BBC Blog Network

User Profile

ngodinhdiem

Listed below are comments made by ngodinhdiem between Friday, 8th May 2009 and Wednesday, 25th November 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Prime Minister's Questions: Schools 6:17pm on 25 Nov 2009 No 26.“Knowing a little about Hizb ut-Tahrir, I struggle to see anywhere where they have promoted religious hatred. On the contrary in fact.”

Culverin – Sorry to disagree, but Hizb ut-Tahrir is an extremist and highly dangerous group, which does nothing but stir religious intolerance on both sides of the multicultural divide. It has in the past – before the law was changed – advocated religious based violence against all infidels, especially Jews. And quite frankly to suggest that membership of Hizb ut-Tahrir is no more of a bar to the teaching profession, than membership of the Tory party is ridiculous. Yes individual Tory members have been guilty of racism, anti-Semitism etc… ditto every other political and social grouping in the UK – more’s the pity! The difference, is you don’t have to be a racist or an anti-Semite to be a member of the Tory party, but just as only a racist would be happy in the BNP, only a Islamic extremist would be happy in Hizb ut-Tahrir. The two groups are based on hate and if you knew more than ‘a little’ about Hizb ut-Tahrir, you would know that is a fact. Hence Blair’s attempt’s to ban them.
Prime Minister's Questions: Schools 5:53pm on 25 Nov 2009 RE: No. 17

Hearsay Culverin? Two of the four trustees + the headmaster at one of the schools belong to Hizb ut-Tahrir. A group that one Tony Blair promised to ban, because the group openly advocated violence against non-Musilms. This is a FACT. Just as it is a fact, that anybody with any links to racist and extremist groups like the BNP, Hizab ut-Tahrir shouldn't be allowed anywhere within the school gates.... If Mr Balls can't grasp thsi simple principle then he isn't fit to be a minister of the crown.
Prime Minister's Questions: Schools 5:07pm on 25 Nov 2009 Nick,

Why the Sinicism directed at the Tories? Ed Balls received a letter about this subject last week, Tory spokesmen have been raising this issue for over a month and yet before today the GVN had failed to respond to these allegations. It's this GVN's lethargy in the face of growing Islamic fascism that is shameful Mr Balls, and not David Cameron's absolute right to raise this issue at PMQ's.

Consider for a moment – if the Tories had revealed that a BNP member was a serving headmaster; how would the media and Labour MP's for that matter, have responded to such a revelation? Quite rightly, there would have been an outcry – Racism has no place in our society, let alone our schools. Hizb ut-Tahrir and the BNP are two sides of the same coin – anyone care to disagree? One promotes hatred based on race, the other religion. How can a headmaster foster an atmosphere of tolerance, peace and lawfulness in his or her school, while simultaneously belonging to an organization that has in the past openly advocated the murder of Jews? An organization that has also claimed that it is Islamic and virtuous to steal and use violence against infidel(s)… The fact that such views are allowed into the classroom via the headmaster’s office, is not just an offence against non-Muslims, it is also a slap in the face to the overwhelming majority of law abiding, peaceful Muslims who follow the true teaching of Allah.

I also agree with a previous poster on the subject of the Iraq enquiry; why haven't you blogged on this issue Nick? Mr. Clegg wrong-footed the PM today and on a point of national interest – why doesn’t the BBC give him a fair crack of the whip?
Czech president swallows bitter pill 9:40pm on 03 Nov 2009 Hi Wolfgang [#35],

“Take a close look who really pays and who takes. Per capita, UK is in the ranks with Slovenia, Greece and Spain. Per absolute amount, Germany pays almost twice as much as the UK. Love you guys”

