Organic oleo-omega...

It turns out that "you are what you eat" applies not just to humans but to cows too. Omega 3 content went up significantly in the months when cows were able to eat outside on juicy fresh grass; not a great surprise really. Why is organic milk healthier? ...in an article in The Guardian today. [link]

The picture is a genuine advertisement for organic milk – I resent any “Span’s being pervy” thoughts!...despite some truth…more on The Cerne Giant later but the ad is a genuine one for Manor Farm Organic Milk Ltd., which is an independent family-run business based at Manor Farm, Godmanstone, an organic farm on the Dorset Downs, and only 10 minutes from my family…and also on one of my favourite stretches of road...but I digress.

The news in the report isn’t new; the wonderful website of Omsco (Organic Milk Suppliers Coop) tells us that back in 2003 research had proved that organic milk is naturally higher in certain nutrients than non-organic milk and one such nutrient is Omega 3 essential fatty acid….the Guardian mentions newer research, no doubt having peer reviewed this work:

In 2003 Dr Richard Dewhurst, Joint Leader of the Nutrition and Microbiology Team at the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, carried out a peer reviewed study that confirmed that organic milk naturally contains much more Omega 3 fatty acid than non-organic milk. This is due to the fact that organic cows are fed higher levels of natural red clover than non-organic cows.

Further research carried out at the University of Aberdeen in 2004 found yet higher levels of Omega 3 in organic milk. The research, which compared the Omega 3 content of organic and non-organic milk showed that organic milk can contain up to 71% more Omega 3 than non-organic milk and has a better ratio of Omega 3 to Omega 6 than non-organic milk.

In fact, in the same newspaper there is a good example of how things progress reading the earlier articles: from 6 years ago [link]

Advocates of organics have argued that food grown without chemical fertilisers or pesticides must be healthier while critics have said they may be more risky because of naturally occurring infections and because of the liberal use of cow dung.

…and 5 years ago [link]

The Soil Association, the movement's main standard bearer, unveiled a report compiling what it regarded as significant evidence of the health benefits of organic alternatives - including both their lack of harmful chemicals and supplies of minerals and nutrients - but failed to convince the agency.

[Food Standards Agency]. They may be becoming convinced now because only this month, as says FSA Chairman Deirdre Hutton: ‘We are extremely pleased to announce that Peter Melchett (Lord Peter Melchett of the Soil Association) will be the keynote speaker at the 2007 City Food Lecture. Sales of organic food are growing rapidly and this will be a chance to debate the significance of its increasing popularity.

Organic farming (says DEFRA) may offer UK farmers an opportunity to improve business profitability, biodiversity and sustainability both within agriculture and rural communities. Consumer interest is growing and being involved in organic production can help re-connect farming with the public. That is well defined here by Will Best of the aforementioned Manor Farm Organic Milk Ltd.:

Essentially, organic farming is about building healthy soil by means of correct crop rotations, pasture management and recycling of manures and residues, to produce healthy crops with the right balance of nutrients to feed healthy animals and people. Substances and methods which do not help this process, such as artificial fertilisers and pesticides, monocultures and GMOs are avoided, whilst animal welfare and environmental protection are paramount. The extra care needed to operate organic systems costs money, which is why organic food can seem expensive, but we believe it is well worth it to anyone who values a good wholesome diet, contented farm animals, flourishing wildlife and a diverse countryside.

Coincidentally, the next 2 weeks are “Organic Fortnight”…I hope you hadn’t forgotten…HEREthe Soil Association will inform you if there’s an event near where you live. Also click on the cow to find where you can “Stay on a Farm”.While I’m at it organic farming isn’t just about food! Are you DYING to look good? ..and of course it isn’t just about big farms either! Organic garden: ‘urban farming’ (and “micro farming”) is a broad term used to describe the growing of food in urban areas. This can vary from small scale gardening by individuals and groups to large scale gardening projects producing significant amounts of food. Gavin’s courgettes (marrows!) and Mag’s broccoli (2nd post down) are testament to this.
Finally…getting back to…him…you know, him at the top…well, it’s a well known landmark and associated with pagan fertility festivals etc…reporting on pagan May Day festivities in his 'Anatomy of Abuses' (1583), Philip Stubbs wrote:

"Hundreds of men, women, and children go off to the woods and groves and spend all the night in pastimes, and in the morning return with birch boughs and branches of trees to deck their assembles withall....I have heard it credibly reported by men of great gravity that, of a hundred maids going to the woods, there have scarcely the third part of them returned home again as they went."

Well, that’s those “pastimes” they mentioned ahem). Now just round it all off: the original post and Guardian article are about the higher amount of essential fatty acids in the milk, or more precisely the amount of ALA (Alpha Linolenic acid)…HERE’s a 3D model of the carbon hydrogen and oxygen atoms (C18H30O2) that make up that fatty acid….imagine that, manufactured in durable rubber…sex toy or what!!!

Organic oleo-omega...

It turns out that "you are what you eat" applies not just to humans but to cows too. Omega 3 content went up significantly in the months when cows were able to eat outside on juicy fresh grass; not a great surprise really. Why is organic milk healthier? ...in an article in The Guardian today. [link]

The picture is a genuine advertisement for organic milk – I resent any “Span’s being pervy” thoughts!...despite some truth…more on The Cerne Giant later but the ad is a genuine one for Manor Farm Organic Milk Ltd., (link through ‘him’) which is an independent family-run business based at Manor Farm, Godmanstone, an organic farm on the Dorset Downs, and only 10 minutes from my family…and also on one of my favourite stretches of road...but I digress.

The news in the report isn’t new; the wonderful website of Omsco (Organic Milk Suppliers Coop) tells us that back in 2003 research had proved that organic milk is naturally higher in certain nutrients than non-organic milk and one such nutrient is Omega 3 essential fatty acid….the Guardian mentions newer research, no doubt having peer reviewed this work:

In 2003 Dr Richard Dewhurst, Joint Leader of the Nutrition and Microbiology Team at the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, carried out a peer reviewed study that confirmed that organic milk naturally contains much more Omega 3 fatty acid than non-organic milk. This is due to the fact that organic cows are fed higher levels of natural red clover than non-organic cows.
Further research carried out at the University of Aberdeen in 2004 found yet higher levels of Omega 3 in organic milk. The research, which compared the Omega 3 content of organic and non-organic milk showed that organic milk can contain up to 71% more Omega 3 than non-organic milk and has a better ratio of Omega 3 to Omega 6 than non-organic milk.

