A Letter of Complaint to Sir Richard Branson

image 1

image 2

The following is a real letter currently circulating the web, it was sent to Sir Richard Branson after a flight from Mumbai/Bombay to London.

REF: Mumbai to Heathrow 7th December 2008

I love the Virgin brand, I really do which is why I continue to use it despite a series of unfortunate incidents over the last few years. This latest incident takes the biscuit.

Ironically, by the end of the flight I would have gladly paid over a thousand rupees for a single biscuit following the culinary journey of hell I was subjected to at thehands of your corporation.

Look at this Richard. Just look at it: [see image 1, above].

I imagine the same questions are racing through your brilliant mind as were racing through mine on that fateful day. What is this? Why have I been given it? What have I done to deserve this? And, which one is the starter, which one is the desert?

You don’t get to a position like yours Richard with anything less than a generous sprinkling of observational power so I KNOW you will have spotted the tomato next to the two yellow shafts of sponge on the left. Yes, it’s next to the sponge shaft without the green paste. That’s got to be the clue hasn’t it. No sane person would serve a desert with a tomato would they. Well answer me this Richard, what sort of animal would serve a desert with peas in: [see image 2, above].

I know it looks like a baaji but it’s in custard Richard, custard. It must be the pudding. Well you’ll be fascinated to hear that it wasn't custard. It was a sour gel with a clear oil on top. It’s only redeeming feature was that it managed to be so alien to my palette that it took away the taste of the curry emanating from our miscellaneous central cuboid of beige matter. Perhaps the meal on the left might be the desert after all.

Anyway, this is all irrelevant at the moment. I was raised strictly but neatly by my parents and if they knew I had started desert before the main course, a sponge shaft would be the least of my worries. So lets peel back the tin-foil on the main dish and see what’s on offer.

I’ll try and explain how this felt. Imagine being a twelve year old boy Richard. Now imagine it’s Christmas morning and you’re sat their with your final present to open. It’s a big one, and you know what it is. It’s that Goodmans stereo you picked out the catalogue and wrote to Santa about.

Only you open the present and it’s not in there. It’s your hamster Richard. It’s your hamster in the box and it’s not breathing. That’s how I felt when I peeled back the foil and saw this: [see image 3, below].

Now I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking it’s more of that Baaji custard. I admit I thought the same too, but no. It’s mustard Richard. MUSTARD. More mustard than any man could consume in a month. On the left we have a piece of broccoli and some peppers in a brown glue-like oil and on the right the chef had prepared some mashed potato. The potato masher had obviously broken and so it was decided the next best thing would be to pass the potatoes through the digestive tract of a bird.

Once it was regurgitated it was clearly then blended and mixed with a bit of mustard. Everybody likes a bit of mustard Richard.

By now I was actually starting to feel a little hypoglycaemic. I needed a sugar hit. Luckily there was a small cookie provided. It had caught my eye earlier due to it’s baffling presentation: [see image 4, below].

It appears to be in an evidence bag from the scene of a crime. A CRIME AGAINST BLOODY COOKING. Either that or some sort of back-street underground cookie, purchased off a gun-toting maniac high on his own supply of yeast. You certainly wouldn’t want to be caught carrying one of these through customs. Imagine biting into a piece of brass Richard. That would be softer on the teeth than the specimen above.

I was exhausted. All I wanted to do was relax but obviously I had to sit with that mess in front of me for half an hour. I swear the sponge shafts moved at one point.

Once cleared, I decided to relax with a bit of your world-famous onboard entertainment. I switched it on: [see image 5, below].

I apologise for the quality of the photo, it’s just it was incredibly hard to capture Boris Johnson’s face through the flickering white lines running up and down the screen. Perhaps it would be better on another channel: [see image 6, below].

Is that Ray Liotta? A question I found myself asking over and over again throughout the gruelling half-hour I attempted to watch the film like this. After that I switched off. I’d had enough. I was the hungriest I’d been in my adult life and I had a splitting headache from squinting at a crackling screen.

