Saturday, October 28, 2006

When they say "credible"...


"The characters in the story and its location vary, but the plot stays mostly the same. It runs as follows:

"My friend's Aunt Sally was in a queue and this Middle Eastern-looking bloke in front of her dropped his wallet. When she gave it back to him, he told her to avoid central London on Saturday because something big might happen. Tell as many people as you can."

Most people sigh, and delete the e-mail.

But when this same tale crossed David Blunkett's path in late 2001, he passed it straight to the top.

An entry in his newly-published diary reveals how he had spoken to an old school friend, who had heard the story involving the return of a wallet to an Arab man and a warning not to be in London on 11 November.

"I immediately registered the significance of this," Blunkett wrote at the time. "The 11th of November is Armistice Day, the one day in the year when all leading politicians from the three parties, the Queen, other members of the Royal family, and the leading personnel of the armed services are in the same place at the same time - a known time, in central London.

"I decided that I should at least tell Tony Blair as it was absolutely clear that nobody had fully thought through the significance.

"We agreed there was no way we could possibly cancel Armistice Day, but we were certainly going to have to take increased precautions."

Then later: "Sunday 11th of November: And we've come through Remembrance Sunday safely. All the worry was for nothing, thank God."

What morons have you people elected to rule this country?!

Friday, October 27, 2006


As I thought from the moment the first news broke, It would appear that the CPS have now taken the view that Mohammed Abdul Kahar is not guilty of downloading or creating child abuse pictures.

After what appeared to be a smear campaign by unknown parties when it became abundantly clear he was not a terrorist, Its been quietly announced that he has no case to answer. Interesting to note there is no fanfare this time, no blaze of accusatory publicity, barely a mention from those involved.

I'd like to think the Metropolitan Police have instructed the Directorate of Professional Standards to investigate the leaking of false information to the media. Also, its about time the proportionality of hundreds of officers raiding a suburban home was scrutinised.

What was the so-called intelligence that led to this operation? Who (or what) was the source?

Time was most of us would readily accept the secrecy of such activities on the basis that it protected sources and methodology. Personally, I feel that in some cases (such as this) those days have long since passed.

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Agreeing with Ming

Sir Menzies Campbell today said that those involved in the death of Terry Lloyd, the ITN journalist killed by US soldiers in 2003 should be extradited to the UK.

This has already been mentioned on this blog and I have to say, I am in total agreement with him.

Once again, Mr Blair refused to comment:

"For very obvious reasons, I think it would be very wrong for me to comment on anything the attorney general might do, in relation to that case"

I have to assume that those "very obvious" reasons are not to upset the US. Heaven forbid he upset Bush! No, its far better to allow the death of a journalist go unpunished than jeapordaise our 'special' relationship.

We all know the 'official' reason for this is not to discuss something which could be sub judice but lets be realistic, Its never going to happen and as no proceedings are in place, surely to comment on whether action may be taken is perfectly acceptable.

This also highlights once again the apparent one way extradition agreement between the UK & US.

Its time this government acted in the interests of its citizens, not those of foreign powers.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

EU Expansion

Do you want more?

Have you ever had a say on the EU?

Other than the vote in the 70's (which I understand to be for an entirely different beast), the people of the UK have never really had a say on the corrupt organisation at the heart of our continent.

Today there is the discussion about limits on Romanian and Bulgarian citizens working in the UK.

Personally I don't object to immigration but I do draw the line at what is essentially uncontrolled mass economic migration.

We're told this is good for the economy. We're told immigrants do jobs we don't want to.

Tough! We're a small island with very limited resources.

Is it really right that people who have never contributed to the UK are able to come here, pay a few quid in income tax and experience all the benefits this country has to offer?

Forget pointless rules or unenforceable legislation Mr Reid! Give US, the British people a say in what happens to our country - NOW!

Sunday, October 22, 2006

Finally, some common sense from Muslims

I've just read this report on the BBC.

An Islamic youth organisation has condemned as "lunacy" police advice not to execute arrest warrants against Muslims at prayer times during Ramadan.

Greater Manchester Police (GMP) asked detectives not to make planned arrests for reasons of religious sensitivity.

But Mohammed Shafiq, from the Ramadhan Foundation, said: "It's stupid, lunacy, that police could even consider not arresting Muslims during Ramadan."

