Rapist; thief; liar; fraudster; bogus asylum seeker………Good enough!

British Citizenship & Passport eligibility >>> Tesco shopping list

There are more checks done on an online shopping list than those applied to the issue of a British Passport.

And just to make things worse, guess where the people work who decide who gets a British Passport?

Liverpool

 

Moreover, far too much reliance was placed on self-declaration by applicants so unless an applicant declared financial problems or that they had practised tax avoidance and benefit fraud, no other checks were made to verify this. In some cases, applicants who had very poor immigration histories over long periods, including during the qualifying period for naturalisation, were granted citizenship. The poor histories included having no leave to enter or remain for long periods, working illegally and absconding.

“The granting of British citizenship is a profoundly significant step for both the individual and the UK,” said Vine. “Therefore, I was concerned to find that nationality casework [part of UKVI] had not struck the right balance between this and the need to scrutinise applications thoroughly to ensure that decisions to grant British citizenship were evidence-based. UKVI guidance which allowed case workers to disregard evasion of immigration control during the qualifying period, where there was no other evidence to cast doubt on an applicant’s good character, had resulted in a ‘blanket approach’ being adopted.”

 

and the sewage-pit to the left? That’s Kabul.

We were told that our Forces were leaving Helmand, Camp Bastion, and the blood-stained sands of that slag-heap masquerading as the country of Afghanistan.

We were told here, and then there, and finally over there, that we were going; and then, finally, we left, but not without the final measure of corporate military bullshit being spewed by a man who really ought to have kept his mouth shut.

Brigadier Robert Thomson, the most senior British officer on the base, said he was delighted with how the manoeuvre took place.

“This is not an evacuation,” he said. “I am standing here without body armour and we are going at walking pace. This is a deliberately measured transfer of power to the Afghans.”

That statement was made on the 27th October 2014.

We now read in the Sunday Times that the new Prez. of Afghanistan, knowing that he doesn’t have any sort of an air force, despite the $65 billions pumped into his shambles of a nation over the thirteen years since we went in and kicked the Taliban out, has repeatedly asked Cameron to send the Typhoons, the Tornadoes and the helicopters back in, because the Afghan National army is absolutely useless, with levels of corruption at all-time high levels, and desertion to the Taliban ranks seen as a good option.

So despite those other calls on the 40-year-old Tornados, and the lack of pilots for the Typhoons; 453 dead British just isn’t enough, and that sad number will rise, because that prick Cameron can’t say ‘no’ to his muslim buddies in Kabul.

The perils of Emily

We read of the travails of Emily Thornberry, pilloried for speaking exactly how she felt, for writing, or rather ‘Tweeting’, of the world as she saw it on that rather boring street in Strood. But it is a fact that, far too often, we see or hear of someone who is either jailed, or dumped upon from a great height, for doing exactly the same. Emily Thornberry is also known as Lady Nugee, the wife of High Court judge Sir Christopher Nugee, and they are an extremely wealthy couple; having specialised in both politics and the Law, and in the legal affairs pertaining to lots of money hiding behind offshore trusts, Jersey tax-laws, and the like. Now there is absolutely nothing illegal, wrong or evil in what Lady Nugee has been doing for over twenty years, but it does mean that she has become somewhat separated from reality, from the reality of life as it is lived outside of Westminster, Islington, and of course Dartmouth Park. There aren’t many ‘crack-houses’ in Islington, apart from the ones licensed by the Met to exist so that the high-flyers can get easy access to the ‘nose candy’ which quite a few both like and need. But apart from the few necessary nasties, nothing much impedes the steady progress of the rich, the wealthy and the connected who live in those leafy suburbs.

I doubt very much if Emily Thorberry has ever come within close range of a ‘White Van’, especially from the back seat of her usual conveyance, not a bicycle, but a large limousine. Strangely enough, there aren’t many homes in those leafy suburbs who would fly one St. George’s flag, never mind three, in the vain hope that the English football team could win anything except a speedy return ticket to Heathrow. To ‘fly the flag’ would be to place yourself beyond the pale; to state that you have demeaned yourself by joining the ‘great unwashed’, the very ‘plebs’ spoken of so kindly by Andrew Mitchell.

The ‘great unwashed’, by the way, are the patient millions who have been conned into the belief that these politicians, the f**king elite who place themselves above the crowd because they are so very special, actually empathise with the aspirations of those many millions who gullibly file into the polling booths and place their vote against the name of one of those ‘very special people’. Politicians, they are a world apart from us all, we who live outside the strange and convoluted village bubbles of Westminster, Islington, Notting Hill and Dartmouth Park. They look down on us, they spurn our hopes, they laugh at our dreams, but they really, really want us to vote for them, once every five bloody years!

Four Hundred & Fifty-Three

To begin, allow me to pass some names before your minds. names of battle honours awarded to the famed and famousBritish Regimental names, illustrious for the places where British soldiers and sailors fought the enemies of the Crown, and; in most cases, prevailed. St Lucia 1778, Egmont-op-Zee, Copenhagen, Douro, Talavera, Albuhera Nivelle, Inkerman, Sevastopol, Kandahar 1880, Afghanistan 1879 -80,Egypt 1882 Tofrek, Suakin 1885, South Africa 1899-1902.

The names of Regiments famed for over six centuries, all of which began from the Fraternity or Guild of Artillery of Longbows, Crossbows and Handgonnes; latterly transformed into the Honourable Artillery company, the oldest regiment in continuous service in the British Army, reel off before your minds eye. The Coldstream Guards, the Irish Guards, the Scots & Welsh Guards; the list of Regimental names, and the Battle honours they fought, won and died for, dazzle the very eye which perceives them. Our history is military, our very Nation was formed in the blood spilled in the dark ages after the Romans left, their own Empire crumbling. We have seen a conqueror come in 1066, but none after that, although many tried.

DURAHAM PAGE 11A

In the photo, the faded flags set high on the framed wall of the Durham Light Infantry chapel, set within the majestic stones of Durham Cathedral, are held with the mental concrete of martial memory. We revere our dead, we honour those who survived, and the colours reflect that honour.

Will there be honour; will there be flags; for Camp Bastion, for the wounded who survived the roadside bombs whilst being transported in unarmoured Land Rovers and mobile Coffins? Will there be Drumhead Services for the British Army of 2014, as we scuttle away from the place where the very flower of our generation were sacrificed to allay the political pretensions of f***king politicians, one of whom uttered those infamous words “ “We would be perfectly happy to leave in three years and without firing one shot because our job is to protect the reconstruction.” By 2008, 4 million bullets had been fired by the British armed forces; and Four hundred & fifty-three men and women, wearing the uniforms and badges of Her Majesty; lay dead!

Now where have I heard that ‘song’ before?

If the varied and various headlines published over the past few days, and indeed weeks are anything to go by, the Scottish Referendum should be viewed as a complete change in British Politics. The ‘Independence’ claims of ‘Freedom’ and ‘self-rule’ are there in plenty, as well as the undertones, always evident from the Celtic fringe, of a release from the servitude of centuries, of a forced bow towards Westminster, of having to be allowed to spend tax-payers money which stems from the wealth stemming from Scots oil and gas. Much more has been written, and spoken, by the Scots ‘Yes’ campaign, but all along the, the same theme emerges from these Scots politicians; ‘Trust us, and we shall deliver you and Scotland towards the Elysian Fields, and it will not cost you anything’!

Much the same thing, but on a much more negative note, comes from the speeches of the ‘No’ campaign; more dire warnings from a bunch of politicians and observers gathered together, for expediency purposes, under their ‘No Thanks’ banner. We hear of the terrible things which may befall the Scots, if they decide to ‘go it alone’, and even of the very voice of the Prime Minister ‘breaking’ with true emotion as he implores the Scottish voters to believe him and his confreres in the ‘No’ camp; whilst at the same time asking those same Scottish voters to forget that he shares the same platform with the Labour leader, a bitter enemy, and the Lib-Dim leader, another bitter enemy, but one wrapped in the colours of a Coalition.

But amidst all the clamour, the many and varied promises of a collective bunch of Politicians whom, we are justly remembering, are the same bunch who promised all those things which never came to pass, because they will never, ever, contemplate changing from the ‘status quo ante’; meaning, literally, the same as was before.

