Taken from Press and Journal

Tweet this!

The Lib Dems’ Welsh manifesto shows leader Kirsty Williams apparently speaking to a police officer – but he is not one David Cornock’s blog

Welsh Liberal Democrats have defended using a “model” dressed as a police officer in a photo with leader Kirsty Williams in their manifesto.

It is the second time in a week that the Welsh Lib Dems have admitted using stand-ins in photographs.

The party said the photo was “illustrative” and that it would not be detailing the identity of the stand-in.

Last week Cardiff North candidate John Dixon used a Lib Dem researcher dressed as a nurse in an election leaflet.

The leaflet showed him talking to a woman in nurse’s uniform who was actually a researcher for Lib Dem Assembly Member Mick Bates.

This leaflet picture showed a Lib Dem candidate speaking to a researcher dressed as a nurse

The photograph with Ms Williams appeared on page 35 of their general election manifesto in a section promising more officers on the beat.

Explaining the rationale for using such photographs, a Lib Dem spokesperson said: “Photos like these are used for illustrative purposes as it is obviously difficult for some serving members of the police force or the health service to appear in general election literature.”

The party said that the use of such “illustrative photographs” was strictly limited to the policy areas of health and policing.

The spokesperson said: “In our election communication, we only used illustrative photographs to highlight our commitment to improving the NHS and increasing the number of police on our streets.”

The party stressed that Ms Williams was not “complicit in the impersonation of a police officer”.

‘No impersonation’

The spokesperson said: “There has been no such impersonation. Being photographed dressed in a way that illustrates the police service, does not in any way represent impersonating a police officer, so there is nothing to be complicit in.”

We don’t intend to divulge the identity of the model for obvious reasons as it would potentially cause a lot of media intrusion for the individual concerned Welsh Liberal Democrats

However, a Welsh Conservative Party spokesperson said: “We were under the impression impersonating a police officer is a criminal offence.”

He added: “It would seem the Lib Dems’ support for law and order is purely ‘illustrative’ – just as it was last week when they used a fake nurse to promote their claims of support for the NHS.

“The Liberals talk about being an ‘honest partner’ at this election. Yet twice in three days they’ve been caught out trying to mislead the public.”

Tories said they were not aware of any such examples in their own election literature, and that each election publication was the responsibility of each election agent.

‘Fireman Sam’

A spokesman for Plaid Cymru said: “We can confirm that we don’t dress up members of staff or supporters in uniforms to pretend that we’re talking to real policemen or nurses – we prefer to talk to the real thing.”

Plaid also told BBC Wales: “It’s pretty worrying that the Lib Dems leader appears to be getting advice on law and order from and actor or member of staff dressed up as a policeman, however we’re not surprised by this latest leaflet – everyone knows that the Lib Dems are a party willing to do just about anything to get votes.”

“They have also tried to dress Nick Clegg up as someone who cares about Wales – and clearly that’s not true.”

A spokesperson for Welsh Labour said: “First a fake nurse, then a fake policeman – what’s next, a picture with Fireman Sam?

‘Media intrusion’

“Everyone knows that the Lib Dems will do absolutely anything for a vote, from their dodgy graphs to make-believe photos, they have always been the shameless chancers of Welsh politics.”

Lib Dems said they would not reveal the identity of the stand-in police officer.

“We don’t intend to divulge the identity of the model for obvious reasons as it would potentially cause a lot of media intrusion for the individual concerned and is not material to the issue,” the party spokesperson said.

Tweet this!

For a head of government to visit the White House and not pose for photographers is rare. For a key ally to be left to his own devices while the President withdraws to have dinner in private was, until this week, unheard of. Yet that is how Binyamin Netanyahu was treated by President Obama on Tuesday night, according to Israeli reports on a trip viewed in Jerusalem as a humiliation.

After failing to extract a written promise of concessions on settlements, Mr Obama walked out of his meeting with Mr Netanyahu but invited him to stay at the White House, consult with advisers and “let me know if there is anything new”, a US congressman, who spoke to the Prime Minister, said.

