Irena Sendler


Irena Sendler (née Krzyżanowska), also cited to as Irena Sendlerowa in Poland, nom de guerre “Jolanta” (15 February 1910 – 12 May 2008), was a Polish nurse and social worker who worked in the Polish Underground in German-occupied Warsaw throughout World War II, and was leader of the children’s division of Żegota, the Polish Council to Aid Jews (Polish: Rada Pomocy Żydom), which was operating from 1942 to 1945.


Helped by some two dozen other Żegota members, Sendler smuggled about 2,500 Jewish children out of the Warsaw Ghetto and then gave them fake identification papers and security outside the Ghetto, saving those children from the Holocaust. With the exclusion of diplomats who issued visas to assist Jews to escape Nazi-occupied Europe, Sendler rescued more Jews than any other person throughout the Holocaust.


The German occupiers ultimately uncovered her movements and she was captured by the Gestapo, beaten, and condemned to death, however, she managed to escape execution and survived the war. In 1965, Sendler was acknowledged by the State of Israel as Righteous among the Nations. Late in life, she was given the Order of the White Eagle, Poland’s greatest honour, for her wartime humanitarian efforts.


Irena Sendler was born as Irena Krzyżanowska on 15 February 1910 in Warsaw to Dr Stanisław Krzyżanowski, a physician, and his wife, Janina. She grew up in Otwock, a town approximately 15 miles south-east of Warsaw, where there was a lively Jewish neighbourhood.


Her father perished in February 1917 from typhus incurred whilst attending patients. Following his passing, Jewish neighbourhood leaders endeavoured to support her mother to pay for Sendler’s education, although her mother refused their help. Sendler studied Polish literature at Warsaw University and entered the Polish Socialist Party. She fought the ghetto-bench system that lived at some pre-war Polish universities and mutilated her grade card. As a consequence of this public demonstration, she was barred from the University of Warsaw for three years.


She married Mieczysław Sendler in 1931, but, they divorced in 1947. She then married Stefan Zgrzembski, a Jewish friend from her university days, by who she had three children, Janina, Andrzej, who perished in infancy, and Adam, who died of heart failure in 1999. In 1959 she divorced Zgrzembski and remarried her first husband, Mieczysław Sendler; but, they ultimately divorced again.


Sendler travelled to Warsaw preceding to the explosion of World War II and worked for the cities Social Welfare departments. She started helping Jews shortly following the German attack in 1939, by leading a gathering of co-workers who produced more than 3,000 fake documents to assist Jewish families. This work was executed at enormous peril, as, after October 1941, giving any sort of aid to Jews in German-occupied Poland was punishable by death, not just for the person who was giving the help but also for their whole family or home. Poland was the only nation in German-occupied Europe in which such a death sentence was implemented.


In August 1943, Sendler, by then identified by her nom de guerre Jolanta, was chosen by Żegota, the secret organisation further identified as the Council to Aid Jews, to head its Jewish children’s division. As an assistant of the Social Welfare Department, she had a special permit to access the Warsaw Ghetto to examine for symptoms of typhus, a condition the Germans feared would expand beyond the Ghetto. Throughout these visits, she bore a Star of David as a symbol of solidarity with the Jewish people. Under the guise of conducting examinations of hygienic conditions inside the Ghetto, Sendler and her co-workers smuggled out infants and tiny children, sometimes in ambulances and trams, sometimes hiding them in bags and cases, and using many other means.

Jewish children were put with Polish families, the Warsaw orphanage of the Sisters of the Family of Mary, or Roman Catholic nunneries such as the Little Sister Servants of the Blessed Virgin Mary Conceived Immaculate. Sendler served closely with a gathering of around 30 enlistees, principally women, who comprised Zofia Kossak-Szczucka, a resistance fighter and writer, and Matylda Getter, Mother Provincial of the Franciscan Sisters of the Family of Mary.

According to American historian Debórah Dwork, Sendler was the inspiration and the prime mover for the whole network that saved those 2,500 Jewish children. Nearly 400 of the children were directly smuggled out by Sendler herself. She and her co-workers buried lists of the hidden children in containers in order to keep a record of their original and new identities. The plan was to return the children to their original families when the conflict was over.

In 1943 Sendler was captured by the Gestapo and rigorously tortured. The Gestapo beat her mercilessly, breaking her feet and legs in the process. Despite this, she refused to reveal any of her comrades or the children they saved and was condemned to death by firing squad. Żegota spared her life by bribing the guards on the way to her martyrdom. Following her escape, she disappeared from the Germans, however, returned to Warsaw under a false name and resumed her association with the Żegota. Throughout the Warsaw Uprising, she served as a nurse in a state hospital, where she hid five Jews. She continued to serve as a nurse until the Germans left Warsaw, fleeing before the advancing Soviet troops.

Following the war, she and her co-workers collected all of the children’s records with the names and places of the hidden Jewish children and gave them to their Żegota co-worker Adolf Berman and his team at the Central Committee of Polish Jews. Nevertheless, most all of the children’s parents had been murdered at the Treblinka extermination camp or had gone missing.

Following the war, Sendler was incarcerated from 1948 to 1949 and ruthlessly cross-examined by the communist secret police, Urząd Bezpieczeństwa, owing to her associations with Poland’s principal resistance organisation, the Home Army, which was true to the wartime Polish government in exile.