Commentators, and there are many of us, despair of being offered a true change, of a movement away from the deadly boredom of Government by Party politics, of the incessant pleas for this special treatment for a small category, or that ‘exception’ to the rules for the rest of us.

If one of the Parties: now scrambling to attempt to undo the catastrophic decisions which came forth after the totally stupid and cowardly ‘Devolution’ schemes of the early Blair/New Labour years, when the paths towards a Scottish ‘Independence’ were first cast in Legislation: had actually presented any new ideas, any faint traces of a proper ‘Democracy’; of changes which would form a Government which reacted to what the People wanted; instead of ramming through policies based on Party dogma, many would have applauded and made those changes work. But the big problem is that, in order to effect those changes, the Party politicians, together with the bulk of the invisible but powerful ‘Inner Government’ which is actually what the Whitehall Civil Service actually is, would have to give up power, and themselves be subject to the considered ‘whims’ of the people who gave their votes, and allowed the parasites in power to milch the public purse unto the tenth generation!

What is not evident, but still present, are the facts that one bunch of the ‘Old Elite’ are attempting to wrest power from the rest of the ‘Old Elite’; with not a new thought, or idea, or proposal amongst the lot of them! If you mention, even in passing, the Harrogate Solution, all you would probably get would be “Whats Harrogate got to do with it”?

Er, what was that name again?

As of the date when the Rotherham Child Betrayal Report was first published, many millions of words have been published on this story of the complete betrayal of a generation of young, female, WHITE children who have lived, or rather existed, in towns and cities where Pakistani Muslim men, mainly from the Pashtun tribal regions of Kashmir, Bangladesh and Afghanistan have systematically raped, beaten, sexually exploited them, under cover of a self-satisfied horde of politicians, social workers and, worst of all; Police, who did absolutely nothing to rescue these girls from this hell-hole of a life. When the girls told their parents, and the parents complained, the Police told them that their daughters were just part of a bunch of white ‘slappers’, who deserved everything they got; and this was the opinion of the social bunch and the politicians as well!

It has taken one fearless woman, Professor Alexis Jay, to rip the veil, or should that be the niqab, from the slime which was the truth behind the Muslim peril which existed, and indeed still exists, just one small step away from the ever-so-righteous Muslims who parade in and out of the Rotherham, Rochdale, and Manchester mosques, as well as those in Luton and in many other towns and cities across this land which once spoke of itself as a free Country.

But we were warned that this sort of thing was happening; the gang-rapes, the fearsome brutality, the organised exploitation of White schoolgirls who had the great misfortune to be sent to a Council ‘Care Home’. We were warned ten years ago! But the problem was that, because  the person who first made those warnings was not politically acceptable; was not accepted as being trustworthy, was in fact accused of criminal behaviour for uttering that very warning, his words and his warnings were rejected and ignored.

Who was that man?

His name was Nick Griffin

 

Frankenstein Salmon

My headline is not, unfortunately, a coded attack on Scotland’s mouthy First Minister and his compound delusions of grandeur regarding his grand vision(s) for Independence for his small Country; more famous for hairy knees and/or whisky than common sense political thought. But it is a commentary upon a political decision, made mainly by politicians in a complicated entanglement with big business, and crop bio-engineering in particular. I am referring to the decision, made against some 99% of public opinion, to allow small-scale trials of a ‘false flax’ plant which has been genetically-modified to produce an oil similar to Omega-3, an oil found only in certain types of fish. These scientists, who are of course heavily subsidised by the big GM companies, state that this modified plant, because it now will produce a fish-oil, should and would be fed to farmed salmon to make them healthier, with a higher rate of Omega-3 within their flesh, which would make it a healthier product for people to purchase.

We are assured that everything has been thought through; everything has and will be tested to the ultimate degree, there will be no cover-ups, all will be out in the open, there is absolutely nothing for the sceptical public to worry about.

S’funny, really; that is just what was said when this drug was placed on the pharmacy market-shelf  as firstly a sedative with no side-effects whatsoever, then as the wonder-drug for women who were suffering from pregnancy morning sickness, and let us remember what happened with that little episode!

athal1athal2

athal3

 

 

So nothing to worry about with GM foods, or scientifically modified crops then?

Which does pose the question why the entire shindig is being produced behind ten-foot high barbed wire fences, and protected by guards with alsatian attack-dogs?

Never believe anything………..

………………….until it has been denied; officially.

That quotation, care of an Irish journalist named Claud Cockburn, says a great deal about the person, and the television station she worked for over five years which I write about today. The t.v. station is Russia Today, and the reporter’s name was Sara Firth. She resigned from her work as a tv reporter because she states she was disgusted at having to push ‘slanted’ reports over the massacre of innocents who flew, unknowing of their fate, on Malaysian Airways MH17.

She stated she resigned in disgust because said reports being run by the station gave her a ‘kick in the stomach” and ‘disrespected the facts’, prompting her to hand in her notice. She  said it was the ‘straw that broke the camel’s back’ after growing increasingly frustrated during her five years as an employee.

Now apart from the fact that Russia Today is, and always has been, a totally-paid-up  member of the President Putin fan club, bought by the Kremlin; we must examine this female reporter’s beliefs and statements, both from the present and from the past. If, as she states, just about all news stories and commentary was slanted to place a Kremlin- and Putin-friendly viewpoint across the news-screens of the world, how is it that it took her five long years before she ‘saw the light’, and resigned?

Did this articulate and well-educated woman just have a sudden ‘Damascene Conversion’ over one lie too much, after speaking the Kremlin’s propaganda and slush for five years? She states that she was ‘increasingly frustrated’ and Firth also claimed the news organization has promoted Russian propaganda for years. The network uses young, obedient reporters for big, controversial stories — the less-experienced journalists are more likely to stay on message, she said, “The second you start to question or report honestly then you’re a problem.” Still, she respects many of her co-workers. She said many of them tell the truth, and have tried to fight the system while keeping their jobs on the inside.

Or did she finally decide that she should never have commenced working for a Putin- and Kremlin-backed t.v. station which has been routinely laughed at for the ludicrous manner in which it shamelessly followed the Russian-line, no matter what the actual facts might dictate?

 

That last query, of course, might well be aimed at another broadcaster which we are all, unfortunately, well-acquainted with? Answers on a used postcard, please.

 

It all depends who is talking about what

Listed to  a slot on BBC Today this morning where this retired policeman was quoted that he was certain various senior colleagues frowned upon his attempts to prosecute the killers of Stephen Lawrence, and alleged that these attempts probably were also corrupt.  These remarks, first aired on Newsnight,  were broadcast in every half-hourly news bulletin, and of course, as he was attacking the Metropolitan Police, and also were in aid of one of the BBC’s favourite people, a black youngster who was struck down by white men before (sarcasm alert) attaining approximately the same status as Martin Luther King (black awareness), or Fillipo Brunelleschi (architecture); they were given the widest publicity and scrutiny.

Not too much publicity or notice was given by the same BBC editors of the earlier part of the same interviewwhere he stated that he (the retired policeman) been removed from a earlier enquiry into abuse in Lambeth childrens’ homes as he was asking too many questions about people in ‘high places’.

The thing which puzzles me is the query as to why Retired Detective Chief Inspector Clive Driscoll didn’t raise seven sorts of Cain in an attempt to gain justice for the children who were, allegedly, being abused, instead of meekly keeping quiet and looking after his own skin and, of course, job?

…in sickness, and in health…..

abucketbaby

 

 

Before posting on a subject which is worthy of at least some discussion, before being cast into the cess-pool from which it has arisen, I thought I would lighten the atmosphere by posting a photo of what must be the most enchanting small child’s smile published this year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A long-awaited bill being published by the former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer has parallels with the 1967 Abortion Act by placing responsibility for authorising the action in the hands of two doctors.

legalise assisted dying

upholding the sanctity of human life without regard to suffering caused in the process

“ethical turning point”

be promoting anguish and pain, the very opposite of a Christian message of hope.”

the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” should not mean prolonging suffering.

in the face of the reality of needless suffering.”