In fact, in the same newspaper there is a good example of how things progress reading the earlier articles: from 6 years ago [link]

Advocates of organics have argued that food grown without chemical fertilisers or pesticides must be healthier while critics have said they may be more risky because of naturally occurring infections and because of the liberal use of cow dung.

…and 5 years ago [link]

The Soil Association, the movement's main standard bearer, unveiled a report compiling what it regarded as significant evidence of the health benefits of organic alternatives - including both their lack of harmful chemicals and supplies of minerals and nutrients - but failed to convince the agency.

[Food Standards Agency]. They may be becoming convinced now because only this month, as says FSA Chairman Deirdre Hutton: ‘We are extremely pleased to announce that Peter Melchett (Lord Peter Melchett of the Soil Association) will be the keynote speaker at the 2007 City Food Lecture. Sales of organic food are growing rapidly and this will be a chance to debate the significance of its increasing popularity.

Organic farming (says DEFRA) may offer UK farmers an opportunity to improve business profitability, biodiversity and sustainability both within agriculture and rural communities. Consumer interest is growing and being involved in organic production can help re-connect farming with the public. That is well defined here by Will Best of the aforementioned Manor Farm Organic Milk Ltd.:

Essentially, organic farming is about building healthy soil by means of correct crop rotations, pasture management and recycling of manures and residues, to produce healthy crops with the right balance of nutrients to feed healthy animals and people. Substances and methods which do not help this process, such as artificial fertilisers and pesticides, monocultures and GMOs are avoided, whilst animal welfare and environmental protection are paramount. The extra care needed to operate organic systems costs money, which is why organic food can seem expensive, but we believe it is well worth it to anyone who values a good wholesome diet, contented farm animals, flourishing wildlife and a diverse countryside.

Coincidentally, the next 2 weeks are “Organic Fortnight”…I hope you hadn’t forgotten…HEREthe Soil Association will inform you if there’s an event near where you live. Also click on the cow to find where you can “Stay on a Farm”.While I’m at it organic farming isn’t just about food! Are you DYING to look good? ..and of course it isn’t just about big farms either! Organic garden: ‘urban farming’ (and “micro farming”) is a broad term used to describe the growing of food in urban areas. This can vary from small scale gardening by individuals and groups to large scale gardening projects producing significant amounts of food. Gavin’s courgettes (marrows!) and Mag’s broccoli (2nd post down) are testament to this.
Finally…getting back to…him…you know, him at the top…well, it’s a well known landmark and associated with pagan fertility festivals etc…reporting on pagan May Day festivities in his 'Anatomy of Abuses' (1583), Philip Stubbs wrote:

"Hundreds of men, women, and children go off to the woods and groves and spend all the night in pastimes, and in the morning return with birch boughs and branches of trees to deck their assembles withall....I have heard it credibly reported by men of great gravity that, of a hundred maids going to the woods, there have scarcely the third part of them returned home again as they went."

Well, that’s those “pastimes” they mentioned ahem). Now just round it all off: the original post and Guardian article are about the higher amount of essential fatty acids in the milk, or more precisely the amount of ALA (Alpha Linolenic acid)…HERE’s a 3D model of the carbon hydrogen and oxygen atoms (C18H30O2) that make up that fatty acid….imagine that, manufactured in durable rubber…sex toy or what!!!

Opt out of overloading...

THIS story of a UK postman who is facing dismissal because he advised people how to stop the ubiquitous and ever-growing masses of junk mail being delivered to their home; he has been suspended for misconduct.

The overloading I mention is of course your front door but also poor postman's back! The postie, Roger Annies, “composed and circulated a leaflet about the Royal Mail's opt-out clause for unsolicited mail”…seems he was only trying to help his ‘customers’.

I must say I agree with many of the comments that follow the BBC article, here’s one that I concur with as it is something I have suggested myself in the past:

99% of people are going to support this postie, junk mail is a pain and is largely unwelcome. I'm glad he did it, as this news story has effectively told me how to opt out of receiving some of this junk. Personally I would like to see the Royal Mail be allowed to increase the price of a 1st class stamp by 10p to increase their profitability, as I think even at 40p a pop the 1st class letter service would be an absolute bargain, and perhaps then they wouldn't need to distibute colossal amounts of (what ends up as) waste paper. Dave, Yeovil, Somerset

What we call junk mail is officially termed ‘direct marketing’ and the ‘door-to-door’ contracts are a profitable service and more importantly an essential income to the Royal Mail.

"We make money through direct mail by senders paying for their addressed mail to be delivered, or through having a contract with senders who post unaddressed mail, such as local government information or local takeaways."

You may not realize it, but a company you have done business with may (???) have sold or shared your personal information to other companies involved in direct marketing. The Direct Marketing Association is essentially a good thing: they say “every organisation engaged in direct marketing needs the DMA to exist. Without it, there is no one to defend direct marketing from unethical or unprofessional practitioners, who can bring direct marketing into ill repute, trigger restrictive legislation and create consumer mistrust.”

The mission of the DMA is to maximise value for members whilst maintaining and enhancing consumers' trust and confidence in direct marketing.

They can’t be all bad because they offer the consumer information on opting out of being on these marketing lists: HERE, or use the Mail Preference Service to choose the mail you need/want, HERE:

Otherwise, to stop junk mail you can link to junk mail.org (click on the image) or contact:

Opt-Outs, Royal Mail, Kingsmead House, Oxpens Road, Oxford, OX1 1RX(for unaddressed mail) and for addressed mail Mail Preference Service(MPS), Freepost 29, LON 20771, London, W1E 0ZT or call 0845 703 4599

That unethical practitioner may not only be from the UK and there are problems with Mailings from Overseas e.g. promoting lotteries or ‘get rich quick schemes’ that are often misleading and fraudulent. The Mail Preference service advice is not to reply (and to put it straight in your recycling bin) The Office of Fair Trading is working on dealing with this; you can send any copies you receive (including the envelope) to:

European Enforcement Team at the Office of Fair Trading at Fleetbank House, 2-6 Salisbury Square, London EC4Y 8IJ.

