1. The Education Secretary, Alan Johnson, admits the failure of the government with respect to state school education while running for Deputy Prime Minister, err, well, deputy Labour Party Leader, to Gordon Brown. This is a blackmail and coercion threat against private schools by the government to remove their tax exempt, charitable status if they don't "volunteer" to commit resources to the state school system. Labour is furthering its attack on the upper class and wealthy by slowly eroding its foundation and power base.
This destroys private education and subsumes it into the state system. This is a clear example of the destructiveness of this Labour government having once obtained power it then seeks to undermine the private sector as it increases the reach of the state into everyone's life. This reeks of a Gordon Brown idea. Forget about privacy, individuality and the private sector.
Parents who pay for a private education will also be paying for the education of others by various methods which means that they will have to pay more to ensure that the same resources are available for their children, do without the education they thought they were buying or opt out of private school charities and pay that increased amount to a taxed private school.
As noted on BBC News24 this afternoon from one Email sent in, the viewer described private education as a savings to the government which is paid by individuals who pay taxes. The government does not have to bear the burden of the expense for the education of these people, and these educational institutions are accorded a tax exempt status as a charity functioning in the interest of society by means of education. Otherwise, the government would have to pay for this education. The government is a net beneficiary and now wants more to help its failure with state schools.
This sounds like Gordon Brown taxing dividend income in the pension funds which he believed was in the best long term interest of the economy and the country. The long term has shown that the fundamental changes he created were so profound and destructive as to be unbelievable. He destroyed the private pension industry, caused many people to lose their pension savings and changed the investment allocation decision from equities to other tax free income investments including property. His delivery sounded good at the time, but no one considered the consequences of his actions. This is happening all over again.
Private schools are being compelled to show how they benefit the community. It's not enough any more that they are providing an education which benefits society overall. They are being coerced into providing resources to the the state school system. The demand is that they show how they benefit people on lower incomes. I think that this is an absurd demand. They get an aggregate tax benefit of some £100 million per year which is being threatened by the government.
What about the subsidy that the government provides to religious schools? This is a direct contribution of tax payer funds to education. Surely, the thought behind this is that they are providing an educational benefit to society. Do they have to show how they are benefiting lower income pupils to get this money? If not, then the government is discriminating against private schools.
I believe that there will be a backlash from private schools who will just ignore the government and charge higher fees for those enrolled. They will stop being charities. The best will survive and become more exclusive, elite and removed from general society while those who need the charitable tax deduction will either be subsumed into the state school system by coercion or close. This will lead to a greater gap between public and private education with the government once again making a mess of everything.
BBC News Saturday, 26 May 2007, 15:06 GMT 16:06 UK
Private sector 'to loan teachers'
 Mr Johnson wants to see more co-operation between sectors |
Private schools could be required to lend teachers to state schools and share other facilities under proposals by Education Secretary Alan Johnson.
Mr Johnson, a Labour deputy leadership candidate, says independent schools in England and Wales should do more to justify their charitable status.
Private schools claim many of them would close if not for the annual £100m in tax breaks from being a charity.
Conservatives accused Mr Johnson of making "clumsy threats" over the issue.
New charity rules mean private schools now have to pass a public benefit test showing how they add to communities.
Some teachers told the BBC that they found it patronising of Mr Johnson to imply that state school teachers needed the help of private school teachers.
2. I think this is an excellent idea to provide traffic wardens with miniature video cameras to wear above their ear so that what they see and hear is recorded. These traffic wardens receive a great deal of abuse. They also face incredible fabrications from people who try to get out of the parking violation fine. This acts as a portable witness to keep people honest and is sorely needed for protection and enforcement.
I did not realise until I read this article that traffic wardens have been empowered to issue fixed penalties for antisocial behaviour such as littering, flyposting, graffiti and dog fouling. They should be able to document and report other antisocial behaviour activities such as fly tipping (which is really littering on a large scale) and such antisocial behaviour as I filmed Saturday last and when a traffic warden walked past. This same antisocial behaviour occurred yesterday evening.
