Not Industrial Scale: more Pandemic Scale!

I lived in England until I reached my majority at 21. I served in the British Merchant Navy, I then lived overseas, but the place which I called home was England. Its very roots, its Laws, the makeup of our Nation; my very ancestry, from England and from Northern Ireland spoke volumes. The fact that we could walk the streets free of fear, free of violence; free to trust; implicitly, those placed to tend our needs when in need of medical treatment: these things pulled me back when I returned to England.

What has happened to this Land where such freedoms were both implicit and explicit? The Law itself has altered; has swung away from responsibility to ‘rights’; from where a free man could stand and say exactly what he means: to a place where everyone is afraid to say things straight out because someone might be ‘offended’. We used to accept that the saying ‘Innocent until Proven Guilty’ was the Law of the Land. The Law has been biased towards a viewpoint where the very accused has to prove his innocence, not the accuser to prove that the person opposed is guilty. How can one prove that your opponent has not been ‘offended’ by your words or actions? It is impossible to prove a ‘negative’. And so the strings which used to bind us so tightly have been, once more, fatally weakened!

But I mentioned things medical, where the latest attack on our systems is headed, and as usual, the speartip is formed by the Homosexual Lobby, those who would preach that ‘they are just like us’, that they are ‘no threat to our very way of life’: and so on ad infinitum. The homosexual (and other equally-grisly behaviour) lobby has never, ever strayed from the path of demanding that, risk or no risk, their acolytes should not be ‘discriminated against’ from being able to donate blood without any searching questions whatsoever about their sexual practices being asked at all.

Readers may have noticed reference to a scandal regarding the contamination of blood products imported from America. This was in the 1970’s and early ‘80’s, when people suffering from Haemophilia were treated with blood Factor VIII. As the linked article describes, concentrated Factor VIII was derived from many blood contributions, some of which came from blood sold by American AIDs or HIV sufferers, and the virus was therefore delivered straight into the veins of vulnerable haemophiliacs: giving them AIDs/HIV or Hepatitis C. 2,400 have already died, with many more suffering from these terrible diseases. Andy Burnham, former health minister, called the scandal a “criminal cover-up on an industrial scale”.

So the the National Blood Service (Transfusion), then UK State-Run, decided that until further notice, no blood would be allowed to enter the system from any (anal sex-active) homosexual or drug-using person, as the risks were simply too great. This ruling was modified some years back so that blood donation rules prevented people who engage in risky homosexual- or oral-sex behaviour; or drug use, from giving blood for a 12 month period.

We  now move forwards to today, when we read that the government has announced changes to blood donation rules following a review by the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs (SaBTO). So the wheels churn around, homosexuals are, seemingly, the good guys nowadays, and their every word is to be trusted, and they now only have to acknowledge that their activities can spawn dread disease up to three months after shoving their penises into some accommodating arsehole (by both name and nature): or some other equally-risky drug use or sexual practice!

We, the users of the blood and plasma now supplied within the NHS, have to take it on trust that the tests, presumably to be carried out on EVERY sachet of blood or plasma passing through the laboratories will actually detect viruses before any incubation period has elapsed. We, the users will have to accept that the SCIENCE behind this ruling has been verified, and we should take it for granted that a Privatised Blood Service has our very best interests at heart! We should also note, with some relief no doubt, that Commercial sex workers, along with those charming individuals who confess ‘sex with a partner who has been sexually active in areas where HIV is common’, are all given that same donor clearance after three months abstinence.

As some may have noted, I was hospitalised a few years back for a major operation, which included many pints of blood to carry me through the process. I made no objection, because I knew I was protected by Law from dread disease! You know something, I am going to find out if I can donate and store my own blood over any time left to me, so that if I need a transfusion, I know where it is safe to look! I will also be advising my adult children to do likewise, for their own protection, as well as my four grandsons!


….some of my best friends are tall black coffee-drinkers!!!

Alternate title……The Chips are down!

So, you are walking down a busy street in ‘Wherever City’. You have an appointment; your car broke down, the train was late, the ‘Uber’ app on your iPhone just would not kick out a call: so, you walk. But people coming towards you just don’t understand that a) you are going to be late, b) you are obviously in a hurry, and c) you are very aware of your own self-importance. So why won’t these ‘White Women’ just move aside and let you through the hordes, instead of blocking your path with their silly, self-absorbed and totally racist attitudes? (Forgot to mention; you are tall and black.)

Seems as though this black bloke gets rather frustrated when people won’t get out of his way (because he is obviously big, and black, and so very, very important) when walking briskly in New York. He takes to task only one sector of the Big Apple’s massive crowds of pedestrians, and one only. He states ‘White Women’ deliberately ignore him, deny eye contact with him, and sometimes literally force him off the sidewalk onto the road: and do all this because he is a big black man.

