for Save The Children’s bosses had assets of £83.9m but liabilities of £117.5m meaning it had a deficit of £33.6m. However, Save The Children was paying in about £4.332m extra of our donations into this pension scheme each year to ensure its retired bosses never went hungry
5. Being rather cynical, my dog pointed out that the growth projections for the Save The Children’s bosses’ pension fund were 7% per annum. Given that interest rates on most bonds are less than 2% and that average stock-market returns are less than 4%, my dumb dog felt the Save The Children’s bosses’ pension scheme shortfall would rise and ever more of money, that should be spent saving children, would actually go into saving Save The Children’s bosses’ pensions
6. The charity was invoiced £584,394 (2011: £258,268) for advertising and creative services provided by Adam & Eve DDB during the year, one of whose directors is the brother of the charity’s Chief Executive
In summary, my dog was less than impressed with Save The Children.
By David Craig, on November 22nd, 2014 Before the Rochester and Strood by-election we had plenty of fighting talk from our lying, europhiliac Prime Minister. He was going to “kick Mark Reckless’s fat arse out of Westminster” and he was going to throw everything including “the kitchen sink” at winning the seat
And now the Tories have lost, they’re claiming it wasn’t really a bad defeat as UKIP won by a smaller margin than predicted. The winning margin, 7.3% or 2,920 votes, is less than some commentators had been predicting, in part based on polling snapshots during the campaign. Meanwhile the (IMHO) ghastly, greasy, lying weasel Grant Shapps burbled on about the Tories expecting to lose the by-election as that’s what usually happened to the party in government.
So, as the Tories try to blow a smokescreen around the scale of their humiliation, it’s worth remembering that this was one of the largest swings in by-election history, with UKIP moving from 0% of the vote in 2010 to over 42% in this by-election.
This despite the heaviest campaigning effort the Conservative Party has ever conducted against UKIP, with over 100 Conservative MPs – many making multiple visits including most cabinet ministers – and with no fewer than five campaigning visits from our great Right Honourable popular Prime Minister in person
So BBC, LibLabCon and all the others trying to create a false narrative that somehow UKIP failed, the Tories did better than expected or any other view that puts a gloss on the catastrophe suffered by the rotten old parties, wallow in your delusions if you want but we know better.
May 7 2015, the fightback for the British people continues. Vote UKIP!
By David Craig, on November 21st, 2014 Posh boy bankers’ whore Osborne has just spent a pile of our money – nobody knows how much, but probably a few million – trying to overturn an EU law limiting bankers’ bonuses. Yup, of all the EU laws the Tories could have challenged, they chose one that offended their bosses in banking. So let me just remind you of the scale of the heist pulled off by our bankers.
The first stage of the financial crisis was US bank Lehman Brothers’ collapse. The boss of Lehman Brothers, Richard Fuld, picked up around $200m running and ruining the bank. Then on leaving, quickly transferred his $13m Florida mansion into his wife’s name for just $100 so that Lehman’s furious shareholders couldn’t get hold of it by suing him.
Next up (or rather down) was US bank Merrill Lynch. Its boss, Stan O’Neal, reportedly got paid $161m for destroying it. Then the new boss, John Thain, a former Goldman Sachs banker said to have earned about $300m from Goldman Sachs’s flotation, authorised $4bn in bonuses while Merrill was receiving $10bn of US taxpayers’ money and just before he sold the smoking ruins of Merrill Lynch to Bank of America.
In fact, in the Armaggeddon year of 2007-08, the top five US banks paid record bonuses of $38bn, up from $36bn the previous year.
As far as I know, not a single banker has been prosecuted in the US and not a single banker has had the proceeds of their crimes confiscated. The term ‘bank robbery’ used to refer to ordinary criminals robbing banks. Now it means banking criminals robbing ordinary people.
Here in the UK, we’ll probably ‘only’ pay around £100bn – almost the total budget of the NHS (£110bn) – bailing out our banks and we’re still only beginning to find out the massive scale of fraud, manipulation, tax evasion and mis-selling which has lost us ordinary suckers probably over another £100bn.