“It was awful,” the congressman said. One Israeli newspaper called the meeting “a hazing in stages”, poisoned by such mistrust that the Israeli delegation eventually left rather than risk being eavesdropped on a White House telephone line. Another said that the Prime Minister had received “the treatment reserved for the President of Equatorial Guinea”.

Left to talk among themselves Mr Netanyahu and his aides retreated to the Roosevelt Room. He spent a further half-hour with Mr Obama and extended his stay for a day of emergency talks to try to restart peace negotiations. However, he left last night with no official statement from either side. He returned to Israel yesterday isolated after what Israeli media have called a White House ambush for which he is largely to blame.

Sources said that Mr Netanyahu failed to impress Mr Obama with a flow chart purporting to show that he was not responsible for the timing of announcements of new settlement projects in east Jerusalem. Mr Obama was said to be livid when such an announcement derailed the visit to Israel by Joe Biden, the Vice-President, this month and his anger towards Israel does not appear to have cooled.

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, cast doubt on minor details in Israeli accounts of the meeting but did not deny claims that it amounted to a dressing down for the Prime Minister, whose refusal to freeze settlements is seen in Washington as the main barrier to resuming peace talks.

The Likud leader has to try to square the rigorous demands of the Obama Administration with his nationalist, ultra-Orthodox coalition partners, who want him to stand up to Washington even though Israel needs US backing in confronting the threat of a nuclear Iran.

“The Prime Minister leaves America disgraced, isolated and altogether weaker than when he came,” the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz said.

In their meeting Mr Obama set out expectations that Israel was to satisfy if it wanted to end the crisis, Israeli sources said. These included an extension of the freeze on Jewish settlement growth beyond the ten-month deadline next September, an end to building projects in east Jerusalem and a withdrawal of Israeli forces to positions held before the second intifada in September 2000.

Newspaper reports recounted how Mr Netanyahu looked “excessively concerned and upset” when he pulled out a flow chart to show Mr Obama how Jerusalem planning permission worked and how he could not have known that the announcement that hundreds more homes were to be built would be made when Mr Biden arrived in Jerusalem.

Mr Obama then suggested that Mr Netanyahu and his staff stay at the White House to consider his proposals so that if he changed his mind he could inform the President right away. “I’m still around,” the daily newspaper Yediot Aharonot quoted Mr Obama as saying. “Let me know if there is anything new.”

With the atmosphere so soured by the end of the evening, the Israelis decided that they could not trust the telephone line they had been lent for their consultations. Mr Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, his Defence Minister, went to the Israeli Embassy to ensure that the Americans were not listening in.

The meeting came barely a day after Mr Obama’s health reform victory. Israel had calculated that he would be too tied up with domestic issues to focus seriously on the Middle East.

Its a pity that Obama is taking such a line with a country that has been a sure ally all these years. Perhaps he thinks America will be safer without Israel.  Either way its a betrayal of a close friend. Then again Obama is a liberal so what do we expect.

Jim Ferguson

Tweet this!

BBC BRIAN TAYLOR

As the Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for Inverness Nairn Badenoch and Strathspey at the forthcoming General Election I was delighted that the BBC had invited the various political parties to attend a live radio show in Avimore in the Scottish Highlands.

A number of us agreed to attend but on arrival despite having been on the list I was refused entry due to the fact I was a political Candidate.

The BBC told me that they had to remain impartial and that Candidates were not allowed in so that no one had an unfair advantage.

However Danny Alexander the LibDem MP who’s seat I am contesting is also a candidate. Not only was he allowed to attend but he was also on the panel. I pointed this out to the BBC,  but they refused to listen. When the SNP Candidate arrived we discussed the situation and agreed that we would simply sit in the audience and not take part in the debate. Once again we were refused.