In writing about this pernicious, dangerous and illiberal Assisted Dying Bill, I would attempt to explain my thoughts. The quotations, taken from people who support this Bill, do not state the truth about what is proposed. The Bill is written and introduced to change the Law. Ignore all the emotional rubbish held within those quotations, the supporters of this Bill want, wish and work towards one thing, and one thing only :-

 

Euthanasia!

I knew the girl I met was for me some ten seconds after we first saw each other, but, upon my return after my last trip to sea, I laid siege until she agreed to marry me.  We were gloriously, blissfully happy, our family grew and blossomed; until I was finally made aware that my beloved wife was seriously ill, and I had to have her committed. My wife of now some forty-seven years has been suffering from the effects of schizophrenia for some forty-three of those years. For many years, after she was released to me from the mental hospital where she was treated, she was back to some 95-97.5% of the woman whom I fell in love with, all those years ago in one chance evening at the Empire Ballroom in Leicester Square; but things went downhill some ten or twelve-odd years ago.

She now sits upstairs on her bedside, anxiously awaiting my help for even the slightest move to swivel across to her commode. She depends upon me for everything, and I would be a strange caricature of a man if I ever deserted her. My philosophy of life is now, and has been for many years; ‘you play the hand you are dealt’, and this is what I do for the woman I love. But what might happen to my love if I should die before her? Being totally dependent upon others for everything, and I do mean everything; more than likely she would be headed straight for a care facility, would she not be a prime target for these do-gooders who believe firmly that they know what is best for one who cannot articulate her needs and wishes?

I once visited an old-aged people’s home/complex in Islington to help a mate of mine who was compiling an electrical tender document, and I will be honest when I state that I have never witnessed anything more dispiriting in my entire life. I entered the main room/hall of the home, and there must have been at least seventy or eighty elderly people seated there, but the strange thing was the fact that they were all seated at seventy or eighty different angles to one another; there were two televisions blaring away at opposite corners of the room, no-one was watching either, and this was the first time that I had ever witnessed what is called the ‘Thousand-mile-stare’, where the person’s eyes are focussed over a huge distance away. The staff could safely be described as uniformly useless, as I gathered when talking to the one helpful staff member, a maintenance bloke, who simply sniffed when asked his opinion of his fellow workers, then replied, ‘when they aren’t in ever-extended meetings discussing how much they would not be doing, they are forever looking after themselves; with not much time left for the poor sods in the armchairs and beds’! I spotted one lady, seated in a wheelchair, trapped in the space between a wall and a folding door. She had been left by the ‘caring’ staff member, and forgotten as breakfast had been served, and no-one missed her, until an outsider arrived and gently wheeled her out of her confinement. She was so pathetically grateful to me, a stranger for helping her. Needless to state, I made my own feelings pretty plain to the management, but I don’t believe that my anger even registered!

Reference is made in one of the earlier quotations to the Abortion Act of 1967. I would simply remind readers that one of the ruling guidelines in 1967 was that two doctors should examine and confer with the pregnant woman before agreeing and signing to that abortion procedure. Those guidelines are now so loose that a NURSE can authorise an abortion.  I would remind ATW readers that, in just four years, there have been 731801 babies, foetuses; call them what you will, killed quite legally in this so-called civilised country of ours! Just consider what a bunch of politicians and their fellow bottom-feeding compatriots could do once the Euthanasia Bill becomes Law?

The Assisted Dying Bill, which in reality should be renamed the ‘Euthanasia Bill or the even more explanatory The Inconvenience Bill’ or the  ‘Let us get rid of the Old, the Ill, the Insane, the Sufferers from incurable and painful Diseases, those who alarm us by their very longevity, and the Memories of what faces us all Bill’ is a shameful and destructive piece of legislation, and we, along with the dangerous do-gooder Clowns who propose and back this tawdry attempt to change, by euphemism alone, the settled Law, should be ashamed that Legislation as bad, corrupt and disgraceful as this Bill undoubtedly is, even passes across the threshold of the House of Lords in these troubled times.

 

and it is all Cameron’s fault!

An open letter to David Cameron & Ruth Davidson (Scots Tory leader)

I am in receipt of your begging letter asking for donations to aid the anti-separation side of the Scots Independence referendum vote.

From being a life-long Tory believer and thinker; your craven, homosexual-friendly actions in regard to the so-called ‘gay marriage’ law, no doubt fuelled by your homosexual friends from Eton, has turned me into a firm apostle for UKIP. Your actions and drive to change the law so that a bunch of queers might be ‘equal’ gave me, and many, many thousands like me, the final impetus to change our political affiliations, and alter the very way in which we sought expression of our democratic principles.

You ask for a donation to aid Scots Conservatives to maximise the anti-separation vote on referendum day. You ask that I ‘give generously’!

I happily state that I would not donate the sweat from my socks towards any programme endorsed by your slimy Party, which consists of fellow travellers, clowns, rich people trying to get richer, and stalwarts of my generation who have not yet reached breaking point with the Tories, but have stayed because of the ties which bind, and of the good manners which have stayed them from telling you the truth about your lies.

If the Referendum states that Scotland will be independent, so be it, but most of the blame will rest with you, because you forgot that people, ordinary people like me, have very, very long memories!

“You look underneath that UKIP facade…………..

……………………………………and you see something pretty nasty and unpleasant,”

So sayeth Tony Blair, the true voice of Labour as well as both Conservatives and the LibDums.

British people tend to speak as they find, and I, in particular, tend to speak out possibly more often and perhaps more robustly than many. I have watched many politicians on tv screens, and heard many more by radio, and I can honestly state that I have come across few more deeply unpleasant and self-serving that the man who led the British Labour Party for some thirteen years.

The old-style Labour movement, despite opposing their strategies, politics and divisive actions for most of my adult life, held a strange fascination for me.  The Labour politicians of my youth had integrity by the bucket-full, the word ‘honesty’ must have been invented to categorise the Labour believers, and; despite being diametrically opposed to the very idea of Socialism, and of course Marxism and Communism, from which most of the Labour Party gained a great deal of their core beliefs and structures, I found that they could be depended upon to follow their words with deeds, and they never disappointed the millions who followed, and believed in them, as both politicians and as men of their word.

Take a close, measured look at the crop which inherited the legacy after the sudden and unfortunate death of John Smith, a man of integrity, of honesty and of truth, and then judge them on their  words and follow their deeds. The age of the ‘spin-doctor’ arrived with their weasel words, their smooth and subtle demolitions of their opponents, both inside as well as outside, their beloved Labour Party. The by-line of the Labour Party morphed from ‘We shall serve the Nation” to ‘Things can only get better’, and if you believed that, you’d believe anything. From the dodgy double dealings of Blair’s sidekick Peter Mandelson, who sold the Hinduja Brothers their British passports for a measly half-million quid each, throught the machinations of Blair and Hain and the travesty of the Belfast Agreement; to the sordid sexual antics of ‘bluff John Prescott’, he of the Deputy Prime Minister’s title and the revolving office door and stained desk. It is true that no-one could aim any sexual innuendo at Blair, but only because his barbed-wire-lipped wife would probably have castrated him if he had ever strayed off the reservation.

His policy of nodding in tune with Bush, whilst valid in the case of a truly criminal bunch in Afghanistan, led us into the catastrophe which was Iraq, and we all know what happened there. His Defence policies, of never planning and providing the right equipment for a war undreamed by the planners, gave rise to a new industry back home in Britain, that of manufacturing and devising hi-tech artificial limbs to replace those blown off by ever-more sophisticated roadside bombs.

The strategies of leaving the migration door wide open has left us with a million-odd strong army of ‘jihadi’ volunteers, as well as the lunacies of the forerunners to the Lisbon Treaty which not only left the doors ever wider, the damn hinges rusted away, as the floods of Polish and hundreds of thousands of all varieties of African, Bandladeshi, Asian and Arabic jetsam washed up on our shores; all of whom were immediately designated ‘asylum seekers’: and we live with the garbage even today, with the recent arrival of the Roma, the Bulgars and the rest of the squalid clowns all eager to demonstrate their ability to sign on for all the welfare available! By the deliberate policies of Blair and his cohorts, the very face of Britain has been visibly altered, and we cannot do anything about it!