As a consequence, she gave birth early to her son, Andrzej, who did not survive. Although she was finally released and agreed to join the communist party, her links to the AK indicated that she was never made into a hero. In fact, in 1965 when Sendler was acknowledged by Yad Vashem as one of the Polish Righteous amongst the Nations, Poland’s communist government did not permit her to travel overseas at that time to accept the award in Israel, she was able to do so only in 1983. She was later hired as a teacher and vice-director in many Warsaw medical schools and served for the Ministries of Education and Health. She was further active in many social work programs. She helped establish a number of orphanages and care centres for children, families and the elderly, as well as a centre for prostitutes in Henryków. Nevertheless, she was pressured into early retirement for her public protestations of support for Israel in the 1967 Israeli-Arab War, countries of the Soviet-controlled Eastern Bloc, comprising Poland, broke off diplomatic relationships with Israel in the aftereffect of this conflict. Sendler abdicated her PZPR association following the events of March 1968 in Poland.

She was later hired as a teacher and vice-director in many Warsaw medical schools and served for the Ministries of Education and Health. She was further active in many social work programs. She helped establish a number of orphanages and care centres for children, families and the elderly, as well as a centre for prostitutes in Henryków. Nevertheless, she was pressured into early retirement for her public protestations of support for Israel in the 1967 Israeli-Arab War, countries of the Soviet-controlled Eastern Bloc, comprising Poland, broke off diplomatic relationships with Israel in the aftereffect of this conflict. Sendler abdicated her PZPR association following the events of March 1968 in Poland.

Nevertheless, she was pressured into early retirement for her public protestations of support for Israel in the 1967 Israeli-Arab War, countries of the Soviet-controlled Eastern Bloc, comprising Poland, broke off diplomatic relationships with Israel in the aftereffect of this conflict. Sendler abdicated her PZPR association following the events of March 1968 in Poland.

In 1980 she entered the Solidarity movement.

Irena Sendler remained in Warsaw for the rest of her life. She died on 12 May 2008, aged 98, and is buried in Warsaw’s Powązki Cemetery.

In 1965 Sendler was acknowledged by Yad Vashem as one of the Polish Righteous among the Nations, and a tree was planted in her honour at the gateway to the Avenue of the Righteous. Nevertheless, there was no additional public acknowledgement of her wartime resistance and humanitarian accomplishments until after the end of communist control in Poland.

In 1991 Sendler was selected as an honorary citizen of Israel. On 12 June 1996, she was given the Commander’s Cross of the Order of Polonia Restituta. She got a higher variant of this award, the Commander’s Cross with Star, on 7 November 2001.

Nonetheless, Irena Sendler’s accomplishments remained mostly hidden to the world until 1999, when pupils at a high school in Uniontown, Kansas, along with their teacher Norman Conard, produced a play based on their investigation into her life story, which they called Life in a Jar. It was a remarkable accomplishment, staging above 200 times in the United States and overseas, and significantly contributed to publicising Sendler’s story globally.

On March 2002, B’nai Jehudah Temple of Kansas City presented Sendler, Conard and the pupils who created the performance with its yearly award for contributions made to saving the world, the Tikkun Olam Award. The performance was modified for television as The Courageous Heart of Irena Sendler, 2009, directed by John Kent Harrison, in which Sendler was characterised by actor Anna Paquin.

In 2003, Pope John Paul II sent Sendler a private message praising her wartime efforts. On 10 November 2003 she received the Order of the White Eagle, Poland’s greatest civilian medal, and the Polish-American award, the Jan Karski Award For Courage and Heart, given by the American Center for Polish Culture in Washington, D.C.

In the years 2006, 2007, and 2008 she was chosen for the Nobel Peace Prize. On 14 March 2007, Sendler was honoured by the Polish Senate, and a year later, on 30 July, by the American Congress. On 11 April 2007, she got the Order of the Smile, at that time she was the oldest receiver of the award. In 2007 she became an honorary citizen of the cities of Warsaw and Tarczyn.

On the occasion of the Order of the Smile award, she stated that the award from children is amongst her favourite ones, along with the Righteous among the Nations award and the letter from the Pope.

In April 2009 she was posthumously awarded the Humanitarian of the Year award from The Sister Rose Thering Endowment, and in May 2009, Sendler was posthumously awarded the Audrey Hepburn Humanitarian Award.

Around this time American filmmaker Mary Skinner filmed a documentary, Irena Sendler, in the Name of Their Mothers, Polish: Dzieci Ireny Sendlerowej, highlighting the latest interviews Sendler gave before her passing. The film made its national U.S. broadcast debut through KQED Presents on PBS in May 2011 in honour of Holocaust Remembrance Day and went on to win numerous honours, comprising the 2012 Gracie Award for best public television documentaries.

In 2013 the walkway in front of the POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw was named after Irena Sendler.

In 2010 a memorial plaque acknowledging Sendler was affixed to the wall of 2 Pawińskiego Street in Warsaw, a building in which she worked from 1932 to 1935. In 2015 she was acknowledged with another memorial plaque at 6 Ludwiki Street, where she lived from the 1930s to 1943.

Her kindness to assist others knew no bounds. She had this craving and hunger that illuminated everyone around her, and anything that befell her, she would not be broken, and she was ready for anything, and she had shaped her life for the dangerous and perilous times ahead of her.

These helpless children simply wouldn’t have survived without Irena Sendler, and her capture and imprisonment mean that she gave these children their freedom, otherwise they would have been helpless against the Nazi’s.

Her need to protect these children should be a lesson for those who want to try and dominate us again. The fact is, that we will not be defeated, whatever happens, to us in the tomorrow there will always be somebody like Irena Sendler to save the day.

Couple That Starved Dog To Death


The photo reveals Aaron Weilding and his beautiful sweetheart, Selina Gibson. They live in Edlington, Doncaster, UK and used to have two wonderful darling dogs. However, their knowledge of having a dog is as serious as it can get.

