Thursday, 24 April 2014

Minister powerless to block EU laws

Mail on Sunday logo
Minister powerless to block EU laws 
8 September 2013
The Mail on Sunday last weekendreported on Transport Minister Patrick McLoughlin's reaction to receiving an
EU consultation on compulsory in-car speed limiters.
A DM letter, published today, points out the reality that our elected ministers are powerless to block EU transport proposals:
SIR - Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin may protest against EU enthusiasm for in-car speed limiters, but under our current relationship with the EU he will be powerless to block formal proposals.
Rules relating to 'road safety' are decided by majority voting, allowing groups of national ministers to impose EU laws on all member countries regardless of opposition from others.
Only by ending our subservient membership of the EU and seeking a positive new deal based on free trade and voluntary co-operation can we return law-making to those, like Mr McLoughlin, who we elect and prevent authoritarian EU meddling in our everyday lives.
~ Democracy Movement, London W14



Loadsa moneyThe main way that Common Purpose is subverting Britain is by infiltrating their 'graduates' into managerial positions of power in national and local government, the media, the NHS, the military, the police and the judiciary.

Database of some CP members supplied by Brian Gerrish 2009-12-09 (.xls spreadsheet file).

A list of some BBC employees who have attended Common Purpose courses.

Common Purpose needs these 'graduates' to run the social controlbureaucracy of the British regions of the European Union in what they call the 'post-democratic' society.

People become Common Purpose 'graduates' for career advancement and to be part of a secret, Masonic-like society for careerists who want what Common Purpose has to offer - access to the corridors of power.

Some Common Purpose members think they are the 'chosen people'. In reality, they have been selected for their corruptibility, suggestibility, stupidity and cupidity. They are useful idiots.

The term 'graduate' is used deliberately so as to prevent disclosure of involvement with Common Purpose. As 'member' of Common Purpose, which is more appropriate, individuals in the public sector would have to declare their interests.

Common Purpose creates the illusion that it is for ordinary people, but it is run by an élite for an élite. You do not become a Common Purpose 'graduate' unless you are in the right job, have the right influence and conform to the politically-correct Common Purpose collective mindset. In order to qualify as a Common Purpose 'graduate', candidates have to pass the Common Purpose 'correct thinking' schemes.

There is a strong resistance amongst Common Purpose 'graduates' towards giving out details of their Common Purpose membership and the activities they engage in. Common Purpose operates according to the Chatham House rules which means that meetings are held in secret with no agenda, records or accountability.

So strong is the Common Purpose bond, that some individuals will lie to hide information and documents considered 'dangerous' to the Common Purpose cause. People challenging Common Purpose colleagues have been victimised and forced out of their positions.

If Common Purpose has nothing to hide, if Common Purpose is not sinister, then why do organisations keep from the public the names of persons who have attended Common Purpose courses? What have they to hide?

Common Purpose 'graduates' are corrupt and treacherous crooks who are totally untrustworthy. Some of these 'graduates' are 'useful idiots' who do not realise just how evil Common Purpose is.

How to Find Common Purpose Members ('Graduates')

You can make Freedom of Information (FOI) requests online free, gratis and for nothing here.

If the people you want to find out about are employed by a public body, you could try making a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the body they work for asking specifically if Mr X has ever attended a Common Purpose training course. Also ask if they are a Common Purpose 'graduate', when they attended the course, how much the courses they attended cost and who paid. You might strike lucky.

You can simply ask for a list of members of that organisation who are Common Purpose 'graduates'. You might get lucky or you might get a "we don't keep those records centrally and it will cost too much to find out" type of answer.

It is a good idea to explain what Common Purpose is because some of the people who handle these FOI requests appear not to know, so you can say something like "By Common Purpose, I mean the training organisation of that name: By Common Purpose 'graduate', I refer to a specific class of person who has passed the advanced Common Purpose courses."

If you do not get a reply...

