Texting by David Cameron: a simpleton's guide

LOL = Lots of love

ROFL = Really Osborne? Fuck Livingstone

LMAO = Louise Mensch Attacks Osborne

PMSL = Peter Mandelson Sniffs Lube

MILF = Moronic, Imbecilic Liberal Fuckwits

LMFAO = Let Miliband Fake Another Orgasm

OMG = Osborne Must Go

FML = Fuck! More Liberals

IDK = Leader of the Tory Party before Michael Howard

HMU = Harman, Minge Underpants

PROPS = Papers Report Our Party's Shit

WBU = Would Boris U-turn?

KK = One k short of my immigration policy

SUP = Skinner Ups Pressure

WDYMBT = Why Don't You Mash Boris's Testacles?

IYKWIM = If You Know Why I'm Moronic

FWIW = Fucking Women In Witney

IDC = Is Dorries Clueless?

WWJD = What Would Johnson Do?

BGT = Boris's Got Talent

SOZ = It's All The Fault Of The Last Labour Government

WTF = Wanting Thatcher's Funeral

NSFW = Nick Suffers From Wind

ROFLMAO = Rang Obama For Lessons Managing Apparent Omnishambles

COMMENT: Jeremy Hunt and the Murdochs

Yesterday was a truly amazing day at the Leveson inquiry.

James Murdoch, Rupert's son, initially seemed to be struggling with the questions and, apparently, was unable to recall various things, or said that something wasn't his recollection.

Then he dumped on Jeremy Hunt, the Culture secretary. He dumped on him from a very big height.

Hunt's behaviour, leaking information, having excessive meetings with the Murdochs, phoning them with secret information, etc. clearly suggests he is unfit for office, and I don't just mean to be a Secretary of State, I mean as an MP.

However, I don't think he should resign, or, preferably, be sacked just yet despite calls from Labour and many anti-Murdoch newspapers. It is right that Hunt has his day at the inquiry and, indeed, that we wait for Leveson's findings and report.

The evidence seems damning, and other MPs, on both sides of the House, are likely to be sweating rather more today, but to call for heads before the inquiry is complete is premature.

Yes, if Jeremy Hunt feels his position is now untenable then he should resign, but, if he thinks his position is untenable, he should stand down as an MP. It is not sufficient to stand down from senior office because of dodgy dealings and practises. Such dishonesty must be removed from parliament.

I await Rupert Murdoch's evidence today. I wonder if he will tighten the noose currently hanging limply around David Cameron's neck. Whatever he says, I'm sure it will be the most humble day of his life!

Dorries calls Cameron an "over-educated posh boy"

Nadine Dorries' criticism of her own party leader, David Cameron, as being an "over-educated posh boy" takes politics to a new low.

Nadine Dorries is, of course, well known for regularly saying stupid, badly thought through and, often, objectionable things, but to criticise someone for being well-educated seems particularly ridiculous. Would she prefer that there was a limit of, say, 5 GCSEs to be an MP. If you get more, or higher, qualifications you can't stand? Truly idiotic and, surely, a further example that Dorries' mouth works separate from her brain.

Then she called him a "posh boy". Would she criticise John Prescott for his working class background? Would she criticise you and me because of decisions our patents and grandparents made? Doesn't this show that Nadine Dorries' is out of touch with society?

What next? Her comments aren't that far from criticising the disabled for being disabled or black people for the colour of their skin.

Dorries needs to spend some more time thinking about what she says or, hopefully, the electorate will remove this two-faced bigot from Westminster at the earliest possible opportunity.

OPINION: Just get rid of the Falklands

30 years on from the Falklands Conflict, the UK and Argentina are getting hot under the collar again about the desolate rocks in the South Atlantic.

When Margaret Thatcher sent a large task force to the Falkland Islands back in 1982, following Argentina's invasion of the islands and South Georgia, it had more to do with pulling the heart strings of Little Englanders, playing the patriotism card, in order to help her chances of reelection following a bad couple of years in the opinion polls and an economy that was struggling and the deaths of several hundred Argentine sailors, and some (*cue fake tears) British heroes achieved its goal - she was re-elected by a landslide a year later.