This cruel duo neglected their dogs so bad until they passed away. They took it upon themselves to starve the pets in their yard for weeks and weeks and did not give it a thought. As you can observe in the images, both Mr Weilding and Ms Gibson made sure they never skipped a meal.

In the meantime, their two dogs were left in great distress and pain in the yard. They were kept on a large chain, primarily unable to move, and were stripped of food and water for weeks. No one ever bothered to check on them.

When one of the dogs sadly passed away owing to the absence of food, the other one began feeding on him, in a despairing effort to stay alive. The only piece left of the dog were its jaws. Despite doing everything he could to sustain himself, but the second canine didn’t make it through either.

Throughout the hearing, the pair displayed regret with regards to their negligence and said they just overlooked the dogs in their backyard. It’s utterly frightening and surreal that somebody can forget that he owns pets.

Not one, but two. The agony through which these weak souls were made to go through cannot be expressed in words. However, despite the ruthlessness of their actions, the pair were only given a suspended prison term and a fine.

This effectively indicates they will not spend a single day behind bars. How can this be a favourable result after all they put these dogs through?

Sadly, this is yet another example from the United Kingdom in which perpetrators end up strolling away with a pat on the wrist and no sentence is served. There have been far too many related incidents in the past few years.


It is growing more apparent that the Animal Welfare Act of 2006 is simply antiquated and needs to be examined as early as possible. The maximum sentence for brutality to pets is an insignificant six months prison term, however, please note that the maximum sentence is seldom employed, since defendants normally agree to plea bargains.

Please support harder penalties for such types of crimes and urge the British judicial system to pay more attention to animal welfare. Animals deserve better and a clear message that abusing animals is unacceptable and needs to be shown to the British public.

These exceptional dogs had their entire life to experience but this couple concluded it was in their best interest to starve them to death until they died, and not only die, but were left to dine off the one that had languished in so much pain in the meantime.

This is a tremendous concern, and should be made known with a turbulent roar, and this duo is being made to seem like superstars in the newspapers. No one has the right to treat an animal the way that they both did, and this is a really serious crime, and should have been treated as such.

How can one overlook their animals, you simply couldn’t overlook two very fine looking animals as one they would have started to bark or howl, and was it challenged as to why they were both bound up with chains?

Throughout the hearing, the pair displayed regret with regards to their negligence and said they just overlooked the dogs in their backyard. It’s utterly frightening and surreal that somebody can forget that he owns pets.

It might seem trivial to some, still, it’s a pretty serious situation, and it’s essential that this slightly trivial offence is brought back to court since when all said and done, it is not actually petty at all. Some people would give their right arm to have a dog and look after it, and give it heaps of affection, however, some people out there are very bad, and couldn’t care less.

Whilst this couple fed well, and never starved themselves, their starving dogs were left in the backyard to die, where is the fairness in that? While their dogs scavenged around for bits of food to feed on, and then when one dog perished, the other used it as animal fodder.

Based on the evidence of destroying an animal in cold blood should counterbalance painfully on one’s mind, particularly with domestic animals that we keep as pets. If one has an animal that they no longer can take care of, or they no longer want to keep for many reasons, then they should rehome their pets to somebody who will look after it and take care of its demands, but to put an animal in the backyard, keep it chained up and starve it to death is just plain murder and nothing more.

See Your NHS Doctor For £40


An innovative service which enables patients to schedule a 15-minute appointment with a GP at a local practice for £40 online could start developing across the United Kingdom in 2018 following encouraging trials in London.

Announced on the launch of Doctaly, by which GPs can give attention to patients on an individual footing outside their NHS work, in north London in August. Following the encouraging trial, the originator behind the online service is preparing to roll it out to the remainder of London and the Home Counties in 2016 and 2017, leading on to England, Wales and Scotland the coming year.

The service is intended to address the lengthy waiting times numerous patients face to consult their NHS GP although campaigners have criticised Doctaly for letting those who can manage it to queue jump. There is further concern that it is shifting the way for the privatisation of the health service.

How it operates for GPs, GP surgeries sign up to Doctaly GPs but the surgeries can opt in as much as they require or prefer to not be included at all. They examine patients outside of their NHS practice and make additional money. How it works for patients. Patients access Doctaly online and book a 15-minute appointment at a GP surgery, not the one they are listed at, near them when they want.

They spend between £39.99 and £49.99 for an appointment throughout weekday working hours. They pay £69.99 for sittings before 9am, after 6pm and on weekends Ben Teichman, the co-creator of Doctaly announced the service gave accessibility for patients and enabled GPs to gain a little extra.

The north London experiment had demonstrated the idea of Doctaly on a meagre measure. So far, about 50 GPs have signed up to give attention and 100 patients are utilising the service. They know presently there is a need for their product.

They presently simply must scale it up. The service was not about queue-jumping or taking resource away from the NHS, but trust that it gives patients comfort and affordability for GP appointments. The fact is if we existed in a community where all was impeccable and our healthcare system was effective and there were no difficulties, there would be no room for a service like Doctaly.

However, there is an interest that Doctaly will further decline the NHS and is a different illustration of a system under pressure. Norman Lamb, the previous Liberal Democrat health minister, opposed the idea, stating patients should be able to access their normal local GP when they want to.

This approach is excellent for people who can afford it, however, what about those who can’t pay? It produces an unattractive divide among those with money and those without it. Dr Jackie Applebee, the chairwoman of Tower Hamlets district medical board and Doctors in Unite representative on the British Medical Association’s GPs board, said Pulse that Doctaly was extremely troubling, and she feared it would further destabilise general practice and that it was a slippery tilt towards privatisation of the NHS.


I find it offensive that the NHS are enabling doctors to take £40 from people so that they can get to the head of the line. But people appear to be powerless to do something about it, they are like incapacitated decapitated roosters, now there’s a thought you don’t actually want in your head, yet it’s true, we each leap about like lifeless cocks, questioning what to do, but do nothing.

