AgentAxeman

Not quite LM, its shite like this bitch who are winning votes for the BNP..... Final proof that the European Union has destroyed British sovereignty has come with the ruling by the European Court of Justice that a blatant benefits scrounger from Somalia must be allowed to stay in Britain — simply because she draws benefits here. The woman, named as Nimco Hassan Ibrahim in news reports, tried to claim housing assistance after she and her husband, named as a “Mr Yusuf” failed to qualify for right of residence in Britain. As Mr Yusuf had somehow earlier contrived to obtain Danish nationality, he counted as a “migrant worker from another EU country” which immediately gave him right of residence. His wife there also qualified for residence in the UK, along with their four children who also have Danish nationality. After working in Britain for a whole five months, Mr Yusuf claimed incapacity benefit after claiming he was unable to work. He was however declared fit for work in March 2004, whereupon he immediately left Britain. Mr Yusuf’s departure meant that his wife and children no longer qualified for the conditions of lawful residence. This did not stop her from simply claiming benefits from the state courtesy of the British taxpayer for everything — housing, food, clothing, healthcare and so on. The blatancy of the swindle was too much even for the rotten three-party-but-one-policy-controlled Harrow council, which rejected her claim on the obvious grounds that only people with a right of residence under EU law could apply for benefits. Ms Ibrahim appealed the decision, claiming that as her children’s “primary carer” she should be allowed to stay on in Britain and qualify for state handouts. The case was finally heard in the European Court of Justice today — which ordered Britain’s Appeal Court to find in Ms Ibrahim’s favour. Note the directness of the decision: the highest British court was ordered to rule in the appellant’s favour, despite the fact that she broke the EU’s own regulations on migrant workers. The ruling means that British courts no longer have the right to decide on legal matters within Britain. The EU Court ruling means that Ms Ibrahim will now be able to claim thousands of pounds in benefits from the British taxpayers each month — an amount, when totalled, comes to more than the average British workingman’s monthly income. The ruling has now set a precedent which means that anyone from anywhere will be able to claim benefits in Britain as long as they can show that they are physically present in this country and rely on those benefits to live from day-to-day.

I haven't got one but after reading the reviews I'm well tempted to get one when my contracts up next month. Might be probing yer (oooer missus) fer information in the next couple of weeks Wacky.

Richard Dannett was on the radio this morning saying that we have a stronger military presence now than we did at the start of the 82 conflict. Thing is, what IS the Argie's military capability these days? I mean if they're having finacial problems have they been maintaining their military? I know our forces have been decreased to a ridiculous state but if we didn't stop them should they invade we'd be even more of a laughing stock in the world's view than we already are. ... and would it affect us having Jonas and Colo? Hmmm... iirc Ossie Ardiles left the country at the time of the falklands. i suppose it would get them off the wage bill for that time............ best not tell dekka or mike that eh?

Congratulations bud!!

Hiccy Burpday! All the best bud!

Shouting and screaming to get people to do what you want is, for me, a direct subsitute for charm, charisma and the powers of persuasion (i'm not saying i have any of those btw). Our Prime Minister should be all that, Brown may have had the ambition and the desire for the top job but for me is the perfect example of the Peter Principle. This principle states that everyone is promoted to their level of incompetence. Brown was a good chancellor but not Prime Minister material. Good HR development people will tell you that everyone needs to understand that there is a ceiling above which you should not rise. Not everyone CAN be the CEO of a company, very few have the requisite characteristics. The problem in politics is that there is no HR department to assess personal ability for the top role. Sorry Chez but he wasn't. Agree with everything thing else tho...

Hughton is the man that needs replacing once we go up and you will see a difference. Only Carroll and Routledge havent had REGULAR PL or top league experience out of our 1st team tbh. Routledge played a full season for crystal palace in the prem in 2005 i believe. was really good aswell for them as i recall. I thought that but wasnt sure, that and how much he played for spurs. Only backs my point that our 1st team by majority has the basis for a good PL team. Of course we neeed quality additions though. By good i mean lower mid-table. Top 4 = Brilliant 5-8 = Very good 9-12 = Good 13-16 = Decent 17-20 = Poor Just my opinion...that team + GOOD manager + Financial backing = Good team Just my opinion agree with all of your sentiments but tbf Routledge broke his foot(?) in his 1st pre season for spurs and that set him back big time. added to that you had the emergence of Aaron Lennon who was on fire that season. not saying he's a brilliant player (Routledge) but i reckon he's a low to mid prem level player easily which is pretty much the best we can hope for atm.