After he finally saw the light, and left us with that true no-hoper Gordon Brown, who held the distinction of being disliked by everybody; he swans off around the world, giving lectures and speeches to the faithful, the bankers and the odd dictator or two, and making a fortune estimated in the millions whilst doing so.

Blair labels those British people who voted  or stand for UKIP as unpleasant; but I ask you, has this slippery bastard ever looked in a mirror?

Pandemic: or the art of the Spin-Scientist.

Some time back, British Health officials were warning of the approaching ‘Flu’ Pandemic as though it was a guaranteed certainty that a repeat of the 1918 Spanish Flu outbreak, which itself was a true pandemic, was about to hit Great Britain, and decimate the population. I wrote a couple of posts myself, one perhaps a touch more sarcastic than the other, as I, along with about 99.999% of the British population, was convinced that these officials knew even less than anyone else about the risks from the various strains of Bird flu, or Swine flu, or any other variation; but were talking up the advantages of being inoculated with their ever-so expensive Tamiflu drugs which they had chosen without very many trials, or viewed research, or proven statistically-correct and published trials, to back up their doom-laden words.

So it is not too surprising that the Cochrane Collaboration, a group of independent scientists backed, by the British Medical Journal, have, after years of fighting to gain access to ALL the trial data managed and generated by GlaxoSmithKline and Roche, the pharmaceutical giants, finally published their findings after scrutinising the data files. They have discovered that Tamiflu shortened a bout of Flu by about half-a-day from seven days to 6.3 days, which is, when the cost of the stored Tamiflu, noted to be some £424 millions, bought in a panic by the British Government  when the advisors went shrieking around that the ‘sky was indeed about to fall’, was interpreted by those Cochrane scientists as a sheer waste of money.

But will any government scientist, or indeed politician, accept responsibility for this financial debacle?  You must think I am joking! The graveyards themselves will open up before any of that bunch will even admit that the sun rises in the east, never mind accepting responsibility for the sheer waste of spending half-a-billion pounds on gear which not only didn’t work, the side-effects were down-right dangerous!

Polarisation, either a hero, or a traitor?

When history comes to look at the acts of Edward Snowden, and is able to look dispassionately at the results of his activities, will Snowden be acclaimed as a true hero, with his scattergun broadcasting of NSA secured files and activities as a necessary act to preserve his Nation’s privacy and deter an overweening and autocratic Security bureaucracy, or will he be reviled as a traitor of the worst kind, only secure in his own delusions?

I have my own opinions of that seemingly earnest but arrogant young man, but should we not examine the alternatives available to him had he not stolen the files, sent himself on a trip through Hong Kong and ending up given asylum in what is really his own Country’s worst  enemy, Russia? Once he had determined to extent, the true scope of the NSA’s drive to accumulate both data and metadata by literally trawling through both ISP and Telecom hard- and soft-ware, through illegal taps on fibre-optic hub connectors and by intercommunication with Britain’s GCHQ, how was he to proceed without sacrificing his own personal liberty in the process? Should he have approached his own supervisors or ranking managers within the organisation which controls all of his Nation’s spy satellites and observation arrays? Highly unlikely, as his own security clearance would have disappeared within seconds, and he would most likely have disappeared as well; probably dressed in an orange jump suit on a one-way ticket to ‘Gitmo’.

Should he have approached a newspaper or a journalist, as was told in the Watergate saga, with the ‘Deep Throat’ advice guiding Woodward and Bernstein along that dangerous path which brought down a President? Again, unlikely; as today’s American mainstream media gives Obama, along with his whole Administration, a very easy ride, with mistakes either papered over or sidetracked. We read today of an episode in America’s past, when a set of ordinary people decided to do what Snowden did, and expose, to the public’s gaze, the illegal efforts of the FBI’s top man, J. Edgar Hoover, to surveil and chart the  very movements of black students and activists because they were black, and therefore suspect. The Washington Post’s Betty Medsger charts the progress of these ordinary people who decided to break the law because they were disturbed at the lack of ‘due process’ by the people who were supposed to uphold the Law, as well as that same ‘due process’. The article makes for fascinating reading, as it gives an insight into the minds of the law-breakers, as well as the person who wrote the exposure articles.

Snowden, a young man faced with an appalling dilemma; should he remain silent in the face of huge violations of what he thought his Nation stood for, or should he break silence, and in doing so harm his Nation’s capabilities to detect and deter terrorist plans an actions?

Got to admit, in my own mind; if he has been careful to protect identities, he may have had a point. If he has been cavalier with people’s lives, however; he deserves to rot in a deep, dark cell for a very long time.

 

Late, but still true.

The New York Times has a devastating survey of the lies, the political stupidity, the carnage and the cover-up, from all sides, of the attack on the Americans in Benghazi.

You take a deadly mix of an American diplomat who believes any Arab can be trusted, the usual mix of clever and foolish adherents to the Muslim religion, murderous in intent behind the welcoming smiles, an inept and naive American Administration which doesn’t care how they protect those who serve them, toss in a stupid, silly video which supposedly ‘angered Islam’, and you get the carnage which was Benghazi.

Some time ago, I wrote a book about politics, and one theme was the Arab mindset as opposed to say, a Western mindset.  One very small quotation from that book goes :-

“They hate us because we are free, because we are rich, because we have open government, because we have free speech, because we are not muslim; because we are the unbelievers!

and a car, or indeed anything, from this bunch?

Reasons why the British Public are walking away from Democratic involvement cannot be paraphrased or explained in the written equivalent of a television out-take or radio soundbite, mainly because there are multiple reasons, and they all need to be either catalogued or discussed.

Take, if you would, the two greatest scandals of the last thirty years, in constitutional terms, within the British political system;  the determined and ruthless task, undertaken with hardly a note or instruction being recorded, to alter, by stealth, the very image of British society by huge numbers of immigrants, only some of which came from the EU, where we had limited means of stopping or reducing the flow because of EU legislation; while the vast majority came from one area, namely the whole Indian sub-continent, and more specifically Pakistan, Bangladesh and India itself, backed up by large numbers of Iraqis, Afghanis, Somalis, and all the other cess-pits of the world, whose peoples had been routinely pillaged and robbed of their very birthright by their own corrupt politicians. Labour, because that was the Party who commenced this assault on the very core of our Nation, handed out visas, and then passports, as though the printing presses were due to be smashed, and they had to get the numbers up before the day slated for destruction.

But the problem which those same Labour acolytes conveniently forgot about was the importation, along with the hordes who carried in, of a sinister disease which cannot be detected by a scanner, or indeed x-ray; the name of the disease is of course the Muslim religion, the worship of a God which brooks no alternative, no excuse, you either worship their allah, along with their paeadophile prophet mohammed; or you are killed; simple and as complicated as that!

I am not claiming that all Muslims are terrorists, but the seed is there, and all it takes is a clever intellect, and a fiery tone, and the bombs are being built, and the hatchets are sharpened, before you can dial the Security Directorate; but get the Labour Party apologists to take even a shred of responsibility, and every commentator is named as ‘racist’, when the whole problem is based  around yet another bastardized religion!

The other scandal, and to my mind the more divisive and catastrophic, was the exposure, by the Daily Telegraph, of the criminal activities of somewhere around 95% of the occupants of the House of Commons in the ‘Expenses Exposure’. When the scandal broke, and the true extent of the organised pillaging became known, there was a window for change, but of course the political elite sacrificed a few, organised that many more stepped down, and spun the remainder by the repeated use of my favourite term, ‘But all our actions did not break any rules’, without reminding us that the same scum who were abusing the ‘Rules’ were the ones who had re-written those same ‘Rules’! Wholesale theft and fraud were excused as ‘an unfortunate lapse’, and the victims? Why we, the British nation just sat back, and turned to watching some garbage on the telly!