I do not know if he could have addressed this problem then, but I now see that they are empowered to address antisocial behaviour by legislation. If they cannot specifically deal with a situation, they can film what is happening and call in those (Community Support Officers and/or Police) to do so. I wasn't far wrong in suggesting this then a week ago. I hope the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea is up-to-date with this technology and enables its traffic wardens to be fitted with cameras too. It might be helpful if traffic wardens happen to witness fly tipping like dumping that mattress across the street which I photographed this week.
BBC News Wednesday, 23 May 2007, 04:02 GMT 05:02 UK
Traffic wardens get video cameras
 Attendants have been carrying digital cameras for several years |
Traffic attendants in Salford are to become the first in the UK to record their work on video.
Some wardens in the area will start to wear head-mounted miniature cameras from later this month.
NCP, which supplies traffic wardens in the city, will use the film to resolve disputes over tickets and to prosecute motorists who assault or abuse staff.
The technology will also help wardens in their new role of issuing fixed penalties for anti-social behaviour.
New legislation enables the attendants to hand out tickets for activities including littering, flyposting, graffiti and allowing dogs to foul the pavement.
NCP says the cameras - already used by police and community support officers - are needed as evidence to prove beyond doubt that the penalties its wardens hand out are justified.
Traffic wardens get video cameras
3. Last Sunday, 20th May 2007, in number 2 I wrote "There is no need of the BNP any longer. Here's the reborn Labour party government under Gordon Brown." This concerned Patricia Hodge's statement about social housing allocation favouring British citizens instead of immigrants. Here she is criticised by the Education Secretary Alan Johnson for using BNP language while the BNP notes that she is speaking their language.
Then Alan Johnson comes out with his statement about undermining private ("independent") schools through the tax system as described above. Seems like a vicious circle doesn't it? But, these do point in the same direction which is consistent with my surveillance technology control and social engineering experience during the past decade of this Labour government's Fascist, or should I say totalitarian, rule.
BBC News Friday, 25 May 2007, 11:13 GMT 12:13 UK
Hodge attacked for 'BNP language'
 Ms Hodge has been attacked by Labour colleagues |
Education Secretary Alan Johnson has added his voice to attacks on trade minister Margaret Hodge over comments she made on housing allocation.
Mr Johnson accused her of "using the language of the BNP" after she said British families had a "legitimate sense of entitlement" over immigrants.
Jon Cruddas and Peter Hain, who like Mr Johnson are Labour deputy leadership hopefuls, have also attacked Mrs Hodge.
She has said she was simply reflecting the concerns of her constituents.
Mrs Hodge's Barking constituency, in East London, has been hit by a severe housing shortage, with the council house waiting list standing at more than 8,000 families.
Hodge attacked for 'BNP language'
BBC News Saturday, 26 May 2007, 00:57 GMT 01:57 UK
Hodge views echo our policy - BNP
| The BNP said it agreed with Mrs Hodge's views on housing allocation |
Trade minister Margaret Hodge was echoing the policy of the BNP when she commented on housing allocation, BNP leader Nick Griffin has told the BBC.
Mr Griffin said he agreed with Mrs Hodge when she said British people should be given priority over migrants.
But he added that she should also speak about the impact of immigration on health, education and unemployment.
Mrs Hodge has been criticised for her comments, but she said she was simply reflecting her constituents' concerns.
Mr Griffin told Newsnight: "She has just said what we were saying five years ago.
"I agree with her. Where we differ is that she is only talking about housing.
"She should be talking about the impact of immigration on other things as well such as health, education, unemployment and in fact on the whole identity of this country."
4. The Labour Party has much to hide and seeks to limit the Freedom of Information Act. In addition to addressing the costs and MPs this government wants to curtail revelations of information between officials and ministers. This government has carried out activities that are reprehensible in the extreme as I've been experiencing and reporting for many decades. This further restriction on the disclosure of information would protect those in the Labour government. This enables the government to continue to lie with impunity and get away with it.
It's no surprise to me that such restrictions are being voiced. There would be horror beyond comprehension if what has been and is being done to me became general knowledge from a Freedom of Information request. I don't even bother to consider making such a request but others should. I know the truth. Others need to verify it.
BBC News Thursday, 24 May 2007, 17:52 GMT 18:52 UK
Minister 'wants secrecy for MPs'
 Mr Darling has expressed concerns, the BBC has learnt |
Minister Alistair Darling wants tighter restrictions on the Freedom of Information Act, the BBC has learned.