GMP said its advice was a "request for sensitivity" and not a ban on arrests.

Good to see something sensible coming out of the muslim community but what the hell are those right on idiots at GMP thinking? Someone should be fired for this moronic decision.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Dirty Bomb attack this Weekend?

Fox News are currently reporting a threat against 7 US NFL stadiums this weekend.

The reports state that these could be dirty bombs.

Information is slow coming out but the US Department For Homeland Security have said this isn't a credible threat.

As they've seemingly overplayed other threats in the past, this seems a little unusual.

UPDATE 22:08BST 18/10/06:

More information can be found on Google News

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

House arrest just isn't what it was...

It would appear there are two innocent people on the run tonight!

"Quick, alert the ports!"

It is claimed that:

One is a British man of Pakistani descent who fled through a window from a mental health unit two weeks ago.

He is accused by the authorities of wanting to go to Iraq to fight and has been subject to an order since March.

The other man is an Iraqi who is believed to have been missing for several months. A major police investigation is ongoing.

Now I'm not the only person to consider this draconian legislation to be an affront to the values of any democratic nation, let alone the UK, one of the oldest democracies on the planet but this kind of reporting is just insane.

Big deal. Get a grip!

So what if one of them *did* want to fight in Iraq. We've sent thousands of people there to do just that.

What about the other guy? Is being Iraqi enough to have you locked up these days?

Sometimes I despair of this country, I really do.

Monday, October 16, 2006

We should all battle extremism..

...says a member of Opus Dei...

The battle against extremism in the UK should be fought by all communities - not just Muslims, Ruth Kelly will tell a meeting of local authority officials.

The communities secretary will say that extremism includes the threat from the "still poisonous" far-right.

"The new extremism we're facing is the single biggest security issue for local communities," Ms Kelly will say.

Sunday, October 15, 2006

More proposed surveillance

The BBC have a report about an idea being contemplated by Merseyside Police:

"Spy planes could be flown high above the streets of Merseyside as part of a crackdown on anti-social behaviour.

The use of surveillance drones is one of a number of technology-driven ideas being explored by Merseyside Police's anti-social behaviour (ASB) task force.

The squad's aim is to use any civil and criminal law available to target those who make living in some areas a misery.

Senior officers have described the new initiative as an "Al Capone" approach to so-called yob behaviour".

What absolute nonsense.

Its about time Police forces stopped hiding behind technology and got out on the streets and gave the criminals a hard time.

I'm sick of these insane schemes being dreamed up instead of them just employing a common sense approach to policing.

We're already the most heavily watched country in Europe, enough is enough!

Veil Teacher 'should be sacked'

Should she be sacked asks the BBC headline today.

Only a week ago the story broke of Jack Straw's comments about the veil.

At the time, I posted this

So some Muslim women want to wear a veil. Big deal, thats up to them! We don't tell half naked sweaty men to put their shirt back on in the streets. That, to me is an unpleasant sight! We don't tell chavs to stop wearing their tracksuits and Burberry tat.

So why pick on Muslim women? Is it because they are an easy target? Is it to drive further wedges between Muslims & non Muslims in the UK?

So you can imagine my surprise and sheer dismay to see this woman being interviewed yesterday by Peter Sissons. Which went something like -

"Did you wear the veil when the man interviewed you for the job"

"Do i have to answer all the questions?"

After a protracted dicussion she admitted she didn't.

Personally I was appalled at her attitude and felt she had created this situation to make a point. I'm in full agreement with Phil Woolas on this one.

At a time when relations beween Muslims and non Muslims are already strained, this woman's behaviour is absolutley inexcusable. She and her supporters should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Saturday, October 14, 2006

21st Century British Racism

Just been reading this story on the BBC website. Lets digest this one as we go through it -

Codie Stott said she asked to be moved from a science group where she was with five Asian pupils - only one of whom spoke English.

Sounds perfectly reasonable. Although I don't see why an English pupil in an English school should be put in this position. Why didn't the others speak English? How was the course being taught if there was more than one language in the class?

Of course, we don't know how it was said but nonetheless, that is not racism!

The 14-year-old was questioned in a juvenile unit before being released without charge.

Oh, how gracious!

Codie said: "I asked the teacher could I change groups because I didn't understand them and she said I was being racist and started shouting at me."