If they do not reply to you within 20 working days - i.e. about a month, I suggest you do two things:

1. Write to them again and ask for an internal review of the request

2. Complain to the Information Commissioner's Office here or write to them here.

Here is a sample request:

[ENTER NAME HERE] - Common Purpose training

Dear Sir or Madam,

1. Has [ENTER NAME HERE] ever attended a Common Purpose training course? If so, please list the courses they have attended, their dates, their cost and details of who paid for them.

2. Is [ENTER NAME HERE] a Common Purpose 'graduate'?

By 'Common Purpose', I mean the training organisation of that name: By 'Common Purpose graduate', I refer to a specific class of person who has passed the advanced Common Purpose courses.

Yours faithfully,

Here is another sample request:

[ORGANISATION NAME] - Common Purpose courses: expenditure and invoices

Dear Sir or Madam

Please provide details of:

1. the names and ranks/grades, departments and job titles of all employees in your organisation who have attended Common Purpose courses.

2. the total expenditure on Common Purpose courses for each year from 1997 to date together with a copy of the invoice for each Common Purpose course paid for by your organisation.

By 'Common Purpose', I mean the training organisation of that name:

Yours faithfully,

If someone is not employed by a public body, then things are more difficult. You could try asking them, I suppose. There is certainly no point in asking Common Purpose - you won't get much out of them.

Happy hunting... remember Common Purpose can't stand people asking questions about them.

Here are some of the methods organisations use to avoid disclosure of information under Freedom of Information (FOI) requests:

1. Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act (2000)

Here is an example of identical requests made to different constabularies:

a. to the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary who provided names of CP graduates and expenditure on CP courses

Click here

b. to the Norfolk Constabulary who refuse to provide the names CP graduates but provide expenditure details:

Click here

The get-out clause is:

"Under Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act (2000), personal information is exempt from disclosure if such a disclosure would breach any of the principles laid down under the Data Protection Act (1998). The first Principle of the Data Protection Act (1998) states that:
"Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully, and, in particular shall not be processed unless
(a) at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met, and
b) in the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions in Schedule 3 is also met."
In this case, members of the Constabulary have undertaken training courses provided by "Common Purpose" for reasons of personal development, and not as a requirement to perform their role as members of the Constabulary. Disclosure of the information you have requested does not meet any of the conditions of Schedule 2, also members of the Constabulary would have no expectation that their names would be published, and therefore to do so in response to a Freedom of Information request would be unfair to those individuals. Under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act (2000) this serves as a refusal notice for this aspect of your request, by virtue of the application of Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information act (2000)."

Note: Any civil servant or policeman who undergoes training at the cost of the taxpayer can only do so if it is of benefit to the taxpayer, i.e. as a part of their public service function. If a public authority uses public money for private development then it is breaking the law. Common Purpose often uses the excuse of 'personal development' when referring to the activities of its members, especially when the actions of those members impacts financially upon the taxpayer. This argument is specious. 

2. Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act (2000) again:

a. here someone asked the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council for copies of invoices which were provided in full:

Click here

b. here someone asked the Greater London Authority a similar question and got copies of the invoices with the names blanked out - Section 40(2) exemption:

Click here

Once again the same exemption as invoked by the Norfolk Constabulary is used:

"Some of the information you requested is being withheld as it falls under the exemption in section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act. The below annex sets out the exemption in full. It also includes a schedule of the information withheld."

3. Asking about individuals

Look at the hoops they are jumping through at the BBC to avoid answering a question about Mark Thompson, Director-General of the BBC:

Click here

And the Met is a bit slow when it comes to answering about Cressida Dick:

Click here

Why can't they just ask the people concerned?

Here is a reply about Ed Balls (at least the answer is straight... assuming they are telling the truth)

Click here

And from the Chief Constable of Norfolk - the Section 40(2) exemption AGAIN (this exemption is very popular!):

Click here

If Common Purpose has nothing to hide, if Common Purpose is not sinister, then why do organisations keep from the public the names of persons who have attended Common Purpose courses? What have they to hide?

4. Asking for too much information - the section 12 exemption

If you ask for too much information they will probably turn round and say that it will cost too much to provide:

Click here

Which is fair enough, I suppose.