Also:Postwatch is an independent organisation, not attached to the Royal Mail Group or part of the Government. Postwatch was set up to ensure that post offices, Parcelforce, Royal Mail and any competing postal providers, give the best service possible to you, their customer.

“Post offices are visited by twenty eight million people at least once every week. On average, we send 100 letters and receive over five times that amount from friends and businesses each year. Just about everyone of every age and every background uses the post in some way and they need an effective consumer body to make sure their views are heard. This is why Postwatch was set up.”

Please don't get me wrong, I'm 100% in favour of the service our Postmen give us (well OK, give YOU!!...) and I am also in favour of keeping open the UK's network of Post Offices - long may they continue!

Opt out of overloading...

THIS story of a UK postman who is facing dismissal because he advised people how to stop the ubiquitous and ever-growing masses of junk mail being delivered to their home; he has been suspended for misconduct.

The overloading I mention is of course your front door but also poor postman's back! The postie, Roger Annies, “composed and circulated a leaflet about the Royal Mail's opt-out clause for unsolicited mail”…seems he was only trying to help his ‘customers’.

I must say I agree with many of the comments that follow the BBC article, here’s one that I concur with as it is something I have suggested myself in the past:

99% of people are going to support this postie, junk mail is a pain and is largely unwelcome. I'm glad he did it, as this news story has effectively told me how to opt out of receiving some of this junk. Personally I would like to see the Royal Mail be allowed to increase the price of a 1st class stamp by 10p to increase their profitability, as I think even at 40p a pop the 1st class letter service would be an absolute bargain, and perhaps then they wouldn't need to distibute colossal amounts of (what ends up as) waste paper. Dave, Yeovil, Somerset

What we call junk mail is officially termed ‘direct marketing’ and the ‘door-to-door’ contracts are a profitable service and more importantly an essential income to the Royal Mail.

"We make money through direct mail by senders paying for their addressed mail to be delivered, or through having a contract with senders who post unaddressed mail, such as local government information or local takeaways."

You may not realize it, but a company you have done business with may (???) have sold or shared your personal information to other companies involved in direct marketing. The Direct Marketing Association is essentially a good thing: they say “every organisation engaged in direct marketing needs the DMA to exist. Without it, there is no one to defend direct marketing from unethical or unprofessional practitioners, who can bring direct marketing into ill repute, trigger restrictive legislation and create consumer mistrust.”

The mission of the DMA is to maximise value for members whilst maintaining and enhancing consumers' trust and confidence in direct marketing.

They can’t be all bad because they offer the consumer information on opting out of being on these marketing lists: HERE, or use the Mail Preference Service to choose the mail you need/want, HERE:

Otherwise, to stop junk mail you can link to junk mail.org (click on the image) or contact:

Opt-Outs, Royal Mail, Kingsmead House, Oxpens Road, Oxford, OX1 1RX(for unaddressed mail) and for addressed mail Mail Preference Service(MPS), Freepost 29, LON 20771, London, W1E 0ZT or call 0845 703 4599

That unethical practitioner may not only be from the UK and there are problems with Mailings from Overseas e.g. promoting lotteries or ‘get rich quick schemes’ that are often misleading and fraudulent. The Mail Preference service advice is not to reply (and to put it straight in your recycling bin) The Office of Fair Trading is working on dealing with this; you can send any copies you receive (including the envelope) to:

European Enforcement Team at the Office of Fair Trading at Fleetbank House, 2-6 Salisbury Square, London EC4Y 8IJ.

Also:Postwatch is an independent organisation, not attached to the Royal Mail Group or part of the Government. Postwatch was set up to ensure that post offices, Parcelforce, Royal Mail and any competing postal providers, give the best service possible to you, their customer.

“Post offices are visited by twenty eight million people at least once every week. On average, we send 100 letters and receive over five times that amount from friends and businesses each year. Just about everyone of every age and every background uses the post in some way and they need an effective consumer body to make sure their views are heard. This is why Postwatch was set up.”

Please don't get me wrong, I'm 100% in favour of the service our Postmen give us (well OK, give YOU!!...) and I am also in favour of keeping open the UK's network of Post Offices - long may they continue!

Orthodontic opt-out obliges overseas onrush…

I'm not starting a theme for my blog here but it seems that this post is connected with the previous one...a first for me and an apt way to celebrate my 100th blog post!

The government will find a way: four months ago the new Dentist contracts came into play and at the same time we find that the UK is importing Dentists: it appears that almost half of the dentists who joined the NHS in England last year qualified abroad, official figures have shown and of these Poland alone contributed 17% of the 2,200 dentists who joined the health service in the year to March 2006...

The British Dental Association (BDA) said 60% of those who had signed were unhappy with the terms of the contract and could still opt out, although the government said it was half that number; 10% of dentists did opt out: dentists' frustrations over contract continue: dentists across England have yet to resolve disagreements over their new NHS contracts four months after they came into force. Figures published by the Department of Health today reveal that 69% of contracts signed ‘in dispute’ by dentists when the new contract was introduced have yet to be resolved. Lester Ellman, Chair of the BDA’s General Dental Practice Committee, said:

“This is clearly an extremely worrying situation for many dentists and their patients, and reflects the uncertainty, unfairness and unhappiness surrounding the Government’s reforms of NHS dentistry. Dentists are frustrated about the target-driven nature of the new contract which fails to allow a more preventive approach to care. And from the evidence so far, the new contract seems to have done little to achieve the Government’s primary aim of making it easier to find an NHS dentist.”

The dentists themselves will not benefit from the changes, from the BBC report: Essex dentist Piers Lambert when explaining the new charges to his patients in the form of a leaflet wrote: "Please remember that these increased charges will not increase the revenue to the practice."

"We will be collecting the indirect "tooth tax" on behalf of the government."

Unsurprisingly, Mr Lambert is one of thousands of dentists who signed the contract "in dispute", meaning they only agreed to put pen to paper to ensure services keep running while continuing to negotiate on the terms.

The BBC also reported that Shadow Health Secretary, at the time, Andrew Lansley said:

"This new contract is a bad deal for dentists and a bad deal for patients."

And Steve Webb, Liberal Democrat health spokesman, added:

"The long-term future of NHS dentistry looks bleak unless the government urgently review the new contract."