Today things are different. I'm sure that Cameron quite fancies the poll boost that a war PM tends to get (Tony Blair can only puzzle as to why his cynical wars backfired) and it would serve as a wonderful distraction from his flatlining economy and other political woes, but now there is a far bigger issue.

Oil and gas fields have been discovered beneath the waters around the islands. It's been long suspected that there was a large amount of oil and gas there, someone just had to find it. So now the battle for the Falklands has another purpose - the pursuit of climate destroying oil.

Because of the Falkland Islands legal status, however, the UK won't benefit from the oil and gas found there. The UK spends millions of pounds each year protecting the islands, including having two warships permanently there, for which the islanders pay nothing, but the monies generated from discovery of oil and gas are the islanders. Every single one of them, men, women and children, could, it seems, become multi-millionaires but the UK won't receive a penny, or peso, of it. We, the UK taxpayers, pay to protect the islands, build them infrastructure, etc. but won't benefit from any oil windfall. How can that be right?

It, of course, makes no sense but raises the question, why do we continue paying out huge amounts of money to protect a set of bleak, inhospitable islands with a tiny population?

In the late 1970s the UK was trying to get rid of the Falklands and, had the Argentine junta not tried to gain popularity by invading the islands, there is every chance the islands would have been given away by the mid-1980s.

I'm all for self-determination but, surely, that is to decide between independence and being ruled over. If the Falkland Islanders can choose who they want to pick up their security bill and not their independence it's like Southampton declaring that they are now a French port.

And it's not as if the Falkland Islands have always been under some sort of British flag. It was only in the 1820s that the UK stole them from Argentina! Hardly a long history.

So what will happen?

The Argentine government have accused the UK of upping the stakes and "militarising" the South Atlantic. The UK say they are simply changing ships (to a much bigger and more armed one) and that William Windsor, second in line to the British throne is there as a routine duty. They'll be lots of huffing and puffing (including, announced this week, the renaming of the Argentine football league as the "Cruiser General Belgrano Premier League") and eventually someone will do something stupid, quite probably for personal electoral gain.

I fear another conflict and the inevitable loss of life. I fear this will increase narrow-minded Little Englanders patriotism and that, if he times it right, an overall election win for David Cameron at the next general election. I fear the British taxpayer will be asked to pay more and more money for islands we don't really want and which it would make more sense to get rid of. And I fear that, with huge amounts of oil and gas being discovered, it will delay the inevitable development of alternative technologies and we'll have more decades of polluting carbon-based fuels.

My solution? Give the Falkland Islands to Argentina - it makes much more sense for them to look after the Malvinas, as they call them, and allow any Falkland Islanders who want to be "British" to settle on UK soil (though I guess they won't do that if there's a chance their snouts can be buried in the oil trough).

MILITARISATION OF THE DALKLANDS? (HUMOUR)

COMMENT: Reforming the NHS

I do find it strange that those campaigning for the government to "drop the bill" on NHS reforms are so blinkered in their view of the NHS.

It is fair to say that when the NHS was set up, way back in 1948, that it was the crowning glory of Clement Attlee's post-war Labour government, and one the 1946 Act that set it up, is still one of the greatest and most important pieces of legislation any government has ever passed. It doesn't, however, mean that things shouldn't change or that everything that was in the National Health Service Act was right or perfect - far from it.

Some supporting the. "drop the bill" campaign (a glib, overly simplistic sound bite that is typical if Ed Miliband's knee-jerk, gesture politics) seem so blinkered in their view, or just plain stupid, that they want the NHS left alone. They argue that it is fine as it is. They don't want anything changed.

That point of view is moronic. It doesn't exist in the real world. Only absolute idiots would support it. Sadly, many of those who were elected as Labour MPs in 2010 fit that description perfectly.

The NHS is an enormous monolith of waste, leaking tax payers' money quicker than a jug of water poured through a sieve.

The problem is that in the 64 years since it came into existence, governments of different colours have tinkered with it. Tinkering is no good. Tinkering is for the short-sighted. Tinkering is for the amateur wanting a crowd pleasing quick fix, but it isn't for the careful, thoughtful politician who wants to move the NHS into the 21st century.

And that's the problem. The NHS is still firmly rooted in post-Second World War politics. It is embedded in the Twentieth Century. Sure, the machinery of medicine might have changed beyond recognition, the treatments progressed, survival rates improved, etc. but the organisation and administration of the NHS, and it's excessive waste, remain firmly in 1950's Britain.