Harrop Fold High School, in Worsley, is investigating before deciding on what action to take.

Perhaps they should suspend the teacher pending investigation into their potentially racist reaction to a pupil wanting to be educated properly?

A complaint was made and she was taken to a police station.

By whom? On what basis?

her fingerprints and DNA samples were taken and she was put in a cell.

Which will be held on record for the rest of her life.

The school said it wanted to ensure it had a caring and tolerant attitude to pupils of all ethnic backgrounds and it did not stand for racism in any form.

Except against the white English kids?

Greater Manchester Police said it took hate crime reports very seriously and its treatment of the teenager was in line with normal procedure.

So normal procedure for dealing with children requesting a proper education is to arrest them, fingerprint and dna test them then to be locked up in a cell?

Astonishing. Sickening. Just look what the PC brigade have done to this country.

Friday, October 13, 2006

Should the US military go on trial?

ITN journalist Terry Lloyd was shot and killed by US soldiers in 2003.

The US didn't didn't sign up to the ICCt when it was founded so it seems unlikely they will ever be tried there.

Should this kind of activity go unpunnished in a democratic society?

A soldier knows what he is there to do and firing upon civillians should never, ever be part of that.

Its not unprecedented for a US soldier to be prosecuted for their actions in wartime.

Is there any reason this should be an exception?

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Head of British Army: Our presence in Iraq...

....Is causing more problems than it solves (entirely paraphrasing based on a short comment I spotted on Sky News a few minutes ago).

Apparently his comments are an interview in a paper tomorrow so we'll obviously be able to pour over the finer points of his remarks then.

Iraq is a mess, even Bill O'Reilly said so on Cavuto this evening (yes, I was astonished to hear HIM say that).

The government keep claiming they listen to their commanders.

Maybe its time to simply pull out and let the inevitable happen, the country stabalise and find its own way.

[UPDATED 22:36 12/10/06]

Some key comments made by General Sir Richard Dannatt:

The presence of UK armed forces in Iraq "exacerbates the security problems".

"The British should "get out some time soon".

"Let's face it, the military campaign we fought in 2003, effectively kicked the door in."

[Any initial tolerance] "has largely turned to intolerance. That is a fact."


Do you want to be tagged?

There is a report on the BBC which talks about tagging airport passengers in the name of security.

Quite why this would make a difference is beyond me.

That said, my concern is not about its application within airports but the potential for this becoming accepted and then the norm.

The report states -

He said: "The basic idea is that airports could be fitted with a network of combined panoramic cameras and RFID (radio frequency ID) tag readers, which would monitor the movements of people around the various terminal buildings."

He said: "In our system, the location can be detected to an accuracy of 1m, and video and tag data could be merged to give a powerful surveillance capability."

The project still needs to overcome some hurdles, such as finding a way of ensuring the tags cannot be switched between passengers or removed without notification.

If such a scheme was introduced, and its always been a matter of when, not if, just how long would it take before such a step was deemed necessary in workplaces and in public?

Certainly, the Biometric Passport was devised before the concept of ID cards was brought back to life.

Combined with the huge CCTV surveillance resources employed by the British state, tracking by other means, a biometric database linked to RFID chips could be the final nail in the coffin of our freedom and privacy.

I feel more secure without this type of security, how about you?

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

655,000 Dead Iraqi's

The Lancet is due to report that since 2003 approx 655,000 Iraqi's have died who "might still have been alive if not for the invasion".

George Bush claims the report is "not credible".

The question is, do we accept the views of a well respected scientific journal or a man who claimed Iraq (as it was) posed a grave threat to international security on order to facilitate his unlawful invasion and occupation?

I know where my money is going on this one.

So If we accept the claims that this many people have died due to their "liberation" we have to ask "how many people did Saddam Hussein kill?".

A quick Google search asking that question reveals a wide variety of results ranging from 300,000 to 1,000,000.

You have to then consider this is between 1979 and 2003.

So our intervention has actually increased the rate at which people are dying in the country. So the humanitarian "arguement" in favour of what they have done has also to be discredited.

So why are both Bush and Blair still in power? Why haven't they been charged with war crimes?

Don't these people and the events of the last few years sicken you?

They do me.

All I can say is "not in my name" but this hardly seems enough.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Guilty Conscience?