I would place good money on the response he would get if he ever stated his problems with ‘White Women’ to his mother. She would tell him one thing and one thing only: if any man, black, white, khaki, ever deliberately stood in her way, or walked towards her and exhibited the bad manners and distinct lack of courtesy he had explained; she would batter him over the head with her handbag. He was taught and educated to think, and he’d better live up to her ideals, and learn  to remember simple good manners! He was probably taught that it was simply mannerly, when confronted with a lady OF ANY COLOUR AT ALL, to give way to the weaker sex, to show that their being female was a clear signal that they were to be respected, above anything else: and to hell with feminist attitudes!

The New York TImes, who published the original story, cleverly entitled ‘Power Play’, also point to two other stories which profess, or allege, unconscious racism in their lives.

One of the pieces is a perfect example of that which George Bernard Shaw’s ‘bon mot’ which stated ‘Britain and America are two nations divided by a common language.’

‘Waiting’ was about a black couple who seemed to be denied tortilla chips whilst waiting to be served at a Mexican-themed restaurant. Seems the chips are a freebie munchy, to be set out whilst you wait for your food to be served. The couple then saw another couple served with those same chips as they gave their order. The male of the first couple then asked why they were not given free chips, as they were obviously available; and so on, and so forth.  I just don’t understand their problem. Should he have demanded his portion of ‘chips’ as part of the Mexican Experience? Should he have stormed out, accusing the Mexicans of sheer, unadulterated racism? Never having had an overwhelming urge to munch chips at a restaurant, I would simply not know.

Chips, for our readers in the former colonies, in Britain are longitudinally thinly-sliced potatoes, deep-fried in either beef fat or oil, and served, usually lukewarm, as part of what used to be our National dish; ‘fish and chips’. That which you call ‘chips’ are, in Britain; called crisps; similar to heroin in addictive effect; chock-full of totally fattening carbohydrates; and tortilla flavour has actually crept back across the pond, and is now available in all supermarkets. Our National dish, if one believes the Sunday supplement magazines, is now a curry named ‘Chicken Tikka Masala’!

So what is in a name?

I was checking out the possible commence date of the remake of a superb film, the original being a factual WW2 production; true-to-the numbers of dead flight crew members. There was quite a bit of angst and signs of liberals shovelling their heads up their nether regions when it came to the tricky bit where the Wing Commander greets his black labrador upon returning from a mission.

Now as to the rights and wherefores of a word, in common usage at the time: and as I am an Englishman, not American, nor Black; it all depends on individual taste and sense as to the rights and wrongs of such a term. Some may state that it (the word) should never, ever be used again: others take the viewpoint that, if someone gets upset over the term, then that is their problem. I read David’s post about his hero’s recording, and how the Beeb had censored the word off the sound-track, and whilst fully agreeing with his sentiment regarding liberals’ sensitivities; I find listening to the actual track a tad less than tuneful but there again, that’s just me! Just not my cup of tea.

Whilst clicking through late-night TV, searching for summat’ to watch as not yet ready for kip, I came across Reginald D. Hunter, he of the winsomely-entitled Pride and Prejudice… and Niggas show. As he said, ‘That word can be used, and not an ounce of harm can be taken: but the next guy to use spits it out with venom!

So, my viewpoint reckons, if anyone uses the term today, they use it in the full knowledge that it was a truly nasty, derogatory term when used, say, in the Deep South in the days before MLK or LBJ. When the film was made, and, much earlier when those brave men took off to fight their way across France and Germany towards the dams, with their hand-held sights to pick up the dam towers, and their downward-facing spotlights which provided a perfect aiming point for the ack-ack guns sited on both sides of those dams, if anyone thought of the word, he was thinking of Guy Gibson’s coal-black labrador, named as probably thousands more dogs were, without a racist thought made in all of them.

Before ending this small essay, I recently visited a site where this re-naming thing was being discussed: and I would like to copy some of the comments made on that site. I include them because, to my slightly-addled sense of humour, they really ring the bell! If you do not believe that humour sometimes is the best medicine, especially when dealing with terms so upsetting; my reply would simply be: get used to it!

Missing the point!

I think you’re all missing the point here. Imagine a family of diggers moved into your street. You wouldn’t be happy about it, would you? And where there’s one family of diggers, there’s usually more diggers. Before you know it, the whole area is overrun with diggers, your house it’s worth nothing and your car has been stolen.

Coming Next: WWII without anti-semitism

Because you can’t have Jews being rounded up and shipped off to death camps in this day and age. Historical accuracy go screw yourself.

And it’s “just the name of a dog – what’s the big deal?”,… OK so let’s change the Lancaster bombers to B52’s, let’s change Barnes’ name to something more American friendly like Hank, and while we’re at it, let’s have Glen Miller’s St Louis Blues swinging over the end credits instead of that British Imperialistic Dambusters March…


It’s not the dog’s name I object to, it’s having all-Hobbit flight crews and making Barnes Wallis an Elf.

By Jove, I got it!

Instead of removing the allegedly offensive name, why not just redress the balance by calling the rest of the cast ‘Honky’!

