Normally that small but emotive phrase is used to honour and remember those who have either been prepared to sacrifice their lives or indeed have made that final sacrifice in order that the rest of us can live lives safe from tyranny, poverty and corruption.
Today I use it in another sense…Lest we forget just who lead us to the barren future that awaits us, that sacrificed all our futures and our children’s for their own socialist dreams.
When Ed Miliband states:
….does he include his old boss, Gordon brown, amongst the criminals to be investigated?……
In his June 2007 Mansion House speech, with credit markets already in ragged retreat, Mr Brown hailed “an era that history will record as the beginning of a new golden age for the City of London. And I believe it will be said of this age, the first decades of the 21st century, that out of the greatest restructuring of the global economy, perhaps even greater than the industrial revolution, a new world order was created.”
“I will be honest with you, many who advised me, including not a few newspapers, favoured a regulatory crackdown….I believe we were right not to go down that road … and we were right to build upon our light touch system….fair, proportionate and increasingly risk based”.
Back in 2005, he said that the better model for financial regulation was “not just a light touch, but a limited touch. We should not only apply the concept of risk to enforcement of regulation, but to…the decision as to whether to regulate at all”.
Lest We Forget….
Mrs Thatcher….”The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
Another ‘lest we forget’, off BBC-NUJ’s political radar:-
“The plight of homeless ex-servicemen refused beds taken by immigrants. Please read this carefully – or not at all.”
By Allan Mallinson.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2165867/The-Plight-Homeless-Ex-Servicemen-Please-read-carefully–all.html#ixzz1zB4EksLt
I posted yesterday about the BBC’s silence about who was in power when all these banking catastrophes were taking place, and who designed the regulation i.e. Gordon Brown. The BBC couldn’t even bring themselves to report a Labour minister who admitted, ‘yes, OK, it’s our fault.’, but both ITV and Channel 4 did report it.
It’s often said that the BBC and The Guardian share the same outlook on life, so it’s interesting to note that in the comments section of a Guardian article about Barclays bank, any mention of Labour culpability is deleted by the moderators as “in breach of the rules”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/28/barclays-boss-bob-diamond-pressure-mounts
Cameron gave a video press conference today about his Euro visit. So all the leading papers asked their economic questions. Finally gets round to the Guardian reporter for his question. ” Ed Miliband has just said ……………” Well if there ever was proof that the Guardian is the publishing arm of the Labour Party.
The other half has just informed me he may have said “Ed Balls” and not “Ed miliband” but the sentiment is the same.
“Well if there ever was proof that the Guardian is the publishing arm of the Labour Party.”
The Guardian has always supported Labour, no problem there, it’s free to do as it pleases. It’s the frequent and sometimes suspicious similarity between BBC and Guardian coverage that irks. Too often their common agenda is obvious, sometimes it looks like they collude to attack the Conservatives. Although, amazingly, The Guardian is in my opinion more likely to publish stories critical of Labour than is the BBC.
I also cannot remember him tahing a question from the bBC. Which is strange as they usually make up 50% of the audience.
Mrs Thatcher….”The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
The problem with both Socialism and Cameron’s Blue Labour is that when they run out of other peoples money, they simply print themselves some more. Mrs T perhaps had not forseen seen the debasement of the currency that goes by the Alice in Wonderland name “Quantitative Easing”.
The killer quote in Alan’s post is “increasingly risk based”. Not only did Brown’s regulatory system fail to keep bad practices in check, it seems that he wanted to actually encourage the behaviour that has caused so much economic turmoil. Yet – and this is entirely the failure of the media – how many people really know just how culpable Brown is in all of this? It’s not only that he is guilty of failing to prevent financial institutions from behaving wrecklessly, but is also responsible for encouraging the public to rack up their own personal debt. ‘An end to boom and bust’, he promised – no need to save for a rainy day, good weather is here forever – and with the belief in such hubris the age of ‘buy now, pay whenever’ was born. Many of us are guilty of being sucked into this man’s unsustainable world of the spending spree fuelled by easy credit, an example set by the Treasury under Chancellor Brown…and now the real world has crashed into this fantasyland of false prosperity, and the bills are starting to come in.
Madness. Socialist madness, New Labour style.
http://tinyurl.com/83byrrh
Peter Lilley, shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer [Official Report, 11 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 731-32.]
“With the removal of banking control to the Financial Services Authority…it is difficult to see how and whether the Bank remains, as it surely must, responsible for ensuring the liquidity of the banking system and preventing systemic collapse.”
“The coverage of the FSA will be huge; its objectives will be many, and potentially in conflict with one another. The range of its activities will be so diverse that no one person in it will understand them all.”
“…that the Government may, almost casually, have bitten off more than they can chew. The process of setting up the FSA may cause regulators to take their eye off the ball, while spivs and crooks have a field day.”
[Official Report, 11 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 731-32.]
http://owsblog.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/oracular-oration.html
Brown was told in 1997. He has most guilt.