Hughton is the man that needs replacing once we go up and you will see a difference. Only Carroll and Routledge havent had REGULAR PL or top league experience out of our 1st team tbh. Routledge played a full season for crystal palace in the prem in 2005 i believe. was really good aswell for them as i recall.

The "human rights" you mock so easily are exactly what gives you the right to hold and express your views. The weren't handed down from on high - they had to be fought for over centuries. Now you want to chuck them away because you're scared of women in veils. I am quite aware of the fact I have human rights, and how and why. I've said this before though, nobody has 100% freedom of speech, you have to accept laws and certain responsibilities in life. Women in veils ? Don't make me laugh, they are saying they will bomb us unless we let them do as they like. That is not freedom of speech, it should be a jail offence and a deportation order to another country as such that suits their beliefs. You are aware a bombers use them as disguises aren't you ? If a bomber hid his bomb in a kids football would you insist we ban the game and deport* anyone that plays. *love how you're still holding the diametrically opposed opinions that other countries are going to gladly take in thousands of British deportees....while insisting Britain should clamp down on asylum. It holds up for wummery, but not real life. no, but i would deport the fucka who hid the bomb edit: after a lengthy and physically horiffic internment of course far too many of these geeky student types think time in the slammer should be "therapy" ie a holiday camp. 16 hours a day of rock bashing wouldn't do them any harm at all. not certain if i would call gaol a holiday camp but i agree with the sentiment that it should be more of a 'punishment' as aposed to a 'rehabilitation'.

The "human rights" you mock so easily are exactly what gives you the right to hold and express your views. The weren't handed down from on high - they had to be fought for over centuries. Now you want to chuck them away because you're scared of women in veils. I am quite aware of the fact I have human rights, and how and why. I've said this before though, nobody has 100% freedom of speech, you have to accept laws and certain responsibilities in life. Women in veils ? Don't make me laugh, they are saying they will bomb us unless we let them do as they like. That is not freedom of speech, it should be a jail offence and a deportation order to another country as such that suits their beliefs. You are aware a bombers use them as disguises aren't you ? If a bomber hid his bomb in a kids football would you insist we ban the game and deport* anyone that plays. *love how you're still holding the diametrically opposed opinions that other countries are going to gladly take in thousands of British deportees....while insisting Britain should clamp down on asylum. It holds up for wummery, but not real life. no, but i would deport the fucka who hid the bomb edit: after a lengthy and physically horiffic internment of course

show me where I have ever mentioned "darker skin". Most atrocities seem to be committed by such, but I'm sure you will say it's just a co-incidence. Your words not mine. I'm sure you know the UK has suffered far more from 'white' terrorism than 'dark skinned'. maybe in the past but not in the here and now.

opinions? I for one would welcome him till the end of the season. Albion and Newcastle in Koumas duel Albion’s hopes of landing loan players before the weekend look to be receding as Newcastle emerged as potential rivals for Jason Koumas’ signature. The Baggies have so far failed to persuade Premier League clubs to loan out their top targets, despite concerted efforts to help head coach Roberto Di Matteo cope with his lengthy injury list. Chances of deals being completed before the televised visit to Ashton Gate are now in the balance, with reports on Tyneside suggesting leaders Newcastle have joined the Baggies in expressing an interest in Koumas. The club are still talking to Wigan about a possible loan for the former Hawthorns midfielder, although there are no indications that a deal is imminent. Koumas is one man definitely available, after Latics boss Roberto Martinez confirmed the club are willing to let the former Wales international leave. But there are now strong reports they could go head-to-head with the Magpies again, just weeks after the clubs battled unsuccessfully for Victor Moses. http://www.expressandstar.com/2010/02/18/a...tle-for-koumas/

Always have done as that's how I was taught - it seemed obvious to me. I was not taught it in my lessons but the last place I used to work my Boss always left the van in gear and I just picked up the habit. Nearly hit the side of the building the first time though as I never checked the stick. Leading on from that though I've always turned the ignition on with the clutch pressed. If you drive a Golf, like Snakey's missus does, you can't start the car without the clutch pressed. Yes you can. You cant start a Dodge Viper without the clutch in. Or with a straight face. yer right there!! the clutch is well heavy!!

