Europe Cashes In

Europe was last night celebrating as the entire continent doubled their money.

After two consecutive years of the bookies' favourite walking the Eurovision Song Contest, everyone west of Palestine wised up and filled their boots by voting for who they had backed on border-free online betting sites.

Mehmet Erdogan from Istanbul enthused, "As I not able vote for Turkiye, I vote before for Germany where my brother build houses. Why? He never thank me. This year I take double money Asda price on Bet365, put all bank on Norway, and vote it. Like taking candy from baby."

Dave Smarmy of Reading, UK, thought long and hard before ringing 20 times at 15p per shot, "I weighed up my options carefully.", he revealed, "Do I waste my phone call on judging the songs on their merits? Or do I just see who the bookies favour, tell my mates in the office, prior to the event, that Norway are going to win and I've got my kids' savings on them, then boast about how brilliant and wealthy I am on Monday morning? It's a no-brainer really, isn't it? It's like backing the favourite in the Grand National and then being able to choose who wins".

As champagne corks popped from Riga to Cadiz, betting firms were planning their strategy for 2010.

"We've had a conflab and know how to beat Europe's cheating next year.", insisted Gary Camelcoat of William Hill, "We'll install Israel at odds on next time out. No-one likes them and unless they sing about polar bears like in the 70s or choose another gender bender, we'll suck the stakes up like a Dyson. Hahahaha."

Upon being reminded that those who bet are the judges, Mr Camelcoat responded, "Oh crap! Forgot about that."

The ASA Don't Do Point Of Sale ... Do They?

Because if they did, I'd have thought they'd have something to say about this, spotted today in Central London.

More Holes Than Emmental

Following on from the news that the hunting ban legislation is rapidly unravelling, comes more righteous wriggling to avoid admitting that a blanket smoking ban (rather than one which was inclusive to all pub-goers not just some) was a bit of a daft idea.

Exemptions were made for the G20 delegates (see pic) with merely misdirection and obfuscation proffered to scotch the badly-kept secret, rather than a cast-iron denial. I think we know what that means in Labourspeak by now, don't we?


We now see the same conniving with regard the Cutting Edge pub in Barnsley, who identified the loophole of opening a research centre to get round the ban, thereby allowing their customers to enjoy what they have always enjoyed, without harming the bar staff with that vicious (made-up) second hand smoke threat. Remember that? Saving bar staff. The entire reason for the ban? That's ancient history now, it seems.

The council talked big about enforcing the terms of the Health Act, but they didn't need to. The brewery stepped in first.

A landlady's bid to save her business by creating a "smoking research room" has been abandoned after she faced losing the pub.

She told BBC News: "Punch told me I was not allowed to use the room for anything other than the sale of alcohol and that I must stop immediately otherwise face losing my job."

Hmmm. Not allowed to use the room for anything other than the sale of alcohol. How does that work then? Considering the landlady had managed to increase her custom by more than 300% with her initiative, one could argue that she was using the room for precisely that purpose. To sell more alcohol. If she had isolated her tap room for the sole use of cribbage or dominoes players, would Punch have threatened to turf her out for that too?

Something stinks here, and it isn't smoke. There may be a clue in the experience of a second pub, who had followed her lead. They were told to cease by 4pm today or risk sanctions. Again, not from the local council who are tasked with enforcing the law, but by their brewery.

Barnsley council's Simon Frow said, in front of the BBC's cameras, that they were going to see the Cutting Edge's landlady yesterday morning, yet there hasn't been news of an impending fine or prosecution. Could it be that it wasn't that easy? Perhaps it was better to instead call the Pubco and hint at problems with future licencing if they didn't play ball.

Since licencing now comes under the auspices of the local authority, they can dictate whatever they choose to pub owners and Pubcos, as I have mentioned before.

To be completely fair to Islington, they do state that these conditions are to be 'volunteered', but the Islington pub owner who highlighted this was made very aware that his licence would be in jeopardy if he were to object.