Now I'm not complaining so much about the imported dentists themselves, I'm sure they are perfectly capable at their jobs; but it does seem to be a way the government can wrangle the existing set-up to the detriment of those already employed and whose education and careers have led them to their current professional standing -and it's not the first time either: it happened with Vets as well, hundreds were imported, primarily from Spain, and the influx of foreign nurses continues to increase...where and when will it end? When the lawyers (and their political benefactors) find themselves displaced by cheaper foreign imports, that's when!

Orthodontic opt-out obliges overseas onrush…

I'm not starting a theme for my blog here but it seems that this post is connected with the previous one...a first for me and an apt way to celebrate my 100th blog post!

The government will find a way: four months ago the new Dentist contracts came into play and at the same time we find that the UK is importing Dentists: it appears that almost half of the dentists who joined the NHS in England last year qualified abroad, official figures have shown and of these Poland alone contributed 17% of the 2,200 dentists who joined the health service in the year to March 2006...

The British Dental Association (BDA) said 60% of those who had signed were unhappy with the terms of the contract and could still opt out, although the government said it was half that number; 10% of dentists did opt out: dentists' frustrations over contract continue: dentists across England have yet to resolve disagreements over their new NHS contracts four months after they came into force. Figures published by the Department of Health today reveal that 69% of contracts signed ‘in dispute’ by dentists when the new contract was introduced have yet to be resolved. Lester Ellman, Chair of the BDA’s General Dental Practice Committee, said:

“This is clearly an extremely worrying situation for many dentists and their patients, and reflects the uncertainty, unfairness and unhappiness surrounding the Government’s reforms of NHS dentistry. Dentists are frustrated about the target-driven nature of the new contract which fails to allow a more preventive approach to care. And from the evidence so far, the new contract seems to have done little to achieve the Government’s primary aim of making it easier to find an NHS dentist.”

The dentists themselves will not benefit from the changes, from the BBC report: Essex dentist Piers Lambert when explaining the new charges to his patients in the form of a leaflet wrote: "Please remember that these increased charges will not increase the revenue to the practice."

"We will be collecting the indirect "tooth tax" on behalf of the government."

Unsurprisingly, Mr Lambert is one of thousands of dentists who signed the contract "in dispute", meaning they only agreed to put pen to paper to ensure services keep running while continuing to negotiate on the terms.

The BBC also reported that Shadow Health Secretary, at the time, Andrew Lansley said:

"This new contract is a bad deal for dentists and a bad deal for patients."

And Steve Webb, Liberal Democrat health spokesman, added:

"The long-term future of NHS dentistry looks bleak unless the government urgently review the new contract."

Now I'm not complaining so much about the imported dentists themselves, I'm sure they are perfectly capable at their jobs; but it does seem to be a way the government can wrangle the existing set-up to the detriment of those already employed and whose education and careers have led them to their current professional standing -and it's not the first time either: it happened with Vets as well, hundreds were imported, primarily from Spain, and the influx of foreign nurses continues to increase...where and when will it end? When the lawyers (and their political benefactors) find themselves displaced by cheaper foreign imports, that's when!

Overwhelming open-door onslaught...

Seems to me that we can’t escape the obvious; it’s been obvious for a number of years but it is only now that it appears we are able to talk about it. I recall clearly the roasting William Hague and others got for having the nerve to mention the problem that dare not speak its name…immigration.

I touched on this earlier in the month regarding the fact that 83% of the new housing that England “needs” would be for the increase in population due to immigration.

Now the BBC tells us that “About 600,000 people have come to work in the UK from eight nations which joined the European Union in 2004, says Home Office minister Tony McNulty.”
The figures show those 427,000 migrant workers who successfully registered to work brought with them 36,000 dependents - spouses and children. Some 27,000 child benefit applications were approved

The government predicted there would be 15,000 people a year from the new EU member countries moving to the UK for work.

The question that strikes me is how can these people just seem to turn up and get benefits? 36,000 dependants….27, 000 child benefit applications approved, I presume that the other 9 thousand are mothers – all with 3 children each? Am I wrong to assume that? Now these immigrants will have zero or very little NI payments…I paid my NI every month when I was working abroad, I even made a mistake and paid DOUBLE NI for several years but when I returned to the UK in 1996 I was told that I couldn’t receive ANY benefit AT ALL for at least 6 months and even then it would depend on what savings I had. So turn up as a foreigner and collect straight away…pay your dues for years on end (without using any service because you live abroad) and you get zilch???

Now the government claims it’s good for the nation, they all pay their way etc…seems not: here are all the calculations… and their apparent results. However:

Conclusion

51. The Government has repeatedly claimed, in support of their policy of encouraging large-scale immigration, that migrants make a positive fiscal contribution of £2.5 billion a year. This report shows that central claim to be false.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migration Watch UK, said the case for restrictions for Romanians and Bulgarians was now "unanswerable".

Former Labour minister Frank Field the number of migrants was unmanageable and made it increasingly difficult for local people to get jobs.

MIGRATION SINCE 2004
Accession countries: 427,000
(About 600,000 including self-employed)
Dependants: 36,000
Non-EU settlement: 318,330
Granted asylum: 123,000
Non-EU work permits: 261,235, plus 87,000 dependants
Total: 1,425,565
Source: Home Office

AGE OF REGISTERED WORKERS: 92% between the ages of 18 and 44.
(Source: Accession monitoring report May 2004 - June 2006)

Alarming, no? …more from the BBC HERE, and these figures does not even include people from the existing EU countries (Ireland, France, Germany etc…) who may have moved to live in the UK over those two years. And…there’s more, by definition it does not include illegal immigrants.

Now, having said all that this does not mean that the UK's population will have increased by this amount since May 2004 as there have also been people leaving the UK…how many…err…well there’s 119,000 British people moved abroad in 2004, according to the latest available figures…and …err…there are no figures given for the numbers of people given the right to work in the UK who have since left…but I think we all know that it’s not enough! All the figures have been reported in all the media, this isn't just a 'right-wing' press scare story. Here's the reports from The Guardian and The Independent.

The government must stand its ground. EU enlargement is good for the EU and good for Britain - both in economic and political terms. Intra-EU migration is vital for the efficient use of EU labour. It is also a fundamental right of EU membership.