Firstly I think its right to say that I don't approve of the Iraqi war and although I supported going into Afghanistan at the time, I feel it has been poorly handled and under supported by all governments.

We've all read reports recently about the tough time faced by the British Army in Afghanistan in particular.

So is it surprising that the government are now giving them preferential treatment to other citizens?

UK forces in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Balkans will receive cash bonuses to pay off their tax bill, Defence Secretary Des Browne has announced.

The £60m scheme would ensure everyone on dangerous operations for six months or more would be better off, he added.

He told MPs the £2,240 tax-free bonus would be backdated to April this year.

I feel obliged to say I mean no disrespect to our troops, they aren't to blame for their political masters. That said I'm not sure they should get a tax break the rest of us aren't entitled to.

They chose their occupation just as all workers in the public and private sectors have.

Seems to me this is either a cynical ploy to reduce the negative PR associated with troops reporting what life is really like on the ground or a guilty conscience at the heart of government.

Monday, October 09, 2006

Hypocritcal response to North Korea

So North Korea have tested their nuclear weapon.

Already the condemnation is coming in -


Tony Blair condemned North Korea's apparent first nuclear weapons test as a "completely irresponsible act".


"A North Korean nuclear test would constitute a provocative act, in defiance of the will of the international community and of our call to refrain from actions that would aggravate tensions in northeast Asia... We expect the Security Council to take immediate actions to respond to this unprovoked act."


"[North Korea] has ignored the widespread opposition of the international community and conducted a nuclear test brazenly on 9 October... The Chinese government is firmly opposed to this... The Chinese side strongly demands the North Korean side abide by its pledges on denuclearisation and to stop any action that would worsen the situation".

et, North Korea is not a signatory to the Test Ban Treaty, they did ratify the 1968 The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons but withdrew from this in 2003. Its interesting to note that those currently shouting loudest...

...well, take a look at the figures -

1945 - 1998

USA (1039 Events)
Soviet Union (718 Events)
France (198 Events)
China (45 Events)
Great Britain (45 Events)
India(3 Events)
Pakistan (2 Events)
Unknown (1 Event)*

*Possibly Israel/South Africa.

So I ask, why the hypocritical reaction? Just because the rest of the world don't approve of the North Korean regime?

Sunday, October 08, 2006

Has Jack Straw gone too far this time?

Don't vote for me!

Seems not everyone up for election really wants the job!

A candidate in local elections in the US state of Minnesota is having trouble persuading voters not to elect him.

Paul Herold does not want to hold public office, but voters in the town of Blaine have catapulted him into the final stage of the municipal election.

Mr Herold originally signed up to run for City Council but landed a new job that he said would not allow him enough time to devote to his constituents.

Unfortunately for Mr Herold, he still got enough votes to advance to the next stage against incumbent Katherine Kolb.

Reminds me of the "None of the Above" campaign in the excellent Brewsters Millions!

Lord Goldsmith - Remember these words

It seems our old Pal Lord Goldsmith, you remember him, the cretin who told Blair the Iraq War would be (il)legal has been quoted as saying:

"If there were a significant risk of someone being a danger, they wouldn't be moved to an open prison."

Oh, If only we could believe you.

But we don't.

Lets see how long it takes for a scandal to come to light from this.

Sir Ian Blair MUST go now

Just been reading this post over on Iain Dale's Diary.

I was horrified although not surprised to read the following:

Sir Ian said the British people should 'brace themselves for a truly appalling act of terror'. He said that following this act of barbarism 'people would be talking quite openly about internment', giving the impression that he would be leading the pro-internment lobby. No doubt he will find a willing supplicant in the tougher than tough Home Secretary John Reid.

Its not the threat of terrorist attack which worries me, its the ongoing erosion of our civil liberties, long held, hard won freedoms.

There is a quote often used by people dicussing this so its a bit of a cliche but it still rings true:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

People must wake up to this, we have to stop talking about this in our little special interest groups and make it a significant mainstream issue.

Lets get this story out there. I don't see it in the papers or mentioned on the News or Political shows this morning.

Saturday, October 07, 2006

Time to legalise drugs?

Once again someone in the public eye "admits" they have used drugs.

This time its low level entertainer Graham Norton.

Whilst I don't find him to be funny or entertaining I hate to see the usual crowd come out and attack people for being honest on such a subject.