It is a truth that we get exactly the Government we deserve, and until a leader emerges who can state what should be done, and what will be done to reverse the trend of ‘unnaccountability’ we will continue to see the likes of Blair, and Cameron, sliding ever upwards, greased by their own filth. I have taken a deep interest in local politics recently, asking questions at full Council meetings, which is allowed; but only three queries per session, and ‘no debate allowed’, but at least I get up and ask, and this is what these politicians hate above all, that they have to answer, and there are only so many ways of telling a lie before they get caught out!

A Petition with a difference

I have just logged on to the Government’s e-Petition site, and generated my petition which is shown below, and which should appear in around seven days.

I do hope that this gets some circulation; legs, whatever the term might be, because I feel rather strongly about this particular issue. After all, if even Albania doesn’t want the filthy stuff, why on earth should we give it more that a second’s thought before giving a flat and resounding rejection to this proposal?

We don’t want it, we don’t need it, and we surely have enough problems on this small and crowded country without importing someone else’s problems!

We wish to petition the Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland in protest against the importation of any part whatsoever of the residue, material or structure associated with the disposal of the Chemical Weaponry which is to be made safe from the Syrian State.

If anyone, anywhere else in the world wants to make itself the repository for this deadly material, good luck to them; but it should not be Great Britain, as we already have enough waste products of our own production to be going along with.

The missing headline.

In a review of newspaper headlines this morning, I note the following:-

  • Comments on the alleged shut-down of America; or not, as the case may be
  • The Home Secretary in a row over who said what about some other lying politician who refused to dismount his bike whilst leaving Downing St.
  • Caroline Lucas gets her name up through her ‘fracking’ arrest.
  • Lots of chatter about some weird football game and trophy.
  • More talk about Jimmy Savile, and how he got away with everything.
  • A New Zealand novelist winning a literary prize.
  • Crisis, once more, in the NHS Mental Health services.
  • No strike in Grangemouth, Union backs down!
  • Mark Duggan executed whilst holding gun which strangely enough, subsequently appeared over thirty yards from car.
  • Iran’s nuclear ambitions continue, as do the ‘talks’.
  • Labour Party female MP defends decision to pose topless when 15 years old…”I needed money for some clothes!”

abritsoldier

But strangely enough the number 445 does not feature prominently in most news organisations web screens. Is it an important number? Yes, I believe it is, because it tells the story of how a bunch of weaselling, lying politicians failed our Armed Services in the worst possible way, and how they continue to lie, which is why yet one more British soldier’s blood garnishes the sands and soil of an ungrateful Afghanistan.

My father served in the British Army throughout WW2, as did many thousands more. My uncle died in Northern France days after D-Day, and thousands more Allied troops died after him in the weeks and months that followed. But they, the living and the sadly-dead, fought  in a just cause, to defeat the Nazi war machine of Adolf Hitler. As the late King George VI said in his famous speech on the day war was declared, ‘Such a principle, stripped of all disguise, is surely the mere primitive doctrine that might is right ‘, and the politicians, who guided our Nation and our Armed Forces through the storm to fight against the very nature of the Nazi machine, were worthy of that task.

Compare them with the bunch of weasels in charge now, and then determine if we are still well served!

……..and now questions from the Public.

My political beliefs were shaped, as most of the ‘thinking’ British minority were, by a combination of my parents’ thoughts and beliefs, our own lives and lifestyles when young, my education, both in terms of formal education and the harder terms of life in the real world, as well as exposure to that same wider world. My maternal grandparents were forced to flee from their Northern Ireland home by sectarian bigotry in the early 1920’s; my father was literally shunned by his own Northern Irish farming neighbours because he volunteered to serve in the British Army on the day after War was declared in 1939. My Dad was living in England, and as he said to my own Mother, ‘what sort of a man would not join up to serve and help a Country which had given him a job?’. He was automatically deferred from conscription by virtue of his birth in Northern Ireland, but would not countenance claiming that invulnerability! My father’s politics were Labour to the core, and he just could not understand how any son of his could favour any politics but his own brand, but at least he paid me the rare courtesy of stating that I had thought long and hard about the party and politics which I supported, and while he differed totally from my own beliefs, he recognised that we were alike in some measure.

My politics are right wing, as some, but not all the writers are who post on David’s blogsite espouse, and my own political heroes are well-known. Names such as Margaret Thatcher, Enoch Powell come to mind, as well as a (well-known to some) philosopher, political and economist theorist and Nobel Prize winner called Friedrich Hayek. His writings are dry and dusty, no Tom Clancy here, but  a definitive set of thoughts laid down which, if followed, might lead to a revival of responsible capitalism which would drown, forever, the sluggish gloop of a Socialism espoused and in fact demanded by the likes of Ed Milliband, truly a worthy successor to his Marxist father Ralph.  I have seen the true face of Socialism, and the Communist’s Workers’ Paradise in action, and it was not a pretty sight. Four times we berthed in Constanta, Romania, and every time, we saw the truly downtrodden in action, with the dock-workers treated akin to slave labour, and the only perks going to the privileged few.

I have taken a renewed interest in local politics recently, and after studying in grim and exhaustive detail a series of Council Minutes, Annual Reports and multitudinous documents all filled to bursting point with Diversity, and Equality, and everything short of the old Stalinist five-year-plans; I have unearthed, through my previous knowledge of how business is actually run and written-up, a couple of really doozy questions concerning literally millions of pounds-worth of waste and bad judgement during the bad management of our own local Council, naturally enough Labour-dominated because we still live, despite the passage of many decades, in the old-style ‘Rotten Borough’ where seats are handed down to the chosen few, and votes are weighed, not counted!

So, as I stated, I will ask my questions, and hopefully hear a satisfactory reply or two from either an Executive Officer or a Council Cabinet member, but I am not allowed to ask a further question on that subject, or to debate anything at all, because we might have ‘Democracy’, but not that much.

Meat Market; or just modern bureaucracy?

When one reads of a child’s death at the hands of abusive and murderous ‘parents’, we usually shake our heads in mute incomprehension. I am the father of three adult kids, and within the term ‘father’ is held the truth that I am able to state that I helped bring forth into this world three fairly-well adjusted kids, and through a process of learning, adjustment and advice-osmosis; watched with pride as my two sons and a daughter navigated the pit- and prat-falls of youth to emerge as adults towards whom I can acknowledge with pride as mine own. They had the best of my life’s learning to lean upon, and I just cannot comprehend the grievous injuries inflicted upon defenceless young bodies which were similar in all respects to those three youngsters placed in my care.

When the ‘authorities’ finally take notice of neglect and violence inflicted on a child, the actions are usually the result of a ‘Case Conference’ where all interested parties have a chance to put their views forward, and often as not, the child or children are taken from parents deemed, in the opinion of course of the ‘experts’, as unfit to hold those children within their homes. They are then located with suitable ‘foster homes’, or sometimes group homes and many are placed for adoption.

Some commentators, such as the admirable Christopher Booker, have made their passions a crusade to fight against  the ‘Secret courts’ system, where children are taken at birth from mothers deemed ‘unfit’ on the say-so of social workers whose evidence is never questioned, but taken as gospel.

And where do many of these kids end up? They end up here,  in the forms displayed, as though their parents, many of whom are innocent of all crimes or allegations, can see their kids for one last time before they disappear into the anonymity of court-ordered adoption.

tear down this wall

Ignore, if you will, the unpleasant story which the Guardian reporter is telling; where he, along with the Washington Post, is exposing the huge amount of law-breaking by both the NSA and GCHQ. Ignore, as well, the fact that all this stems from an illegal act by Edward Snowden, when he betrayed the trust given him by ‘whistleblowing’ about the secret courts in the USA which demanded that Internet giants such as Yahoo and Google had no recourse but to supply the spies with their customers information.

Concentrate, instead on the fact of which we know; which is that a Brazilian national, David Miranda, was threatened and bullied, totally illegally, into supplying access passwords for laptop and mobile phones. Threatened with jail if he did not comply! We also know that the top civil servant Sir Jeremy Heywood went to the Guardian to bully them into destroying computer hard drives, under the gaze of shadowy figures from GCHQ.