It would explain why the pathetic Punch would be so willing to close down an operation which was contributing to their business when they are desperately seeking to reduce debt.

The cash crisis at Punch Taverns has prompted Britain’s biggest pub company to consider selling some of its most prized houses as it seeks to raise funds to whittle down its £4.5 billion debt pile.

It also makes a mockery of their response to this week's report by parliament's Business and Enterprise Committee which savaged their way of doing business.

Britain’s largest pub companies Enterprise Inns and Punch Taverns have hit back at claims they operate business models leading to the “downright bullying” of tenants.

No bullying going on at all, is there Punch?

A spokeswoman for Punch Taverns said: "Punch has condemned the decision of our licensee to undertake this."

She added that Ms Fenton could be asked to leave the pub if she continued to breach her agreement.

The upshot of this is that the loophole still hasn't been tested against the terms of the Health Act. Just as the G20 arrangements weren't denied, so the research centre idea is still 'live'. It was just too inconvenient for the local authority to go through the tedious process of the justice system.

Both examples, though, completely destroy the flimsy basis of the law, which, to remind you, was the protection of bar workers and nothing else. Workers at the G20 conference were put 'at risk' but it was OK. No workers were put 'at risk' at the Cutting Edge, but it was not OK.

The law has nothing to do with health, but everything to do with bigotry and righteous control (just as the mooted bans on smoking in one's own home do). When business owners and customers are in agreement, and no harm is being inflicted on others. When profits are being increased for the holding company, but it is still squashed by the righteous jackboot, one must wonder which kind of societal freedom, if any, our elected representatives subscribe to.

Chief Petty Officers

Labour's legacy to Britain - a police force diverted from tackling crime by an avalanche of idealistic garbage from Labour.

However, the ACPO Ltd have finally realised that tramping around the countryside enforcing Labour's class war on hunters is a complete and utter waste of time and resources.

Police are to stop monitoring hunts in a policy change that effectively marks the collapse of the hunting ban, it emerged last night.
New guidance from the Association of Chief Police Officers says that forces have more pressing priorities than spending valuable time clamping down on hunts and suggests that monitoring should be cut down.
It brands the 2004 Hunting Act 'cumbersome' and 'unenforceable' because gathering evidence of illegal hunting has proven difficult.

One silly ban dead in the water, then. A few more to go.

Meanwhile, Labour's adherence to inflexible targets has another police force being urged to become state-salaried busybodies.

Police have been ordered to go on litter patrol in a bid to boost the number of people nicked for minor offences.
Officers will be forced to ditch their uniforms and go out undercover in plain clothes in a bid to hit performance targets.

Bertie the burglar commented: "I love Labour, they're definitely getting my vote next time. Business has never been so relaxed"

Public Consultations To Be More Accessible, Apparently

Lord Norton, posting on the House of Lords blog, reckons he has helped solve the problem of rigged propaganda posing as democratic process the mistrust of public consultations.

The minister responding was Lord Davies of Abersoch, from the Department for Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform. He defended what the Government had done so far in respect of consultations, but he did deliver one notable piece of good news. By the end of this year, it will be possible to find on one site a list of all government consultations being undertaken and that material will be available in machine-readable form.

Lord Norton describes this as a "major step forward". If he means that hiding public consultations in a less secret place than where they were before is better, I can agree, but it couldn't be classed as major IMO.

To be fair to the esteemed peer, at least he is tackling the issue. Public consultations, which are punted out to just about every state-funded quango and single-issue lobby group, but not the public unless they possess a gargantuan Google magnifying glass, are a tool that Labour have found to be very useful in their successful campaign to exclude the entire electorate from decision-making.

It's a step, but not a major one. Even if this collating web-site does appear this year (might be worth scheduling a 'Where is it?' post for 00:01 on 1/1/2010), where are the proposals for consulting with the non-netted up, or even those who are online but go no further than Facebook? Is there to be £millions spent advertising it? I sincerely doubt it. And will convenient e-cards still be set up on government-funded satellite sites to harvest 'correct' responses, as is virulently prevalent now?