Always have done as that's how I was taught - it seemed obvious to me. I was not taught it in my lessons but the last place I used to work my Boss always left the van in gear and I just picked up the habit. Nearly hit the side of the building the first time though as I never checked the stick. Leading on from that though I've always turned the ignition on with the clutch pressed. If you drive a Golf, like Snakey's missus does, you can't start the car without the clutch pressed. Yes you can. You cant start a Dodge Viper without the clutch in.

me too

BNP votes to allow black members The BNP is to scrap its whites-only membership policy The British National Party has voted to approve changes to its constitution that would allow black and Asian people to become members, a party spokesman said. The decision came after the far-right party held an extraordinary general meeting at a secret location in Essex, a party spokesman said. It was arranged after the Central London County Court told the BNP to amend its constitution to comply with race relations laws or face legal action by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Party leader Nick Griffin told Sky News he expected a "trickle, rather than a flood" of applications from black and Asian people. He said: "Anyone can be a member of this party. We are happy to accept anyone as a member providing they agree with us that this country should remain fundamentally British." The party's democratic credentials were questioned by a BBC reporter who told Mr Griffin he had seen a journalist being "bundled out" of the meeting. The BNP leader said the Times newspaper, where the reporter works, had lied about the party. He said: "Because he is from The Times, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, and it lies and it lies and it lies about this party. So he was told 'we're sorry, you told one lie too many', the Times, so we are not allowing anyone from the Times in - kindly leave. He refused to leave when he was asked so he had to be encouraged to leave." The BBC reporter asked if he would be removed if he said the wrong thing. Mr Griffin replied: "If you utter some outrageous lie about me... you won't be welcome again." A spokesman for News International confirmed one of their reporters had been removed from the meeting.

Did you get your leg over?

They'll be over-the-moon I'm sure http://www.nationalbpa.com/ Proper racist bastards!!

took wor lass to Matfen hall for a lovely meal and a dorty night away from the bairns. expensive but really good!!

Happy Birthday KK

why? whats wrong with it.......

1970 On your birthdate the No. 1 single was Dave Edmunds - "I Hear You Knockin'" 1971 On your 1st birthday Benny Hill - "Ernie (The Fastest Milkman In The West)" 1972 On your 2nd birthday Little Jimmy Osmond - "Long Haired Lover From Liverpool" 1973 On your 3rd birthday Slade - "Merry Xmas Everybody" 1974 On your 4th birthday Mud - "Lonely This Christmas" 1975 On your 5th birthday Queen - "Bohemian Rhapsody" 1976 On your 6th birthday Johnny Mathis - "When A Child Is Born" 1977 On your 7th birthday Wings - "Mull Of Kintyre/Girls' School" 1978 On your 8th birthday Boney M - "Mary's Boy Child-Oh My Lord" 1979 On your 9th birthday Pink Floyd - "Another Brick In The Wall" 1980 On your 10th birthday St Winifred's School Choir - "There's No-one Quite Like Grandma" 1981 On your 11th birthday The Human League - "Don't You Want Me" 1982 On your 12th birthday Renee & Renato - "Save Your Love" 1983 On your 13th birthday The Flying Pickets - "Only You" 1984 On your 14th birthday Band Aid - "Do They Know It's Christmas?" 1985 On your 15th birthday Shakin' Stevens - "Merry Christmas Everyone" 1986 On your 16th birthday Jackie Wilson - "Reet Petite" 1987 On your 17th birthday The Pet Shop Boys - "Always On My Mind" 1988 On your 18th birthday Cliff Richard - "Mistletoe & Wine" 1989 On your 19th birthday Band Aid II - "Do They Know It's Christmas?" 1990 On your 20th birthday Cliff Richard - "Saviours' Day" 1991 On your 21st birthday Queen - "Bohemian Rhapsody / These Are The Days Of Our Lives" 1992 On your 22nd birthday Whitney Houston - "I Will Always Love You" 1993 On your 23rd birthday Mr Blobby - "Mr Blobby" 1994 On your 24th birthday East 17 - "Stay Another Day" 1995 On your 25th birthday Michael Jackson - "Earth Song" 1996 On your 26th birthday Spice Girls - "2 Become 1" 1997 On your 27th birthday Spice Girls - "Too Much" 1998 On your 28th birthday The Spice Girls - "Goodbye" 1999 On your 29th birthday Westlife - "I Have A Dream / Seasons In The Sun" 2000 On your 30th birthday Bob The Builder - "Can We Fix It?" 2001 On your 31st birthday Robbie Williams & Nicole Kidman - "Somethin' Stupid" 2002 On your 32nd birthday Girls Aloud - "Sound Of The Underground" 2003 On your 33rd birthday Michael Andrews featuring Gary Jules - "Mad World" 2004 On your 34th birthday Band Aid 20 - "Do They Know It's Christmas?" 2005 On your 35th birthday Shayne Ward - "That's my Goal" 2006 On your 36th birthday Leona Lewis - "A Moment Like This" 2007 On your 37th birthday Leon Jackson - "When You Believe" 2008 On your 38th birthday Alexandra Burke - "Hallelujah" 2009 On your 39th birthday Rage Against The Machine - "Killing In The Name" Some proper trash on that list especially in the last 10 years but a couple of decent tunes aswell. comes from being a christmas baby i suppose!

