Friday, June 07, 2013
Another lying British bitch
Feminists say that women never lie about sexual assaults. They sure do in Britain -- and hurt a lot of innocent men
A Tory MP accused of trying to lure his lesbian housemaid into a threesome with his wife yesterday told of his relief after her 'cynical' case was thrown out.
Richard Drax said the allegations had been 'extremely stressful' for him, his wife Elsebet and his four children with his ex-wife, the sister of former Royal nanny Tiggy Legge-Bourke.
Anne Lyndoe-Tavistock's case was dismissed after her former lover told an employment tribunal that she had falsely accused a previous employer of sexual assault and had been awarded £16,000.
The 'manipulative' serial litigant also received two other payouts after bringing claims against former bosses in the last 15 years.
In her latest claim, Miss Lyndoe-Tavistock, 53, alleged the MP for South Dorset and his wife groped her and tried to perform a sex act on her as they drank wine in the sitting room of their Elizabethan stately home.
She told the tribunal she felt suicidal after the alleged assault and claimed that a few weeks later she was told to leave the house and her £24,000-a-year job. She also claimed Mr Drax, 55, used to walk around the house naked in front of her.
The MP, a Harrow-educated former Coldstream Guards officer whose full name is Richard Grosvenor Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax, had always denied the claims and described himself to the hearing as a 'courteous gentleman'.
Miss Lyndoe-Tavistock's claims were dismissed after her former civil partner – who is currently divorcing her – told the tribunal she believed the housekeeper had 'concocted' the stories for financial gain and to 'satisfy a grudge'.
Jo Lyndoe-Tavistock said her former partner's attitude when she was in a dispute was one of 'I have an issue with that person, how can I get them back?' She told the hearing that before they had met her partner had brought a successful claim involving an alleged sexual assault against her former employer, the Royal Mail.
'She admitted to me that she had been in a tussle of some sort with a colleague and that she had invented an allegation that he had touched her breast,' she said. Miss Lyndoe-Tavistock received £15,960 after bringing the claim.
She received another payout from the Royal Mail after alleging she had hurt her shoulder after the company overfilled a bag. 'In fact it was an injury she had had for many years which was unrelated to her work,' her civil partner said.
She also received a £3,000 payout from a store where she was working after yet another dispute.
Her ex-partner added said she believed the case against the MP was another attempt to 'extract money from an employer'.
'She knows Mr Drax is a public figure and I imagine she thought he was in a strong position to secure a settlement from him as I know she has done from previous employers.
'I believe she concocted the allegations in her claim to cause embarrassment to Mr and Mrs Drax and their family in the expectation that she would receive a financial settlement.'
A few weeks after the alleged assault, Miss Lyndoe-Tavistock said the MP told her she had an hour to leave, citing a series of fallings out she had had with other members of staff. She said he gave her £300 and a letter falsely claiming they had discussed disciplinary proceedings and that a severance deal would be drawn up.
The housekeeper's former partner told the tribunal that when she spoke to her after she had been sacked by the MP, she boasted she had something 'big' on him.
The housekeeper had claimed sexual discrimination, unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and for unpaid holiday pay. Mr Drax wiped his eyes as he sat holding his wife's hand as chairman of the panel, Judge Roger Peters, rejected her 'utterly incredible' claims.
Outside, the MP said. 'This finding vindicates our position throughout these proceedings that we acted lawfully and properly and that her serious allegations of sexual discrimination were untrue.
'These allegations have been extremely stressful for my wife and I, and my children, and my family. We are all now relieved that we can put these matters behind us.'
A spokesman for the Forum of Private Business said: 'It is wrong that one angry employee can humiliate her boss, even if there are no grounds.
'We think the culture needs to change where somebody is to blame – and that is always the employer.'
Outside court, the housekeeper's solicitor said: 'We are sorry that she has not been able to prove her case at this tribunal and we will be considering an appeal.'
I'll curb new red tape on small firms, says British Business Minister: Michael Fallon vows to 'reform or bin' any rules that would hit companies
Believe it when you see it
New Government regulations which would hurt small businesses will be 'reformed or binned', the Department for Business will announce today.
In a dramatic attempt to crackdown on red tape, Michael Fallon will ban the introduction of new regulation by any Government department which would hit small firms.
He is expected to say: 'On my watch, new regulations will now only extend to small businesses if they are essential, justified and where disproportionate burdens are fully mitigated. And where regulation is not fit for purpose it will be reformed or binned.'
The crackdown will come into effect immediately, and will apply to small businesses employing up to 50 staff.