Later I spoke to security staff who had controlled entry to the room where the broadcast was taking place. They confirmed that they had been specifically told to refuse entry to the Labour Candidate Mike Robb as the BBC had been concerned that he was going to disrupt proceedings. I spoke with the hotel staff who also confirmed they were simply acting on instructions from their client.

While I accept that the BBC wish to remain impartial, why on earth then would they allow Danny Alexander to remain on the panel. It would have been easy to arrange to have a LibDem MSP to join the Conservative, Labour and SNP MSP’s who were also on the panel.

Danny Alexander should therefore never have been allowed to attend this event let alone sit on the panel.

With a General Election just around the corner this gave him a distinct advantage and high profile that was denied to the other political Candidates.

The BBC have been accused of left leaning, liberal bias before, but now I have experienced it for myself.

I have written to the BBC demanding a full and detailed explanation as to why they acted the way they did including the political editor Brian Taylor who Chaired the debate.

So far they have not even acknowledged my email.

I am sure that Danny Alexander is relieved. However he will have to face me on the various hustings where there will be no liberal bias allowed.

Bring on the General Election.

Jim Ferguson

Candidates barred from BBC debate

Anger over reception at Aviemore

By Iain Ramage

Published: 22/03/2010

A WOULD-BE Tory politician who was among three election candidates barred from a live BBC lunchtime debate at Aviemore Highland Resort claims they were “treated like terrorists”.

Jim Ferguson, the Conservative candidate for the forthcoming contest for the Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey constituency, is the boss of an Inverness security firm.

Stunned by the reception the trio had on Friday, he has written to the corporation asking for an explanation.

SNP candidate John Finnie and Labour’s Mike Robb were equally amazed to have been refused entry to Brian Taylor’s Big Debate on Radio Scotland despite being on the original audience guest list.

Mr Ferguson said: “We were treated like terrorists. It was totally bizarre.

“I was astonished to have been refused entry to a public debate. I explained that Danny Alexander was the MP, and also a candidate, and asked why he was allowed in and I wasn’t.

“It was embarrassing. It was humiliating. I felt this was absolutely undemocratic and very worrying of the BBC to be allowing the proceedings to happen like that.

“John Finnie and I even offered to observe the debate without asking questions, but they wouldn’t accept that.

“They have given Danny Alexander an unfair advantage.”

Mr Robb said: “I was initially told by the programme’s researcher that I could attend the event. However, I was later called by the programme to say that, as a declared local candidate, I would not be allowed to on the grounds of political impartiality.

“I was astonished to find out that the Lib Dems were to be represented on the panel by local MP Danny Alexander, rather than a Lib Dem MSP.

“He therefore had a platform to put his views to local voters whilst his political opponents at the coming general election were barred from even being allowed in the room.”

Mr Finnie, the opposition SNP group leader on Highland Council, said: “It does seem very peculiar.”

A spokeswoman for BBC Scotland said: “Participants and audiences at our debate programmes reflect our guidelines on impartiality.

“We are confident these guidelines were met.”

Mr Alexander declined to comment.

Tweet this!

Its quite clear that they treated the two Bulger killers with kid gloves all these years no doubt with the sympathy of the LibDems who help make a mockery of British justice and who pander to evil people and gloat about their ” Rights ” but its time that the ” Rights ” of ordinary people were put first.

With rights comes responsibilities !

Jim Ferguson

Child porn claims over Bulger killer

venables recalled over suspicions, report alleges

Published: 08/03/2010

James Bulger killer Jon Venables was recalled to prison on suspicion of child pornography offences, using drugs and fears he had revealed his new identity, it was alleged yesterday.

The claims about the 27-year-old convicted murderer, made in a Sunday newspaper, came after Justice Secretary Jack Straw refused to disclose the reasons for last week’s recall, saying only they related to “extremely serious allegations”.

Senior politicians yesterday lined up to support the government’s stance. The decision was backed by David Blunkett, who as then home secretary informed MPs of the Parole Board’s decision that Venables should be released in 2001.