Far be it from me to defend the BBC – and I’m not going to. However, as regards regulation and just “normal” legal oversight, auditing and the like, if the outfit or person overseen deliberately conceals what he’s doing it’s difficult for an outside body to discover it, let alone do much about it. When I was an articled clerk one of the common phrases you heard was that an auditor is “a watchdog not a bloodhound”. In other words – and in retrospect it might have been overdone – you assumed the basic competence and honesty of the person/company being audited and you didn’t rip the place apart on a whim. Sure, if you stumbled on something odd you were duty bound to get to the bottom of exactly what had happened and why. However, and this was vital, the presupposition in auditing was that the auditor knew exactly how the business concerned – and its accounting aspects – should have worked.
In the case of the setting of LIBOR, the perps fiddling the rate certainly didn’t want the fiddling to come out, their supervisors saw no real harm being done and senior management didn’t want to know. Worse, the regulators (and in my limited experience of dealing with the FSA it comes as little surprise) probably had no idea what should have happened and were entirely ignorant of the creaky mechanics of the way LIBOR is set. I doubt, also, that they ever asked any questions. They just assumed that LIBOR came out of thin air. I also surmise that the banks’ auditors were asleep on the job (although not too drowsy to charge giant fees for the pleasure) in the same way in which they signed off on the massive illusory bank profits in the years leading up to 2008. In other words, both at the banks and those supposed to regulate and audit them, signing off on the process of setting LIBOR was probably box-ticking in all its well-remunerated and ignorant glory.
Umbongo, the authorities WERE made aware of the corruption by whistleblowers, but both the FSA and the Labour government ignored the warnings.
No one in authority can claim to have been ignorant of Barclay’s actions.
The problem with Socialism is that no one knows what it is. Young people are often socialist and believe it is something good and true. In fact socialism has not succeded in any country. Ask one socialist where socialism has been successiful Some say China many say Cuba -thousands of Cubans swam to the US to avoid socialism no one swam the other way. Many great socialist leaders murder other leaders and then have their sons take over on their departure.(Royalty?) The worrying thing is more and more are calling themselves socialist and they cannot be sure what it is.
Socialists vote with their hearts, others rightly vote with their brains.
The trouble with socialists they still think there in the student union when they vote.
Just how the hell traitorous Brownshite and his arse lickers, including Milibore and Ballsup, seem to have got clean away with being so diabolically irresponsible and short sighted with the banks and especially Liebour’s mass social engineering experiment inflicted on the British public is completely beyond me. THEY SHOULD BE IN PRISON!!
Straight talking and common sense Mrs T was bang on the button about always fucked up crackpot socialism!
Above the law Milibore: ‘When ordinary people break the law, they face the full force of the law. The people who have done the wrong thing should face the full force of the law, including criminal proceedings.’
With all that that clown was party to?….What a joke..
The whole of Nu Liebour should be in prison for turning this country into a multicultural disaster.
Couldn’t possibly agree more! They’ve got away with murder!
literally, some would say.
Only made possible by the bbc being allowed to recruit left wingers exclusively for 30 or 40 years, and shape and report the narative in such a way that joe public didn’t become aware of the transformation untill too late.
Had the bbc posed the question, ‘do you think it is a good idea that the centre of cities such as Leicester become squalid, muslim ghettoes from which the indigenous poulation are effectively excluded and where female genital mutilation is considered a normal practice’ ? Perhaps the politicians would have been forced to act in a timely manner.
For every ill the labour party has inflicted on Britain, the bbc is equally culpable, because they presented the madness in such a way that it became acceptable.
I don’t disagree, but immigrant communities have been increasing in places like Bradford for decades. Accusations of racism have been used to suppress opposition in such places for some considerable time as well. Two words – Ray Honeyford.
IMO, two things changed under Labour – the door was opened wider and certain immigrant communities achieved critical mass. This allowed them to become much more vocal and bold. Can’t leave the Conservatives off the hook though.
Umbongo,
You cannot find anything if you aren’t looking for it.
Regards
Mailman
The most deranged and deluded man ever to hold public office. What did we do to deserve him?
Many voted for Blair 3 times in a row – Brown was the nation’s punishment for being blind to the warning signs for so long.
Perhaps we should consider the Brown period as the short, sharp shock that woke us from our collective stupor. Imagine a fourth term for Blair and his acolytes – shudder.
It’s about the only positive I can attribute to Brown!
What has this post to do with the BBC?
The other BBC, the other traitors: Blair Brown Campbell.
😉
“An answer to the sneering of the liberal elite, and a change in the mood of the British people”
by Peter Whittle.
[Excerpt]-
“Rest assured, if this [Jubilee] had been a massive celebration of Britain’s membership of the EU, for example, then the BBC would have got the tone, facts, and commentary absolutely right. ”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2166649/This-summer-patriotic-fervour-shows-changing-mood-British-culture.html#ixzz1zMkVFq45