This last from the Financial Times…but I just do not understand how they can keep claiming that it’s good. Looking at the graph below all of those jobs will be on or near minimum wage; if all those thousands of employers know that the minimum wage is MUCH more than those workers would get in their native countries they know the workers will not leave or worry about earning much more, thereby maintaining wages at a false low and intentionally or not discouraging ‘home grown’ workers who know damn well they cannot afford to live on the minimum wage.

For all the details read the Home Office report published 22 August 2006 [link] (PDF)

Overwhelming open-door onslaught...

Seems to me that we can’t escape the obvious; it’s been obvious for a number of years but it is only now that it appears we are able to talk about it. I recall clearly the roasting William Hague and others got for having the nerve to mention the problem that dare not speak its name…immigration.

I touched on this earlier in the month regarding the fact that 83% of the new housing that England “needs” would be for the increase in population due to immigration.

Now the BBC tells us that “About 600,000 people have come to work in the UK from eight nations which joined the European Union in 2004, says Home Office minister Tony McNulty.”
The figures show those 427,000 migrant workers who successfully registered to work brought with them 36,000 dependents - spouses and children. Some 27,000 child benefit applications were approved.

The government predicted there would be 15,000 people a year from the new EU member countries moving to the UK for work.

The question that strikes me is how can these people just seem to turn up and get benefits? 36,000 dependants….27, 000 child benefit applications approved, I presume that the other 9 thousand are mothers – all with 3 children each? Am I wrong to assume that? Now these immigrants will have zero or very little NI payments…I paid my NI every month when I was working abroad, I even made a mistake and paid DOUBLE NI for several years but when I returned to the UK in 1996 I was told that I couldn’t receive ANY benefit AT ALL for at least 6 months and even then it would depend on what savings I had. So turn up as a foreigner and collect straight away…pay your dues for years on end (without using any service because you live abroad) and you get zilch???

Now the government claims it’s good for the nation, they all pay their way etc…seems not: here are all the calculations… and their apparent results. However:

Conclusion

51. The Government has repeatedly claimed, in support of their policy of encouraging large-scale immigration, that migrants make a positive fiscal contribution of £2.5 billion a year. This report shows that central claim to be false.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migration Watch UK, said the case for restrictions for Romanians and Bulgarians was now "unanswerable".

Former Labour minister Frank Field the number of migrants was unmanageable and made it increasingly difficult for local people to get jobs.

MIGRATION SINCE 2004
Accession countries: 427,000
(About 600,000 including self-employed)
Dependants: 36,000
Non-EU settlement: 318,330
Granted asylum: 123,000
Non-EU work permits: 261,235, plus 87,000 dependants
Total: 1,425,565
Source: Home Office

AGE OF REGISTERED WORKERS: 92% between the ages of 18 and 44.
(Source: Accession monitoring report May 2004 - June 2006)

Alarming, no? …more from the BBC HERE, and these figures does not even include people from the existing EU countries (Ireland, France, Germany etc…) who may have moved to live in the UK over those two years. And…there’s more, by definition it does not include illegal immigrants.

Now, having said all that this does not mean that the UK's population will have increased by this amount since May 2004 as there have also been people leaving the UK…how many…err…well there’s 119,000 British people moved abroad in 2004, according to the latest available figures…and …err…there are no figures given for the numbers of people given the right to work in the UK who have since left…but I think we all know that it’s not enough! All the figures have been reported in all the media, this isn't just a 'right-wing' press scare story. Here's the reports from The Guardian and The Independent.

The government must stand its ground. EU enlargement is good for the EU and good for Britain - both in economic and political terms. Intra-EU migration is vital for the efficient use of EU labour. It is also a fundamental right of EU membership.

This last from the Financial Times…but I just do not understand how they can keep claiming that it’s good. Looking at the graph below all of those jobs will be on or near minimum wage; if all those thousands of employers know that the minimum wage is MUCH more than those workers would get in their native countries they know the workers will not leave or worry about earning much more, thereby maintaining wages at a false low and intentionally or not discouraging ‘home grown’ workers who know damn well they cannot afford to live on the minimum wage.

For all the details read the Home Office report published 22 August 2006 [link] (PDF)

Odd Orgasmic Ordeal…

Death by chocolate could be a cake or a pie/tart/cocktail/ whatever and, of course, it could also be DEATH by chocolate.This guy nearly found out whether it would be a ‘good way to go’: “US man survives chocolate ordeal”

A 21-year-old US man ended up in hospital after spending two hours trapped in a vat of chocolate, police in Wisconsin said on Friday. The last line of the article is classic: “The accident involved dark chocolate”. Yeah, right! Pheeeewee [wipes forehead], imagine if it had been full milk or fruit and nut – no way he would’ve survived! He said that he had climbed into the tank before becoming trapped waist-deep in chocolate...

However; and to make it sound mysterious, other reports suggest he was stirring the chocolate when he fell in. Rescue workers and staff at the Debelis Corporation (their Spanish origins aren't far from me) used cocoa-butter to thin out the chocolate and pull him free…I can just imagine him sinking whilst they stir the recipe…hang on, just a little more, not quite enough, needs a little something…

"Forget love...I'd rather fall in chocolate!" Author unknown

Enough of that! He survived. Now chocolate…[hmmmm]: it’s made from the fermented, roasted, and ground beans taken from the pod of the tropical cacao tree, Theobroma cacao, originally a native to Mesoamerica, which is distinguished by being the first region in the Americas to develop complex civilizations…no wonder – they loved chocolate! However back then it wasn’t the food we know today.

Chocolate residue found in ancient Maya pots tells us that they were drinking (one assumes) chocolate 2,600 years ago, which is the earliest record of cacao use although there are thoughts that their predecessors the Olmecs would have also used it. The Aztecs associated chocolate with Xochiquetzal, their goddess of fertility, and this association with deity exists today: the genus name of the cacao tree is called Theobroma cacao (From modern Latin Theobroma, literally "food of the Gods", from Greek broma, "food".)

Xocoatl was taken as a bitter and spicy drink often seasoned with chili pepper, vanilla or other spice and believed to fight fatigue (most probably the theobromine content…more on that later). Chocolate was an important luxury item and cocoa beans were often used as currency.