The idiots calling for Cameron's government to "drop the bill" are correct, in as much as this bill isn't right - it fails to address many of the fundamental flaws of the NHS - but they fail to offer alternatives that show any awareness of what is needed, and, in the whole, they want to bury their head in the sand, do nothing and keep repeating their meaningless (and somewhat dishonest mantra) that "the NHS is the envy of the world"!

The concept of the NHS is the envy of the world but no sane country would want to adopt this dinosaur which eats money at a ridiculous rate - way beyond what can be justified and way beyond what can be afforded.

The NHS needs to be reformed. Proper reform. Root and branch. No more tinkering. Someone needs to sit down with a blank piece of paper and rethink the NHS. No sacred cows. Nothing off-limits.

Without fundamental change the NHS will die a long, slow death and we will all suffer.

The NHS has been a major national asset, but as the nation's do graphic changes, we need a new NHS that is designed for the next 70 years, not the last 70 years.

If you insist on your meaningless gesture politics of who h "drop the bill " is one of the most inane that's fine, but start thinking about alternatives, because the status quo isn't the solution.

It's 2012, not 1948. The world has changed beyond recognition. The NHS needs to catch up, and quickly.

COMMENT: Bully Cameron name calling AGAIN!

What is wrong with David Cameron? Yes, yes, there are plenty of things, but it seems he just can't help himself with silly puerile quips and name calling.

We've had blatant sexism, we've had the "dinosaur" jibe, and today he decides to call Liam Byrne "Baldemort" (a reference to the baddie in Harry Potter, Lord Voldemort, and Liam Byrne's lack of hair) just before he used a quote from Byrne to support his own argument!

And although Cameron wiped the floor, yet again, with Ed MajorFail, he had already been admonished by John Bercow, the Speaker of the House, for calling the Leader of the Opposition a hypocrite - this is considered unparliamentary.

Is it beyond our Prime Minister to behave in a civilised way? Does he need treatment for his addiction to insults and bad mouthing? Or should he just be spending a little more time with his family?

It's not even the first time he's referred to Liam Byrne "Baldemort" - he first used the insult in March 2010, and, even then, it was a line he in led from political blogger Guido Fawkes.

It's time to grow up, Mr. Cameron. Bullying might have been your social weapon at Eton, it may have been de rigeur in the Bullingdon Club during your time at Oxford, it may have got you to climb the Tory party ladder but I, for one, find it unacceptable in a Prime Minister.

COMMENT: Fred Goodwin loses knighthood and 2 RBS bosses turn down bonuses. So what?

Tabloid politics has its victory. In fact, it has had two in a matter of days.

Firstly, the boss of RBS, and one of his underlings, were forced to turn down bonuses and, second, Fred Goodwin has been stripped of his knighthood.

The tabloids can't claim sole responsibility for these great victories; they were aided and abetted by sound bite politicians who saw that the bankers were damaged antelope on the Serengeti plain, an easy target for the lions of Westminster.

It's all such a nonsense. It's tokenistic politics lead by tawdry journalists with little or no grasp of the bigger picture.

Why do I say that?

Because, while a bonus isnt paid out or a bauble is taken back, this does nothing to change the mechanisms, systems and culture of banking - institutions that, recent events have shown, control more governments than elected officials.

Two senior executives turn down bonuses totalling less than £2m. These bonuses were in the form of shares and required the bank's value to increase before they kicked in. Whoops! And saving £2m is less than a drop in the ocean when you remember the banks were bailed out to the tune of £70+ BILLION!

As for Fred Goodwin's knighthood... do what?! I'm sure he doesn't give a flying fig whether he has a silly title given to him by discredited politicians and a parasitical monarch who costs the nation more than £200m per year (on a normsl year, liads more on a jubilee year) with very little return (and yet gets her close family to say the nation should buy her a new £70m yacht as a pressie for having shaken hands so well).

Politicians need to do something to change the banking system and withholding bonuses and taking back baubles does nothing to achieve this.

Politicians need to take back control of economies and actually run their countries for the benefit of the people.

