"To understand nothing is to understand everything."
K'ung fu-tzu of Qufu in Lu. You knew?

"To understand nothing is to understand everything."
K'ung fu-tzu of Qufu in Lu. You knew?

Other online options...

Just as a quick update to the post on Google's 11th birthday, the homepage (or at least it has where I am!) now has a link to Project 10 to the 100 (googol) which is simply a call for ideas to change the world by helping as many people as possible. They've done it before with great success.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other options...but not many! Google is eleven years old today (11...not double l)...so young yet so mature and advanced. Hehehe. It was also the very first web page I ever visited and now, probably, apart from the BBC (yeah, yeah, the irony isn't lost) the one I use most. Click on the image to see what they have to offer: much, much more than most people think, depite everyone knowing it to be one of the World's most recognisable and powerful brands, the most visited webpage, the most used search engine and to top it all consistently in the top of the Best Places To Work surveys...

It began as a 'mere' research project by Larry Page and then Sergey Brin, two PhD students at Stanford University. The name they decided on - Google - is a play on the numeric term googol. Just imagine if their logic had gone for another similar name: other names for a googol include ten duotrigintillion on the short scale (what the UK uses now: the system whereby every new numeric term is 1,000 times the previous term) ten thousand sexdecillion on the long scale (you guessed it, a million times the previous term and what the UK used to use up until 1974; it seems so long ago!) or ten sexdecilliard on the Peletier long scale (the traditional European scale with such 'stylish' terms such as milliard, billiard and trilliard) Tables HERE on Wiki scroll down half a page) None have quite the same ring to them! If you think the word googol sounds a wee bit childish it was thought up by the 9 year old nephew of American mathematician Edward Kasner.

Other online options...

Just as a quick update to the post on Google's 11th birthday, the homepage (or at least it has where I am!) now has a link to Project 10 to the 100 (googol) which is simply a call for ideas to change the world by helping as many people as possible. They've done it before with great success.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other options...but not many! Google is eleven years old today (11...not double l)...so young yet so mature and advanced. Hehehe. It was also the very first web page I ever visited and now, probably, apart from the BBC (yeah, yeah, the irony isn't lost) the one I use most. Click on the image to see what they have to offer: much, much more than most people think, depite everyone knowing it to be one of the World's most recognisable and powerful brands, the most visited webpage, the most used search engine and to top it all consistently in the top of the Best Places To Work surveys...

It began as a 'mere' research project by Larry Page and then Sergey Brin, two PhD students at Stanford University. The name they decided on - Google - is a play on the numeric term googol. Just imagine if their logic had gone for another similar name: other names for a googol include ten duotrigintillion on the short scale (what the UK uses now: the system whereby every new numeric term is 1,000 times the previous term) ten thousand sexdecillion on the long scale (you guessed it, a million times the previous term and what the UK used to use up until 1974; it seems so long ago!) or ten sexdecilliard on the Peletier long scale (the traditional European scale with such 'stylish' terms such as milliard, billiard and trilliard) Tables HERE on Wiki scroll down half a page) None have quite the same ring to them! If you think the word googol sounds a wee bit childish it was thought up by the 9 year old nephew of American mathematician Edward Kasner.

Out of options...

Labour are almost out of options; they've no defence so they can only attack; there's not really that much to attack so they need to get down and dirty, and they will. They must expose the Tories says Hain [BBC]...expose what Peter, that they're so much more popular than you? Oooh those nasty Conservatives! I see you've started off by throwing in some whoppers in your Western Mail interview (no offence Burger King).

"I'm projecting that if the Tories are elected, unemployment will double in Wales, it will reach 250,000....the consequences of their cuts would be devastating, it would plunge us back into the 1980s."

I'm projecting you'll be a lying, thieving, corrupt Hoon (might have that tense wrong...) Perhaps you should stop Clarke talking about Gordon Brown's 'misleading and incredible' election claims [Guardian] and Prescott [Independent] exposing the lack of options and the lack of direction:

"They're a bloody party of whiners, when what we want is a party of campaigners."

Indeed, from winners to winers (and diners) to whiners. Still, whatever they do, they've got an uphill struggle when even 25% of Labour voters say they would prefer Cameron as PM! (OK, it's "just" another poll).