The Trade Secretary is concerned that it does not sufficiently protect advice from officials to ministers.
In a letter to the Lord Chancellor he argues that "incremental harm" could be done to policy development and asks for the Act to be reviewed.
There are already moves underway to limit the Act, including one to exempt MPs and another to restrict costs.
Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, who has been leading the campaign against exemption, said the leaked letter "blows out of the water any suggestion that the government is neutral" on the issue.
"We never thought they were and this confirms it," he said.
Minister 'wants secrecy for MPs'
5. The government contemplates extending the laws developed in Northern Ireland to the entire UK. The police would be able stop and question anyone on the street without cause to determine identity and movements. Refusing to respond to the police questions can result in being charged with obstruction of a police enquiry under the terrorism act. The jails will be filling fast. This sounds like the road to civil disobedience. How will the police deal with a million refusals? Where will the police resources originate to enforce this procedure? If they cannot get it right with 24/7 totally invasive surveillance technology abuse, how will they be able to get it right by stopping me on the street for interrogation?
Every effort is being made to stop me from expressing myself and reporting what is happening as I do here. This will serve that purpose. Those making false allegations can wind up the police to interfere in people's lives whom they do not like. I've experienced complete police complicity in the harassment campaign being carried out against me by those whom I reported for child abuse in May 1998. This will just enable the police to go further after the incitement from the likes of Lt Harry Bird, BS and others.
What will the police do if I refuse to be interviewed on the street because I am under 24/7 surveillance which has been going on for eight and three quarter years? This leaves the door wide open for police harassment and confirms my contention that this is a police state. Such procedures will do nothing to identify terrorists or prevent any terrorist attack. It will serve to make the police appear to be doing something while they harass those whom they do not like. Since I criticise the police incompetence and failures, I expect to be so harassed. I will not answer questions because of the surveillance. I will then be criminalised. Attacking the innocent like me further will only increase the likelihood of a terrorist attack.
How can I possibly be obstructing a police equiry if I am under totally invasive surveillance technology 24/7 and am tracked everywhere I go when I refuse to respond to police interrogation in the street? I'm under sruveillance, and all that information is already known. Under those circumstances I will refuse to respond to any police questions. Then we will see what happens.
I will pursue this under the Human Rights Act if such harassment develops in addition to the surveillance technology abuse being carried out against me. Lt Harry Bird, BS and others will make every effort to get the police to stop and interrogate me on the street. They will make every effort to get the police to interfere in my life in anyway they can. In the meantime the real terrorists are free and carrying out their activities while scarce resources are diverted against the innocent for the benefit of the corrupt.
Notice the twist that Tony Blair puts on the disappearance of the three who were under control orders in the article below. He tries to blame the laws for protecting civil liberties:
- In the first place the failure to properly carry out the control orders is a government problem once again the blame for which Tony Blair and John Reid are trying to shift away from the government.
- In the second place this government has no compunction against violating anyone's civil liberties and human rights as I've experienced 24/7 for eight and three quarter years.
- And, finally, this government can carry out surveillance against anyone tracking them 24/7 wherever they might be with minimal resources that would not violate any civil or human rights, but this government is not doing it. Why?
If they are doing it against me, they can do it against anyone.
BBC News Saturday, 26 May 2007, 23:27 GMT 00:27 UK
Stop and quiz powers considered
 Police would stop and question rather than stop and search |
The government is considering giving police officers across the UK "stop and question" powers under new anti-terror laws, says the Home Office.
The proposal, allowing police to ask people about their identity and movement, is among measures being considered by Home Secretary John Reid.
The measure is so far used only in Northern Ireland.
Police elsewhere have to have "reasonable suspicion" a crime has been committed before they can stop people.
Anyone who refuses to co-operate could be charged with obstructing the police and fined up to £5,000, according to the Sunday Times.
A Home Office spokeswoman said: "We are considering a range of measures for the Bill and 'stop and question' is one of them."
. . .
Writing separately in the Daily Telegraph, Mr Blair said the disappearance of the three suspects under control orders was a symptom of a society which put civil liberties before fighting terror.