5. Information not held

This is a valid response.

Click here

What question should you ask? Well, you pays your money and takes your choice.

Here are some ideas:

1. Do not ask for too much information otherwise they will cite the the section 12 exemption.

2. I think the invoice questions are a good idea. I believe that public bodies are legally required to provide copies of invoices on request but the names may be blanked out to protect the guilty.

3. You should include wording along the lines of:

'By Common Purpose, I mean the training organisation of that name: By Common Purpose 'graduate', I refer to a specific class of person who has passed the advanced Common Purpose courses.'

because some of the people who process these requests appear not to know what CP is.

4. If you make FOI requests on the website, you do not have to give your real name.

5. If they refuse to disclose information, they MUST give a reason.

Update 2008-08-13

All these questions have given Common Purpose the jitters. Because they have so much to hide, Common Purpose cannot stand having questions asked about them and are now using their network of 'graduates' to put pressure on public authorities to refuse to answer questions about Common Purpose on the grounds that they are 'vexatious'.

This is an outrageous interference with the public's right to learn what public authorities are up to and how public money is spent.

Quote from here:

"Another website, Stop CP, encourages readers to submit Freedom of Information requests to their local authorities to find out who has attended the charity's training courses.

A spokeswoman for Common Purpose said that the charity was concerned at the volume of FOI requests being made about it. 'These appear to have the aim of causing disruption and harassment to Common Purpose as a third party, and, consequently, to the public authority itself,' she said.

Common Purpose now forwards its list of 130 previous FOI requests, including names of applicants, to help local authorities decide whether new requests about the charity are vexatious."

How to Find Out Even More About Common Purpose

You can find out how to contact your local councillors and ask them about Common Purpose activities here.

*The photograph is of English comedian Harry Enfield as 'Loadsamoney' - one of his many characters.

Humanity versus Insanity: The Crane Report - Episode 8 | UK Column

Humanity versus Insanity: The Crane Report - Episode 8 | UK Column

HMRC, is considering a plan to sell our personal tax details to private companies.

38 Degrees Logo

Have you heard about the latest data sell-off? Right now, the taxman, HMRC, is considering a plan to sell our personal tax details to private companies. [1] Our incomes, the amount of tax we pay, and our tax histories could be sold to the highest bidder.

Tory MP David Davis has branded the plan “borderline insane”. [2] But right now, HMRC is thinking about whether to go ahead anyway. If enough of us come together to create a huge petition, it will show HMRC, and the government that we won’t stand for them selling off our tax details.

Can you sign the petition now to demand HMRC rethink these plans?

Only a few months ago NHS England floated plans to sell off our health records. [3] The outcry was huge, with organisations like the Royal College of GPs responding furiously to the idea that individuals might be identifiable from the data.In less than 24 hours, 150,000 members of 38 Degrees pledged to opt out of the scheme. Together, we forced a change of plan. NHS England panicked and paused the sell-off for 6 months. [4]

If we act fast, we can do the same with HMRC. There is already opposition. MPs have criticised the plans. Tax experts have expressed concern, and organisations like Big Brother Watch are worried about “serious risks to privacy.” [5]

A huge petition could make headlines and embarrass HMRC into dropping the idea. Can you add your name now and stop these plans before it’s too late?

Thanks for being involved,

Wednesday, 23 April 2014

Thank you for asking the Bangladeshi Government to find Mr Abu Bakar Siddique

Apr 22 (1 day ago)
to me
Friends of the Earth - See things differently
International update
Join us22 April 2014  

Thank you for asking the Bangladeshi Government to find Mr Abu Bakar Siddique following his abduction last week.
Our efforts, along with the work of the global Friends of the Earth family, have helped to bring him home safely.
Mr Siddique’s wife, Rizwana Syeda, is the Director of Friends of the Earth Bangladesh. She'sexpressed huge gratitude to you and the whole network for taking action:
"Thank you so much for your support during these times of extreme difficulty."
Friends of the Earth is continuing to support Rizwana and her family to bring those responsible to justice and make sure that her family have proper protection to stop this from happening again.
Environmental justice activists around the world are facing increased threats because of their work, but our solidarity can help to protect them. Our actions this year have already helped friends in Ukraine, Honduras and Guatemala, to name just a few.
Together we’ve made all the difference to Mr Siddique and shown how powerful we can be when we join forces to support each other.
With many thanks again,
Jenny & the International Friends of the Earth family