Out of options...

Labour are almost out of options; they've no defence so they can only attack; there's not really that much to attack so they need to get down and dirty, and they will. They must expose the Tories says Hain [BBC]...expose what Peter, that they're so much more popular than you? Oooh those nasty Conservatives! I see you've started off by throwing in some whoppers in your Western Mail interview (no offence Burger King).

"I'm projecting that if the Tories are elected, unemployment will double in Wales, it will reach 250,000....the consequences of their cuts would be devastating, it would plunge us back into the 1980s."

I'm projecting you'll be a lying, thieving, corrupt Hoon (might have that tense wrong...) Perhaps you should stop Clarke talking about Gordon Brown's 'misleading and incredible' election claims [Guardian] and Prescott [Independent] exposing the lack of options and the lack of direction:

"They're a bloody party of whiners, when what we want is a party of campaigners."

Indeed, from winners to winers (and diners) to whiners. Still, whatever they do, they've got an uphill struggle when even 25% of Labour voters say they would prefer Cameron as PM! (OK, it's "just" another poll).

Oblatrating online opinion oppression...

For anyone interested, and those that didn't know the BBC Radio 5 News Message Boards are closing.

We're hoping that '5 Live now' will succeed at amplifying existing online opinion wherever it might originate or be hosted but that means that the board, although active amongst a regular set of users, can't continue in its current form and will close shortly.

In doing so the hosts asked if there were any questions and comments; one regular poster, Pat Shed, had two...both of which remain unanswered.

1. Were you not tempted to consult with your customers before taking this decision?

2. How is it that you "can no longer justify the resources required to moderate and host a wide-ranging news discussion forum" when the whole rationale of Radio 5Live is predicated on rolling news (and sport), and yet you apparently can justify the resources required to moderate and host not only a forum dedicated to television generally (Points of View) but also no fewer than 8 (eight) fora dedicated to one programme, Strictly Come Dancing?

Good points indeed; that second point is telling, for those not in the know this latter show is utter tripe but manna for the brainless masses as they gawp at the magic light box that provides their cerebral succour about which the BBC seem able to provide endless opportunites for anyone to comment.

Some may say that as I slag off the BBC why should I care, or that they have to make savings...whatever. Slowly but surely they are reducing the input of hoi polloi, [nearly] all their outlets that enable uncontrolled (but supervised) thought and speech are being wound up...to be replaced by insipid, banal "equivalents" (NOT!) controlled by those who may not wish too much free speech and certainly no free speech that may not dove-tail to the BBC's rather slanted view of how the UK/World should be...maybe I'm making too much of this but anyone who has seen what has happend to the Sports board will know the "new" is most definitely not better and certainly is not progrees.

For anyone who has noticed I have had a link in the Owsblog sidebar for many years to an acceptable (hehehe) alternative. Click on the blue cat image or HERE.



oblatrate n. - to snarl at, inveigh against

Oblatrating online opinion oppression...

For anyone interested, and those that didn't know the BBC Radio 5 News Message Boards are closing.

We're hoping that '5 Live now' will succeed at amplifying existing online opinion wherever it might originate or be hosted but that means that the board, although active amongst a regular set of users, can't continue in its current form and will close shortly.

In doing so the hosts asked if there were any questions and comments; one regular poster, Pat Shed, had two...both of which remain unanswered.

1. Were you not tempted to consult with your customers before taking this decision?

2. How is it that you "can no longer justify the resources required to moderate and host a wide-ranging news discussion forum" when the whole rationale of Radio 5Live is predicated on rolling news (and sport), and yet you apparently can justify the resources required to moderate and host not only a forum dedicated to television generally (Points of View) but also no fewer than 8 (eight) fora dedicated to one programme, Strictly Come Dancing?

Good points indeed; that second point is telling, for those not in the know this latter show is utter tripe but manna for the brainless masses as they gawp at the magic light box that provides their cerebral succour about which the BBC seem to able to provide endless opportunites for anyone to comment.