Cameron and Miliband (and probably Clegg, though nobody cares what he says any more) will celebrate and bask in the glory that the tabloids will bestow on them but anyone with a brain will see through the veil of spin and realise that they have achieved absolutely nothing.

Cameron, Miliband and the tabloids are like Oceania in 1984 - celebrating victories for which there is no evidence. They tilt at windmills but fail to address the real issues.

It's time for politicians to do something about the banking system - it needs a root and branch review and overhaul - and no amount of victories over pantomime villains will do anything to improve the world.

Sadly, too many see bankers as evil. They are not evil, but the system that they, and politicians, work in is corrupted beyond repair. A new system, with new purpose, a social awareness and conscience is needed.

Cameron may as well give the RBS execs their bonuses, and give Fred Goodwin his title back. These will make no difference to the all-pervading culture of greed and self in which the banks have been allowed to operate.

Any politician who suggests this week's events will make a difference are lying to the public and deserve to lose their seat.

People need to stop being fooled by superficial politicians, and manipulative newspapers trying to push the blame onto another sector of the establishment. Sadly, when the history of the last 20 years are written it may well be called the age of tokenism.

COMMENT: Cameron's dinosaur jibe

I find it bizarre that so many have been outraged that David Cameron called Denis Skinner, often affectionately called the "Beast of Bolsover", a dinosaur during PMQs today.

Cameron said he saw no need for his children to go to the Natural History Museum when they could see a real dinosaur at 12.30 on Wednesdays during PMQs.

Those who are outraged at the slightest thing have leapt to Skinner's defence and have claimed that Cameron was ageist.

What nonsense!

It's fair to say that the absolutely gratuitous insult was ill-judged and peurile, but Cameron has a track record of silly, pathetic, childish and bullying insults in the house.

A dinosaur, as well as having been a giant lizard that became extinct millions of years ago, is a term also used to describe somebody who's views and opinions are out of date and out of touch with the modern world.

Yes, Cameron had another rush of blood to the head for which the Speaker should make him apologise, but there is no justification for claiming he was ageist.

OPINION: David Cameron and Scottish Independence

I love Scotland. Edinburgh is one of my favourite cities and I love it when I get to the Festival of a summer. The highlands and islands are some of the most fantastic places anywhere on earth. The history is fascinating, if a bit blood thirsty. So it is that I find it very sad that after 300 years of union, David Cameron has offered Scotland the opportunity to hold a referendum for independence.

Scotland has a population of around 4 million. Independence would make it one of the smallest countries in Europe. It has limited industry beyond a successful drinks industry, oil and gas (the ownership of which would, I'm sure, be hotly debated and negotiated) and tourism that's hampered by the weather. London has a population of over double that of Scotland, major businesses and financial companies based there, a huge tourist industry that Scotland can only dream about, and connections to Europe and the rest of the world that make it the envy of many nations, but London isn't calling for independence.

The main problem with Scottish independence, as lovely and romantic an ideal that may appear, is that Scotland is not a viable country in the 21st century. Currently the rest of the UK subsidises every Scottish man, woman and child to the tune of £1,000 per year. Being proud in a long gone heritage isn't grounds for a modern state.

I would have expected the Scottish Nationalists would have thought think it will be better and less embarrassing going cap in hand to the EU than to Westminster, because the only way Scotland could possibly survive is to continue to receive substantial amounts of money from elsewhere.

Scottish Nationalists have often claimed that Scotland was a viable nation economically because of all the oil and natural gas that belongs to Scotland. Wait a moment. The oil "belongs" to Scotland? It was found by British and American multinational companies, funded by them and by the Westminster parliament. Its closer proximity to Scottish soil hardly compares to the millions (billions?) of pounds and dollars of investment put in by people and companies that aren't, when it comes down to it, Scottish.

The same argument is put forward about the fishing industry. Nationalists seem to think that "owning" their own waters, and therefore controlling localised fishing, would make Scotland financially stable. Wrong. It would give the Scottish government control over dwindling fish stocks and see them having to go to Europe for help to save this cruel industry rather than someone from Westminster doing it.

And what of the failed Scottish banking system that was heavily bailed out by the Westminster government and is still now substantially owned by the British government? Maybe Westminster should withdraw the bailout? Let Scotland sort out its own problems?