Pensioner dies after ambulance takes two hours to arrive despite SEVEN 999 calls

Pensioner dies after ambulance takes two hours to arrive despite SEVEN 999 calls

A coroner ruled 73-year-old William Gouldburn might have been saved if medics had reached him sooner
Tragic: Mr Gouldburn suffered a cardiac arrest
A pensioner died after he lay on his bathroom floor for almost two hours waiting for an ambulance.
William Gouldburn’s family made seven desperate calls for help after the 73-year-old collapsed.
But medics only reached him after he had gone into cardiac arrest, an inquest heard.
And the coroner ruled the OAP might have been saved if medics had reached him sooner.
He branded the death of the retired special needs teacher as a “sad consequence” of a lack of ambulances.
Coroner Malcolm Donnelly said: “Had there been more ambulances available the outcome might have been different.”
Mr Gouldburn had had shoulder surgery days before his death in April last year.
On the day he died he had been visited by a doctor after he felt unwell.
The doctor could not find anything seriously wrong but offered to send him to hospital - which he refused.
He later collapsed at his home in Hartlepool, Teesside, and his carer dialled 999.
Despite explaining Mr Gouldburn could not move, his condition was not deemed to be a “red” emergency, and he was allocated a 60-minute response time.
When an ambulance finally arrived it was a St John vehicle, manned by less-trained medics.
When they realised the seriousness of the situation, a vehicle with an eight-minute response time was requested and eventually an ambulance and rapid response car arrived.
But it was too late and Mr Gouldburn was pronounced dead soon after.
FlickrNorth East Ambulance Service vehicle
Too late: North East Ambulance Service vehicle
Speaking at the two-day inquest, a dispatch manager for the North East Ambulance Service said on the day Mr Gouldburn fell ill they were experiencing a high level of urgent calls.
Lynn Corrigan said ambulance drivers were hit by delays in admitting patients to North Durham hospital due to a lack of available beds.
The coroner asked her: “Is what I’m hearing you don’t have resources to meet demand?”
Mrs Corrigan said: “Yes, that’s correct. It is a national problem.”
Pathologist Dr Jan Lowe told the inquest in Hartlepool that Mr Gouldburn had anunderlying heart condition which was made worse by the stress of being on the bathroom floor for so long.
Tom Howard, head of the North East Ambulance Service’s contact centre, admitted the pensioner did not receive the level of care he should have.
During the inquest he told Mr Gouldburn’s stepdaughter Joanne Dobson and her husband Colin Dobson: “Mr Gouldburn didn’t receive the level of care that he should have done. The 60-minute target was not met.”
He added: “It is a resource issue which we have already had explained.
“It is very unfortunate, and I’m really sorry it has happened.”
The inquest heard Mr Gouldburn’s family made calls to both the 111 and 999 numbers.
But the coroner was told there was nothing in the call handler’s computer system to flag up that the family had called before.
Assistant call centre manager Geraldine Hope said although calls to both numbers are processed in a similar way, the two systems are not linked so handlers taking 999 calls will not know if 111 has taken a call for the same patient.
Coroner Malcolm Donnelly described it as “a big gap” and Ms Hope said a request had been made to link the two systems.
But in his conclusion he said the main issue was the fact the ambulance did not attend within 60 minutes and he found no complacency in the way the calls were handled.
The coroner ruled the retired teacher died of natural causes - his underlying heart disease - but his death was aggravated by a “lack of timely and appropriate medical intervention”.
Speaking of the ambulance service’s lack of resources, he added: “The consequence of that would seem to be that cases such as Mr Gouldburn are likely to be a sad consequence of the lack of resources.
“It would appear to be a consequence of stretched resources, perhaps doing the best they can, but people are not receiving the service they might feel entitled to occasionally.
“My concern is the time it takes for deployment and when that does attend it is manned by a charity.”
Mr Gouldburn collapsed at around 10.20am, and the first call to the ambulance service was at 10.32am.
His family say medics from St Johns Ambulance arrived at 12.21pm.