Some may say that as I slag off the BBC why should I care, or that they have to make savings...whatever. Slowly but surely they are reducing the input of hoi polloi, [nearly] all their outlets that enable uncontrolled (but supervised) thought and speech are being wound up...to be replaced by insipid, banal "equivalents" (NOT!) controlled by those who may not wish too much free speech and certainly no free speech that may not dove-tail to the BBC's rather slanted view of how the UK/World should be...maybe I'm making too much of this but anyone who has seen what has happend to the Sports board will know the "new" is most definitely not better and certainly is not progrees.

For anyone who has noticed I have had a link in the Owsblog sidebar for many years to an acceptable (hehehe) alternative. Click on the blue cat image or HERE.



oblatrate n. - to snarl at, inveigh against

Optimism...

I should have put this up ages ago but I guess I was hoping an early election might materialise...never mind. Things seem to go from bad to worse in every sphere of UK life...not all Gordon Brown's fault of course but enough to make him need to go...now...please.



Also in my side bar...for as long as it takes!

Optimism...

I should have put this up ages ago but I guess I was hoping an early election might materialise...never mind. Things seem to go from bad to worse in every sphere of UK life...not all Gordon Brown's fault of course but enough to make him need to go...now...please.



Also in my side bar...for as long as it takes!

Well, after another rant at the BBC just now I saw the good news: I've finally clocked the 150th country on my Neocounter! Been on 149 for months!

Well, after another rant at the BBC just now I saw the good news: I've finally clocked the 150th country on my Neocounter! Been on 149 for months!

Obvious omissions II...

[Some bad language in this post] Well, the BBC online editors seem intent on proving their worthlessness and bias ...I didn't intend to write consecutive posts about them but they have peeved me again.

Today David Cameron made a good speech about what needs to be done re making headway into the countries debt; he mentioned various topics including decentralisation, cutting the cost of politics etc and telling us how he would do this, if he leads the next UK administration, making sure that MPs etc led by example. It is well worth reading the whole thing: [Link] He was also clearly sending a message to the voters that their disgust at MPs would bear fruit, a message that the bloated and favoured civil service and Parliament itself would also have to accept cuts in spending etc.

...we have taken the bold step of telling the British people very clearly: with a Conservative Government public spending will be cut. Not reduced in growth, not frozen - but cut.

That candour is a world away from the current Labour Government

He's told us what he wants to save, some mentioned previously: reducing quangos etc, making efficiencies; ministerial salaries will be cut by 5% (to start with!) and those salaries would also be frozen for the lifetime of the next Parliament; Parliamentary authorities would be obliged to cut costs by 10%; Public sector bodies would be forbidden to hire consultants to lobby politicians; each and every quango having to justify its existence; official government cars would be cut by 30% (there's about 170 of them!); every item of government spending over £25,000 to be published online and also all public sector salaries over £150,000 to be published online; revision of "gold-lated" pension scheme (for new MPs); axing certain allowances including the £10,000 yearly 'Communications Allowance'; abolishing Regional Assemblies [yes!]; reducing the number of MPs by 10% [Yes!...but should be more 30 to 40%] ... All this and more; read the speech HERE. He also said "Taxpayers' money will not be subsidising politicians' food and drink any longer".

Now, after all that and going back to how I began the thread, how do you think the BBC online editors thought to headline this news?..."Cameron would axe MPs' cheap food" [LINK] Now Mr. BBC online editor, if you happen to read this, I think that's a bias cunt's cop-out. Admittedly other media have included the no free food bit but ALL have mentioned at least one other point (cutting pay being the most visible). However, what the BBC do here is highlight the most banal seeming point (when taken on it's own) and make that the headline leading to immediate scorn and opening the door to more wankers to make smart-arse comments: Lib Dem chief of staff Danny Alexander said that Cameron and the Conservatives must stop...

"dodging the tough questions... the Liberal Democrats have proposed not renewing Trident. David Cameron wants to increase the price of salads".

Yawn. I realise the BBC have set you up for the line Danny and you're job dictates what you say but Cameron is not dodging them you twat, read the speech.

Update video HERE with post speech comments (this morning 09.09.09) and highlights. This "is about more than the money...it's the message"

Obvious omissions II...

[Some bad language in this post] Well, the BBC online editors seem intent on proving their worthlessness and bias ...I didn't intend to write consecutive posts about them but they have peeved me again.