My only option was to simply stare at the seat in front and wait for either food, or sleep. Neither came for an incredibly long time. But when it did it surpassed my wildest expectations: [see image 7, below].

Yes! It’s another crime-scene cookie. Only this time you dunk it in the white stuff.

Richard…. What is that white stuff? It looked like it was going to be yoghurt. It finally dawned on me what it was after staring at it. It was a mixture between the Baaji custard and the Mustard sauce. It reminded me of my first week at university. I had overheard that you could make a drink by mixing vodka and refreshers. I lied to my new friends and told them I’d done it loads of times. When I attempted to make the drink in a big bowl it formed a cheese Richard, a cheese. That cheese looked a lot like your baaji-mustard.

So that was that Richard. I didn’t eat a bloody thing. My only question is: How can you live like this? I can’t imagine what dinner round your house is like, it must be like something out of a nature documentary.

As I said at the start I love your brand, I really do. It’s just a shame such a simple thing could bring it crashing to it’s knees and begging for sustenance.

Yours Sincererly

XXXX

image 3
image 4

image 5

image 6

image 7

Gordon Brown IS to Blame

By KEITH MARSDEN From today's Wall Street Journal Europe.

Shocked by the parliamentary expenses scandal and suffering from the recession, British voters have shown their displeasure with Gordon Brown's government. Labour was trounced in local and European elections earlier this month.

Despite this electoral drubbing, Labour lawmakers expressed their confidence in the prime minister on June 8. Given his supposedly successful management of the economy while chancellor of the exchequer, the majority felt that he was best qualified to lead Britain out of the recession, which, they claim, was caused by external forces, not by Mr. Brown's policies.

The facts show otherwise. Britain's economic downturn began when its house price and household debt bubbles inevitably burst, beginning with the run on Northern Rock in September 2007. These bubbles had swollen to higher levels, relative to average price and income levels respectively, than in the U.S. and other major economies.

In relation to their long-term average, British house prices soared by 88.5% between 1997 and 2007, according to the OECD. In the U.S. the rise was 64.5%. Britain's household debt rose to 176.9% of disposable income in 2007 from 104.8% in 1997. During the same period, U.S. household debt rose only to 105.8% of disposable income from 64.3% in 1997. The increases in Germany and France were considerably lower.

Gordon Brown tolerated and even encouraged the formation of these bubbles for several reasons. The traditional sources of Britain's economic strength, the mining and manufacturing industries, shrank during his term as chancellor. Total mining sector output, including oil and natural gas, dropped by 31% between 2000 and 2007. Total manufacturing production was stagnant during this period.

The gross value, in inflation-adjusted prices, of output from all production industries combined fell by 3% between 2000 and 2007. Their employment level dropped by nearly 1.1 million over the same period. These trends were not an inevitable result of shifts in comparative advantages that are said to occur in advanced economies. Real manufacturing output rose at an average annual rate of 2.2% in the U.S., 1.2% in Germany and 1.1% in France between 2000 and 2006, according to the World Bank.

Eager to achieve the illusion of steady progress in the overall economy, Mr. Brown needed the rapid expansion of financial services, and the real estate and business services industries. Their output soared by 48% and 33% respectively from 2000 to 2007, compared with 19% for the overall economy. Their combined employment level reached nearly 6.7 million in 2007, an increase of more than one million.

Rapid expansion of consumer credit in turn boosted demand for wholesale and retail products and services. The booming financial and real estate sectors, with their inflated salaries, bonuses, and profits generated by unsustainably rapid credit growth, also filled Mr. Brown's tax coffers.

Thus, despite the decline in corporate and personal income and national insurance tax revenues from the production industries, he was able to fulfill Labour's 1997 election promise of expanding public services. The output of health and social services increased by 26.3% from 2000 to 2007. Employment in the category "other service activities," which includes public administration and government services, grew by 1.3 million between 2000 and 2007, reaching almost 10 million -- nearly a third of all British jobs.