It’s our ideal thing that we do, we all talk the talk, but never walk the walk, but when you have an irritation regarding anything, we should express our feelings and speak up, and we do have a say in what goes on in our community, they tell us that we don’t, but we do.

It creeps at my flesh that we have become engulfed into a quarry of sheeple, existing to satisfy everyone else, sustaining on the inadequate droppings that are given out to us, however, we continue to survive, is this our future?

Is this our punishment to skimp on what the government give us, and if so, then there must be a change of direction. The waters might be a tad choppy on our journey, but ultimately it will be more serene, however first we must journey the hurricane, and when we have journeyed to the surface everything will look so much better, however, first to do this we must all make a sacrifice and we need to all make a stand.

No one can walk over us like our government have, and if we can endure that, then we can endure everything. Let them hold out the olive branch to us, not the other way round since somebody has to be made responsible for their actions, and it shouldn’t have to be us, the public.

Get This Party Started


He is one of the largest prominent MPs in the House of Commons and is currently overseeing the biggest shake-up of Britain’s prostitution laws in a generation. Yet it was revealed that Keith Vaz, a married father of two, is fronting a double life paying young male escorts for sex.


Mr Vaz last met two Eastern European harlots eight days ago, even despite the fact he is chairman of a robust political organisation investigating vice and drugs. Furthermore, as the discussion ranged from sex to pets, Mr Vaz finally stated, that we need to get this party started.

Also before the meeting he had posted a range of texts in which he humorously termed himself one of the men’s pimps and bank manager. Mr Vaz paid the escorts in cash. Money was further cleared into a bank account managed by one of them by a person connected to a charity set up by the MP.


Whilst chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, Mr Vaz has openly stated he was not convinced that men who pay for sex should face prosecution. Inside weeks of a report from the committee, he himself gave funds to escorts in a flat he has near his family home in Edgware, North West London.

Mr Vaz has had at least two meetings with the escorts. In a 90-minute meeting on August 27, the former Minister for Europe offered to meet the cost of cocaine if it was delivered to the flat, yet stated he did not want any himself.

He is currently heading up the committee which has examined harm created by the prohibited Class A drug. Mr Vaz, Labour MP for Leicester East since 1987, further told the couple to bring along poppers, the sex-enhancing drug.

In Parliament, he supported the use of the drug when it faced a prohibition.

Mr Vaz originally made contact with the two younger men after engaging with a fellow escort they knew in London. At least one encounter took place before Mr Vaz met the couple again eight days ago.

They arrived at the flat, which Land Registry records reveal the MP owns and purchased in June for £387,500. It has no mortgage and is half a mile from his £2.1million five-bed detached family residence.

The day before the August 27 encounter, Mr Vaz text the escort and directed him to try and pick up some poppers. On the afternoon of the meeting, the escort text to announce he was purchasing the sex drug and the MP responded that was great.

Mr Vaz was then requested for a meeting time and responded by text that he would meet at 11pm since it was nice and late and that he wanted a good time. When told a Romanian escort would be meeting them, Mr Vaz addressed, how will this work, do you want me to f*** him first or all together.

Then he inquired if he like poppers, and did he talk English. Running late, Mr Vaz wrote that he was on his way to London, and should they meet at 11.30 in Edgware. The two escorts arrived at Mr Vaz’s well-appointed block shortly after 11.30pm.

He was wearing a short-sleeved shirt, black slacks and his labelled steel-rimmed spectacles. Mr Vaz quickly started asking them about the whereabouts of the Romanian escort. He questioned about what time he was coming, and does he know where to come, and if he had seen many clients?

When reported that another customer had given the man £900 for sex, Mr Vaz responded, “Really? That’s fantastic… I hope he’s giving you some of the money.”


In the lead-up to sex, the gentlemen took the Viagra-like drug out of their bag and presented it to the MP. They revealed it was a jelly mint or watermelon flavour and would increase sexual vitality.

The gentlemen told that Mr Vaz gave over $100 and quipped it was a lot where they came from, and one of the escorts stated he was agitated about participating in a foursome. Mr Vaz responded, “Oh sh**. Oh my God. You have to join in.”

The MP, appearing eager for a third man to join them, started studying snaps of men on the gay dating app Grindr, presented to him by the escorts. It utilises GPS data to locate men nearby. When shown the characterization of an Asian man, the MP responded that He was a fit.

Then Mr Vaz, who famously rolled up at Luton airport to greet the passengers on the day Romania joined the EU in 2014, replied, “But we like Eastern Europeans, they’re nice.” When given another user’s profile Mr Vaz replied: “Find out where he is… ”

Then, resuming his jokey chatter, the MP spoke of the older escort: “I feel as if I’m his bank manager. “Or his mother. He treats me very badly.” The discussion shifted to cocaine when the escorts chatted again regarding the Romanian joining them. They said he loved taking the Class A drug while having sex.

The MP was then overheard stating that there was no coke in the flat.

When it was announced the Romanian should be able to bring the drug, Mr Vaz replied, “How much is it going to be?”


When one of the escorts pretended to ring the Romanian and announced cocaine was not available, Mr Vaz interrupted, “Ask him how much it is, next time.” Also, the MP added a little later, “He can buy and I’ll give him the money.” Mr Vaz stated he did not want any coke himself.


He then asked the men, who say they do not take illicit drugs either, regarding the poppers they had brought along.

When the younger escort stated he had never used them, Mr Vaz responded, “You’ve never had poppers?” The escort then questioned if Mr Vaz had taken them and the MP responded, “Yeah.” He stated he didn’t really use them because of a medical procedure, however, continued: “I like giving it to people. It’s nice.”