I love you euro-federalists too Wolfgang; the way you argue that black is white, etc…. I see here you are repeating the myth that the UK doesn't pay its way in Europe. I see you quote 'gross' contributions not net contributions, no accident is that Wolfgang? Because you know that the UK is the second highest net contributor to the EU [behind Germany] despite only having the fourth largest economy in the EU [Germany, France, Italy, UK…] And of course it is net contributions that count… After all if member A paid a £100 subscription fee to his local working man’s club but received benefits in kind of £120, while member B paid fees of £80 but only withdrew benefits of £50; no sane person would claim that member A was making a greater financial contribution to the club's finances than member B. Except of course, that is your argument Wolfgang… isn't it.
Oh! And before you mention the UK Rebate… we are still the second highest net contributor AFTER the rebate has been deducted…. And as for your allegation that Germany pays twice as much as the UK – your argument not only fails to take account of Net contributions, you also fail to mention that Germany has a larger economy and population than the UK, so of course, you pay more in NET contributions [BTW Holland is the largest contributor per head of population].
As for Lisbon, how can you support a self-amending treaty/constitution – it's potentially a dictator's charter. Or are you happy to have an un-elected EU President and Foreign Minister speak for Germany? We are 25 sovereign independent nation states that have come together to trade, why can't we just leave it at that…. Oh and BTW now that Lisbon has become law, why is it that when German MEP's talk about opt-outs and how our opt-outs should prevent any British citizen from securing a top job in the EU – that the same rule doesn'y apply to Germans? After all, Germany has opted out from some of the provisions in the EHCR. Furthermore, wasn't Germany one of those countries that didn't grant freedom of access to workers from the first wave of accession states? I believe the UK was one of only 3 EU states that didn't take advantage of this opt-out... Ireland and Denmark were the other two... but of course they also have opt-outs in other areas... Oh dear! And before you claim that this is a trival matter - remember the EU was founded on the principle of freedom of movement… not montary union.

Oh and one more question for you Wolfgang – which GVN has the European court found to be in breach of European law the most – the UK or Germany? No not us euro-sceptics but you – the architects of Europe – but don't worry, the French have an even worse record of implementing European directives than you [and have a terrible track record in NET EU contributions] So who are the good Europeans now?
'Riots on the streets' 2:38pm on 29 Jun 2009 Nick,
I see the Treasury are now denying that any decision has been made vis-à-vis the Comprehensive Spending Review. So who is telling the truth the Chancellor or our de facto Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Mandelson?
Treasury spokesman: "The Chancellor makes the decisions, no matter what Peter Mandelson says, and no decisions have been made." [Hat-tip: Paul Waugh]
http://waugh.standard.co.uk/
Given the topic of your last post public spending it seems strange that you have not chosen to highlight this little spat in GVN?
Furthermore, when you report on the Tory cuts vs. Labour Investment row, why don't you mention that almost every single respected political commentator and economic forecaster and institution, from both left and right, believe that Labour will have to cut public spending!
[In fact, to you Brown apologists out there - I challenge you to name one serious independent body that supports Browns analogy (and no you cant say the BBC)]
Even the bloggers at Labour Home, have accepted that Public Spending cuts are inevitable whoever wins the election.