The vast majority of British businesses will benefit. Of the 4.8million businesses in this country, only 1.2million actually employ one or more people, according to official figures.
It comes after red tape has for years been regularly cited by small firms as the biggest problem that they face.
While entrepreneurs want to be focused on growing their business, millions complain their time is wasted on the constant mountain of red tape paperwork which needs to be filled in.
Small business lobby groups have regularly warned their members are 'hammered' by red tape which they insist is thwarting Britain's chance of a full economic recovery.
Today Mr Fallon will say he has listened to their fury about red tape, and promise to stem the flow of time-consuming regulation which distracts them day in, day out.
He will say: 'We all want faster growth. As Britain recovers, small businesses are leading the generation of ideas, the creation of new jobs and the shift towards a balanced economy. 'We cannot afford to hold them back with more rules and regulations.'
Last night, business lobby groups welcomed the move, which will affect all new ideas with immediate effect and apply to all regulations coming into force after 31 March 2014.
John Allan, national chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses, said: 'The burden of regulation often falls heaviest on the smallest of firms.
'This announcement should mean that business owners will be able to devote time to growing their business and creating jobs, rather than form-filling.'
Alexander Ehmann, head of regulatory policy at the Institute of Directors, said they are 'much-needed powers to throw out rules which are unmanageable for the UK's smallest businesses.'
Under the new system, all new regulations must be scrutinised by two committees, which have the power to veto them if they are deemed to be harmful to small businesses.
Alternatively, the committee can grant an exemption to small businesses, or change the rules to mitigate the impact on small firms.
For example, the rules around record-keeping for small firms – one of their biggest bugbears – might be simplified, but not for large firms.
The British Chambers of Commerce said it will 'keep an eye' on the new policy to ensure that it is actually making a difference to firms, rather than just becoming another failed attempt to curb the explosion of red tape.
It comes after the Prime Minister said yesterday he will accept all the recommendations made by his small business tsar Lord Young in his recent report.
They include scrapping the age restriction, currently 30, on people who can apply for a popular 'start-up loan' from the Government to allow entrepreneurs of all ages to apply.
John Bercow: migrants are better workers
Bercow is a piece of work but he is right about the large numbers of lazy Brits. Their welfare State has created a culture of idleness. "Benefits" are more profitable than work in many cases. Australians know Brits well and a common comment about Brits from Australians is that "they wouldn't work in an iron lung" (meaning that nothing can move them)
Eastern European immigrants to Britain show more “aptitude and commitment” to work than British people, the Commons Speaker has said. The arrival of thousands of workers from eastern Europe has had “great advantages” for Britain, John Bercow said.
In remarks that have raised questions about his political neutrality, the Speaker also attacked British critics of recent trends in immigration for their “bellicose and strident tone”.
As Speaker, Mr Bercow is expected to stay out of active political debates. Ministers and MPs are currently debating how Britain should prepare for next year’s lifting of European immigration restrictions on Romanians and Bulgarians.
In remarks on a visit to Romania last week, Mr Bercow appeared to give his support for policies that have allowed eastern Europeans to travel to Britain and work.
Since 2004, about one million eastern Europeans have come to Britain under European Union freedom of movement rules.
From next year, Romanians and Bulgarians will have the same right.
Some MPs argue that the arrival of eastern Europeans can bring social and economic problems in parts of Britain.
Ministers have promised changes in public service rules to make it harder for newcomers to use services such as the NHS.
During a visit to Bucharest, Mr Bercow spoke about the “important wave of immigrants” that have come to Britain in recent years, and praised their work ethic.
“I believe things should be controlled and monitored when it comes to migration, any state that wants to protect its own people should do this, but there are also great advantages,” he said.
“I want to underline the fact that there has been an important wave of immigrants that came to Great Britain from new member states and in many cases they came with aptitudes and a commitment, an involvement we haven’t always seen in our labour force.”
Mr Bercow made the remarks during an official visit to the Romanian parliament last week. He was given a full ceremonial welcome, addressing the parliament and meeting senior politicians.
He also gave a press conference where he criticised the British media for raising doubts about immigration, accusing some journalists of “negative and discriminatory” reporting on the issue.
British media coverage of immigration is not reflective of British opinion on the issue, Mr Bercow told reporters in Bucharest. He added: “A free media is a vital part of a democracy. But the media is not the Government and it is not Parliament,” he said. “I am here as a friend of Romania and someone who sees the benefits of immigration.”
Mr Bercow’s decision to speak about the benefits of immigration has been questioned.