The conversation then shifted to sex, as the two escorts sat in the lounge drinking their whisky and cokes. Addressing the older man, Mr Vaz stated, “You’re a naughty b****r. You taught him so much.” And he asked: “How many times have you f***** him, the younger escort today?”

Whilst waiting for a communication back from possible matches, the MP then got into a conversation with the escorts about the cost of houses in London, before the elder escort intervened, questioning: “What do you want?

Mr Vaz immediately answered that he was getting really aroused. Shortly before the intimate venture, Mr Vaz informed them concerning a recent rendezvous with another escort they know. The MP stated he was okay, but he neglected to bring a condom, and he had to f*** him without a condom.


He was later questioned how he knew the man was free from any sexually transmitted diseases, and he replied that he didn’t know.

When questioned how long it had been since he last had sex, the MP responded that it was ages ago, around three weeks.


When questioned by one of the men if he desired to use a condom, this time, Mr Vaz, who last year fronted a safe sex crusade in his constituency, replied that he did not want to.

Moments later, the men stated they disrobed. Mr Vaz later said to the younger one: “Take your shirt off. I’m going to attack you.”

The rendezvous lasted about 15 minutes. Scarcely more than 24 hours after the rendezvous the MP was seen back on official duty alongside police at a family fun day. The MP, who had his face decorated as a tiger at the constituency bash in Leicester, re-tweeted snaps to his Twitter page.

Last night Mr Vaz stated, that he had assigned the accusations to his lawyer, who will view them thoroughly and direct him on what is published. He circulated a comment to the Mail on Sunday which stated, that he was genuinely remorseful for the pain and suffering that had been created by his activities, in particular to his wife and children.

He announced that he will be notifying the Committee on Tuesday of his plan to stand down from heading the gatherings of the Committee with immediate effect. It was not directly transparent if the announcement indicated Mr Vaz would climb down from his chairmanship completely or just some committee assemblies.

He later circulated another comment, which continued, that at this time he did not want there to be any diversion from the great work the Home Affairs Select Committee tackles so well.

Select Committees do important work in holding the government and others to account. They are expected to issue two Reports, one into Anti-Semitism and the other into FGM in the next several days, in addition, they have a number of important witnesses.

He will, of course, notify Committee members first of his plans when they convene on Tuesday. His decision has been based solely on what is in the best interests of the Committee which he had the opportunity of Chairing for the last 9 years.

Neither Mr Vaz’s attorney neither Home Affairs Committee staff could directly be contacted for comment by Mirror Online. Fellow Home Affairs committee member Naz Shah reported to Sky News she had chatted to Mr Vaz and he has done the correct thing by standing down as chair.

A Labour Party spokesperson stated, that Keith Vaz has circulated a comment on this subject. Essentially with all departmental select committees, Keith was selected to the head of the Home Affairs Select Committee by the House of Commons, and his position is a matter for him and the House.

I know that we have the liberty to do as we want, but certainly not when you’re an MP, and you have a fixation to escorts, and the abuse of narcotics, and particularly when you have an association with government, and there should be consequences for his actions.

When somebody is in government, particularly parliament, they have a duty to keep themselves squeaky clean, and it makes my blood seethe when I consider that he could actually get away with this kind of behaviour.

I am enraged that this man could put a stain on an establishment that has been going for thousands of years, and in one fail descent, poof, it’s crumbled into a thousand pieces, destroyed by just one man, and perhaps some of his forerunners, and once done, it’s never irreversible, the damage is done.

However, our government act like it’s a trivial thing, resembling some sort of celebrity status, yet it’s a no-brainer actually, if somebody does something illegal, then they should be penalised for it, but there appears to be a lot of debate about this.

Presently the entire government is marked by a violent shitstorm, and it’s not a debate that should be considered, as I stated its a no brainer, just fire the rat, and be done with it, and deliver him back to whence he came from, his ancestors must be really impressed with him back home in Aden.


After all, Vaz is a distant relation of Saint Joseph Vaz, a 17th-century missionary – must have been the missionary position that he practised when he was having sexual coitus with one of his preferred escorts.

What is it with all these MP’s that think they can overstep the mark with their established positions of power, and not only that, assume that they can get away with it, and everyone will turn a blind eye to it, or is everyone in government dazzled by the authority that they have?

The meaning of responsibility is to be responsible, and if they can’t understand the definition, then obviously they should not be in any official post in government.

Jeremy Corbyn ‘would build 1m new homes’


A Labour cabinet managed by Jeremy Corbyn would borrow £15 billion a year to develop homes across the nation, half of them council homes, as part of a £500 billion programme of public expenditure, new policy documents have shown.

It would strive to create one million homes throughout a five-year parliament and secure housing tenants, particularly those in the private division, new safeguards, comprising secure three-year contracts and protection from unreasonable rent increases.

Despite the enormous amounts, Corbyn’s team maintains that government borrowing will be extremely valuable and a great opportunity for taxpayers because of the boost to the economy from the building, job formulation and rental revenue.

The documents, released by the Corbyn campaign as it attempts to fend off the challenge to his leadership by Owen Smith, states that the net cost to the public sector will be £10 billion a year since two-thirds of the construction proposal would be labour expenses, suggesting additional tax incomes for the Treasury.

The documents state that, with government borrowing rates the lowest ever, this is the most cost-effective way imaginable to match Britain’s housing requirements. Because the government will be obtaining assets, the taxpayer can expect to make a net gain as rents are paid on the new housing.

Corbyn’s team announced its figures and ideas were also reliable and accurate than the house-building program proposed by Smith, who had simply stated he would free up councils across the nation to borrow to build.

