The source who leaked information regarding the locked cockpit in this week's plane crash has been a mixed blessing. Too often tragedies are covered up in a mess of intrigue leaving speculation and conspiracy theories to run wild. That means any information, assuming it is accurate, is welcome. But revealing information ahead of a full inquiry may not be productive in the long term. How often do we all get the wrong end of the stick after hearing a snippet of a conversation or encountering an incident that is already underway? "Audio files taken from the black box recorder suggested that one of the pilots was forced to try and smash down the door after being unable to enter the flight deck, according to the New York Times" reports the Mail Online. The New York Times report says; A senior French military official involved in the investigation described a “very smooth, very cool” conversation between the pilots during the early part of the flight from Barcelona, Spain, to Düsseldorf, Germany. Then the audio indicated that one of the pilots left the cockpit and could not re-enter. The official spoke under anonymity as the investigation continues which means we must all take his account with at least a pinch of salt.
He account indicates that one pilot was locked in the cockpit alone. If that is the case this pilot may have collapsed or died rather than willingly taking the plane to its death. But the plane could have malfunctioned and he may have been struggling to regain control. Overall speculation is not productive but news a pilot was locked out of the cockpit is an obvious cause for concern because "Experienced pilots today told MailOnline that under normal conditions crew have an emergency access code to enter the cockpit through the locked door. They can only be stopped from using it if whoever is inside the cockpit manually – and intentionally - disables it." That leaves speculation it was a terrorist attack or suicide. The investigation continues but Thursday the latest news is that the descent was intentional. Updated story Friday Co pilot Andreas Lubitz scrutinised
2 Comments
In the run up to the May 2014 European elections we asked can you trust Ukip and we ask that again as the General Election draws near. Ahead of the May 2014 elections Sky News revealed the results of a poll which indicated that voters are switching to UKIP as they do not trust mainstream political parties in the UK. Polls are a bit of a mixed bag as so much depends on how many people took part, the cross section of pollsters and how many participants took the poll seriously. Ukip were fairly successful in the May EU elections but will that translate into more MPs in the upcoming general election? All that aside though this writer wonders what makes these disillusioned voters think that they can trust UKIP? Yes the mainstream political parties have a poor track record on some issues; but you can never please all of the people all of the time. We all know that Tory PM David Cameron can barely open his mouth without uttering a lie and that too many political parties have been touched by sleaze following the expenses scandal, but what makes people feel that UKIP will be any different? Voters can probably trust UKIP to bring back hunting, try to exit Europe and maybe even overturn the smoking ban but what about the many other issues? It's ironic that those who are turning to UKIP as a trustworthy party ignore the fact that people such as Neil and Christine Hamilton are now Ukip supporters. Remember this political married couple, turned celebrity recently appearing in Christmas pantomimes in the UK, and we do not mean Parliament? Mostyn Neil Hamilton became involved in a political scandal known as the cash-for-questions affair, and temporarily quit politics before joining forces with Ukip. Ultimately, as Ukip became a recognised political party, rather than just a bunch of fruitcakes, to quote David Cameron, party leader Nigel Farage cleared out embarrassments to UKIP and the Hamiltons were moved on. The Guardian reported in 2014 "Hamilton has been dropped as Ukip's campaigns director. With questions having been raised about Nigel Farage's use of EU allowances over the past few weeks – allegations that Farage calls "outrageous" – an Observer report suggests that Hamilton's demotion stems from fears his reputation might leave Ukip vulnerable to sleaze allegations. There's also the small matter of Hamilton's comments about the party's main donor, Paul Sykes, at Ukip's conference in February. "So far, we haven't seen the colour of his money," he told the Observer."