In the light of the recent attempt to bring down a commercial aircraft by terrorists the English have raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies all but ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to a "Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588 when threatened by the Spanish Armada. The Scots raised their threat level from "P1ssed Off" to "Let's get the Bast*rds" They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years. The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide". The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability. It's not only the French who are on a heightened level of alert. Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout loudly and excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides." The Germans also increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose". Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual, and the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels. The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy. Americans meanwhile and as usual are carrying out pre-emptive strikes, on all of their allies …. just in case.

for you Happy, in furtherance to your question... For wealthy countries, such as the UK, the cost of being a member of the EU is greater than the benefits they get out. The best estimates put the annual net cost to the UK of EU membership in the region of £40.5 billion. Much of this money pays for the outdated and wasteful Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), while a sizeable amount goes towards the structural funds which transfer money to poorer areas of the EU. The costs of EU membership could be holding back faster developing countries, particularly the UK, which has a more global economy than many member states. For seven out of the last ten years, EU GDP growth has been lower than that of the USA. This is largely the effect of EU regulation making it less easy to do business. In 2006, the EU's Enterprise and Industry Commissioner, Gunter Verheugen, estimated the cost of EU regulation to be 600bn euro per annum. This is the equivalent of the EU losing the entire output of a medium-sized country like the Netherlands every year! This situation becomes more concerning when one considers how hard it is to reform the way that the EU spends money. Several attempts to reform the CAP have failed to reduce its cost substantially, while the 2005 budget negotiations also failed to agree to a slimmed-down budget. This is because it is almost impossible to reach an agreement between 27 countries. At present, EU leaders are hoping to negotiate a reform for the next budget cycle, starting in 2013.