Of course, David Cameron can see a political benefit to ridding himself of Scotland. There are currently 59 MPs representing Scottish constituencies who are returned to Westminster. At the moment 41 of these are Labour seats. Only 1 is Healy by a Tory. If Cameron can lose that block of anti-Tory votes, plus the upcoming boundary changes which appear to benefit the Tories, I'm sure he can see Conservative governments for many decades to come.

But what right does the Scottish Parliament have to hold such a referendum? Absolutely none. And Cameron saying do it now (or at least within the next 18 months) makes no difference. The act of parliament that set up the Scottish Parliament makes it clear that the Scottish Parliament has no authority to hold such a referendum. That power lies in Westminster. Will Westminster support such a vote? It could be thee straw that breaks the coalition's back.

If Scotland is given the right to an independence referendum I think there are two other options that should be considered:

1) The Scots might want to vote for independence but surely the rest of the UK should be allowed a say in losing it. Maybe everyone in the UK should be allowed to vote?

2) Maybe other regions of the UK should be given the chance to become independent too? Not just Wales and Northern Ireland, the obvious places that could, perceivably, want independence but what about Cornwall? East Anglia? Northumbria? the West Midlands? the Isle of Wight? Any of them becoming independent makes as much sense as Scotland going it alone. The problem is that in Scotland there are a bunch of gobby Nationalists who, instead of being mocked as loony extremists, have been given credibility and powers by successive Westminster governments trying to keep them on side for their own political benefit.

Yes, Scottish Nationalists are loony extremists who have no real idea how they'd cope were they to achieve their goal of independence. They're, basically, attention seekers who haven't really thought through their policies. Maybe we should ca their bluff, give them independence and see how long it is before they're begging to rejoin the Union?

You'd expect that Scottish Nationslists on the news today would barely be able to contain their excitement - surely this is like all their Christmasses coming at once. Oddly, Alex Salmond, leader of the SNP, isn't happy and thinks that a referendum in the next 18 months is "too soon" - excuse me? "Too soon"? Surely people either want it don't want independence. A full national general election can be held with only 5 weeks' notice. Surely the polling of the opinion of a tiny proportion of the United Kingdom needs less time?

What the SNP want to do, of course, is manipulate history to support their case. Their case is sufficiently weak that holding back and waiting for a referendum to coincide with the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn - that way they hope to scrape a few extra votes. Maybe television stations in Scotland should be compelled to show Braveheart on a loop too?

It has been astonishing how poor the various SNP supporters are at arguing their case on phone ins. As soon as they are questioned on specifics their enthusiasm is seen as a veneer of ill-prepared and badly thought through ideas. They're not even sure who should be able to vote in any referendum - one I heard on the radio thought it should only be Scots currently living in Scitland, so my Englush mother and sister, both of whom have lived in Scotland for a decade would be excluded, as would prominent Scottish Bationalist who hasn't lived in Scotland for many a year despite regularly interfering in Scottish politics. Maybe the Scottish Nationalists would like the vote restricted to members of the SNP?

There was a time when Alex Salmond and the SNP argued that an independent Scotland would be part of an economic grouping with Ireland and Iceland. Whoops! Strange how they've dropped that argument in recent times!

I genuinely fear an independence referendum if it is held in the next 18 months. Most opinion polls put Scottish independence at between 33% and 45% but, at a time when a Tory-lead government is putting in place extreme policies that are very unpopular I many circles, I can see a situation whereby the referendum is hijacked as an anti-Conservative, anti-Cameron vote. Independence could be achieved for the wrong reasons.

COMMENT: Cutting diplomatic links with Iran

Things have been hitting-up with regard to the West's relationship with Iran (well, now that Iraq and Libya are "solved", Obama needs a new war to help his election campaign). The West keep saying that Iran shouldn't be developing nuclear weapons while Iran point out the hypocrisy of the nuclear powers telling them they can't join the gang!

Earlier this week, the British Embassy in Tehran was attacked and taken over. The UK government's response was to withdraw all from the embassy and order all Iranian diplomats out of London. Diplomatic links are cut.

At a time of trouble and disagreement isn't that the worst and most idiotic thing to do? When there is disagreement that is the time when diplomats should be doing their job: talking, negotiating, working out a peace, keeping the peace.