Today David Cameron made a good speech about what needs to be done re making headway into the countries debt; he mentioned various topics including decentralisation, cutting the cost of politics etc and telling us how he would do this, if he leads the next UK administration, making sure that MPs etc led by example. It is well worth reading the whole thing: [Link] He was also clearly sending a message to the voters that their disgust at MPs would bear fruit, a message that the bloated and favoured civil service and Parliament itself would also have to accept cuts in spending etc.

...we have taken the bold step of telling the British people very clearly: with a Conservative Government public spending will be cut. Not reduced in growth, not frozen - but cut.

That candour is a world away from the current Labour Government

He's told us what he wants to save, some mentioned previously: reducing quangos etc, making efficiencies; ministerial salaries will be cut by 5% (to start with!) and those salaries would also be frozen for the lifetime of the next Parliament; Parliamentary authorities would be obliged to cut costs by 10%; Public sector bodies would be forbidden to hire consultants to lobby politicians; each and every quango having to justify its existence; official government cars would be cut by 30% (there's about 170 of them!); every item of government spending over £25,000 to be published online and also all public sector salaries over £150,000 to be published online; revision of "gold-lated" pension scheme (for new MPs); axing certain allowances including the £10,000 yearly 'Communications Allowance'; abolishing Regional Assemblies [yes!]; reducing the number of MPs by 10% [Yes!...but should be more 30 to 40%] ... All this and more; read the speech HERE. He also said "Taxpayers' money will not be subsidising politicians' food and drink any longer".

Now, after all that and going back to how I began the thread, how do you think the BBC online editors thought to headline this news?..."Cameron would axe MPs' cheap food" [LINK] Now Mr. BBC online editor, if you happen to read this, I think that's a bias cunt's cop-out. Admittedly other media have included the no free food bit but ALL have mentioned at least one other point (cutting pay being the most visible). However, what the BBC do here is highlight the most banal seeming point (when taken on it's own) and make that the headline leading to immediate scorn and opening the door to more wankers to make smart-arse comments: Lib Dem chief of staff Danny Alexander said that Cameron and the Conservatives must stop...

"dodging the tough questions... the Liberal Democrats have proposed not renewing Trident. David Cameron wants to increase the price of salads".

Yawn. I realise the BBC have set you up for the line Danny and you're job dictates what you say but Cameron is not dodging them you twat, read the speech.

Update video HERE with post speech comments (this morning 09.09.09) and highlights. This "is about more than the money...it's the message"

Obvious (ominous?) omissions...

You really must take your hat off to the BBC online editors: not unknown for their bias headlines and articles they really do make a masterful effort in the news today: the news of three "men" being found guilty of plotting biggest ever airline bombing. Compare THIS with THIS from the Telegraph (or take your pick of other online media) It's the same story but the BBC manages to get through the whole story without once mentioning Islam, or the word Muslim etc

Just yesterday another glaring example of bias was how the BBC massage the news: The Times reported that "Gordon Brown vetoes Libyan payout to IRA victims": "GORDON BROWN personally vetoed an attempt to force Colonel Muammar Gadaffi to compensate IRA bomb victims because it might have jeopardised British oil deals with Libya."

Originally this was fairly reasonably mirrored in a BBC article with the headline ""PM 'did not press Libya over IRA'" [Link] and complete with grim photo of the Colonel. Later that story had vanished; I spent an hour searching for it to no avail...it's there but the direct link is the only way to get to it! It was followed up later (19:59 GMT, Sunday 6th) by the headline on the News, UK News, Politics and presumably other 'front' pages "Brown backs bid for Libya pay-out" [Link], and this time complete with grinning Brown and a not-so-grim Colonel. Wow...what a speedy, emergency, 'gloss' article that caught my eye purely because it was a complete reversal of the earlier news; complete with handy quotes, and no doubt trying to patch up the patently damaging news for Brown's image. That story, the back-up Brown one, was on the BBC's 10 most read list all evening. Please note...that link now reads (more reasonably!) "'U-turn for PM on Libyan pay-out'"...and HASN'T appeared on the top 10 most read all day. Odd? The pro-Brown article rushed together to save face on a Sunday AND it's one of the most read...clearly Brown is well liked...yes, exactly.

hat-tip: Thanks to Martin, TPO and Marky on Biased BBC.
Also thanks for the link to Newssniffer

Obvious (ominous?) omissions...