Recently Smith set out proposals to abandon university education expenses and asked for the current funding scheme to be substituted with a 1%-2% graduate tax. He further promised to create 50,000 dwellings a year for would-be first-time buyers aged below 30, to be rented at cheaper than market rent.

In one of the wealthiest countries in the world, it’s a disgrace that we can’t provide dwellings with affordable rents. Consider too the bucket loads of cash taxpayers are consuming by pouring it into the pockets of private landlords through housing benefit.

However, there are greater chances of him making extra jars of the jam than homes. However, so good the ideals and cause the immediate situation of the labour party even under Hilary Benn seems desperate.


Neither Corbyn nor Owen Smith will appeal to those who chose SNP UKIP Tory or Liberal last time. Until Labour halt re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and grants a modestly accessible offering it will be doomed to the runner-up and enable Mrs May to do as she wants.

Since Corbyn is only mimicking the post-war British values of the SNP and is attempting to mimic their methods. Essentially everybody acknowledges that there is a house crisis in the United Kingdom, delivered by the management of the Tories and New Labour.

The housing crisis in Britain is not a new problem, there’s been a lack of houses for decades, and the problem is no closer to being solved. If those in government achieved in reaching our housing requirements they might be worse off, which doesn’t make the position any easier.

First, let’s examine the extent of the housing dilemma confronting Britain now. A report by Shelter last year found the housing crisis was so severe that a quarter of adults below the age of 35 were still living in their childhood bedroom.

In addition to overcrowding, we are experiencing enormous home prices, an increasing waiting register for social housing, 1.69 million homes in England alone, and a surge in homelessness. The reason why is easy, we’re not creating sufficient homes, and we haven’t for decades.

Back in 2004, the Barker Review of Housing estimated the increasing population. It decided that, in order to maintain the pace, the United Kingdom would have to create around 250,000 homes a year. It’s declined to do so each year since. Last year, it managed about half that figure, and that was a high point.

In the intermediate years, the Lyons Report in 2014 implied there was now an accumulation of a million homes. In fact, the United Kingdom hasn’t created 250,000 homes in a year following the 1970s, and it has never done so without a huge government sector house-building plan.

There’s no doubt that we are in the clutches of another housing disaster, created by consecutive governments’ and negligence to create the homes we require.

A current Civitas Report pointed out that, amid 1948 and 1979, the number of publicly-funded homes didn’t fall beneath 100,000 a year. Then a white paper in 1976 declared there was too much housing, and with the changing of the political guard, public-sector house construction went into a perpendicular slump.

Council house-building has never improved. What limited financing the administration, has been centred on housing associations instead, mostly since their financing didn’t count towards public sector deficit.

Yet, even this was a fraction of what it had been in past decades, and as a consequence, housing associations have been developing at a pace of 30,000 a year.

When the Labour Party came into control in 1997, policies were not focused on financing more public sector housebuilding, but preferably encouraging people onto the housing stairway if they could afford it, and helping those who couldn’t afford it through the welfare system.


Following the shipment of the Coalition government, and the Conservative administration that succeeded, there has been a bigger focus on lowering expenses in the midst of mounting nationwide debt. This has meant enormous cuts to the welfare system and the housing allowance.

Alternatively, the administration has concentrated on enterprises to make it simpler for people to borrow and build up collaterals to afford increasingly costly homes. Financial website loveMONEY talked with a government spokesperson about housebuilding projects. The spokesperson stated that, following spring 2010, government-backed projects have supported over 290,000 households to obtain a home.

Nearly half of these, above 150,000 were supported through Help-to-Buy projects. This, nevertheless, has done little to sustain the number of homes. Furthermore, to make things worse, housing associations have grown more reluctant to develop as there is doubt over their fate.

This has left housebuilders to tackle the housing crisis alone, something they are not equipped or even incentivised to do, particularly following the financial disaster.

The 2008 financial crash destroyed the house building industry, leading to the lowest levels of starts for any peacetime year following the 1920s and the loss of a quarter of a million building projects.

Nevertheless, the difficult financial situation has taken its casualties in the interlude. It has led to an amount of smaller housebuilders being taken over or falling out of the market completely. One of the main obstacles with the housebuilding enterprise in this country is that we are far too reliant on a small number of really important developers to deliver the lion’s percentage of the homes we require.

Having fewer housebuilders means there are fewer active sites at any given time. On each site, builders finish properties as quickly as they are able to sell them at a stable price, rather than as quickly as possible. And that’s a crucial difference.

The planning policy doesn’t help either. As Shelter points out, there isn’t suitable construction land, it isn’t affordable enough, and it isn’t easy enough to develop on.

The Civitas report hinted that another elephant in the room may be the side-effect of creating enough homes. There is an insufficient evident desire for a reduction in house costs, which would leave millions of homeowners out of pocket.

Furthermore, the only way of decreasing home prices for everyone is to get on top of demand, improve supply and lower home costs. In other words, creating suitable homes could make the government disliked with a number of homeowners, who are also voters.

Nevertheless, a 2013 Shelter report argues that the assumption all homeowners want costs to increase are flawed. It cited investigation that discovered that simply a third of people desired increasing costs, and most desired security. This would allow the government to create hundreds of thousands of homes a year without endangering and impacting on the market.

A government spokesperson said that it was preparing to do just that and that they have set out the most formidable concept for housing since the 1970s, increasing the housing allowance so they can deliver a million additional homes by 2020.

This involves spending £8 billion for 400,000 affordable homes.

That unquestionably is an opportunistic target, and it’s questionable if it will be a hit, fewer than a third of housebuilders believe it’s possible, according to a current investigation. However, even if they do, it’s yet far from a perfect solution. That’s all since the difficulties of the housing industry that cannot be corrected by solely creating more homes for private investment.