Cutting diplomatic ties is like taking your ball home and ending the game. Worse, it's more akin to preparing for war. And what will this war achieve? Nothing.

Sure, there will be Americans who see it as an heroic struggle against the Iranians and, I'm sure, it will bolster Obama's presidency (and his lack of substance continues to be exposed - he, more than anyone, needs another war if he is to win a second term in the White House).

Cameron, the British PM, probably hopes it will be his Falklands - Thatcher, deeply unpopular after cuts, riots and rising unemployment sent forces to re-capture a few bits of rock we'd been trying to get rid of for decades in the early '80s and, therefore, romped to a second election victory in 1983. And, of course, another big war would be just what Cameron's mates in the Arms industry want (he's recently been campaigning to end the treaty that banned cluster bombs).

Also, Cameron has been sidelined in Europe and has lost a platform where he might have been able to be seen as statesmanlike. He wants, very much as Blair did with GWB, to radiate in the glow that is emanating from Obama. Obama is, now, one of his only international friends left.

After the "dodgy dossier" and the lack of WMD in Iraq, should we take Iran's claims, and the West's concerns, with a pinch of salt?

So, what if Iran IS on the verge of having nuclear weapons? What if they actually already have them? Should I bother buying any Christmas presents or will the world have come to an end in the next few weeks?

Hopefully, that's unlikely, but, and there is no doubt, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President is both unstable and unpredictable. Is that the sort of man who should be let loose like this?

Cutting diplomatic links is a truly idiotic thing to do with any nation - but particularly any nation that could be considered a "rogue state". It is political posturing on a level to which the likes of the unions normally only ever sink. It is dangerous and Cameron is gambling on what might happen next.

Grown-ups discuss their problems. Grown-ups negotiate and compromise. This week Cameron, yet again, has shown himself to be a schoolboy in short trousers when it comes to the world stage.

Miliband's PMQs cock-up

Either George Osborne goes on budget holidays or cleaners and dinner ladies are paid a lot....



... or Ed Miliband is a total muppet!

OPINION: We shouldn't get a warm glow from telethons

Yesterday, the BBC's Children in Need set a new first day fundraising record raising £26 million from all sorts of activities. Lots of praise has followed from celebs (all very keen to promote their latest book or song) and online in places like Twitter.

But, really, isn't it a disgrace that, in 2011, telethons are seen as a normal way of raising money for things which ought to be there, provided by the state?

Let's put it into a bit of context. £26 million is considerably less than the £40 million cost of the civil list (money given to the Queen) each year and, when put into contrast with the £202 million total cost of the royal family, it makes you wonder what 21st century Britons' priorities are. Why not scrap the irrelevant and anachronistic monarchy and use that money to fund hospices, youth centres, medical research, etc.

Then let's look at taxation. We (Britons) seem to expect everything without paying more tax. This is moronic on a level that only George W Bush could equal. We NEED to pay more taxes in order to find essential services - and it's not simply a case of the rich paying more, we all need to pay a bit more. In return, we'd have a better society. Doesn't that make sense? Isn't that what the majority want?

If every tax payer in the UK paid an extra one pound per week in tax (hardly enough to bankrupt anyone) it would raise over £2 BILLION pounds each year. Yes, I'll say that again, £2 BILLION - that makes yesterday's £26 million seem rather pathetic doesn't it? It shows how greedy and selfish many Britons are.

But, of course, Children in Need's trump card last night was to keep repeating that all monies donated would go to UK-based projects and charities. Yes, the xenophobic, if not racist, card. Nigel Farage must have been grinning to himself all day.

The poverty and suffering experienced by British children is nothing in comparison to the poverty and suffering of children in the Third World but, oh no, Children in Need, unlike Comic Relief, is only helping the children in a country who can well-afford to eliminate poverty and suffering affecting its own children overnight.

Anyone who watched the hours of inane nonsense last night shouldn't feel a warm glow but a deep embarrassment that they, like me, live in a society that puts greed and self above caring for others and sharing resources.

Any good Prime Minister should be embarrassed that telethons like Children in Need are providing essential services in a nation that can easily afford to fund those services, but I wonder if Cameron cares. I'm fairly sure he doesn't. Not do the vast majority of politicians in Westminster.