You really must take your hat off to the BBC online editors: not unknown for their bias headlines and articles they really do make a masterful effort in the news today: the news of three "men" being found guilty of plotting biggest ever airline bombing. Compare THIS with THIS from the Telegraph (or take your pick of other online media) It's the same story but the BBC manages to get through the whole story without once mentioning Islam, or the word Muslim etc

Just yesterday another glaring example of bias was how the BBC massage the news: The Times reported that "Gordon Brown vetoes Libyan payout to IRA victims": "GORDON BROWN personally vetoed an attempt to force Colonel Muammar Gadaffi to compensate IRA bomb victims because it might have jeopardised British oil deals with Libya."

Originally this was fairly reasonably mirrored in a BBC article with the headline ""PM 'did not press Libya over IRA'" [Link] and complete with grim photo of the Colonel. Later that story had vanished; I spent an hour searching for it to no avail...it's there but the direct link is the only way to get to it! It was followed up later (19:59 GMT, Sunday 6th) by the headline on the News, UK News, Politics and presumably other 'front' pages "Brown backs bid for Libya pay-out" [Link], and this time complete with grinning Brown and a not-so-grim Colonel. Wow...what a speedy, emergency, 'gloss' article that caught my eye purely because it was a complete reversal of the earlier news; complete with handy quotes, and no doubt trying to patch up the patently damaging news for Brown's image. That story, the back-up Brown one, was on the BBC's 10 most read list all evening. Please note...that link now reads (more reasonably!) "'U-turn for PM on Libyan pay-out'"...and HASN'T appeared on the top 10 most read all day. Odd? The pro-Brown article rushed together to save face on a Sunday AND it's one of the most read...clearly Brown is well liked...yes, exactly.

hat-tip: Thanks to Martin, TPO and Marky on Biased BBC.
Also thanks for the link to Newssniffer

Obscuring obvious obsession?...

A troubling case; is it in bad taste to pass word on if it could be no more than malicious gossip? What to do when you think that the man running the country isn't fit for office, literally? According to several sources of Not Born Yesterday and John Ward on the Old Holborn blog, Gordon Brown is a very sick man and getting worse: ESTABLISHMENT 'COLLUDING IN PLIGHT OF SICK MAN BROWN'? Now we all know the stories and rumours that have abounded and even those who have been closest to the core of the New Labour Project have all had their say about Brown (Mandelson: "insecure, self-conscious physically and emotionally", "uncomfortable in his skin", Blair: "The darkness in his heart", "the lies will be his downfall", Campbell: "psychologically flawed" ) and what their opinion of him is. But this goes further...

"The Prime Minister of Great Britain is a man too ill to be holding the Office." This was the conclusion last week of a senior civil servant liaising regularly with Gordon Brown."

Reading the whole thing it could of course all be pap but apparently most of Labour, Whitehall and the Opposition bigwigs KNOW that something serious is wrong with Brown; OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) is suggested...but nobody is willing to do anything about it.

"As this would clearly make any such person wholly unfit to fulfil the Premiership - especially in the dangerous, broken world we now inhabit - why hasn't the story broken more widely? Why hasn't the Opposition leapt on it? In answering this question, we need to delve into the murkier waters of Gordon Brown's psyche - and the cynical guessing-game that passes for public service in the House of Commons....on all sides."

"Perhaps more disturbing is the passive political bias (and dereliction of Constitutional duty) represented by the obvious collusion in any cover-up about the Prime Minister's health problems throughout the senior ranks of the Civil Service."...

"There isn't a mandarin in Whitehall who's unaware of Brown's condition - they tittle-tattle the tale wherever they go, dining out on their inside knowledge, and yet won't lift a finger to bring it to the public's attention. We are being let down at every turn by the spineless Establishment running this country"

I don't feel particularly good about posting this (and yet I AM posting it), I know there are some nasty things covered up in Westminster - some things that the Police know about too - yet because of 'who' they involve these things don't get to see the light of day: not good, and if someone seriously isn't fit to to run the UK (or anything for that matter!) then those who are, or likely to be, affected should be made aware.