Who pays the piper, calls the tune – again

Stephen Fry should heed his own words “you just can’t go back, which is unfortunate” – and refrain from b*****ing around with History. The poor animal will probably end up being played by a chipmunk – all cute and apple pie.

Hollywood has so corrupted it’s output that half the world would misbelieve any actual historical fact presented to it.


What is the Russian term for ‘Get Stuffed’?

Readers may remember a while back when a bunch of ‘activists’ from Greenpeace tried to board the Prirazlomnayaa Russian oil rig? Greenpeace stated shock and ‘extreme disappointment’ when the entire crew and protesters off the Arctic Sunrise were slung into the local chokey, many on a charge of ‘piracy’. Cue large and regimented quantities of weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth. Eventually, the protesters were released, after their mummies stated they would be smacked if they did it again.

An International Arbitration Panel awarded $5.8 million in damages, and told the Russians not to do it again, as they had been extremely naughty.

The Russians, who had not taken part in the Arbitration Scheme, stated their reply would be forthcoming!

Review:- Nice movie: cannot understand why ‘Diversity’ does not play larger part!

There have been as many opinions as grains of sand as to the likelihood of a successful retreat, by a battered, disorganised British Army, from the beaches, piers and waves of Dunkirk. No one really understood why an Army of over 275,000 weary, demoralised British soldiers; along with approximately 140,000 French, Belgian and Polish soldiers of a similar demeanour; was allowed to escape the overwhelming menace of the German tank divisions and regiments.

The simple fact, borne out by research after the War was over, was that the evacuation was allowed to happen because the British and French armour regiments attacked an exposed Panzer Division at Arras, exposed because they had outrun their supply chains, artillery and infantry support; and were in serious danger of being outflanked and forced into retreat.

Von Runstedt, after urgent reviews with his subordinates, signalled Berlin and Hitler that he wanted a pause, to regroup and re-inforce, before pressing into Dunkirk. Hitler agreed, giving Von Runstedt to ability to decide when to advance, as he had been promised by Goering that the Luftwaffe would clear the air of the R.A.F, and the beaches of the British Army.

The Luftwaffe did their best, but lost 156 aircraft whilst bombing the ‘little ships’ whilst the R.A.F. lost 145 aircraft, and, more importantly, precious pilots. The Germans regrouped, re-inforced and commenced moving after three days, there was an organized and extremely competent defence; but ‘Operation Dynamo’ was in full swing, and only the dead were left on the Dunkirk beaches. The surviving soldiers formed the nucleus of a resurgent British Army, which eventually, together with America, Canada, and Free French; as part of the Allied Cause, returned on 6th June 1944, and on towards victory.

The film ‘Dunkirk’ is now on general release, but USA Today reviewed ‘Disaster turned Survival’ movie named ‘Dunkirk’ with the following words:-

Dunkirk is also one of the best-scored films in recent memory, and Hans Zimmer’s music plays as important a role as any character. With shades of Edward Elgar’s Enigma Variations, the melodies are glorious, yet Zimmer also creates an instrumental ticking-clock soundtrack that’s a propulsive force in the action scenes.

The trio of timelines can be jarring as you figure out how they all fit, and the fact that there are only a couple of women and no lead actors of color may rub some the wrong way. Still, Nolan’s feat is undeniable: He’s made an immersive war movie that celebrates the good of mankind while also making it clear that no victory is without sacrifice.

Yes, I can just imagine David Oyelowo calling up the casting director and stating that a 17.8% of the Army roles on the Dunkirk beach scenes should be reserved for B.A.M.E. (work it out yourselves) actors!

Play it again, Sir Michael…

When the BBC trots out an ‘expert’, many things can be guaranteed. He, or she, will be presented as a ‘world or leading authority’ on the subject being discussed; he will be definitive in the conclusions reached by his research, as one would expect; and he will give his reasons for reaching this conclusion. He will also, by very definition, be an opponent of some strategy or operational requirement of the Government, especially if the Government of the day is Tory.

So, it was again this morning, with our very special expert being Sir Michael Marmot. Now this guy is seemingly, overqualified to be anything else that the Angel Gabriel. He has awards, degrees and doctorates up the kazoo; he has been there, and written about it many times.

He comes onto the Today Programme to discuss his ‘findings’ that we, as a nation, aren’t living quite as long as health statisticians believed we should be, and matter-of-factly stated that he knew why our ageing wasn’t extending as prophesied.

Firstly, he stated that this showed the growth in life expectancy was “pretty close to having ground to a halt”.

He said that was historically highly unusual” given the rising life expectancy seen over the past 100 years.

He also said ‘ “miserly” funding settlements for the NHS and social care, which meant the quality of life for older people would have deteriorated and could well affect their life expectancy.

“I am deeply concerned with the levelling off, I expected it to keep getting better.”

He said it was hard to draw firm conclusions about the cause…..

..BUT, it was “entirely possible” austerity had played a role.


All is revealed:-



Stands to reason, innit?

The single omission did surprise me. He didn’t manage to bring ‘Climate Change’ into the equation.