And we now know that the orders for this totally illegal operation came from David Cameron himself.

and here is the News, read by Alvar Liddell…

Once upon a time, such as during the Second World War years, we might be said to have faith in the News, as broadcast by the BBC. Sixty-eight years later, we know better both for that time, and, unfortunately, for now. Newsworthy items, such as many defeats or setbacks, were routinely embargoed or prohibited from the newspapers or the BBC airwaves, in the spurious belief that, first of all, ‘the Government knows best’; and that news of defeats would support a movement for either surrender; or movement towards neutrality. The sinking of the battleship HMS Barham by a German torpedo was considered to be so internally delicate that news censorship was decreed, and was only lifted some three months after the sinking. The film of the tragedy was only revealed after the end of the war. Helen Duncan’s imprisonment was considered to be a direct result of the Barham’s sinking, as the Government wanted to keep any news of the tragedy under wraps.

So we now turn to today’s news, as published by our very own Goebbels organisation, the BBC Today Programme. We had a turgid piece about the production of a ‘hamburger’ costing around £250,000.00 and made or ‘grown’ from stem cells. Then the usual rubbish about sports, a piece about how a train was late, and a lot of chatter about ‘zero-hour contracts’, and how terrible they are, and how the Tory Government are so awful to allow them. Another episode of the long drawn-out saga of the Catholic Church and the latest scandal of sexual abuse by Benedictine monks in Scotland. Then the triumph of the BBC’s investigative journalists in the discovery that the dead Boston Bomber, the one who was actually killed by his younger brother as he drove over him whilst escaping, had ‘strong links’ to ‘Right Wing American hate sites on the Web’. I presume we were expected to infer from this ‘bombshell’ that the two clowns who killed three and maimed one hell of a lot more that day in Boston were not Muslim Jihadi murderers, but in fact were deeply influenced by the likes of Timothy McVeigh; and of course, by extension of that inference, by the BNP and the EDL.

I have visited the online spoutings of Anders Breivik of Norwegian infamy. Does this make me into a prospect for a mass murder? Of course it does not. I would like to pin a great many politicians to a wall, but I would just imprison them for a long, long time.

 

The BBC: a great successor to the proud traditions of Herr Goebbels, who would be so proud of what they have achieved with his perverted ideals!

Touch Me Not!

Some six years ago, I wrote a piece on the astounding number of ‘Untouchables’, or Dalits, to give them their Indian title, in the country which proudly advertises itself as ‘the largest Democracy in the world’. Largest, it may well be; but Democratic? No Way! Allow me to explain.

India is one of the world’s most heavily-populated countries, being second only to China in numbers, but apart from the well-known political and public figures, there is little awareness amongst the wider public in how India governs itself, both in terms of religion, politics and social structure. The main religion in India is Hinduism, and the social structure which has emerged from this belief structure is the “Caste” system, whereby a religion is allowed to dictate that people are only allowed to do certain jobs, marry certain women, and even are dictated how they are treated after their deaths. For the upper circles, who are known as ‘Brahmin’, the professions are religious priests, political and military leaders; land owners are from the ‘Kshatriya’ caste, the vast majority of laborers, artisans and technicians are ‘Shudra’; but the one “Caste” which is not well publicised or even acknowledged are the “Harijan”, otherwise known as the Dalits, or “Untouchables”. These people, sentenced by, and at birth, to be sewage workers, cleaners of filth and human refuse, number some twenty percent of the population, and in a country which prides itself upon it’s democratic roots and government, it is indeed a strange commentary that one-fifth of it’s population is barred from rising out of the sewers and into everyday life!

Although the actual discriminatory process against the ‘Dalits’ was outlawed by the first Independent Indian parliament, in practice this abuse of their ordinary rights as human beings has persisted, and in many areas grown stronger, as the ruling Hindu parties, whether in or out of power, all subscribe to the casual barring of some 220 million Indians from just about all state higher education, all technical education, most jobs which are not akin to the allegedly “unclean” tasks such as sewage workers or latrine cleaners. In many cafes or restaurants, separate glasses are kept for the Dalits, just in case a ‘higher caste’ person is defiled by contact with a “Dirty Dalit”. One Dalit who managed to attain a higher education was severely beaten by his classmates for daring to achieve a higher marks than they did. A practice for certain ‘higher-caste’ people in earlier times was to actually send servants down a road to ensure that they would not be contaminated by a Dalit’s gaze, never mind his presence.

One of the two most famous ‘Untouchables’ was Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, a mild-mannered but strong opponent of all discrimination, who was elected to the Constituent Assembly by the Bombay Legislature Congress Party. Dr Ambedkar joined Nehru’s Cabinet. He became the First Law Minister of Independent India and helped write India’s Constitution. His one regret was that he did not persuade Ghandi to support stronger anti-discrimination legislation, but his attempts were blocked by strong Hindu opposition. In his later years, he saw that opposition to the emancipation of his fellow ‘Dalits’ become further entrenched, despite the supposed end of discrimination.

The other political firebrand was one Kanshi Ram, who attempted to build his own political power base within the ‘Dalit’ community, and in fact managed to engineer the election of a Dalit woman, Mayawati, as chief minister in Uttar Pradesh, but has since accepted before his death that no one “Untouchable” organization is capable of coming to terms with the aspirations of a quarter-billion people!

So the next tactic of hundreds of thousands of Dalits is to convert to Buddhism; the thinking being that if they are no longer ‘Dalit’ in practice, they cannot be discriminated against, and it would be seen as doubly illegal for any to discriminate against a separate religion. They seem to have struck a nerve, because Hindi political parties in several Indian states are preparing legislation which would prevent any Hindu departing from their religion and accepting another God. Rajahstan and Madyha Pradesh have already introduced civil laws which would prevent any Dalit from leaving Hinduism without registering first with the state government, and Gujarat, a hardline Hindu state, is considering introducing a law which states that Buddhism is a version of Hinduism, so desperate are the traditional Hindu people to keep in servitude millions of their fellow countrymen.

 So here we stand, in the second most populous country on Earth, with the prospect of ‘affirmative action’ as one political solution proposed for all commerce in India, where any factory, office or workshop would have to employ a percentage of ‘Dalits’ in order to comply with the law, when it is almost universally accepted that ’Quotas’ never have, and never will, work. Why ‘affirmative action’? Because it’s a politician’s dream, to lay the burden for their stupidity and cupidity on someone else’s shoulders, because they couldn’t or wouldn’t grasp the thorny problem of stating, “No discrimination based on birth, color, belief or way of life is lawful, and thus shall not be allowed!” That is the solution, but it will be many years before the wider world sees an Indian “Untouchable” as a possible Prime Minister, if ever!

I write and recollect this post because, unknown to myself and probably 99% of the population of Great Britain, this disgusting philosophy is both resident and thriving in our cities and towns. According to an item broadcast at 01.30 minutes into the programme on today’s ‘Sunday’ on BBC Radio 4, the Coalition Government has purposely  delayed even publishing legislation covering ‘Caste Discrimination’ until after the next General Election. There are some one million Hindus resident in Great Britain, and in the past I have commented on the ’fact’ that they seem to have merged into our British society with minimum difficulty, with the sole exception of changing our burial laws to allow their open-air cremations in accord with their own custom and religion. It now has emerged that some 400,000 Indians living in these Islands are discriminated on a daily basis because of their BIRTH,  and hence because of the presumed ‘Caste’ and place in the rigid hierarchy of some weird religious writings, all of which, incidentally, were composed by, guess who? The Brahmins, otherwise known as the very top of the heap, and it is some ‘heap’, in daily Hindi life.

I listened to the weasel words of the Brahmin contributor to that Sunday Programme, and I could not help comparing my thoughts to those of the great Playwright and Author himself, when he wrote, “Firstly, lets kill all the lawyers’” Not, of course, because I wished that man evil, but because he spoke of the ‘great complexity’ of the problem; of the ‘great difficulty’ in removing this disgraceful, lunatic and truly hurtful religious discrimination from a large number of people who are suffering innumerable insults because of who their antecedents were some centuries ago!

‘Nanny State’ = 1984

We are told that one man’s will, and one viewpoint, are to prevail over all the images available to the whole of the United Kingdom. Forget, if you will, the alleged reasons for this draconian ban; because, weasel words aside that is what it will be! I think that the alleged targets of Cameron’s anger and ‘dismay’; namely online child abuse, child pornography and ‘rape sites’ are, collectively, an abhorrent issue, and one which all normal people would recoil from in disgust.