The worst example of (IMHO) blatant fraud was when Sir Tom McKillop and Fred Goodwin’s RBS raised billions from their stupid shareholders so they could satisfy their delusions of grandeur by buying Dutch bank ABN Amro. Here’s what Fred wrote for shareholders just a few months before the collapse of RBS – the biggest bankruptcy in British history: “last year also saw us benefit from our focus on credit quality and risk management”. This ludicrous claim was backed up by farcical Sir Tom: “we have witnessed the benefits of the Group’s longstanding focus on credit quality”. Then a few months later, our rulers threw £45bn of our money into the stinking bankrupt cesspit of greed and incompetence that multimillionaires McKillop and Goodwin had created.
So, what does our Government do? Prosecute a few bankers? Nope. Confiscate their assets? Nope. Instead Osborne and Cameron throw large amounts of our money at expensive lawyers to try to allow their banker friends to continue to fleece us.
Truly in human history never has so much been stolen so brazenly from so many by such a bunch of greedy, hypocritical, lying, corrupt, gloating, self-satisfied scum.
By David Craig, on November 20th, 2014 Apparently the Norwegians have designed a striking new passport for their citizens www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/norway/11238645/The-worlds-coolest-passport.html
So, I thought I’d try to design one for Britain.
I came up with three main concepts:
Concept 1 – a passport that accurately reflects how our politicians have sold out our once great country to the EU. This would also be a continual reminder to us why we should loathe the corrupt, wasteful, bloated, undemocratic, self-serving EU superstate that increasingly controls our lives:
Concept 2 – a passport that reflects the reality of Britain’s loss of sovereignty to our arch enemy Germany:
Concept 3 – a passport that looks to the future by featuring the religion that will eventually take over our country:
Though perhaps some readers might have even better ideas?
Moreover, the inside pages of the new Norwegian passport show scenes from Norway’s stunning landscape. Perhaps the inside pages of the new passport could feature scenes from everyday British life like groups of Pakistani men raping white girls while our police and politicians look the other way?
By David Craig, on November 19th, 2014 The carefully dishevelled multimillionaire Saint Bob Geldorf has been all over our media in the last couple of weeks as he launches the latest version of “Do they know it’s Christmas?”. I read somewhere that Irish rock superstar Bono “has been given the best line” in Saint Bob’s little ditty. If this is true, it would be so laughable that it would be almost tragic.
What do we know about that tireless anti-poverty campaigner Saint Bono? That he’s probably worth over £400m. That for about 20 years Bono’s group U2 benefited from a 1960s era Irish income tax exemption that was introduced to aid indigent artists and in 2006, in response to the ceiling on its tax-free status being capped at €250,000 (£223,000), the rock group promptly moved its prime money-making unit to the Netherlands.
As Paul McGuinness, the manager of the group, said at the time Bono and U2 “continue to remain Ireland-based and are personal investors and employers in the country. Innovative tax policies have been the bedrock of Ireland’s current prosperity,” he added. “Like any other business, U2 operates in a tax-efficient manner.”
Yet Saint Bono has repeatedly criticised large multi-national companies for depriving Third World countries of tax revenue by using tax arrangements, just like those used by U2, to minimise their tax payments.
What about Sir Bob? He is reportedly worth about £32m (which he has apparently denied). But he has admitted that he is a non-dom and so can legally avoid income and capital gains tax on international earnings. In an interview, when pressed on how much tax he actually paid, Geldof allegedly exploded. “I pay all my taxes,” he shouted. “My time? Is that not a tax? I employ 500 people. I have created business for the UK government. I have given my ideas. I have given half my life to this.”
As for all the other self-regarding multimillionaires on Saint Bob’s nauseatingly holier-than-thou song – it would be more than surprising if most of them didn’t have highly-paid accountants and lawyers carefully ensuring that they too paid as little tax as possible.
As for us ‘little people’, the amount of our tax money we give in foreign aid was increased by our useless Coalition from about £7.9bn a year to over £11.5bn a year. Just this £3.6bn increase would have been more than enough to pay for the 15,000 police and 39,500 military who are being sacked as part of the Government’s spending cuts.
Moreover, Britain has given more than most other countries apart from the US to fighting against the spread of Ebola. The US has actually given about $200m and the UK about $20m. China has coughed up just $8.3m, France only $7.4m, Italy $2m and Spain a pathetic $540,000.
I won’t be buying Sir Bob’s and Saint Bono’s crappy, self-serving effort, will you?
|
|