Obscuring obvious obsession?...

A troubling case; is it in bad taste to pass word on if it could be no more than malicious gossip? What to do when you think that the man running the country isn't fit for office, literally? According to several sources of Not Born Yesterday and John Ward on the Old Holborn blog, Gordon Brown is a very sick man and getting worse: ESTABLISHMENT 'COLLUDING IN PLIGHT OF SICK MAN BROWN'? Now we all know the stories and rumours that have abounded and even those who have been closest to the core of the New Labour Project have all had their say about Brown (Mandelson: "insecure, self-conscious physically and emotionally", "uncomfortable in his skin", Blair: "The darkness in his heart", "the lies will be his downfall", Campbell: "psychologically flawed" ) and what their opinion of him is. But this goes further...

"The Prime Minister of Great Britain is a man too ill to be holding the Office." This was the conclusion last week of a senior civil servant liaising regularly with Gordon Brown."

Reading the whole thing it could of course all be pap but apparently most of Labour, Whitehall and the Opposition bigwigs KNOW that something serious is wrong with Brown; OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) is suggested...but nobody is willing to do anything about it.

"As this would clearly make any such person wholly unfit to fulfil the Premiership - especially in the dangerous, broken world we now inhabit - why hasn't the story broken more widely? Why hasn't the Opposition leapt on it? In answering this question, we need to delve into the murkier waters of Gordon Brown's psyche - and the cynical guessing-game that passes for public service in the House of Commons....on all sides."

"Perhaps more disturbing is the passive political bias (and dereliction of Constitutional duty) represented by the obvious collusion in any cover-up about the Prime Minister's health problems throughout the senior ranks of the Civil Service."...

"There isn't a mandarin in Whitehall who's unaware of Brown's condition - they tittle-tattle the tale wherever they go, dining out on their inside knowledge, and yet won't lift a finger to bring it to the public's attention. We are being let down at every turn by the spineless Establishment running this country"

I don't feel particularly good about posting this (and yet I AM posting it), I know there are some nasty things covered up in Westminster - some things that the Police know about too - yet because of 'who' they involve these things don't get to see the light of day: not good, and if someone seriously isn't fit to to run the UK (or anything for that matter!) then those who are, or likely to be, affected should be made aware.

Outing outrageous overspending (II or III)...

From the Tax payers' Alliance today [LINK] It all points to a massive United States of Europe already underway...I know we know that is happening anyway BUT it just seems that it moves forward at a pace and many people just don't realise how far it's already gone. Don't forget this is YOUR money ...more worrying, David Cameron has specifically mentioned EU money as being one of the very few expenditures that the Conservatives would ring-fence if/when they form the next adminstration.

New Research: EU diplomats spend £3.4 billion promoting 'a country called Europe'

* EU foreign service now costs £3.4 billion a year
* The property portfolio of EU embassies is worth £55 million
* EU ambassadors earn up to £244,000 a year
* Former ambassador to Washington DC expresses concern at report's findings

"A new study by the TaxPayers' Alliance reveals the huge size, scope and cost of the EU's own diplomatic service, which has quietly grown to effectively challenge the British Foreign Office around the globe. The report, which includes a foreword by Sir Antony Acland KG, GCMG, GCVO, former UK ambassador to the USA between 1986 and 1991, exposes the way in which the European Union's External Relations programme has used huge quantities of British taxpayers' money to progressively usurp the nation's global standing." Download full report: [PDF]

Key findings

* Brussels has developed an identity on the world stage in its own right. The EU now has a budget of €3.9 billion (£3.4 billion) a year to be spent on its international affairs programme, called the External Relations programme. This is distinct from its international development budget.
* It spends another €28 million (£25 million) (excluding actual civil service wages) on having a Common Foreign and Security Policy supremo.
* EU embassies already exist in name; their property portfolio outside of the EU comes to €63 million (£55 million)
* Staff enjoy considerable remuneration. Already-generous wages can include additional weighting, up to 45% above those paid to their colleagues back in Brussels. This would work out pre-tax as up to €278,000 (£244,000) annually..
* On top of their salaries, EU diplomats enjoy such perks as adoption grants, expat allowances, entertainment allowances and own-car grants if they don’t get a chauffeur.