http://www.labourhome.org/forum/?p=6100

I know you need to be impartial Nick but does that still apply when a PM is claiming that black is white? Surely the BBC also has a duty to expose a politician (even a PM) when he is trying to take the country for fools. So please Nick, start reporting Browns claims in their proper context i.e. Gordon Brown claims that public spending will not be cut.however this is refuted not just both opposition parties, but also the vast majority of international commentators.. Without this context, you give Browns argument a credibility that it does not deserve.
Changing tradition of Speaker 11:49am on 23 Jun 2009 Last night Nick on the 10 O'clock news, you gave the clear impression that the Conservatives were opposed to John Bercow because he was a break from the past and a reformist.
On at least 2 fronts, this is clearly NOT the case....
a) Any candidate who has promoted the idea of increasing MP's salaries to 100,000 p.a; and defended most MP's as honourable when all the evidence is to the contrary - + has a few dodgy expense claims of his own (Capital Gains Tax anybody) can hardly be described as a reformist or a breath of fresh air. Well not in the sense that the public wants at least....
Of the candidates on show yesterday, only Richard Sheppard showed any real zeal for reform. Which possibly explains why he only received 15 votes.
b) So if Mr Bercow is not a radical reformist then why did the Tories oppose him? As you seem to indicate here, but not on the TV news, Tory angst against Bercow, stems from his personality and a sense amongst backbenchers that Bercow had betrayed the party in order to further his own ambitions now fulfilled to become Speaker. Hence, his wooing of Labour MP's.
So clearly Nick, last night you understood the real story behind Conservative dissatisfaction with Bercow, but failed to report it. Instead you left millions of viewers with the false impression that the Tories were opposed to reform of the H of C. No doubt some are, ditto some Labour MP's but as you must know, the party as a whole has a far better voting record on this subject (in recent months) than Labour. So why were you so disingenuous? I can't believe that you are personally biased your reporting at ITN was exemplary, so what's happened? Are you suffering from some kind of Stockholm Syndrome? Where by you moderate your reports, to curry favour with the Labour lovies at the BBC? From where Im watching, this seems to be the only answer. Which is a shame, because you were a respected journalist.... once!
Who's planning what cuts? 2:40pm on 10 Jun 2009 The planned increases in overall GVN spending that Brown read out at PMQ's actually equate to a public spending CUT in real terms. Now add in the increased debt repayments (8% in 2011 and rising) + higher welfare bills (does any body dispute that Unemployment is set to continue rising)and the fact that demand and inflation in the NHS is above the nominal national inflation target of 2% p.a & you can see where Andrew Lanley has got his 10% cut in discresionary spending from.

If anything the Tory Health minister probably underestimates the reality and as for Brown - to imply that there will be no cuts under labour is a complete and utter joke. I hope the press crucify him for this piece of fiction.
Questions that MPs dread 5:07pm on 08 May 2009 Nataku:

"It's 10 hours PER WEEK, 43.33 hours PER MONTH, putting it at just over £8 an hour, hardly extortionate! Go look at the PDF of the contract on the Guardian website."

I'll take your word for it. And no I don't think £8 an hour is extrortionate. But having a cleaner for 30 hrs per week is!! It's supposed to be a Westminster flat, not a palace. And remember, he lived here part-time. I bet if he was paying the full whack - instead of us the taxpayer - he'd cut down the hrs a bit.
Questions that MPs dread 2:35pm on 08 May 2009 Nick,

How much do cleaners get paid in London? I ask, because according to the Telegraph, this cleaner was costing our PM £35.70 per hour. (10 hr. contract for £357 per month)

Now obviously some of this money, would have been taken up by employers national insurance payments etc... But even so, this cleaner must have been getting £25 + per hour. Is that really the going rate?

Seems a bit steep to me... Anybody else (who is rich enough to employ a cleaner) care to say how much they pay?
Questions that MPs dread 2:19pm on 08 May 2009 Nick,

You've got to the love the New Labour trolls on this blog... but here are a few facts for them.

1. Rupert Murdoch doesn't own the Daily Telegraph.
2. The Torygraph no longer exists. In fact, the Telegraph has been quite close to the GVN in recent years.
3. The Telegraph are planning to run with Tory expense fiddles tomorrow. They highlighted the cabinet today, not because of some right-wing conspiracy, but because sleaze stories about the cabinet sell better than stories about the opposition. And the Telegraph is in the buisness of selling newspapers.Still don't worry you will have your opportunity to crow tomorrow.
4. Expense claims are not income based. They are, or they should be a reinbursement of costs incurred. David Cameron's income - most of which originates from his wife - is irrelevant.
5. Of the three main party leaders - Glegg has the best record on trying to clean up Westminster - followed by Cameron, and then Brown.
6. Labour came to power with a promise to clean up politics. That's why the public is angry with you. We elected you (in part) because the Tories were sleazy. we wanted you to clean up the place, not help yourself.
7. The BBC are not pro-Tory. If you watched the ITN news, it was a car-crash for the GVN. By comparison the BBC news gave GVN ministers a chance to put their case.
8. You had better hope that someone on the Tory front bench has done something wrong - because if Cameron, Osborne, Hague, Davis and co are in the clear. Then the Labour Party is doomed.
9. Unrelated - But this GVN is the worst in living memory. FACT!

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

ngodinhdiem