well i suppose that depends on your definition of on the whole. on the whole the richer powers have been way too greedy (self interested) and this has forced the current economic imbalance. if youre referring to the overall growth of the euro then i suppose that yes in a way it has been succesful, in the same way most currencies were in the boom years and look what happensed then. imo, its sucess is built on a house of straw with no substance. Thinking the unthinkable Stephanie Flanders | 13:32 UK time, Thursday, 11 February 2010 All eyes are on Brussels, as we await more details of the "co-ordinated measures" on offer to help Greece. There's just one problem. Even a bail-out - if that is what it turns out to be - won't solve the basic problem facing Greece, or the eurozone. Let me explain. Greece has two big problems: a debt problem and a competitiveness one. A "bail-out" won't solve either - at least, not a bail-out that any self-respecting German would be willing to consider. We may get a bit more clarity today on the support that Germany and others are planning to offer Greece. More likely, as I said yesterday, we will have to wait until the next week's meeting of European finance ministers. That is what today's statement suggests. But we can be fairly sure that whatever deal is struck, it will not make Greece's debt problems go away. The best that Greece can expect from its eurozone partners is a promise to underwrite Greek debt, or some form of bilateral loan to tide Greece over. The first would cut the risk premium on Greek debt and make it easier to service. The second would give them cash to get them through the next few months, when nearly 10% of their debt comes up to maturity. But neither would do much to lower the stock of debt hanging over the economy. Or lessen the need for swingeing cuts in public services and tax rises over the next few years. Indeed, if Berlin has anything to do with it (and we know it will) - Mr Papandreou's government could come out of this with an even tougher schedule for cutting the deficit than it had before. So, it won't make the debt problem go away. It probably won't make the burdens on the Greek government - or its people - that much easier. It just goes from being 'impossible" to merely "intolerable". It goes without saying that it won't solve Greece's competitiveness problem either. I promised a post today on the long-term structural problem underlying this eurozone crisis. Happily - or perhaps unhappily - Martin Wolf beat me to it, in a superb column in yesterday's FT. As he says: "So long as the European Central Bank tolerates weak demand in the eurozone as a whole and core countries, above all Germany, continue to run vast trade surpluses, it will be nigh on impossible for weaker members to escape from their insolvency traps. Theirs is not a problem that can be resolved by fiscal austerity alone. They need a huge improvement in external demand for their output." As I showed in my piece for yesterday's BBC News at Ten, it's no accident that the countries in the firing line in this crisis are also the ones whose competitiveness has deteriorated the fastest within the eurozone since the single currency began. This chart tells the story, from Janet Henry at HSBC. HSBC chart German unit labour costs have barely budged since 2000, and German inflation has been lower than the eurozone average. As a result their exports have gradually become more and more competitive in world markets. Whereas Greece, Spain, Portugal and the rest have had relatively higher inflation, faster wage growth, and thus growing unit labour costs - and falling competitiveness. This is why there is no comfortable route of this for the Pigs (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain) - though for some the path is tougher than others. As I've said many times in the context of the UK, it's tricky to cut borrowing as a share of GDP when your GDP is itself shrinking or stagnant. It is more or less unthinkable that Greece would manage to do this and achieve the real cuts in wages and living standards that would be necessary to seriously improve their competitiveness within the eurozone. Martin Wolf says that higher German domestic demand is the solution (or a big part of it). That would certainly help. So would a weaker euro - though remember, in the current situation, the biggest beneficiaries of a weaker euro would be German exporters. But imagine you were coming to the situation for the first time. You knew nothing of the Bundesbank. Or the history of the single currency project. Or even the market impact of the failure of Lehman brothers. If you were such an unworldly creature, you might come up with two, more ambitious proposals for tackling Greece's fiscal and competitiveness problems head-on: debt restructuring for Greek bondholders; and a higher inflation target for the ECB - say, 4%, instead of 2%. I touched on the first of these, briefly, on the Today programme this morning. If you could pull it off, restructuring Greece's debt (with some suitable "haircut" for private bondholders) would actually lower the real burden of its debt, making the path out of this more plausible. Of course, Greece would pay a price for it in the markets. For a long time. But it's not as if it's never been done. And it's not as if the alternative path for Greece is much brighter. "Unthinkable", you may say. "Remember what happened after Lehmans was allowed to go bust - and everyone in the world holding private bank debt started wondering whether they were next?" The memory of that is indeed one of the many reasons that a debt-restructuring is not being seriously considered. You could be looking at Lehmans, cubed, if the markets started seriously questioning every developed country sovereign bond. But the international community has now accepted that we need ways to restructure private debt without all hell breaking loose - ways to make private bondholders bear some of the burden when banks get into trouble, not just taxpayers. A few years from now, I wonder whether we will be saying the same about sovereign debt problems as well. So much for unthinkable number one. What about unthinkable number two - a higher inflation target for the ECB? This post is so long already - and this is so unlikely to happen - that I won't belabour the point. But this is something that was discussed, a little, when the euro began, and especially when the membership extended beyond the European "core". Arguably, a higher inflation target for the eurozone would help the less developed economies on the periphery grow faster in real terms, not just nominal. It could also make it easier for countries at the periphery to cut labour costs in real terms - without actually lowering people's nominal wages or suffering deflation. And it could weaken the euro, which might help growth as well.