The time has come for a new Britain, with new priorities and an egalitarian outlook. If there is any compassion in this country then last night should be the last ever Children in Need. Sadly, I doubt it will be. There are too many who just don't care.

Remember, £1 per week from every taxpayer would raise over £2 BILLION pounds per annum. Imagine, with that as a starting point, how quickly the UK, and then the rest of the world, could be transformed.


_____

See also: http://pimpmycadence.blogspot.com/2011/10/i-don-want-to-give-to-charity.html

OPINION: David Cameron is a lying hypocrite

OK, ok, I probably need to be more specific. There are many grounds on which David Cameron could be described as a lying hypocrite.

Look at him in that photo, helping to launch the Royal British Legion's annual Poppy Appeal. Clearly he cares about lives and suffering. Clearly, he wants to bring wars to an end. Clearly, he's a man of peace.

In the words of the best pantomimes, "Oh no he's not!"

David Cameron's Government are currently supporting a proposal to allow, once more, the use of cluster bombs, overturning previous international agreements.

Yes, this weekend he'll be putting on crocodile tears while he lays a wreath at The Cenotaph to mark Remembrance Sunday: he's already made a big fuss about FIFA's ban on the poppy on football shirts (and scored points with various unpleasant extremist groups such as the EDL, BNP and UKIP);he's probably attending the Festival of Remembrance at the Royal Albert Hall on Saturday night and made a big deal about the two-minute silence and it's observance on Friday; but, while he pretends to care about deaths and injuries caused in war he wants to overturn an international agreement and allow cluster bombs to kill and maim.

The “Convention on Cluster Munitions” (which became a binding international law in August 2010) bans anyone from stockpiling, using or transferring; virtually all existing cluster bombs and outlines a plan to clear up the remaining unexploded bombs. 108 countries signed it but the likes of the USA, Israel, Russia, China, South Korea, India and Pakistan (all major manufacturers and users of cluster bombs) are have not. They are planning a "less restrictive treaty". Cameron sees this as a great opportunity for British trade - we can sell them cluster bombs, we can sell them death and suffering!

Cluster munitions explode into multiple smaller bomblets that rain down on an enemy, or, very often, on a civilian population. Often, some of the bomblets don’t explode and they are liable to detonate at any time like a landmine leaving civilians killed or maimed. 



The photo below is an example of what cluster bombs can do - I guess he's lucky to still be alive. If David Cameron gets his way, there will be many more children ending up like this... or worse.

I guess a man who fulfilled a UN policy to protect the civilians in Libya by leading operations that killed thousands of those same civilians isn't high on any moral ladder.

So, while he sheds his crocodile tears, just remember that Cameron and his wealthy mates in the Arms Trade are trying to increase the amount of killing and maiming by allowing cluster bombs to be manufactured and used again.

Perhaps, more shockingly, is that most of the leading High Street Banks, all having been bailed out by the British taxpayer and some part-owned by the British taxpayer, have supplied funds to those companies who want to manufacture cluster bombs.




David Cameron is a lying hypocrite. I'd go further, David Cameron is evil - we mustn't let him get away with it any longer.

OPINION: The BEM - why revive it?

David Cameron has announced that the British Empire Medal is to be revived.

The BEM had a short-lived history; having started to be awarded during the First World War it stopped being awarded in 1993 when, it was hoped, the MBE would take it's place but it is now thought to few receive an MBE. John Major, the Prime Minister at the time, thought that the distinction between the two honours had become "tenuous".

Now don't get me wrong - I'm not against honours per se. I think it's right that a nation commemorates the achievements of its citizens. I think those who go above and beyond the norm should receive recognition but the BEM? Really?

Why rescuerrect a failed honour and one which, by its very title, many will find offensive?

Do we really need these continual reminders of the past? And what has the British Empire got to do with some Lollipop Lady who did the job for 75 years or someone who devoted themselves to charity work?

What's wrong with having a new honour - let's just call it the "Good Citizen Award"?

This should be applied across the whole honours system - let's come to terms with the fact the British Empire has finished and give honours in the name of the country, not an historical evil, not a transitory monarch but the country.

If politicians want the honour system to mean something, and not merely be seen as a discredited system that's pointless, they must live in the present not the past.