So the boom in the financial and real estate sectors served Mr. Brown's political interests well. And he was by no means a passive bystander to their growth. He urged them along in several policy speeches. Introducing on April 1, 2005, a policy document entitled "Homebuy: Expanding the Opportunity to Own," he insisted that "this Britain of ambition and aspiration is a Britain where more and more people must and will have the chance to own their own homes."

Ignoring the inability of many house buyers to pay their mortgages, he touted this message to City bankers in successive annual speeches at the Mansion House in London, promising them "light-touch regulation." Already in 1997 he transferred the responsibility for bank regulation from the Bank of England to the inexperienced Financial Services Authority. He also curbed the central bank's ability to keep asset inflation in check by removing housing costs from the price index.

Mr. Brown also repeatedly praised the City's "innovative skills," bragging in 2006 that it was responsible for 40% of the world's over-the-counter derivatives trade -- which includes the now infamous repackaged subprime mortgages. He gave financial institutions a false sense of security by telling them on June 16, 2004, that "I am determined to ensure that we can lock in greater stability not just for a year, or for an economic cycle, but in this generation."

With this assurance from the chancellor, how could anyone expect bankers to forego juicy profits and bonuses by avoiding innovative but unduly risky practices? Because of the large size and global reach of Britain's financial sector, and the many newfangled financial instruments it created and marketed, Mr. Brown cannot honestly deny all responsibility for Britain's recession.

Given these historic facts, Britain's Labour legislators should think again about sticking with the prime minister. Choosing a new leader with integrity and managerial competence is the party's best chance to win greater respect from voters.

Mr. Marsden, a member of the Council of the Centre for Policy Studies, was formerly an operations adviser at the World Bank and senior economist at the International Labour Organization.

Para los hispanohablantes...

Hoy, encontré este en Youtube, es una llamada a una mujer en España, ella piensa que ha ganado un mono.

Pienso que necesitan una traducción en inglés.

Muy gracioso!!

Gordon Brown's Private, Non-Legal Inquiry into the Iraq War

Gordon Brown's reluctance to involve lawyers in an inquiry into the Iraq War is absurd and reveals that we cannot expect a sound testimony or meaningful results. The efficacy of the inquiry is already questionable since it has been made clear that it will be held in private, thereby denying the public the opportunity to evaluate the process. The inquiry will also lack the power to subpoena witnesses and the ability to inquisitively cross-examine them according to the established methods of the legal system. Furthermore, any conclusions will undoubtedly be made unreliable by the fact that witnesses will not be questioned under oath. This merely constitutes the latest example of the Prime Minister's adherence to serving his own interests.

Chinese Growing Pains - Problems for the US and the World

As attempts to elevate the US-Chinese bilateral relationship get underway through the creation of a G-2 to address global problems such as the international financial crisis, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and climate change, it is important to remember that such a strong relationship between the two countries does not already exist because their values, capabilities and interests have always been mismatched. Instead, the US should seek the assistance of the international community to deal with the problems created by China's rise.

Much of China's incompatibility with the West stems from its need for export markets and resources and its determination to not use its economic leverage for political gains. These values often bring China into opposition with the West's efforts to prevent human rights abuses in the developing world in the following ways:

• China's ongoing arms trade in Sudan and Zimbabwe has contributed to instability there, despite being urged by the rest of the world to restrain weapons sales.

• The Chinese concept of sovereignty has prevented it from supporting humanitarian intervention into countries where its state-owned businesses have vast resource holdings and development interests, such as Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Myanmar. In September 2007, China and Russia blocked a UN Security Council resolution that condemned Myanmar for using force against Buddhist monks that were leading antigovernment protests. Instead, China insisted that these actions were merely an internal affair.

• China opposes sanctions against Iran due to its growing dependence on imported oil and gas.

• A lack of transparency and accountability in China's authoritarian system inevitably makes cooperation on issues such as product safety difficult. The economic incentives felt by local actors to maintain the status quo undermine efforts to comply with international obligations.