The British Empire was partially founded on the trade of Opiates from its Colonies in Asia to the rest of the world (including the UK).

Eventually It was made illegal here and the so-called 'war on drugs' began.

This has been a loosing battle ever since.

The damage done by drugs is one thing, the damage done by leaving it a black market activity is rarely if ever discussed & far more serious in my view.

  • Firstly, I feel strongly that it is the right of the individual to make choices for themselves providing those choices don't adversely impact upon others.
  • We allow certain drugs to be sold and used legally. Its interesting to hear the oft made comment that "cannabis leads on to harder drugs". Do you know anyone who didn't drink or smoke BEFORE they smoked a joint? I don't!
  • Allowing drugs to be sold on the black market leaves them in the hands of criminal gangs which leads to violence and no control over who has access to them.
  • The damage done to society isn't by the use of drugs themselves but as a result of this so called war. What happens is simple, the laws of supply and demand take over. As these are difficult to import, high prices can be charged for what is really a cheap crop. This results in people committing crime to fund their habit.
I think its about time we stepped up the debate from the old "its bad, just say no" to something more realistic.

People will take drugs whether they are legal or not. If we were to control them by selling them at chemists or other licenced establishments we can eliminate the black market, supply a 'safe' product under controlled conditions & reduce prices so that less crime is carried out to fund expensive habits. The government could even levy a tax and still create a reduction in price.

So I'm just really floating the concept at this stage, obviously such a huge step would need to be fleshed out, debated and changed as necessary.

But the point remains, we've not won the "war on drugs" & we never will. Lets talk about it as grown ups rather than people who've been brainwashed into believing everything we read in the papers!

Friday, October 06, 2006

What is Jack Straw up to?

I have to say I'm somewhat bemused at the Jack Straw story circulating for the last 24 hours.

Its fair to say that whilst I don't share his political outlook, he's obviously a reasonably intelligent man and an experienced politician.

So it begs the question - why did he decide to make the statements he has?

Now this is not me questioning his right to his opinions. He's certainly entitled to them.

What does surprise me is that he's went so overboard on what is a tiny, trivial issue which was always bound to blow up into a big arguement.

So some Muslim women want to wear a veil. Big deal, thats up to them! We don't tell half naked sweaty men to put their shirt back on in the streets. That, to me is an unpleasant sight! We don't tell chavs to stop wearing their tracksuits and Burberry tat.

So why pick on Muslim women? Is it because they are an easy target? Is it to drive further wedges between Muslims & non Muslims in the UK?

What purpose does this debate serve?

There are times where practicality or legislation dictates these must be removed. I'm sure that on those occasions they are. If they aren't, its quite right to refuse the service or to deny the request being made.

That goes without saying.

So why say it?

Thursday, October 05, 2006

Should Police be allowed to pick & choose?

Today It was reported that a Muslim Police officer was allowed to refuse his duty guarding the Israeli embassy in London.

There are two claims about the reason for this:

  • That the officer was told not to perform this duty as a risk assessment concluded that it could potentially be dangerous. In favour of this arguement, the Met said:

"Our priority is making sure that any officer we deploy can have their mind on the job and make sure they discharge effectively and efficiently".

"That's what a risk assessment is about, it is not about political correctness and we do not allow officers to pick and choose their deployment on the basis of their personal views".

  • That he asked to be excused as he had Lebanese relatives.
"The Association of Muslim Police Officers said it had been a "welfare issue" not a political one - with the officer having a Syrian father and a Lebanese wife.

The association said Pc Basha had asked to be excused from his duties because he felt "uncomfortable and unsafe".

In terms of the Risk Assessment, the statement implies the officer potentially could not distance himself from his emotions towards the conflict. Surely the role of a Police Officer demands they distance themselves from events they find unpleasant?

The Association of Muslim Police Officers statement implies that the officer could not seperate his political views and his professional conduct. This is not, in my view a "welfare" issue. It is a political statement.

Either way, this reflects poorly on whoever made the decision and, if the officer requested this, on his conduct.

I'm highly critical of the atrocious behaviour of Israel during the conflict but that doesn't mean I find this acceptable.

People opting to join the Police should think like those who join the Armed forces of the potential conflict of interests, ideology and belief they will encounter before they sign up.

We can't have our police officers picking and choosing which duties they are comfortable with!