Nigel Farage, the UK Independence Party leader who challenged Mr Bercow at the last election, said the Speaker had failed to fulfil his duty to remain above politics.
He said: “It is outrageous that Mr Bercow is happy to overthrow the wisdom of ages and think it acceptable to comment on matters that are both highly political and deeply contentious. He is a disgrace to the office of Speaker.
“There are very good practical and constitutional reasons why the Speaker is neutral, reasons that he obviously believes are beneath his own august self image.”
Rob Wilson, a Conservative MP who has questioned Mr Bercow’s fairness in chairing parliamentary debates, said his comments raised concerns.
Mr Wilson said: “Immigration is an incredibly important and sensitive matter that generates very strong opinions. The Speaker needs not only to be neutral in his handling of debates on the issue, but he needs to be seen to be neutral.
“It would be a dangerous precedent if a Speaker were to start airing their views too freely on a subject like this.”
As Speaker, Mr Bercow determines which MPs can speak in Commons debates, and some members are wary of criticising him publicly.
Another MP said Mr Bercow was unwise to comment on the immigration debate in the way that he did. “He should stay out of things like this,” the MP said.
Some MPs defended Mr Bercow’s decision to discuss immigration.
Philip Hollobone, a Conservative MP who has criticised liberal immigration rules, said he did not object to Mr Bercow’s actions.
He said: “As Speaker of the House of Commons, it is absolutely right that if he is asked a question, he is able to answer it freely and honestly.”
A Commons spokesman confirmed Mr Bercow’s remarks about immigration during his visit to Romania last week.
He said: “Mr Speaker was on an official visit at the invitation of the Romanian parliament, supported by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, where he delivered a speech about the role and importance of parliaments in the democratic system. Mr Speaker was responding to a question about British media coverage in relation to future EU migration.
Australian corporate regulator's blundering attempt to censor one website took down 250,000
They are arrogant to be blocking any sites. Nobody voted for this. And arrogance is a good predictor of blundering
Australia's corporate watchdog has admitted to inadvertently blocking access to about 250,000 innocuous websites in addition to the 1200 it had already accidentally censored.
ASIC made the concession in a statement at a senate estimates hearing on Tuesday night, after it caused controversy by interpreting a 15-year-old law in the Telecommunications Act as giving it the ability to block websites.
The largest number of sites censored when attempting to block one particular site ASIC believed was defrauding Australians was 250,000. Of these, ASIC said about 1000, or 0.4 per cent, were active sites. It said the 249,000 other sites hosted "no substantive content" or offered their domain name up for sale, rather than hosting a fully-fledged active site.
ASIC asked internet service providers (ISPs) to block sites it believed were defrauding Australians by IP address (such as 220.127.116.11) instead of domain name (such as sitedefraudingaustralians.com). This meant thousands of other sites were blocked in the process, as many sites are often hosted on one shared IP address.
ASIC told senate estimates in its opening statement that it was now examining how it could ensure only a site's specific domain name was blocked and ways it could alert the public to a site being blocked via a pop up page. It was also examining ways such a page could indicate why access was blocked and to whom queries could be made to dispute a block.
ASIC deputy chairman Peter Kell told estimates the watchdog had used section 313 of the Telecommunications Act on 10 occasions in the past year to request a number of Australian ISPs to block sites. ASIC sent the notices to four or five ISPs on each occasion.
On all 10 occasions it requested websites be blocked by IP address instead of by domain name.
In another already reported case, about 1200 sites were blocked by mistake. On the other eight occasions ASIC said "only the targeted criminal site, or the targeted site and a very small number of other sites" were affected.
So far ASIC, the Australian Federal Police and a yet-to-be-revealed national security agency under the Attorney-General's remit have used section 313 to block sites at a federal level. State and territory law enforcement authorities are also able to use section 313 but it is not yet known if they have done so as there is no one agency that has oversight.
ASIC has vowed to report annually on its blocking of websites, the only authority to do so.
Use of section 313 to block websites was only uncovered last month after the webmasters of the Melbourne Free University site couldn't figure out why it was no longer accessible. After making a number of inquiries to their ISP, the webmasters were told that the Australian government had blocked access to the site. The ISP wouldn't provide any more detail.
It wasn't until after the media and Greens Senator Scott Ludlam got involved that the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy revealed to tech publication Delimiter that ASIC was behind the censoring.
Soon after the revelation, the department convened a meeting on May 22 with federal government departments and agencies, including ASIO, to discuss use of section 313.
Communications Minister Senator Conroy has since expressed his support of there being more transparency around the way section 313 is used by law enforcers.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.