• A lack of transparency with regards to military capabilities may allow China, as the weaker power, to use uncertainty as a deterrent. The US believes that transparency would allow China's neighbours to gauge its intentions and avoid mishaps.

• The US wants China to reform its currency and to enact effective intellectual property rights, whereas China aims to conduct business in the way it sees fit.

• The Chinese government's strategy of aggressively promoting growth through investments by state-owned entities, and accompanying this with regulatory measures to ensure the state's continued dominance of the economy, not only reverses previous market-based reforms and privatisation but also stifles foreign and domestic competitors within China. However, this largely reflects the current global trend of state capitalism, whereby states have rejected the free-market doctrine through excessive intervention to secure the survival of key industries. In China it is doubtful that these interventions will be temporary, and the fear is that politicians will over-regulate the economy, making it inefficient, corrupt and stripping it of its ability to innovate.

The primary goal for the US must therefore remain true market-oriented reform in China through greater liberalisation and a commitment that Beijing will open state-owned companies to foreign investors. Resolutions of other issues must be pursued with the help of the countries over which China believes it wields considerable influence; the developing world. The US must therefore engage with these new allies to fulfil its objectives.

A Very Iranian Democracy

"The elections are a matter for the Iranian people, but if there are serious questions that are now being asked about the conduct of the elections, they have got to be answered" Gordon Brown - Unelected Prime Minister of Britain

Gordon Brown can have no criticisms of the Iranian elections. After the victory of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the recent elections, it is rich for a man who was;

-Not elected by his own party to be leader.
-Not elected by the people to be leader.
-Only elected in a safe Labour seat in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, which quite frankly a sack of potatoes could win with a Labour rosette pinned on it. (I would also like to add that this sack of potatoes could probably do a finer job managing a G8 country)
-Has filled the cabinet with the likes of the unelected, disgraced Lord Mandleson, "The Prince of Darkness" who is now as good as number 2, aswell as Lords Adonis.

Brown should spend more time thinking about an election domestically rather than commenting on those of other nations.

Gordon Brown Cannot Count

Today in Prime Minister's Questions, Brown was out by over a factor of 1000 in his quotes on public spending. He refers to pubic spending in terms of 'millions' rather than 'billions'. If only this were the case, his manic spending binge would not have crippled the country as much.

He criticises the Conservatives for wanting to cut public spending by 10%. The only criticism I will make here is that this is not enough! Let me put it simply for you Gordon in terms of small scale economics.

"Mr and Mrs Jones and Family live comfortably, they take out credit cards and loans and begin to spend more than they can afford. Mrs Jones loses her job (political correctness in action here!) and their income is reduced. They DON'T keep on spending, they cut back and spend within their means."

Brown and lets not forget Tony Blair should have put money to one side when times were good. Brown is a liar, he promised prudence and could not have broken this promise any more than he has done.

Khalistan and Terrorism in Punjab

Last week the funeral of the Sikh guru killed in Vienna on 24th May, Sant Ramanand Dass, was held in Jalandhar, Punjab, India. His murder in a temple sparked such violent protests in Punjab between opposing Sikh factions that the government intervened to impose a curfew for two days. Yet reports of the violence in the international media have subsided, largely due to it claiming 'only' three lives. However this latest case of religious conflict should not be dismissed so readily.

Responsibility for the murder of the religious leader has been claimed in a letter sent to several Sikh broadcasters in India and to the London based radio station, Radio Akash, by a Sikh named Ranjit Singh Neeta, a name already well-known to the Indian government, secret service and police. Neeta is the leader of the Khalistan Zindabad Force (KZF), a group which also appears on the US terrorist watch list. The KZF is composed of Sikhs mainly from Jammu and is responsible for committing several high-profile acts of terrorism in India over recent years with the aim of achieving the creation and independence of a sovereign Sikh state, Khalistan.