Writing in a Sunday newspaper, he said: “The separation between judges and politicians is critical. The idea that we should abandon it in this case is understandable coming from James’ immediate family. Even with a general election pending, the Government cannot and must not bend on this – not least because if Venables has committed a further crime, then that victim and their family deserve their day in court.”

Leader of the Commons Harriet Harman declined to comment on the reason why Venables was returned to custody. She said: “If there is a question of an offence having been committed then it needs to be properly investigated and anybody who has committed an offence needs to be brought to trial.

“We don’t want anything to happen whereby they can’t be brought to a trial because it is said they can’t get a fair trial because all the media reporting has been prejudiced.”

James’s mother Denise Fergus, 42, said yesterday Venables should lose his anonymity if he was charged with a new offence.

Her spokesman, Chris Johnson, said: “If after that, depending on the outcome of the court case, the powers that be decide that he should have some new identity yet again, then we’ll deal with that when we come to it.

“But she can’t understand why he doesn’t appear in a dock under his own name, if that’s going to be where he ends up.

“She’s appalled. She doesn’t think that he should be at liberty anyway. He should really have served a sentence of something in the order of 15 years and should be coming up for parole now. In her mind, if there has been an offence committed, it means that that could have been avoided.”

Mrs Fergus has demanded to know why Venables was put back in jail, and is meeting Mr Straw to discuss the matter.

The killer and his accomplice Robert Thompson were aged 10 when they battered two-year-old James to death in Liverpool 17 years ago.

They were both released on lifelong licence in 2001 with new identities, requiring them to obey strict conditions such as not contacting each other or returning to the city where James was killed.

Venables reportedly faces a looming return to court over the “extremely serious” allegations, causing a potential security nightmare for the authorities trying to preserve his lifelong anonymity order.

Justifying his decision not to disclose details of Venables’ recall, Mr Straw said: “I said on Wednesday that I was unable to give further details of the reasons for Jon Venables’ return to custody, because it was not in the public interest to do so.

“That view was shared by the police and the director of public prosecutions. We all feared that a premature disclosure of information would undermine the integrity of the criminal justice process, including the investigation and potential prosecution of individual(s).”

Tweet this!

Mary Scanlon MSP

Mary Scanlon Conservative MSP spoke particularly well and also made the point that despite LibDem MP Danny Alexander calling the meeting she had on many previous occasions petitioned the LibDem/Labour coalition in Hollyrood when they were in Government, all to no avail. Dave Thompson SNP MSP also highlighted some good points and I felt he contributed in a positive way. The fact that the LibDems have effectively done nothing for Inverness was something that had caused a great deal of frustration on this particular issue.

I also pointed out that these were devolved issues and asked Mr Alexander why as a Westminster MP he was getting directly involved in issues that did not involve him. I also asked him why he was waiting until the eve of a General Election to start to campaign on the Inverness by-pass and why he had not at any other time tried to speak up for the issues at any other point during his term of office.

I suggested that Danny Alexander was in fact using the Inverness by-pass as part of his political campaign to try and win popular support for his own personal election campaign in an attempt to get re-elected.

I asked Mr Alexander to answer these charges but not unexpectedly he refused to do so.

While a by-pass is important to the future development of Inverness it must be well thought out and take into consideration all opinions and feelings of the community that it will affect. The fact that Danny  Alexander has attempted to hijack a sensitive local issue needs to be viewed with a high degree of suspicion.

Danny talks a lot but he has totally failed to deliver on this and many other issues and only now tries to save his political skin by appearing to take an interest. Once the General Election is over, Danny Alexander whether successful or not will no doubt disapear into the void only to appear again when another election approaches.

This region needs real leadership and effective planning and not politicians who simply use issues to further their own attemps to cling on to office. I have no doubt that the majority of people attending were of the same opinion as me.

The time for real action has come and lets hope that it does move forward in a positive way with a cross party consensus on what needs to be done but the political grandstanding needs to be left out.

Jim Ferguson

Tweet this!

