The Screeching Hawks of Parliament

Lord Soley

No, I’m not talking about MP’s and Lords screeching abuse at each other but about two new new members of parliament who have refused to take their seats in either chamber. Instead they circle the building emitting the most incredible screeches and dive on pigeons and kill them. The feathers of the doomed pigeon float down past windows and some of the staff I am told find the whole rather bloody and feathery business a bit disturbing!

Now their activities have caught the attention of the media. I am told that they are likely to appear on Autumn Watch on the BBC tonight.

They are the Right Honourable Members for the Palace of Westminster – Mr and Ms Peregrine Falcon!

PS I think some of the screeching yesterday was about the cut in their child benefit!

4 comments for “The Screeching Hawks of Parliament

  1. Chris K
    07/10/2010 at 12:10 pm

    Excellent. London has too many pigeons.

    I’m sure that peregrine falcons, like the overwhelming majority of the British public, can appreciate that giving benefits to families who pay the 40 or 50% tax rate is madness.

    Members of Parliament, be they human or falcon, are exactly the income bracket who do not need child benefit.

  2. 07/10/2010 at 1:29 pm

    Once again realise that a you have legislated £200 (approx) to be a sufficient human-living to maintain the adult citizen healthy, citizenlike, and constructively-lifesupportive.
    Such lifesupportive legislation has to be universal.

    75% of the person’s time is taken up by their Lifestyle. whilst the other 25% is taken up in a Workplace.

    Realise that the person maintaining a healthy, citizenlike, and constructively-lifsupportive lifestyle on a weekly income of £200 is TWICE as personally- or lifestyle-efficient as the person having to take (or be given) from the Common Purse £400 per week.

    Realise the ‘madness’ of our Constitution and the ensuing Legislation, Economics, Politics, Sociology, and education:
    the more you consume from the Common Purse the lower your personal and lifestyle- efficiency.

    Since Parliaments and the Super-Rich & Powerful Establishments that own them are still not getting the message of the Hawk sniping, ‘out of the sun’, a pigeon a week
    OUTSIDE of their Civilisationally-secured and protected Workplace, perhaps We The People should arrange that in future such a natural-law event be brought to occur INSIDE the House.

    Then it is much more likely that some real-life-oriented pieces of legislation will be constructed by the high-pay-graded sitters in Parliamentary places, and be more assuredly and welcomely passed by an unopposable majority from all parties and persuasions.
    If not, then Lords of the Blog should be losing no tyime finding a peer to tell a different kind of Story than ‘Alice In Wonderland’.

    ‘The Book of the Dead’ would be much more appropriate, not only for the Parliamentarians comfortably seated INSIDE the Legislative Houses, but for all Peoples dutifully consumering their variously luxury-bubbled lifestyles OUTSIDE of those Houses.
    ============ 1329Th07Oct

  3. Senex
    07/10/2010 at 9:54 pm

    Apparently the Treasury does not recognise the combined incomes of a cohabiting husband and wife when they are earning and paying tax. Yet when a couple are cohabiting and in receipt of welfare payments the Treasury acts quickly to reduce payment to such individuals.

    You see, for the Treasury to recognise the combined income of a tax paying cohabiting couple, should one of them stop working then their tax free allowance would transfer to the working partner. Under current finance legislation the Treasury would be promoting tax avoidance and the Chancellor could get locked up for it and could no longer serve as an MP.

    Poor chap he would have to sign onto Jobseekers.

    • 08/10/2010 at 10:28 pm

      The insanity is that the British Bosses follow their counterparts in certain other countries (by the dozen)in basing their legislated-lifesupport-minimum-income, for the underclass individual, solely upon what the Bosses say the country’s Treasury can “afford” to pay out; not upon what the poor subject has to pay out, or go to prison.

      Right now we have above-market-pay-grade second-layer-government people (the civil service) trying to make sense of the Tories’ new trick of setting civil-service pensions at the average of their working-life incomes minus one-third thereof: thus 40 years service (((£8000 x 10 years) + (10000 x 10) + (12000 x 10) + (14000 x 6) + (16000 x 3) + (18000 x 1)) = 450000; divided by 40 = £11250 p.a. pension i.e. 11250/52 = £216.35 – 1/3rd = £144.23 per week.

      Will s/he be given allowances on top of that, to bring them up to the level of (say) a long-term unemployed and disabled person’s state-pension-and-allowances which total almost £300 per week in all but still leave the recipient struggling to make ends meet ?
      How should a farmer maintain his herds, his flocks, his fields of crops, his soils; by adding up the costs of what those lifeforms need to flourish and be robustly healthy ? Or by merely adding up what is left over at bank after all his other expenses and luxuries have been paid for, and then allocate the cash left-overs to the maintenance of his livestock, vegetable-crops, and living-soils ?

      How should you maintain your pet cat, dog, canary, or goldfish in thriving good health ?
      By ruling “I can only afford a quids-worth this week” ?

      (One citizen) = (one human-being) = (the-inescapable-costs-that-person-has-to-meet-in-order-to-stay-out-of-prison-and-be-healthy-citizenlike-and-environmentally-lifesupportive).

      It is so primary-school level “Q.E.D.”

      Why is the British Governance-Brain so impaired it can not perform the basic arithmetical costs of one human-life ?

Comments are closed.