But take, if you will, one step further down the road where, for the ‘best reasons in the world’, either the present slimeball masquerading as our Prime Minister or another from a Party with a great deal more history in authoritative ideas of control and surveillance, namely the Labour Party, takes these steps against freedom of thought. The first step, namely the acceptance of a Diktat, no matter how well-intentioned, has been accepted almost without a murmur. Also remember that this Prime Minister hasn’t been elected by you, the voter. He has firstly been elected by a majority of his Party M.P.s; he had then, because of the lack of a Parliamentary majority, to stitch up a Coalition with the leader of the Lib-Dems, who got to where he was based mainly on viewer perceptions of three political debates on television. During that stitch-up process, he was forced to ditch many policies which formed part of the Tory Party manifesto.

So perhaps now, for whatever reason or circumstance, he decides that all of the United Kingdom will watch, whenever they switch on their computers, a five minute celebratory broadcast of the triumphs of the Tory Party in Government; before being able to surf the Web, check their e-mails, or whatevr else they wish. And he now has the power to do just that. Forget the illusion that we live in a democracy, we don’t! We have literally no ‘say’ in how our taxes are spent, we have no ‘say’ about how the many institutions of Government are run, and we have no idea about how vast amounts of our money are squandered. We live in an age where we either ‘toe the line’ and pay up without a murmur; or a squad of uniformed heavies from the localTSG  branch of our Gestapo comes calling with a warrant for our arrest.

Once any politician grasps the power of deciding what we don’t watch, and more importantly what we do watch, that is the beginning of the long slope towards authoritarian dictatorship; and ‘don’t you worry your tiny little minds’  it is all being introduced for the best possible reasons!

..and the purpose of your visit?

There are many things I could state in reaction to the results of this Demos survey, but I will attempt to keep things on a civil level.

When Trevor Philips, one of the architects of the cuddly multi-culti state of garbage we have been forced to live in states ‘the findings should make us ‘a little anxious’, and were ‘not good news for the cause of integration’; do you agree with him? Or do you ask why we should even consider integrating with a whole bunch of foreigners who definitely do not want to ‘integrate’ with us?

Were we ever, ever asked, as a Nation, whether we wanted to have hundreds of thousands of people who think and behave so differently to ourselves, planted within our town and cities, all in the cause of ‘Diversity’?

It is true that a fair chunk of the newly-arrived are ‘people like us’; such as the Polish migrants, largely Catholic as can be seen from the enlarged congregations in many Catholic churches; and with such as them, I have no problems at all. No problems because all they wish for is a chance to work, to make a better life, to set down roots. But I do have a problem with the vast herds of Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Iraqis and other clumps from the cess-pits of Asia and the Middle East. Why, because they do not wish to assimilate.They do not wish to adopt our ways. They carry with them the seeds of destruction of our very way of life because, deep down, they want to change our nation into a Muslim society.

Consider the results of another survey, one where over 30% of young Muslim respondents accepted the use of murder to further their religious ends to be justified.

The simple truth is that this violence is in their very DNA, in their koranic scriptures; ready to be subverted and used by any messianic mullah with access to a computer and a mosque meeting-room. Take a student, fill his mind with rhetoric, subvert the very teachings of his prophet towards a hatred of the people who have welcomed him in to their very homes and hearths; and what do you get?

Tamerlan Tsarnaev!

The empty benches!

Watching the tributes spoken within the Palace of Westminster as they were broadcast, the truths about the Labour Party, its whole approach to present history, its truly appalling attitude towards the late Lady Thatcher were laid bare. Over half of this collective group of time-serving slime couldn’t even abandon their vitriolic hatred of this dominant personality to the extent of turning up for the tribute she so rightly deserved; so that the empty green leather benches showed their disrespect for a Lady who had adorned to such purpose the same House which they did not enter today.

We watched with disgust as the morons danced drunkenly in celebration on the streets of Brixton and Glasgow yesterday, so typical of a belief system which defies all polite thinking when opposed by anyone who knew that they were wrong both in actions and beliefs. There may have been silence on the Opposition benches because the Labour MPs were absent, but that very silence was so noisy that it reverberated around the whole House. The small minds which represent so many Labour constituencies, by their absence, showed more about the fractious nature of these clowns than any acid speech which they may have spoken during this Tribute.

We were well served by the Lady during her time in office, just as we were betrayed by the jackals who attacked her and brought her down and voted against her in her own Party. Those same jackals whose voices are echoed by her enemies in the BBC, who of course consistently refer to this amazing Lady as being ‘divisive’. Rich indeed, those words coming from an organisation whose very Charter requires independence of thought; but that very independence is shaded and ignored as shown by the total lack of right-wing opinion and voice. They all seem to forget that to be ‘divisive’ requires two parties, and both parties should be heard from.

Lady Thatcher was that rare thing, a politician who believed that Her Country should be shown and led on the correct path, and all programmes, projects and policies should lead towards a better life for all of the inhabitants. She knew what she wanted; yes, she made mistakes both in policy and politics, but she made more progress towards the real freedoms than any of her predecessors or the inheritors of her Office.

Publish, and be Damned

I want to write about a man. A famous man. Alternatively, an infamous man. His name was Daniel Ellsberg, and he was the single source for the greatest story about lies, compounded felonies, corruption and treason this world has ever known about. But it is not the story, not the lies or the alleged treason, it is about the Law of a Nation; it is about the freedom of the Press; it is about courageous men and women who decided that ‘enough is enough’, that the phrase ‘publish and be damned’ was an American Institution.

Ellsberg was an American ‘Hawk’ as far as Vietnam was concerned, but in his job as an analyst for the Rand Corporation, in a huge military ‘think-tank’ with global reach and influence; he kept getting confused signals in regard to one statistic, which was ‘the body count’. The bodies counted, all of which were supposed to be dead Viet Cong, were a vital part of the American Military’s strategy to convince their ultimate pay-masters, the American people; that America was winning the war. Some say that the whole science of statistics is based on a computation of lies, and Ellsberg, unused to being puzzled, determined that the only way to figure out truth from fiction was to go to the battlefields of Vietnam, where Americans and, hopefully, the Viet Cong, were being killed. He stayed for over six months, being one of the very few ‘observers’ who actually did some observing, and came back to America convinced that America should never have entered the war on the side of the since-deposed and assassinated President Diem. But the trouble was he still believed that, although America was wrong to back a dictator, he also believed that America could ‘win’ this dirty, bloody war which was chopping Americans into bloody garbage which could only be transported back home in waterproof body-bags.

Then came the great revelation. He had heard through the Rand’s grapevine that there was a super-secret study, of America’s historical intent and involvement in the Far East, in existence, and discovers that his research and writing had been part of this document. Ellsberg persuaded his boss that he should be able to read the complete document, so as to study and best advise Rand, and thence the White House, regarding future strategic policies in the Vietnam area, and is amazed to learn that all 47 volumes, some 7,000 pages,are now stacked on his desktop. The only security requirement is that all the documents be secured in a high-security safe each night. He reads all through the ‘Pentagon Papers’ and discovers to his horror that the American people have been systematically lied to since 1945 by all the Presidents and Administrations, from Roosevelt & Truman onwards, through Eisenhower, Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson; regarding America’s intent, involvement and strategy in the Far East. In amongst the many hardly-believable sections of this massive document, comes the facts that Ho Chi Minh wrote some 15 letters to President Truman,simply stating that the Vietnamese simply wanted what had been agreed in the famous Atlantic Charter between Roosevelt and Churchill. That all peoples ruled by foreign powers should be free. The Vietnamese simply asked that Truman live up to those words, and help get the French, the Colonial Power before WW2, out of Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh was ignored, commenced guerilla warfare against the French, and the rest is history.

So after trying the legal route, which was attempting to discuss or broadcast the existence of the ‘Papers’ with everyone from Senator Fullbright, Foreign Relations Committee Chairman downwards, he embarked upon the perilous course of copying all 7,000-odd pages, collating and storing the copies of something which, if broadcast, could and would be regarded as treason; for the very simple reason that if he did not do this act, he would really be committing treason.