Mr Gouldburn’s distraught family hit out at the ambulance service’s “failure” to grasp the seriousness of the situation until it was too late.
Speaking after the inquest, they said: “This should never happen again to anyone.
“We simply want recognition from the trust that a mistake was made, and that the trust failed a fantastic man.
“He gave his life to helping others and the trust failed him in his moment of need.
“We hope they will make sure as best they can this will never happen again to another family in Hartlepool.”
Mr Gouldburn was married to Pam, 68, was a step-father of four and had nine step-grandchildren and three step-great-grandchildren.
His stepson-in-law Colin Dobson, a policeman aged 48, from Hartlepool, said: “They actually said you need to send an ambulance, he’s going to die.
“I think there were systematic failings all along.
“It was only when the paramedics arrived - not the St Johns - that it was clear that there was someone in control who was actually professional.”
Medics slammed the Government for "risking lives" of patients by slashing NHS funding. The Tory-led coalition aims to make £20billion worth of cuts to the NHS by 2015.
Dr Clive Peedell, a consultant oncologist in the North East and co-leader of the National Health Action party, said: "This is a heartbreaking case.
"It shows in the most terrible way how funding cuts are increasingly harming the public's health and risking lives.
"The Government needs to urgently address the need to increase healthcare funding to protect the nation's health."
One paramedic, who quit his job just five weeks ago partly because of the Government's savage cuts, said: "This is precisely the sort of tragic outcome that I've been warning about for the past two and half years."
Speaking to the Daily Mirror in a bid to raise awareness of the impact of the Tory-led coalition's cuts, he added: "This government has cut back on funding and resources which has meant fewer ambulances."
Speaking on condition of anonymity, he added: "This is one of the reasons I quit just 5 weeks ago as ambulance worker. I didn't want to be involved in an organisation where people's lives were put at risk."
MP Grahame Morris, a member of the Commons Health select committee, said the tragic case showed the need for more ambulance cover.
The Labour MP said: “The evidence is growing that ambulances are being delayed unnecessarily due to queues at admissions at Accident and Emergency Departments.
“My sympathy goes out to the family but it is clear to me that more ambulance cover and more bed capacity is needed to avert such tragedies in the future.”
Paramedic Joel Byers, Unison’s North East Ambulance Service staff secretary, warned that 20% cuts ordered by the Government over five years would mean patients waiting more than two hours for an ambulance.
He told the Mirror: “We are expected to make cuts of £23m over five years. We are only into the first year of those cuts and already it is difficult to find the money.
“Frontline services are meant to be protected but as the majority of our budget is for those services, protecting them is an impossible task.”
Members of the service confronted NHS bosses in January to lay out a series of failings caused by the cuts including plummeting staff morale and increasing assaults on staff.
Union leaders also told at the time how the service is having to call in volunteers from the charity St John Ambulance to help out on emergency calls.
The North-East Ambulance Service said it only had enough funds to respond to 376,000 incidents in the current financial year, even though it expected to respond to 415,000.
The service said: “This means that any incidents above 376,000 will be funded on a one-off basis. These arrangements do not allow us to enhance our own workforce.
“The money for the additional activity will not be available next year to fund the extra salaries, overheads and vehicles we need to meet the extra demand.”
A Department of Health spokesperson said: "We expect every patient to receive first class care from the ambulance service, and we offer our sincerest condolences to Mr Gouldburn's family.
"Generally, the ambulance service is performing well, arriving in under eight minutes in more than 75 per cent of the most critical cases - and because we know demand is rising, since 2010 the NHS has recruited 16 per cent more paramedics."
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

Your Government thinks you are Morons -- Mike Rivero

Your Government thinks you are Morons -- Mike Rivero