Both Christopher Columbus and Hernán Cortés were associated with first bringing it to Europe, the latter in 1528; however the first recorded commercial shipment of chocolate to the ‘Old World’ for commercial purposes wasn’t until over half a century later, from Veracruz to Seville around 1585.

"The divine drink which builds up resistance & fights fatigue. A cup ofthis precious drink permits man to walk for a whole day without food."

…I bet that’s not all Cortés said: it being an aphrodisiac isn’t proven although Montezuma drank xocolatl in goblets before entering his harem, (ahem).

It was still served as a drink, but the Europeans (mainly Spanish nobility at first) added sugar and milk to counteract the natural bitterness and removed the chili pepper and only used vanilla (another Mexican spice). These improvements to the taste meant that by the 1600’s it was more popular albeit luxury item

When the chocolate drink was introduced into England in the 1650s, it was an expensive luxury. The first London Chocolate House was opened in 1657 and chocolate, probably made from blocks of chocolate prepared and imported from Spain, was served as a fashionable drink alongside ale, beer and coffee. Heavy import duties kept its price high (about 6-8d a pound, equivalent to the daily wage for a labourer) in the 17th century. It was not until the Industrial Revolution, when transport became easier and import taxes were reduced, that the price of chocolate fell and it became available to a larger percentage of the population.

For some reason it was over 200 years before a solid form was available but even then it was to melt down to make the drink: not until 1828, did things take a dramtic turn - and not by someone who’s name rolls off the tongue - : not only did Dutchman Coenraad Johannes van Houten patent a method for extracting the fat (or most of it) from cocoa beans to leave the powdered cocoa and cocoa butter separate but he also developed what is now called the ‘Dutch process’ of removing the bitter taste by treating the chocolate with alkali. God there must be a shrine to him somewhere!

Then come the big names: in 1847, Joseph Fry, a chemist and doctor of a Bristol Quaker family started, amongst other things, a chocolate factory, produced what was arguably the world's first eating chocolate 'chocolate delicieux à manger'. Soon to follow was Cadbury in 1849. Then almost 20 years later in 1867, Daniel Peter, a Swiss chocolate manufacturer, had the idea of using powdered milk that he got from the Swiss chemist who had developed it, one Henri Nestle, and what is probably the final step in the distinctive taste of the chocolate we eat today, Rodolphe Lindt invented the process called conching, which is where the chocolate solids are heated and then very finely ground resulting in the ‘melt in the mouth’ texture. There is a chemical reason for that it’s to do with the fatty acid profile of the cocoa butter…but that’s another story.

Strange it took so long to get round to adding milk, especially when the Spanish had been adding vanilla over 300 years before. All that said and done we know nowadays of the various benefits attributed to chocolate consumption: for starters it contains phenol anti-oxidants (processing decreases their contents)…Scientists have found that one 'square' of milk chocolate contains almost the same amount of phenols as a glass of red wine and that plain, dark chocolate contains even higher amounts.

Dietetics professionals must be aware that chocolate cravings are real. The psychopharmacologic and chemosensory effects of chocolate must be considered when formulating recommendations for overall healthful eating and for treatment of nutritionally related health issues.

…and added to all that is the feel-good factor, the theobromine etc, but this has never been satisfactorily proven because all palatable foods stimulate endorphin release in the brain; scientists now believe would be from the response in the brain opioid peptide systems :-/

...and as an aphrodisiac? remembering back to what Cortez said about anti-fatigue, Montezuma and his harem, other such tales as Casanova who made a habit of consuming chocolate before lovemaking and Madame Du Barry, or whom it was said, that she plied her lovers with chocolate to whip up their ardor in gratifying her lust (oh I say!), all this led to the belief that it was an aphrodisiac but both the fact that during a woman's monthly cycle her body craves magnesium (good chocolate is high in Mg), and this article from Sarah-Kate Templeton in The Times “Women really are hot for chocolate” (I wonder if that’s a picture of you Sarah-Kate? Wow!), tend to lend weight to the pleasure factor assisting women.

Dr Andrea Salonia, a urologist from San Raffaele hospital, Milan and author of the study (NOT by the confectionery industry)

“Women who have a daily intake of chocolate showed higher levels of desire than women who did not have this habit. Chocolate can have a positive physiological impact on a woman’s sexuality.”
— women who have a low libido could even become more amorous after eating chocolate. He believes chocolate could be particularly medicinal for women who shun sex because they are suffering from premenstrual tension.

Ah well, who cares if it’s moreish (addictive!): any questions at all go to chocolate.org – wonderful site, here are their FAQ’s. All I care about is that overall it’s good for you (oh YES it is!), apart from all that previously mentioned, it full of the usual trace elements and vitamins; chocolate won’t rot your teeth (that’s the sugar) won’t give you spots (that’s the milk) I guess it’s a combination of the fatigue-busting, squidgy (is that a word?) melting, pleasure-giving that makes it seem so…so...I’ve got to stop because there is so much to say I could go on and on; in fact I could do with a chocolate covered goody right now…hmmmmmm

"There's nothing better than a good friend, except a good friend with chocolate." (from The Pickwick Papers)

S.O.

Odd Orgasmic Ordeal…

Death by chocolate could be a cake or a pie/tart/cocktail/ whatever and, of course, it could also be DEATH by chocolate. This guy nearly found out whether it would be a ‘good way to go’: “US man survives chocolate ordeal”

A 21-year-old US man ended up in hospital after spending two hours trapped in a vat of chocolate, police in Wisconsin said on Friday. The last line of the article is classic: “The accident involved dark chocolate”. Yeah, right! Pheeeewee [wipes forehead], imagine if it had been full milk or fruit and nut – no way he would’ve survived! He said that he had climbed into the tank before becoming trapped waist-deep in chocolate…
However; and to make it sound mysterious, other reports suggest he was stirring the chocolate when he fell in. Rescue workers and staff at the Debelis Corporation (their Spanish origins aren't far from me) used cocoa-butter to thin out the chocolate and pull him free…I can just imagine him sinking whilst they stir the recipe…hang on, just a little more, not quite enough, needs a little something…

"Forget love...I'd rather fall in chocolate!" Author unknown

Enough of that! He survived. Now chocolate…[hmmmm]: it’s made from the fermented, roasted, and ground beans taken from the pod of the tropical cacao tree, Theobroma cacao, originally a native to Mesoamerica, which is distinguished by being the first region in the Americas to develop complex civilizations…no wonder – they loved chocolate! However back then it wasn’t the food we know today.