We can change the course of the housing disaster, however, to do this the government need to concentrate on creating places that people on average wages can really manage to buy or rent for the long-term. What’s more, the proposed 400,000 affordable homes is a dab in the ocean.

Millions of people are losing the faith of ever affording a home to put down roots in, and alternatively, face an existence confined in precarious and costly private renting. What’s worse, government schemes like Starter Homes costing up to £250,000, or almost half a million pounds in London, will usually only benefit the better off.

Doing something regarding the housing dilemma presently will need even stronger effort, since we are beginning from a very unenviable point.

However, can we actually anticipate clear response when the two parties perhaps best placed to resolve the dilemma have reservations, if not an out-and-out disincentive, to do so?

Police Report Katie Hopkins


Questionable Television celebrity Katie Hopkins has been reported to Twitter by police officers over a bad taste vote on the Camber Sands victims. Five young men in their advanced teens and early 20s were hauled from the water off the East Sussex coastline, having travelled from London to spend the day at the beach.

However, Hopkins sparkled insult when she tweeted a poll with the thread, “5 dead at Camber Sands were…”, accompanied by a number of bad joke responses. Sussex Police responded to criticisms on the social networking site verifying they had reported her, continuing that it really was not suitable to joke about five deaths the day after the event.

It was especially callous, though not illegal.

The five, thought to be Sri Lankan in origin, died on Wednesday.

A spokesperson for Sussex Police announced that Hopkins’ tweet was listed under the classes of offensive, hurtful, rude and nasty.

At around 10.30am on Thursday, Sussex Police was made aware of a tweet, which the authorities deemed to be callous. This has been related to Twitter. The main interest is to the sentiments and emotions of the next of kin of those who sadly perished at Camber.

The poll has presently been removed.

We are all familiar with Katie Hopkins, and what a terrible trap she has, and she should restrain herself from society if she clearly cannot keep her awful opinions to herself. Maybe she should take a vacation following her brain operation since obviously whatever surgery she had has not quelled her muzzle.

Katie Hopkins has the largest aperture I know, though I’m sure there are people out there with larger orifices, although I’ve still not discovered them yet, therefore, because of this, it’s my opportunity to butcher Katie, so she can see how it feels to be a butt.

Usually, when somebody takes the piss out of another person, there is usually a reason behind it, but these people that perished, she had no attachment to them, she had never met them before, they were total strangers, and they didn’t warrant that sort of bitterness.

She is a resentful woman and an extremely rude person that I have come across in a long time. She is not friendly at all, and her affection for people is zilch. She does not appear to have any regard for anyone, which I see as rather offensive, and she despises everyone around her.

Rent-a-gob Katie Hopkins has made a profession out of being contentious for the sake of it. She stated that Hannah was the ideal name for a dyslexic child. Unsurprisingly, the bulk of the nation was unimpressed by dirty knickers Katie and her pitiful effort to create discord by linking children’s names to disabilities.


However, this isn’t the first time the former Apprentice star has been so callous. Katie went face to face bickering over the policies of attachment parenting. Hopkins made a swipe, as a discussion got heated, over images that were published months beforehand, showing grappling mum Peaches Geldof attempting to pick up her son from the sidewalk after her pram fell over.

It was a cheap punch from Hopkins since most parents have had their child fall out of bed, or fall from a pram, it doesn’t matter whether you are a single parent or a married parent, these things occur.


Motormouth Katie insulted a room full of students when she told them she didn’t actually approve of obese people, and that she wouldn’t like to face a ginger in the dark, and rained disdain on the state school system.

She propelled into a conversation in which she damned what she stated was the special treatment of university applicants from the state school system.

She stated that suicidal inmates should simply kill themselves. Yes, she actually did state that.

Katie further stated that she would never hire somebody who is overweight.

She stated, that she actually believed that if you have a tattoo you have to question about what sort of prospect you have ahead of you. Katie stated, that as an entrepreneur she certainly wouldn’t hire somebody with tattoos and that she would worry what her shoppers would think of them. Plus socially we still see tattoos as graffiti, or perhaps she was talking about her revolting orifice, that’s full of textual graffiti.


She further asserted that Mammary militia breastfeeding en masse in Costa puts one off their latte.


She stated that being despised is a cross she bears. Like the Jesus of the outspoken.

Katie, 38, who was on The Apprentice in 2006, wrote in a magazine that Lily Allen was kind of exciting until she had kids. She added she was eliminating herself from the notoriety since she aspired to be a parent.

She stated, it mainly meant gaining two stone and looking rather ugly.

Lily, 28, who suffered two miscarriages before giving birth to twin daughters Ethel and Marnie, 13 months, hit back, and replied, that yes, following tragically losing a baby so advanced in her pregnancy, she may have increased a few pounds.

Furthermore, that she was one of several that obtain relief in food. The Smile vocalist continued that she wasn’t exercising since she didn’t want to take any chances and that the survival of her children seemed more relevant than being skinny.

Katie announced to Heat magazine, Gemma Collins was at the plus size fashion awards to get her contributions to overweight people award, which Katie believed meant mostly being fat. She said, well done to Gemma for being overweight, but following catching wind of the evil remarks, the Towie actress lashed out.

Gemma called Hopkins a total mug, stating that she was so kind to Katie when they met one another.

Discussing the Keeping Up with the Kardashians star, she stated that she has a fat arse and that she actually didn’t understand what the fascination was with Kim. She further stated, she actually didn’t believe that being seen as somebody with a big behind was that great, and that she would rather be remembered as the biggest bitch in Britain.

