Forum Topics

The Hounslow Chronicle Thursday 17th 2008

Two statements appear in this paper in two different articles and they show a strange attitude to upholding the law and public decency.In one on page 6 in an article concerning gay men having sex in public places such as Gunnersbury triangle (the local nature reserve visited by children) ch insp Andy Morgan insisted the practice was not a major issue in the borough and rarely provoked complaints it’s not a crime unless someone says it is. It usually happens late at night in secluded places and between consenting adults.Having spent time having to clear up the area of Osterley by Windmill lane also, used by the cottaging/ cruising/ dogging fraternity, I say it is. The whole area was full of rubbish old needles and discarded Durex. My children, now teenagers visited the Triangle many times as they grew up and many small children still do. The idea that this is not a problem is wrong, ask anyone doing community service about their experience of clearing up these sites if you doubt the seriousness of this problem.On page nine ch insp. Andy Morgan takes a different stance on a illegal practice also often carried out late at night between consenting adults only this time in the privacy of their own homes and with out turning public places into cess pits of discarded filth.I am talking about consuming cannabis. On this issue we get this rant from ch insp Mogan who believes downgrading cannabis has sent the wrong message to users and dealers. When Cannabis became declassified (it should have been but it wasn’t, it was downgraded) dealers thought the potential for them to be caught convicted and sentenced had been reduced, he said. (Why the penalties applicable under class B are the same as under Class C for these types of offences)It created an artificial belief we wouldn’t do much about people importing cannabis.Cannabis clearly leads to other crimes because there are big profits to be made (only because it’s illegal Andy)Also as people become unstable (after smoking the drug) they become more of a problem.  (The percentage of those who may become unstable is very small and in the words of Professor Stanley Zammit one of the authors of the critical overview published in the lancet and misquoted by the right wing press and other fascist types.“In conclusion we found that the evidence concerning mental illness and cannabis to be inconclusive”).They can become involved in harassment, intimidation and other offences. (Sounds more like alcohol users to me or perhaps police officers enforcing the cannabis laws in my experience.So as I understand it there a two types of laws  one were people can be kept terrorised in their home for matters of individual  choice over life style and one were you can outrage public decency by taking it up the rear in public and leaving your discarded filth all over the place and that’s ok. What hypocrisy!

Philip Walsh ● 6868d36 Comments ● 6848d

HM magazines Leaders folly

Tax payers should not be paying for a rag that is political.Take the leaders rant on page 3, on crime, Hounslow is suppose to be crime ridden as the leader points out, but was he not the same idiot who when the rest of the area committes decided to buy mobile CCTV for the Police, did he not with the rest of the Tories in Chiswick dedcided they would not put any money forward...HENCE no mobile CCTV in Chiswick hence more crime, What a plonker..better still is later in the magazine we are told the opposite about crime.Teenage preganacy we are told it is rife GUESS which Tories decided that Sex Education was not needed and funding was cut evan when it was pointed out to them in a scrutiny report the need for such Education for our children....DUH!!!!Its the same idiot who thinks that Gershun savings should not go back into providing better services but should be used as a tax cut..then goes and crys poverty to the goverment..if you can afford tax cuts you dont need more goverment money, the National Tax payer is not giving you money to give back as a Tax cut...another dumb move...HM Magazine was to be payed for by adverts, name one non-internal advert in last 3 issues...there is no extrenal revnue paying for this magazine so we the TAX PAYER are now paying for the this poitcal rag fully.........Then we have the HM headline "How Does we spend your money"If you cant get your grammer right what hope have we of you getting the budget right..THIS magazine was suppose to be NON-POLITICAL and was up till the last election, Now all we get is miss-informed un-educated dribble....

Dave Hughes ● 6851d4 Comments ● 6850d

HM magazines Leaders folly

Tax payers should not be paying for a rag that is political.Take the leaders rant on page 3, on crime, Hounslow is suppose to be crime ridden as the leader points out, but was he not the same idiot who when the rest of the area committes decided to buy mobile CCTV for the Police, did he not with the rest of the Tories in Chiswick dedcided they would not put any money forward...HENCE no mobile CCTV in Chiswick hence more crime, What a plonker..better still is later in the magazine we are told the opposite about crime.Teenage preganacy we are told it is rife GUESS which Tories decided that Sex Education was not needed and funding was cut evan when it was pointed out to them in a scrutiny report the need for such Education for our children....DUH!!!!Its the same idiot who thinks that Gershun savings should not go back into providing better services but should be used as a tax cut..then goes and crys poverty to the goverment..if you can afford tax cuts you dont need more goverment money, the National Tax payer is not giving you money to give back as a Tax cut...another dumb move...HM Magazine was to be payed for by adverts, name one non-internal advert in last 3 issues...there is no extrenal revnue paying for this magazine so we the TAX PAYER are now paying for the this poitcal rag fully.........Then we have the HM headline "How Does we spend your money"If you cant get your grammer right what hope have we of you getting the budget right..THIS magazine was suppose to be NON-POLITICAL and was up till the last election, Now all we get is miss-informed un-educated dribble....

Dave Hughes ● 6851d10 Comments ● 6850d

Ann Keen MP and Alan Keen MP may lose their perks

According to The Hounslow Chronicle dated 24th January 2008, the latest report by the independent Senior Salaries Review Body has called for a review of the system of Additional Costs Allowances which has allowed Ann Keen MP and her husband Alan Keen MP to claim the cost of a second home in London - even though they have a home in Brentford within 10 miles of the House of Commons. At the moment any MP with a constituency outside Inner London is entitled to claim expenses for staying in the capital while on parliamentary duty but most Outer London members turn it down or only claim a small amount. For example, Stephen Pound, the Labour MP for Ealing North claimed a mere £221 in Additional Costs Allowances last year.  In contrast Ann Keen claimed £18,701 and Alan Keen claimed £19,814- as they are entitled to because their constituencies are classified as being in Outer London.The payment of these Additional Cost Allowances to the Keens has cost the taxpayers £199,091 in the 6 years from 2001/2002 to 2006/2007. Mr Keen claimed a total of £102,133 and Mrs Keen claimed £96,333 according to www.theyworkforyou.com The report says:"The division of London constituencies into outer and inner zones appears somewhat outdated and may not take account of improved public transport in London, nor the modernisation of the Commons' sitting hours.""We suggest that the House review whether some constituencies in the outer zone should be reclasified to the inner zone, thus attracting only the London Supplement."" It has been argued by some observers that because MP's may make a capital gain from owning a second home, the cost of which is met at least in part from the Additional costs Allowance, there should be some means of sharing the gain with the taxpayers", the Report says.A tribunal ruling is expected shortly on whether MP's must disclose how they spend their expenses.Mr and Mrs Keen have consistently failed to explain why they justify claiming the Additional Costs Allowances.Mary Macleod, the Conservative Parliamentary Candidate, has said that she would not claim the Additional Costs Allowance - even though she would be entitled to it under the current rules.

David Giles ● 6857d12 Comments ● 6853d