Hardly reassuring as the Hamilton's are still evident in UKIP and could resurface to the forefront should political success shine on UKIP. "Ukip Is Party For 'Decent BNP Supporters', said Deputy Chair Neil Hamilton" before his demise. UKIP trusters also forget that disillusioned Tory MPS are part of UKIP and swelling its number of candidates. That means those politicians that they do not trust, form part of a party which they choose to trust. Confused? You and me both. Farage has now advised Ukip supporters to vote Tory in constituencies where Ukip have no chance of winning calling it tactical voting. As he was a Tory MP before parting company on a disagreement over Europe he is just reinforcing the view that Ukip is the alternative Tory party of the UK. Farage is the intelligent and personable front of Ukip but many claim he simply makes up many of his "facts". On Any Questions in 2012, Farage said “Every one of you in this room is paying a 12 percent surcharge on your energy bills to subsidise a wind turbine programme that simply won’t work.” "It’s actually less than £1 per bill, for wind farms that do actually work because: physics." So without labouring the point, no pun intended, why would any potential voter feel Ukip is trustworthy as opposed to the mainstream political parties? Sources and related reading: Sky News Guardian Op-ed; Would you agree that British politics is a dirty and deceitful business where money and outside forces have too much power? The electorate of the UK is already disenfranchised with British politics which could result in a poor turn-out at the May 2015 General Election. I would argue that instead the electorate should hot-foot it to the polls to make sure the least sleazy, corrupt and self-serving party is elected to run the UK. But putting all of that aside news Thursday that a secret Tory plot was hatched to oust the Speaker of the Commons John Bercow from his role indicates politicians have sunk to a new low. BBC News reports Thursday; As William Hague is stepping down from politics at the May election his reasons for hatching the plot are debatable and questionable. Attempting to change the rules for electing the Speaker of the House of Commons indicates the Tories are not that confident that they will be victorious in the May election and are trying to make changes while still in office. John Bercow replaced Michael Martin In 2009 Speaker of the Commons Michael Martin, Labour, became a casualty of the expenses scandal which sent politicians and Parliament into a spin, in England. Initially he tried to just carry on regardless but in no time at all it was obvious that he would have to go and he informed the World that he was resigning his post; this resignation alone put him into the History Books of British Politics. June 17, 2009, he delivered his final words, chairing his last Prime Minister's question time and of course members of the House sung his praises but, considering that in many ways they hit the final nail into the Speaker coffin, it was all a bit pathetic. English Parliament Politics is a little different the world over. Even those countries that have democratically elected politicians tend to go about their business in very different ways. From the way that politicians are selected and elected to the way that Parliament, Government or Senates are run on a daily basis there are huge differences. England of course has many oddities in its electoral system. Some would say that this is because we have had elected officials forming governments much longer than many other countries but is it because we hang onto traditional aspects of everything and that is just what we have done with Parliament? The Houses of Parliament are situated along the Thames Embankment in the Heart of London. This is in the London City or borough of Westminster. Here is where the two separate political Houses operate. House of Lords / The Lords The House of Lords is full of outdated pomp and ceremony. Although this House is not elected by the people it has more power than many realise. The politicians here are able to scupper Bills from the House of Commons and either prevent or slow down legislation. They can also force amendments to be made to proposed Laws and the like. At one time there were more hereditary Peers; Peers are the men and women who have been made Lords and Ladies and now sit in this House. Some Peers attend the House of Lords faithfully while others just reap the rewards with the minimum input and attendance. Legislation by the Labour Party to reduce the power of The House of Lords and limit the amount of hereditary peers was scuppered, pretty much by The Lords. By the time the Bill was passed it was a poor imitation of its original draft. During David Cameron's coalition government the number sitting in the Lords has increased significantly. The House of Commons / The Commons Parliament in England changed during the days of Oliver Cromwell. Commons literally refers to those politicians who sit