Danny Alexander LibDem MP

MP’s and their expenses are under ever greater scrutiny than ever before and rightly so. Some are legitimate expenses and others are bordering on outright fraud.

I found it interesting to note from the article in the Press and Journal the amount of expenses claimed by a number of Scottish MP’s which were well into the top 50 as far as amounts actually claimed.

Danny Alexander is among the highest expense claims of MP’s at Westminster. It led me to wonder if all that money for these MP’s was money well spent. While the likes of Danny Alexander claim a large geographical area as the reason for such huge expenses claimed we cannot forget the fact that its not all fares.

Not so long ago he was approached as were all the local parties to make a contribution to the Blythwood food bank appeal that was trying desperately hard to assist the poor who had no food to eat here in the Highland capital of Inverness and the surrounding area.

I had raised close to £1000 of food aid which had also come from donations from Conservative Party members and I had thought that a cross party effort would have gone a long way to helping those in need.

Danny refused to help and stated that he thought it more important to talk about the situation than to donate anything to it.

Ofcourse at that time few of us knew that every piece of food that Danny put in his mouth was paid for by the taxpayer from expenses he claimed. All legitimate ofcourse. At least as far as the law was concerned.

I am wondering what actual worth some of these MP’s actually bring though. Sure they can appear in the newspapers and opine on this and that on a regular basis.

Danny talks a lot but in my opinion and many others actions speak louder than words.

Are MP’s like Danny Alexander worth the investment ? With a bit of luck we will find out soon enough once people here in the Highlands look at the real worth of those who claim to be working so hard on our behalf.

Jim Ferguson

North and north-east members in top 50

Chairman of Scottish affairs committee was most expensive in 2009-10

Published: 05/02/2010

NINE MPs representing seats in the north and north-east were revealed last night to be among the 50 most expensive at Westminster in the last financial year.

The MP with the highest expenses for 2009-10 was Glasgow East Labour MP and Scottish affairs committee chairman Mohammed Sarwar, who is retiring at the general election – expected in May.

He racked up £192,986 in second homes allowance claims, travel expenses, office costs, computer costs and staff pay.

But his example was closely followed by MPs north of the central belt.

Moray MP Angus Robertson, ranked third most costly, last night defended his £188,164 claim. He said it was partly caused by the extra expense resulting from opening a second constituency office at Keith, and partly high travel costs.

He said: “Given the unpredictability of parliamentary schedules, weekly commuting arrangements often have to be made at short notice, which sadly adds to the travel costs.

“Constituents rightly expect you to attend to issues and events locally as well as with matters at Westminster on a weekly basis.”

He added: “The biggest cost saving from Westminster will come when Scotland is independent and we don’t need to send MPs there at all. I am focused on making that happen as quickly as possible.

At just £539 a year lower, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey Liberal Democrat MP Danny Alexander, also blamed travel costs, driving round one of the biggest constituencies in the UK and commuting back and forth between Inverness and London.

Linlithgow and Falkirk East Labour MP Michael Connarty and Falkirk Labour MP Eric Joyce, at fourth and fifth, were only a few pence less.

Mr Joyce — frequently at or near the top of the expenses league — also cited travel between his home in Falkirk and London as the reason his expenses remain high, pointing out that MPs have to fly on expensive open tickets because they do not know their arrangements very far ahead.

Aberdeen North MP Frank Doran came in at No 12 in the table, claiming £182,139.

Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross Lib Dem MP John Thurso, at No 22, claimed £178,689, Dundee West Labour MP Jim McGovern, 23, £178,597, and Gordon Lib Dem MP Malcolm Bruce, 24, £178,230.

Perth and North Perthshire SNP MP Pete Wishart was 34th with £175,896.

The cheapest was First Minister Alex Salmond, also SNP MP for Banff and Buchan, 533rd, but he rarely appeared in Westminster, claiming £131,316, mainly in staff costs. Western Isles SNP MP Angus MacNeil was 431st, claiming £141,583.

Tweet this!