We all know the happenings which followed the publication of the Pentagon Papers by firstly the New York Times, and then the Washington Post. We know the treacherous behaviour of President Nixon’s staff, firstly to attempt to bar the publication of those damning documents by the ‘Times’ and then the ‘Post’, and when that track failed at the Supreme Court, they attempted to blacken Ellsberg’s character through knowledge gleaned from transcripts stolen from Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office during a break-in. Unfortunately for Nixon and his team, the bunch who stole Ellsberg’s papers also attempted to ‘bug’ the offices of the Democratic Party in the Watergate complex; the judge deemed Ellsberg’s basic rights had been fatally injured by the prosecution’s use of illegally-obtained personal documents, and all charges were dismissed.

The real reasons for this writing should now of course be obvious. Knowledge of activities which had never been declared to either the American people nor their elected representatives, and publication of those activities was not deemed to be an unlawful activity. This was stated to be part of the Constitution upon which the United States was formed, and ‘Freedom of the Press’ was confirmed as overriding any call for the truth, or indeed any part of that truth, to be either silenced or muzzled in any manner whatsoever.

 

Now transfer your minds across that same Atlantic which was named in the Charter, insert the words ‘Leveson Inquiry’, and see where you are lead!

When ‘red line’ doesn’t come from a rev. counter

When will Western politicians even begin to understand that they do not know ANYTHING about Middle Eastern politics, religion, tribal loyalties or any thought which expresses an ideal that ‘if only we can kill a few of the bad guys, all will be well’? We read, week after week, and ramping up to daily briefings from ‘connected observers’ that the US, France, the UK and other ‘friendly’ Governments are drawing ‘red lines’ in the sand. These so-called ‘red lines’ are based around the possible use of chemical weaponry by the Assad government against the rebellious bunch who loosely fight under the title of the ‘Free Syria’ movement. Not much of the UN mentioned around those ‘red line’ ideas, but, since China and Russia still wield a veto, the rest of the Security Council knows only too well that their opponents have learned to read.

Someone must explain, using cards and symbols if necessary, what the difference is between dying from a tank shell, or a mortar shell, or a cluster bomb, or a pre-laid roadside bomb; and a death by means of a nerve gas, a chemical spray or a contaminated water supply? There are no degrees of death, you are either alive, or you are dead, so what is the difference?

We are now watching as Obama, pushed no doubt by his military, starts thinking along the lines of ‘surgical strikes’ and ‘contained out-reach’, along with all the other bullshit phrases so beloved of the ‘Liberal Elite’ who see something nasty happening half a world away, and demand that ‘something should be done’. Our own clown prince Prime Minister of course is repeating the same slogans, warning one set of murderous fools against killing another set of murdering idiots, all the while continuing to downgrade our own military machine which of course he wants to use to kill one or other of the aforementioned fools if they don’t behave.

MY six-pennorth? Stand well back, and let them all kill each other; lending a hand only to aid the one Country, Israel: which just wishes to be left in peace, but, because of the internecine politics and hatreds of the whole region, is set up as a target once the next set of wild-eyed radicals gains power in that whole blood-soaked area!

So, am I offered Thirty-One?

One of the best definitions of Government is a body or group which dedicates itself to the defence of the Nation-State. In these troubled times, we hold a small standing Army, a very-much reduced Navy and a Royal Air Force which must be checked under a microscope to find its component parts. These three arms of the Services have been treated savagely by Labour, and much the same by the Conservatives; both in terms of funding of manpower and equipment, as well as in direction. We are an Island Nation. We depend upon free passage for our imports, as well as the ever-diminishing flow of exports from our harbours and ports. We have surrendered much of our Sovereignty to foreigners, and we, or rather the various bunches of lying thieves and vagabonds masquerading as politicians have not only decimated our capability to defend ourselves, they have arranged things so that those decimations are permanent.

One of the driving forces behind a good defence structure is the ability to provide fuel for your aircraft, for your ships; and of course for the various methods of transporting large numbers of soldiers into harms way, if that is what is deemed necessary. To depend upon others, to allow your very power and motive infrastructure to be controlled by someone other than a sworn officer, is to accept that your very core is capable of being compromised. If you cannot refuel your aircraft, if you cannot run your trucks, tanks or mobile artillery, if you cannot be certain that your warships can be refuelled ahead of all others in a queue; you have arranged for surrender without the purchase of a white flag.

So one can understand why the bunch of lying thieves who masquerade under the title of the Coalition Government have slipped out, well-hidden in the fairly small print of the Energy Bill, itself further evidence of that  sheer lunacy known as the Climate Change Act, the most expensive piece of legislation probably introduced in this country since the Welfare State; the proposed sale of the only hardware specifically designed to keep safe the means of refuelling all our Armed Forces , safe as in protected by both guns as well as Statute. The ConDoms are proposing to sell off the Ministry of Defence (MOD) held asset that supplies aviation fuel to military airbases in the UK, as well as a number of civilian airports.

This asset, known as the the Government Pipeline and Storage System (GPSS) was established to provide a secure oil distribution network for the United Kingdom at the beginning of World War Two in 1939. Over many years the pipeline route has been extended and amended until it now covers approximately 2,500 km of pipe and associated storage depots, pumping stations and other sites. The GPSS distributes about 40 per cent of the aviation fuel within the UK and is used to supply important commercial airports such as Heathrow and Gatwick, along with Royal Air Force (RAF) and United States Air Force bases in England and Scotland.

One presumes the price will be slightly in excess of the statutory Thirty Pieces of Silver, but not by much!

Tell it like it is.

I am a member of the Tell the Telegraph community, and I thought I would copy my response to a panel query on when a poppy symbol should appear on the website:-

The topic under debate is one of when the Royal British Legion Poppy symbol should be shown on the Telegraph masthead. Surely the more appropriate debate should be centred around the tragic loss of lives in that dusty hell-hole commonly known as Afghanistan; and perhaps more importantly a discussion of the possible fate of all the politicians who sent, and continue to send, British Services personnel into harms way in order to establish a ‘Democratic State’ in Afghanistan.

The other ‘purpose’ of this multi-billion pound endeavour is alleged to be ‘keeping us safer here at home’ because of the sacrifices of those bright shining spirits in the drug- and blood-soaked sands of Afghanistan. The sheer lunacy of even believing in the very idea of a ‘democratic Government’ in Afghanistan should give all sensible people a pause for thought.

We tried it, to govern Afghanistan that is, over a century ago, and we eventually scurried out over the bodies of the sixteen-odd thousand British members of the column from Jalalabad. We went in again, time after time, to prevent influence from France, from Russia, and it got us absolutely nowhere.

We should have taken to heart the warning of the latest Russian occupation which was to support their Afghan proxy, an occupation which was total, brutal and unswerving, but which eventually came to nothing after the Mujahideen gained superiority through the advent of the Stinger missile supplied by America. Was the NATO-led invasion justified after 9/11? Most certainly yes, but instead of ‘nation-building’ by force, which has ever been a fruitless exercise wherever it been tried, we should have handed over to the Afghanis, told then that the next time the West would be coming, we would be coming to make their ‘country’ a smoking radio-active car-park, and to mind their manners; and then left.

Western politicians have yet to learn that you cannot make a Nation out of ten thousand villages, soaked in the beliefs of muslim autocracy. But we saw Bush, and Blair, and all the other guilty parties, including the fool John Reid, with his forever-remembered ‘British Forces could leave Afghanistan without a shot being fired’, prate, and parade, and posture.

We saw them line up beside the Cenotaph, with their wreaths of poppies, while not understanding that what they had signed the British Army up to achieve was just unachievable. And let us not forget that none of these posturing, primping princes of political thought have ever served one single day in uniform, of any colour or rank, at all.

We do not retain, in Britain, the ability to legally kill someone who has committed treason, but I for one would sign any petition to restore such a power, and then the first ones to be tried would be every politician, of any Party, who has expressed the slightest desire to extend, for one second, our presence in the corrupt stagnant pool of drugs, grand-scale larceny and murder which is the alleged country named Afghanistan.