Hat-tip: Centre Right on Conservative Home.

Outing outrageous overspending (II or III)...

From the Tax payers' Alliance today [LINK] It all points to a massive United States of Europe already underway...I know we know that is happening anyway BUT it just seems that it moves forward at a pace and many people just don't realise how far it's already gone. Don't forget this is YOUR money ...more worrying, David Cameron has specifically mentioned EU money as being one of the very few expenditures that the Conservatives would ring-fence if/when they form the next adminstration.

New Research: EU diplomats spend £3.4 billion promoting 'a country called Europe'

* EU foreign service now costs £3.4 billion a year
* The property portfolio of EU embassies is worth £55 million
* EU ambassadors earn up to £244,000 a year
* Former ambassador to Washington DC expresses concern at report's findings

"A new study by the TaxPayers' Alliance reveals the huge size, scope and cost of the EU's own diplomatic service, which has quietly grown to effectively challenge the British Foreign Office around the globe. The report, which includes a foreword by Sir Antony Acland KG, GCMG, GCVO, former UK ambassador to the USA between 1986 and 1991, exposes the way in which the European Union's External Relations programme has used huge quantities of British taxpayers' money to progressively usurp the nation's global standing." Download full report: [PDF]

Key findings

* Brussels has developed an identity on the world stage in its own right. The EU now has a budget of €3.9 billion (£3.4 billion) a year to be spent on its international affairs programme, called the External Relations programme. This is distinct from its international development budget.
* It spends another €28 million (£25 million) (excluding actual civil service wages) on having a Common Foreign and Security Policy supremo.
* EU embassies already exist in name; their property portfolio outside of the EU comes to €63 million (£55 million)
* Staff enjoy considerable remuneration. Already-generous wages can include additional weighting, up to 45% above those paid to their colleagues back in Brussels. This would work out pre-tax as up to €278,000 (£244,000) annually..
* On top of their salaries, EU diplomats enjoy such perks as adoption grants, expat allowances, entertainment allowances and own-car grants if they don’t get a chauffeur.

Hat-tip: Centre Right on Conservative Home.

Oliver's opinion...

...on Hugo Chavez. Oliver Stone's new film "South of the Border" will be shown at the Venice film festival next Monday. The Guardian report it thus: "Oliver Stone: 'The truth about Hugo Chávez'." Now, it's in quote marks so I assume thet they are Stone's words but the article doesn't confirm that; however, either way, I disagree...it is an opnion, a view, but it isn't "the truth". At the end of the short article it says

"This is a continuing story. It is going on right now with Hugo Chávez in Venezuela. Hopefully, in our film, you'll get to hear a far different side of the "official" story."

So that much we can see is very different from saying "The truth...", whatever, I shall endeavour to see it and report back; unfortunately, knowing Stone's socialist leanings I am almost sure I won't agree with him...BUT I am not prejudging the film, I WILL watch with an open mind. The short video clip doesn't really tell us much although I like Correa's comment that he'd be more worried when they (the American media) say nice things about him! Great.

Oliver's opinion...

...on Hugo Chavez. Oliver Stone's new film "South of the Border" will be shown at the Venice film festival next Monday. The Guardian report it thus: "Oliver Stone: 'The truth about Hugo Chávez'." Now, it's in quote marks so I assume thet they are Stone's words but the article doesn't confirm that; however, either way, I disagree...it is an opnion, a view, but it isn't "the truth". At the end of the short article it says

"This is a continuing story. It is going on right now with Hugo Chávez in Venezuela. Hopefully, in our film, you'll get to hear a far different side of the "official" story."

So that much we can see is very different from saying "The truth...", whatever, I shall endeavour to see it and report back; unfortunately, knowing Stone's socialist leanings I am almost sure I won't agree with him...BUT I am not prejudging the film, I WILL watch with an open mind. The short video clip doesn't really tell us much although I like Correa's comment that he'd be more worried when they (the American media) say nice things about him! Great.