According to the Indian police, in recent years Sikh extremism has been reorganising itself through the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence, an organisation based in Lahore which is currently hosting Neeta and is believed to have close links with Islamist guerrilla groups in Kashmir, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-I-Mohammed. Wadhawa Singh Babbar is also currently residing in Pakistan, where he leads his organisation, Babbar Khalsa. In 2005 the EU included this group in its list of terrorist organisations, thereby ordering all member states to freeze its bank accounts. The Indian government has also warned its European counterparts to be vigilant for cells of Babbar Khalsa, especially during celebrations for Sikh new year, when European followers are believed to recruit new members and hold rallies.

Where do I stand politically?

This has been bugging me somewhat recently, so I have conducted a survey to see where I lie. I would class myself as I centre-right libertarian, and this quiz shows this self-assessment to be somewhat true.

My Political Views
I am a right moderate social libertarian
Right: 6.23, Libertarian: 2.64

Political Spectrum Quiz

The UK's Problematic Separation of Powers and Lack of Meaningful Legislative Scrutiny

Constitutionalists have lamented the British constitutional order since Bagehot commented in 1867 that the legislative and executive powers of the State are fused together. Ministers exercise a dual role as members of both Parliament and the executive and this is scarcely of concern. The Commons ultimately controls the executive through its capacity to oust a government which has lost the ability to command a majority on an issue of confidence, as was seen with Callaghan's minority government in March 1979. Of more concern is the effect that a clear majority in the Commons can have on legislation as well as the role of Parliament in holding the government to account for its policies.

Paragraph 17 of the Ministerial Code established in 2001 states:

Collective responsibility requires that Ministers should be able to express their views frankly and in the expectation that they can argue freely in private while maintaining a united front when decisions have been reached. This in turn requires that the privacy of opinions expressed in Cabinet and Ministerial Committees should be maintained.

The continuation of the elitist doctrine of collective responsibility in the Cabinet is likely to be criticised in light of recent scandals and calls for greater transparency. Its greatest criticism however is that it effectively eliminates any opposition within the Cabinet to the policies of the Prime Minister. Former Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, has said that dissenting ministers are unable to debate important issues, citing the example of Robin Cook being forced to resign before policy had been concluded on the war in Iraq. The Butler Report of 2004 stated that two Cabinet ministers “expressed their concern about the informal nature of much of the Government’s decision-making process, and the relative lack of use of established Cabinet committee machinery." It also stated, "we are concerned that the informality… of the Government’s procedures… risks reducing the scope for informed collective political judgement." Certainly collective responsibility should be maintained to uphold party unity once a policy has been established, but it should not stifle debate at the earlier stages, at least not in a deliberative democracy.

When the government enjoys a majority in Parliament therefore, the power of the Prime Minister is subject to fewer checks than it would be under the constitutions of other democracies. This is merely one reason why the British Prime Minister is often said to be an 'elected dictator'. The presence of the Lord Chancellor in the Cabinet further reduces the separation of powers, because, as head of the judiciary, he is entitled to preside over the Lords, the final court of appeal from the courts of the UK. Nevertheless, judicial review has been increasing over recent years, despite the temptation to abolish the House of Lords or bypass it using the Parliament Acts.

Parliamentary select committees remain the only bodies to hold the executive to account and even they are appointed by the whips of the various parties. Inevitably this gives the committees a composition which mirrors the Commons and thereby neutralises their efficacy, as the government's MPs, forming the majority, are unlikely to back reports that criticise their policies. It is estimated that over 3,000 statutory instruments are authorised every year and only a very small proportion of these are actually reviewed by the select committees or in any other way. In practice, the reports of the committees are rarely given proper consideration as the Commons and the government are not obliged to debate their findings. Therefore, the committees must be given full powers to subpoena ministers and to approve major public appointments and its members should be chosen by a vote of the whole House of Commons rather than being appointed by the whips. Moreover, their powers should be extended to allow them to scrutinise proposed legislation before it reaches the Commons for its first reading in order to identify contentious areas and improve its drafting.