Katie stated, that her foresight for Bieber was that he’ll be up next on a wrecking ball licking an adjustable spanner, and believed that may be in the offing for Belieber. Or go the Lohan highway and simply waste the remainder of his days in and out of rehab.

Or he could go the full Winehouse, and that will be the death of Bieber.

She further took objection to his faithful follower support, hitting the Beliebers and maintained they seemingly don’t have many friends and struggle with their own individual problems. She ranted, Beliebers are weird. They do adore him, and that they may admire him endlessly.

She stated, she assumed they’re kind of pathetic, single teenagers named Rebecca, that hasn’t got many mates, presumably got problems with their weight, height, hair colour, skin, and I don’t know what, and sort of grip onto him and say that they ‘belieb’.

She further stated that the X Factor 2013 had finished in a disturbing confrontation amidst a fat mum in a jumpsuit and a small boy in whatever his mum set out for him on his bed. She continued, they also attempted performing cute clips of Sam’s children. They were convinced that would make the woman break, but it turned out she had the sensitivity of a prison officer.

Writing in her post for Best, Katie further annihilated Elton John for looking puffy around the gills and took a swipe at 61-year-old Sharon Osbourne’s plastic surgery, and said, if she is going to look this good next year she will need to bulk buy plastic.


This is how vitriol spilling Katie Hopkins portrays television chef Nigella Lawson. Reporting in her Sun editorial mother-of-two Katie, who stated her hubby thought Nigella was a tad savoury, and said, Nigella made each mum in the country seem less than ideal. There is a rare delight in discovering that behind the full breast and alluring glimpses to the camera, things are not as flawless as they appear.

Under that pallid appearance, equine fangs and motormouth is an instrument of sheer wickedness. She simply isn’t a human being, as she has no heart, she does not have one individual emotion, and the truth of it is, she, in fact, is just a shameful evil woman who has no compassion for anyone else.

She relishes tearing the essence out of others, and gets vast entertainment out of it, and obviously her saneness isn’t intact, you could barely describe her as the brains of Britain.

Katie Hopkins may have been a newspaper reporter before she joined the competitors on the UK series of the reality T.V show The Apprentice in 2007, but maybe the publicity of it all has gone to her head, and presently all she can do is talk out of her arse.

She has repeatedly made personal and derogatory remarks on camera. She after performed in I’m a Celebrity…Get Me Out of Here! on ITV and Celebrity Big Brother on Channel 5. She has penned articles for British newspapers The Sun and the Daily Mail and stood as a competitor in the 2009 European Parliamentary election, God forbid had she actually got in.

Hopkins has been scrutinised in the media and by advocacy organisations and MP’s for her remarks about migrants and accused of classism and racism, but according to Hopkins, she is driving back the barricades closing in on freedom of speech.

It is one action to support freedom of speech, but to be the caca mouth of it all is very offensive to everyone around her. Discharging your own faeces is fair enough, however, not when your smearing it all over everybody else.

You’re supposed to take the garbage out, not launch it over everyone else, and she should learn to throw whatever nonsense comes out of her orifice into the trash, maybe whilst she’s there, maybe she might discover some basic understanding, with some understanding of other people’s emotions.

Burkini Ban


Penalties have been inflicted on women wearing burkinis in the southern French town of Cannes.


A prohibition on the swimwear, popular with some Muslim women as they completely conceal the body, was controversially launched earlier in August.

The three females, aged from 29 to 57, were with their kids at the beach when police officers interceded over the offending garments.

Four of the females were fined €38, £33 whilst all were presented with warnings and instructed to vacate the area.

They are young mothers or grandmothers, and they do not think they are criminals. All were really disconcerted at the way they were treated.

Mayor David Lisnard created discord amongst Muslim groups by making Cannes the principal resort town to force an embargo on the full-body swimsuits. He took this decision amongst many other decisions to make sure his town was protected in the context of the state of emergency.

Mr Lisnard’s decision was questioned although later supported in court. A judge announced the rule was enforceable under French legislation which forbids people invoking their sacred positions to skirt common laws governing relationships within public authorities and private individuals.

The judge put the embargo in the context of the state of emergency and current Islamist assaults, notably in Nice a month ago.


Cannes is less than 20 miles from Nice, where Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel ploughed a lorry into a crowd which had assembled to see Bastille Day fireworks, killing 85 people.

Another resort town near Nice, Villeneuve-Loubet, also outlawed burkinis on beaches. A recently proposed by-law ordered only clothes that are respectful to morality and secular beliefs, and in compliance with health and safety laws is supported.

Mayor Lionnel Luca announced the ban of the garments was for hygienic purposes. Plus he was informed that there was a couple on one of the beaches where the lady was bathing completely dressed, and it deemed unacceptable for sanitary purposes and undesirable given the overall situation.

In France, one does not come to the beach clothed to represent one’s religious beliefs, particularly as they are erroneous beliefs that the doctrine does not require.

France has forced a controversial prohibition on full-face veils since 2004.

This covering of the face has a suggestion of sexism and many think that this is the summit of cultural and governmental development. One of the outcomes of this thinking is the trend to establish an ideal, in so far as different nations differ from that, sets them as problematical.

For instance, many think that females in the United States are extremely liberated. In so far as women in different cultures live differently, they are considered to be oppressed. Of course, women are oppressed elsewhere, although it is a misconception to think that they are oppressed and we are liberated.

This so-called binary forms an obscure way in which women elsewhere are not 100% inferior and those other women similarly experience from gendered persecution.

I’m not sure which is worse, the inflexible and unreasonable example of appeal in the United States and the idea that women’s bodies are revealed to inspection or the thought of living under a burka that bans particular freedoms, but saves you from evaluative eyes and the outcomes of their contradictory evaluations.