Chocolate residue found in ancient Maya pots tells us that they were drinking (one assumes) chocolate 2,600 years ago, which is the earliest record of cacao use although there are thoughts that their predecessors the Olmecs would have also used it. The Aztecs associated chocolate with Xochiquetzal, their goddess of fertility, and this association with deity exists today: the genus name of the cacao tree is called Theobroma cacao (From modern Latin Theobroma, literally "food of the Gods", from Greek broma, "food".)

Xocoatl was taken as a bitter and spicy drink often seasoned with chili pepper, vanilla or other spice and believed to fight fatigue (most probably the theobromine content…more on that later). Chocolate was an important luxury item and cocoa beans were often used as currency.

Both Christopher Columbus and Hernán Cortés were associated with first bringing it to Europe, the latter in 1528; however the first recorded commercial shipment of chocolate to the ‘Old World’ for commercial purposes wasn’t until over half a century later, from Veracruz to Seville around 1585.

"The divine drink which builds up resistance & fights fatigue. A cup ofthis precious drink permits man to walk for a whole day without food."

…I bet that’s not all Cortés said: it being an aphrodisiac isn’t proven although Montezuma drank xocolatl in goblets before entering his harem, (ahem).

It was still served as a drink, but the Europeans (mainly Spanish nobility at first) added sugar and milk to counteract the natural bitterness and removed the chili pepper and only used vanilla (another Mexican spice). These improvements to the taste meant that by the 1600’s it was more popular albeit luxury item.

When the chocolate drink was introduced into England in the 1650s, it was an expensive luxury. The first London Chocolate House was opened in 1657 and chocolate, probably made from blocks of chocolate prepared and imported from Spain, was served as a fashionable drink alongside ale, beer and coffee. Heavy import duties kept its price high (about 6-8d a pound, equivalent to the daily wage for a labourer) in the 17th century. It was not until the Industrial Revolution, when transport became easier and import taxes were reduced, that the price of chocolate fell and it became available to a larger percentage of the population.

For some reason it was over 200 years before a solid form was available but even then it was to melt down to make the drink: not until 1828, did things take a dramtic turn - and not by someone who’s name rolls off the tongue - : not only did Dutchman Coenraad Johannes van Houten patent a method for extracting the fat (or most of it) from cocoa beans to leave the powdered cocoa and cocoa butter separate but he also developed what is now called the ‘Dutch process’ of removing the bitter taste by treating the chocolate with alkali. God there must be a shrine to him somewhere!

Then come the big names: in 1847, Joseph Fry, a chemist and doctor of a Bristol Quaker family started, amongst other things, a chocolate factory, produced what was arguably the world's first eating chocolate 'chocolate delicieux à manger'. Soon to follow was Cadbury in 1849. Then almost 20 years later in 1867, Daniel Peter, a Swiss chocolate manufacturer, had the idea of using powdered milk that he got from the Swiss chemist who had developed it, one Henri Nestle, and what is probably the final step in the distinctive taste of the chocolate we eat today, Rodolphe Lindt invented the process called conching, which is where the chocolate solids are heated and then very finely ground resulting in the ‘melt in the mouth’ texture. There is a chemical reason for that it’s to do with the fatty acid profile of the cocoa butter…but that’s another story.

Strange it took so long to get round to adding milk, especially when the Spanish had been adding vanilla over 300 years before. All that said and done we know nowadays of the various benefits attributed to chocolate consumption: for starters it contains phenol anti-oxidants (processing decreases their contents)…

Scientists have found that one 'square' of milk chocolate contains almost the same amount of phenols as a glass of red wine and that plain, dark chocolate contains even higher amounts.

Dietetics professionals must be aware that chocolate cravings are real. The psychopharmacologic and chemosensory effects of chocolate must be considered when formulating recommendations for overall healthful eating and for treatment of nutritionally related health issues.

…and added to all that is the feel-good factor, the theobromine etc, but this has never been satisfactorily proven because all palatable foods stimulate endorphin release in the brain; scientists now believe would be from the response in the brain opioid peptide systems :-/

...and as an aphrodisiac? remembering back to what Cortez said about anti-fatigue, Montezuma and his harem, other such tales as Casanova who made a habit of consuming chocolate before lovemaking and Madame Du Barry, or whom it was said, that she plied her lovers with chocolate to whip up their ardor in gratifying her lust (oh I say!), all this led to the belief that it was an aphrodisiac but both the fact that during a woman's monthly cycle her body craves magnesium (good chocolate is high in Mg), and this article from Sarah-Kate Templeton in The Times “Women really are hot for chocolate” (I wonder if that’s a picture of you Sarah-Kate? Wow!), tend to lend weight to the pleasure factor assisting women.

Dr Andrea Salonia, a urologist from San Raffaele hospital, Milan and author of the study (NOT by the confectionery industry)

“Women who have a daily intake of chocolate showed higher levels of desire than women who did not have this habit. Chocolate can have a positive physiological impact on a woman’s sexuality.”

— women who have a low libido could even become more amorous after eating chocolate. He believes chocolate could be particularly medicinal for women who shun sex because they are suffering from premenstrual tension.

Ah well, who cares if it’s moreish (addictive!): any questions at all go to chocolate.org – wonderful site, here are their FAQ’s. All I care about is that overall it’s good for you (oh YES it is!), apart from all that previously mentioned, it full of the usual trace elements and vitamins; chocolate won’t rot your teeth (that’s the sugar) won’t give you spots (that’s the milk) I guess it’s a combination of the fatigue-busting, squidgy (is that a word?) melting, pleasure-giving that makes it seem so…so...I’ve got to stop because there is so much to say I could go on and on; in fact I could do with a chocolate covered goody right now…hmmmmmm

Chic Choc By zulittle for the Chocolate 2 contest. (The link has no connection with the image.)

"There's nothing better than a good friend, except a good friend with chocolate." The Pickwick Papers

S.O.

Overweening, odious offenders...

From today's Daily Telegraph: "Hunt saboteurs revealed in their true colours"
"It could have been a scene from a film set in a future in which law and order has broken down, and Britain is ravaged by marauding gangs."