Unless the public, and the public alone (not stakeholders), are consulted, it appears to be more spin and more minimal consultation of those who actually have to live by changes in legislation.

Let's see how this move will work with some recent examples of the thousands of dodgy consultations over which Labour has presided since 1997:

1) On hiding of tobacco displays. If state-funded organisations aren't barred from taking part.

Yet only a handful of those 96,000 respondents came from individuals submitting their personal views. Almost 70,000 came from those collected by pressure groups entirely funded by the Department for Health.

Not only that but also ...

For some reason the views of 25,000 shopkeepers just seem to have been air-brushed out of the consultation report. We are not listed as one of the respondents although our response was submitted by email and also sent by post, so we can be certain it was received. For some reason the views of 25,000 shopkeepers just seem to have been air-brushed out of the consultation report

So Lord Norton's trumpeted improvement would have made no difference to that consultation. Because simply giving consultations a centralised online presence doesn't pull up any trees if quangos are still invited using public money, and valid objections are ignored.

2) Likewise the consultation (or lack thereof) on anti-photographer laws.

What is remarkable is that Jacqui Smith has seemingly failed to consult those with expertise over this issue. The Royal Photographic Society - established in 1853 - ought to have been at the top of the list of organisations consulted of how the law would work in practice. Yet the society, which has a Royal Charter, tells me that it has unsuccessfully been trying to meet Miss Smith over the past year, despite the encouragement and help of a backbench Labour MP.

What guarantee is there that their views will have been taken into account under the new proposals? There may well be a web-site, but as the corner shops found, that still isn't a guarantee that those submitting will be listened to.

3) And likewise again, the consultation on councils being asked to name senior staff and provide a full breakdown of their salary, pensions and rewards.

The civil servant's letter asks specifically of councils that "you could ensure that copies of this letter are shared with officers / employees within your organisation who may have an interest in the proposals (i.e. have details about their remuneration package published).

The new web-site will have little or no impact if those with a vested interest are alerted, whereas the public (only those with broadband and an enquiring mind, at that) have to find it for themselves.

4) State-funded lobby groups will always be listened to, of course. Even if they bastardise their own surveys, replying to skewed documents riddled with lies.

5) And if all that fails, some bent Lord could always ignore even the most vehement objections by side-stepping the consultation completely, and reporting fake charity untruths to Westminster, without challenge.

Merely providing a central hub for consultations is pretty irrelevant unless the public is afforded more creedence in their responses than those in the government's pay. Moreover, the concession apparently gained by Lord Norton doesn't tackle the issue of responses which are ignored, nor does it negate sabotage of the results presented to legislators, as shamefully illustrated last week by Lord Darzi.

Ironically, and despite his best intentions, it could be that Lord Norton has been the latest stooge to have fallen for Labour's pretence of welcoming opposing views, only to fob off such concerns with well-practiced misdirection.

The Blame Game

Where there is blame, there is a claim. Labour's legacy to the country, but never quite turned on its head like this.

Records seen by The Daily Telegraph show that the independent Labour MP for Birmingham Ladywood claimed the full cost of her mortgage for two and a half years, despite being entitled to charge only for the interest element.

When she was asked by the House of Commons fees office to repay more than £8,000 to compensate for the overpayments, Miss Short sent a letter back saying officials “should accept some responsibility for the situation” for not spotting the error earlier.

So what she is saying here is that she either can't appoint competent staff to handle her financial affairs or, and this is hard to believe seeing as she is one of the longest-standing Labour MPs, she is totally unaware of the rules on what she can claim for mortgage payments.

Still, that's irrelevant. After all, true to the message this government continually reinforces with its legislation ... she may have fucked up but it's all someone else's fault.

How Very True

Via Anti Citizen One, here's how the 'New Truth' works.