What do you make of it?

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

A novel way to 'protest'!

Over on the following video is surging its way up the charts!

Certainly a novel way to express your views about the authoritarian streak running through the UK at present!

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

North Korea planning Nuclear test

What do you make of this story?

In light of its recent missile tests and the rhetoric coming from the U.S. administration, is it really so hard to believe?

I'm in two minds about this whole thing.

  • As a nation it is their right to build weapons to defend themselves.
  • As one of the few truly dangerous countries on the planet, it of course is a cause for concern.
The same thing is going on with the cat and mouse game being played out between Iran and the U.S.

On this I'm clear -

The U.S. has no right to dictate which nations develop Nuclear weapons, end of story. Whether the current administration likes it not is not the issue.

Its also rich of the other nuclear states to criticise anyone else for developing this technology.

I do hope Blair finally grows a spine and refuses to go along with any plans to impose sanctions (or god forbid, military action) against these countries.

Was Boris right?

Once again the press are ganging up on Boris Johnson.

It seems that speaking your mind when your views don't match those of the PC lobby is a dangerous game to play.

The BBC report:

He added: "I say let people eat what they like. Why shouldn't they push pies through the railings?".

The father-of-four, who is a Conservative spokesman on education, added: "I would ban sweets from school - but this pressure to bring in healthy food is too much."

He later said he stood by the comments but added that he did not want to personally criticise Mr Oliver who was a "national saint".

I really don't see what the controversy is all about. He was absolutely right. People should be free to eat as they wish. Just as they should be free to smoke, drink alcohol and in my view, take any other narcotic substance they so wish.

The problems start when the actions of the invidual are detrimental to others. This is what legislation is there for - to determine what is or is not acceptable to society. It may not always be perfect but it doesn't just exist to punish the guilty, its there to protect the freedoms we are entitled to.

This type of nannying must stop. Why does anyone give it credibility?

Monday, October 02, 2006

Feeling sorry for Edwina?!

What kind of person does it take to make you feel sorry for Edwina Currie?

In short, him:

What a vile, old fashioned, lazy abusive shit he really is!

In case you don't know what I'm talking about, I've just watched the hugely entertaining Celebrity Wife Swap.

Edwina tried to get this bully out of his bed/"office" and into the real world. Boy did she fail!

He took great pleasure in slating her for her affair with John Major and her ministerial career (although he seemed a bit short of detail on the latter).

His one positive comment? He liked Edwina's scrambled eggs.

Would you really want her cooking egg's of all things?!

Sunday, October 01, 2006

Jack Straw's folly?

Did you see this weeks Question Time?

The discussion inevitably went back to the Iraq war. He was asked if the war would be considered as Tony Blair's Folly.

Despite a number of very valid points questioning the legitimacy of the war, the motivation for going in and the outcome Straw claimed it wouldn't.

For once I was in complete agreement with Piers Morgan.

If you didn't see it I would thoroughly recommend it.

There is a 'highlights' download available from the BBC.

What do you think?

Green Taxes

It is widely understood that climate change is happening.

Some statistics

  • Global temperatures have risen by over 0.7C in the last 300 years - climate change is therefore already taking place. 0.5C of this warming occurred during the 20th century. Most of the warming was from 1910 to 1940 and from 1976 onwards
  • Four out of five of the warmest years ever recorded were in the 1990's
  • The total number of cold days (where the average temperature was under 0C) has fallen from between 15 and 20 per year prior to the twentieth century, to around 10 per year in recent years
  • Mountain glaciers in non polar regions have retreated significantly during the 20th century
There is much more information available on the web to backup and explain the current impact of these changes.

The root cause is still open to debate although I'm inclined to accept the view that the rise of our Industrial society is a significant contributary factor.

The Tory leader David Cameron has been talking about this to Andrew Marr on his Sunday breakfast show today. He was discussing proposed 'green taxes' and their potential to help reduce emissions from the UK.

The question is of course, will this make any significant impact on the rate of global climate change?

When you consider that China & India are currently two of the worlds biggest polluters with massve economies growing at an exponential rate, you have to wonder. They are building coal fired power stations at an astonishing rate and in due course will even pass the US and EU in their emissions.

Is this talk of green taxes more a case of being seen to take action without actually making a real difference?

What do you think?