How did this grotesque incident come about? The saboteurs had apparently been thwarted in their plan to disrupt a grouse shoot, so picked an easier target. But can these activists seriously expect that their campaign will lead to the banning of an activity in which about three million Britons take part?"

"Like the masked "animal rights" activists who terrorise scientists and their families, these thugs are sociopaths: not animal-lovers, but people-haters."...Well they may have bitten off more than they can chew this time because , unlike the class hatred that there undoubtably was with the ban on fox-hunting, this cuts across two 'untouchable' sections of society: Remember this...

Angling? It's too white and too middle-aged, say ministers as they go fishing for women and ethnic minorities.

"Angling does not discriminate against gender, race, age or athletic ability", and the "Government is interested in angling in the context of social inclusion in deprived urban areas".

Also, to confirm why the government are sure be taking this more seriously, from todays article:

The Government has no plans to ban this most unassuming and democratic of field sports, pursued by so many of its natural supporters: indeed, its social engineers are currently trying to thrust rods into the hands of women and ethnic minorities, spending the revenue from fishing licences on - among other things - teaching Muslim women to fish.

Lets see how quickly the police take a tougher line now.

S.O.

Overweening, odious offenders...

From today's Daily Telegraph: "Hunt saboteurs revealed in their true colours"
"It could have been a scene from a film set in a future in which law and order has broken down, and Britain is ravaged by marauding gangs."

How did this grotesque incident come about? The saboteurs had apparently been thwarted in their plan to disrupt a grouse shoot, so picked an easier target. But can these activists seriously expect that their campaign will lead to the banning of an activity in which about three million Britons take part?"

"Like the masked "animal rights" activists who terrorise scientists and their families, these thugs are sociopaths: not animal-lovers, but people-haters."...Well they may have bitten off more than they can chew this time because , unlike the class hatred that there undoubtably was with the ban on fox-hunting, this cuts across two 'untouchable' sections of society: Remember this...

Angling? It's too white and too middle-aged, say ministers as they go fishing for women and ethnic minorities.

"Angling does not discriminate against gender, race, age or athletic ability", and the "Government is interested in angling in the context of social inclusion in deprived urban areas".

Also, to confirm why the government are sure be taking this more seriously, from todays article:

The Government has no plans to ban this most unassuming and democratic of field sports, pursued by so many of its natural supporters: indeed, its social engineers are currently trying to thrust rods into the hands of women and ethnic minorities, spending the revenue from fishing licences on - among other things - teaching Muslim women to fish.

Lets see how quickly the police take a tougher line now.

S.O.

Orange obtuse over ousting of 'orismologist'...

From the Guardian: 'Lefty lexicon' lands Orange executive in big trouble: Mobile phone company Orange has suspended its community affairs manager after he posted what he termed a "lefty lexicon" on the blog site ConservativeHome which includes a description of Islamophobics as "anyone who objects to having their transport blown up on the way to work…. (From the title: Orismology [n]. - the science of defining or explaining technical terms)

The Guardian tells us that “Orange has received a flood of complaints from customers”...but how?…here’s how:

A campaign against him was mounted on the website of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee. Yesterday it emerged that Mr Wilson has been suspended pending an internal Orange investigation. A spokesman for MPACUK said Mr Wilson's views were extremely unhelpful at a time when British Muslims are increasingly being subjected to bigotry and prejudice, and bordered on racist.

…and interestingly, look at the address window when you follow the Guardian link: it is under this archive: politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism!!!

From the ConservativeHome site: Inigo Wilson manages community affairs for a large telecoms company. [we now know who!]. His favourite blogs are ‘the Belmont club’ and ConservativeHome...He is a regular reader of Commentary, National Review and The Spectator. Go to the list via the link in the article on the ConsHome site or go straight to it here. Inthe article Inigo Wilson had some interesting things to say:

And there is evidence to be found in official communications not only of the changed language but also the altered priorities it attempts to mask. You can find some particularly rich hunting grounds among the well-stocked leaflet displays of Metropolitan Police stations. No one yet has formally announced that the Met doesn’t 'do' ordinary crime, but each flyer makes it clear that if you are one of the large range of very modern sounding 'victim' types, then you are the priority for modern policing.

I touched on something similar when I posted on Officers Out Of Order, re the various Associations of Police and the strange reaction by the AMP (Association of Muslim Police) to what I would have thought would be normal police procedure; here is another example of how they seem to do anything but ‘be policemen’. I know I’m being unfair to them, after all it’s government policy they follow.

Finally, there is the language of race and rights activists, part of the rainbow coalition of charities, pressure groups and human-rights lawyers. Between them, these contributors have built a whole new linguistic system to communicate with each other - and us. As for the motive, well, if you want to hide some things and advance others while relatively undetected, then what better way to do it than by using language that has slipped the moorings of any tangible meaning. And every day is now 'a good day to bury bad news'.

The actual Leftie Lexicon is really rather good but there’s only one entry for ‘O’: Organised labour - what Lefties used to be interested in….other examples, and the ones that (I presume) have caused the grief are, for instance:

Legitimate grievances - foreign affairs: why we're all to blame for deranged Islamists murdering people in the developed world.
Liaise - the day-to-day process of Lefty Government. Replaces 'work'.

Relevant - education: something badly written, with references to sex and full of swear-words. Always better than literature by 'dead white people'.

Religion -
• Christianity: irrational, dangerous belief that material things may not be the principal motive behind human behaviour.
• Judaism: most Israelis are Jewish, so probably 'intolerant'.
• Islam: always needs to be 'understood'.

Inigo, if you hadn’t mentioned ‘that’ religion’ nobody would have cared! Please read Inigo's Lexicon but we also know there’s some "great" (i.e. crap) ‘management speak’ already out there, we had this on the beeb not long ago but this info on Seto.org, apart from starting with my favourite politician joke, has some classics:

MANAGEMENT SPEAK: I'm glad you asked me that.
TRANSLATION: Public relations has written a carefully phrased answer.
MANAGEMENT SPEAK: That's a good question.
TRANSLATION: I don't have a good answer.
MANAGEMENT SPEAK: That's an intriguing notion that merits additional thought on the part of our best people.
TRANSLATION: No. (hehehehe)

S.O.