in, The Commons, as common people, due to the fact that they are 'ordinary folk' rather than members of the aristocracy. The politicians in the House of Commons are all democratically elected and individually are called Members of Parliament. There is the leader of the House of Commons, William Hague at this time, and there is an opposition made up of a couple of other political parties and then there is a SPEAKER. This Speaker is referred to as Mr Speaker or Madam Speaker if the role is filled by a woman. The previous speaker was just that; Betty Boothroyd was the first, and still to date the only, female Speaker of the House of Commons. What is 'the Speaker'? On the whole it is fair to say that the Speaker of the House of Commons is a type of referee. He or she attempts to keep order in the House of Commons and tries to stop the name calling, obscene language, time wasting and general bad behaviour. When some sessions of parliament were first televised, a few years ago, it was an eye opener. Considering that these men and women are the most powerful in the UK it was frightening. Shouting across parliament to members of the opposition they at best seemed like children and at worst seemed like simpletons. So, as you can see The Speaker's role is both important and difficult. The Speaker needs to ensure that everyone gets a fair crack of the whip, as far as input goes, and that they also abide by the rules of the House. At one time the Speaker was an ex leader of the government but that all changed in 1983. So why the secret plot to oust Bercow and change the rules and why now? Whatever the reason the plot failed although it was expected to succeed as various MPs had already left parliament for the break to hit the election campaign trail. So William Hague finishes his parliamentary career with a dirty unsuccessful plot on his copybook. A Tory back bench rebellion almost brought Bercow to tears and scuppered Hague's plot.
Statement from BBC Director General Tony Hall:
VAT is 20% across the board whether you are rich or destitute. The argument that you do not have to pay the tax unless you spend is flawed as the tax is applied to electricity, gas and other necessary items. VAT VAT was introduced in the UK in 1973 and has remained a money-spinner for successive British governments. These days the EU has some input as "under EU law, the standard rate of VAT in any EU state cannot be lower than 15%." Prior 1973, and from 1940, a purchase tax was in place in the UK. This tax was applied at manufacture and in 1973 stood at 25%. In 1973 a Tory minister set UK VAT at 10% as it was introduced but this was reduced by Labour a year later to 8%. To balance the books Labour introduced other tax measures. What attracts VAT is crucial There are currently three rates of VAT: standard (20%), reduced (5%) and zero (0%). In addition some goods and services are exempt from VAT or outside the VAT system. Included in the exempt list are:
The list of goods attracting a reduced rate is;
VAT is obviously here to stay but how it is applied and its rate can be crippling to those on a fixed income, the elderly, the poor and the vulnerable of the UK. As election campaigners promise voters the earth balancing the books post May 2015 will be tricky. Only Labour have made a pledge that VAT will not increase. Update; Wednesday during the last PMQT in the Commons before the election Ed Miliband fell into what appeared to be a VAT trap as David Cameron 'ruled out' an increase in VAT if he is re-elected. But with a track record of lies, broken promises and U Turns Cameron's words are meaningless. The noise and abuse coming from the Tory benches was embarrassing and as usual the speaker failed to hold any of the fools to account and ensure that Cameron answered any questions. The session is called Prime Minister's Question Time but Cameron simply used the time for electioneering and propaganda. The Tories are looking at cutting £12 billion from the welfare budget if they are elected in May 2015 but as yet have failed to explain where the austerity axe will fall and who will feel the financial pain.
You can’t blame someone for making a choice of wanting to go and work in another hospital. I don’t blame them for making that decision. The persons we need to work on are the managers who need to plan their care more carefully to make sure they’ve got the nurses and doctors that they need. You see a real contrast, the best run hospitals are using fewer nurses than the worst run ones.” His answer was greeted with cries of 'rubbish'. Having worked for the NHS from 1999 until late 2012 I have to agree - rubbish pure and simple. The morning's event went from bad to worse with Cameron taken to task by a man aged 91. An exasperated PM tried to get a grip and failed. [Cameron ] persevered: “I’ll be frank: if you are not satisfied with how elderly people are being looked after and valued by this government, don’t blame other ministers, blame me.” |
Archives
October 2020
Categories
All
|