Newsflash: Daniel Hannan Re-elected

Daniel Hannan has been re-elected as an MEP for the South-East of England. With the clearout of corrupt MP's, would it not make sense to bring in arguably Britain's most gifted politician to stand as a national MP and into the future cabinet following a Conservative victory?

Of All Places to be Jeered!

Gordon Brown must be disliked by every level of society. Can anybody name another world leader who gets jeered at a remembrance ceremony?

The Beast is Down... Time to Destroy It for Good

As we speak the EU election results are coming out with Labour expected to fail horrendously. This comes on the back of a massive failing in the Local Elections last Thursday. Brown is handing the Tories not just power after the next election but for years and years to come. He has shattered Labour into pieces. For every week he is in power in the weeks to come, this will probably give the Tories an extra year in power. At this rate it will be better for Britain if he stays in power until the next election in order to give the country time to recover from the last 12 years of failed socialism, social engineering and totalitarian control of the population.

The current situation was inevitable. There was no need for the Conservatives to try and model the 'New' Labour victory of 1997 by shifting to the centre. The Labour party would have eventually destroyed itself without the need for help, the Tories did not need to go soft. Every Labour government; Callaghan's, Wilson's and Attlee's has gone a similar way, but NEVER this bad. None of these men were as insane as Brown. At least they knew when their time is up, Brown is going through a breakdown and dragging us along for the ride.

A Second Unelected Prime Minister? - Labour hijacking democracy to serve Party needs

Many commentators expect that Gordon Brown will resign as prime minister in the forthcoming days or weeks and will be succeeded most likely by Alan Johnson. Whilst this is constitutionally acceptable, as the prime minister is merely regarded as the representative of the party that wins an election, the effect of having a second unelected prime minister, even if only for a few weeks, undermines our democracy and the legitimacy of the Labour Government. At a time when constitutional reform and modernisation is on the agenda and when arguments that the current spending rules permit excessive expense claims from MPs are rejected, it would be equally as inappropriate to take advantage of the antiquated rules regarding the succession of a party leader/prime minister, especially when such an expedient move can only benefit the Labour Party.

It has been said by numerous constitutionalists that the high concentration of power in the figure of the prime minister effectively means that voters elect a democratic dictator. This level of power therefore should not be passed on in a hereditary, nonchalant manner and without popular consensus and democratic legitimacy. I wish to reiterate that I understand that our votes elect a party to occupy the position of government. However, contemporary politics in all western democracies is inalienable from the party leader or candidate for the premiership. It is this figure which receives the democratic mandate to govern as leader, whilst the governing party occupies the majority of parliamentary seats to facilitate the promulgation of legislation. I was pleased to read that the Queen has been advised to intervene and warn a newly unelected prime minister to establish a time table for an early election. This precaution evidently supports the premise of my argument; hereditary prime ministers undermine our democracy and the constitutional rules which permit them should be made redundant.

As such, the more favourable outcome to the current situation would be for Gordon Brown to ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament as soon as he accepts he can no longer continue as prime minister. This would save the country the time and the embarrassment of pointlessly having to endure the undemocratic process leading to the coronation of Alan Johnson, or any other equally worthy figure, especially when it is likely that he will be forced to call an election in any case. So why change leader when many of Brown's most ardent supporters have condemned these fractures and disputes for occurring during the economic and financial crisis? I believe that the Party's true concern lies more with hanging on to power than responding to the recession. Undoubtedly a new leader will renew confidence amongst Labour MPs and buy them enough time to futilely attempt to limit the extensive damage believed to be dealt through a general election. Has our democracy become something for the Labour Party to abuse and undermine to their advantage? Tony Blair's third election victory was not meant to consign British democracy to the servile subjugation of Labour. The outcome will prove where Labour's true interests lie; with itself or with the country.

US Secret Nuclear Sites Revealed

A White House dossier listing every American nuclear plant and their addresses has unintentionally been made public. Rather than being formally classified as secret information, it was considered highly confidential and sensitive. This led to the 267 page document, intended only for the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspectors, entering the public domain and possibly terrorist hands. The document can be viewed here.