A political advert that speaks to the UK mindset

I have often compared Labour voters, up here in the former industrial heartland of England, to a bunch of sheep; but that is, truly, an injustice to the average sheep. Those Labour loyalists will vote for any nonentity, jobsworth or inheritor of a seat (council or Westminster) on the Buggins-turn basis, as long as they tie the Labour rosette around their fat necks, and pledge loyalty to the latest Labour nonentity who gets, or buys, sufficient Union votes to become Labour leader. The Lib-Dims are just as bad; those of a Tory persuasion are not visible, mainly from a self-preservation basis.

I received the first of the innumerable Election leaflets, promising roses, sunny days and everyone will be happy: if only we would vote Labour. And, folks, the worst part of that leaflet is that the sheep will believe it, and accept every word as Gospel!

But I saw yesterday the first really truthful campaign advert of this Election campaign, and although I may not vote for a UKIP candidate as I usually just spoil my vote out of sheer disgust at the choices available: based on the thinking behind this advert, I may well change my mind.


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.


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!

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.


and here is the news, from the BBC; as we see it.

We were once more regaled this morning on the BBC Today programme with the dark and dangerous stories emanating from the Syrian War, with reports from the ‘rebel’ side of the battleground which the city of Aleppo has become. The BBC reporter described the horrendous effects of the Assad forces weaponry which has been cosily christened the ‘barrel bomb’ which is either an oil drum dropped from a helicopter, which is stocked with home-made explosives and the regulation shrapnel, designed specifically to rend and tear human flesh, or a reinforced gas container, stuffed with the same explosive mix, plus detonator of course; the explosive force generated when detonated would of course shatter the steel containment shell, producing even better shards of shrapnel to injure or kill, well, anybody in its explosive path. The reporter described the areas he was standing in as a war-zone beyond imagination, blaming all this destruction on the Syrian dictator, as well as his Russian-supported military, alongside the really efficient murderers of Hezbollah, whose intervention helped save Assad’s forces from defeat in the Lebanese border towns. Everything which had happened to this once-bustling city was ascribed to the Government’s forces, but there was the routine disclaimer that ’rebel’ forces had also conducted killings of civilians.

All the froth, all the verbal fury, was there for one purpose and one only; to remind us all of our disgraceful (in the BBC’s eyes of course) decision not to join in Obama’s proposed war against the ‘red lines’ of Syrian use of chemical weaponry. To remind us that all these people were dying, or suffering, because we, as a Nation, had not stepped forward when the clarion call came to once more send our Armed forces into harm’s way, to remove this upstart dictator who was punishing the people who had rebelled against his rule! To remind us that it still was not too late to send our soldiers, along with what missiles we still have access to, into yet another sandy deathtrap where we would never, ever, be even able to make one iota of difference.

I think the sad situation in that nation, where the only problems used to arise when Assad wished to reinforce his friends in Hezbollah’s Lebanese camps with Iranian rocketry to be used against Israel; can best be described as one where we in the West have no dog in that fight; where it would be best left if the combatants, with Assad’s Russian-supplied forces did battle against the Jihadi-bent terror gangs who are all fighting with treasure sent from the Saudis and Qataris, and they can fight on, and kill each other, until they grow tired of the bloodshed, and just stop.

As a footnote to my words, and as a further judgement on the stealthy philosophies of the Beeb, I would ask just a few pointed questions for you to ponder:-

  • When was the last time the BBC told of the terrible starvation and suffering of the North Korean people, and asked what Britain should do about it?
  • When was the last time that the savage torment placed upon the Zimbabwean people by the geriatric dictator Mugabe, along of course with his Zanu-PF thugs, was even discussed on the BBC airwaves?
  • When was the decision by the Botswana Government not to stop the forced removal of the Kalahari Bushmen to the resettlement camps, so that diamond mining can carry on without these pesky Bushmen wanting a major share of the profits; ever criticised on the BBC?
  • When was the fate of the people who once lived quite happily upon the island of Diego Garcia in the Chagos Archipelago, but forcibly removed by British government agents so that the whole island chain could be leased very profitably to America as a base for carriers, submarines and equipment ships, ever taken up, or even championed by a supine BBC?

No, she should not have gone!

Strangely enough, I do not believe that Maria Miller should have resigned. Most of the hue and cry which has pursued this lying, thieving and mendacious woman is based upon two inaccuracies.

The first is the simple fact that her thieving and lying behaviour was based upon rules of behaviour which have been replaced by much sterner equivalents. What she did was no more and no less than some 400 other MPs did before the eruption following the Telegraph’s expenses campaign. Where this thieving bitch went wrong was attempting to browbeat the Parliamentary Commissioner into either dropping or altering the terms of her investigation; and also attempting to place a block on the Telegraph reporter’s legitimate investigation by getting her advisor to quote Miller’s position as a Minister responsible for Press Regulation, to harass or bully the newspaper into dropping the investigation.

The second inaccuracy is of course that Miller was just doing her job by piloting through Parliament the disgusting and disgraceful Cameron-inspired Homosexual Marriage Act’s debasement of Marriage, and also controlling and pushing for the Leveson Royal Charter against Press Freedom; which pales into insignificance beside the fact that this Government, and the Labour bunch before it has given into Terrorism’s demands so that our own Queen Elizabeth was forced to accept into her presence one of the main leaders of SinnFeinIRA when Martin McGuiness sat down as a guest at Windsor Castle. A man who undoubtedly knew of the planned terror murder of her own dear Uncle, and the murder of well over two thousand other British subjects. So if he and his ilk can sit at Stormont and eat their fill at Windsor with Her Majesty, why should Miller have been eventually forced to fall on her sword to protect the Prime Minister, who was about to receive an almighty shellacking during Questions to the Prime Minister early this afternoon.

Abide with me; and repeat!

2008_0311floor2de0009As I write these words, I have only to glance sideways at the framed photos of my three grandsons which adorn and decorate my sideboard and mantelpiece, and to reflect upon my own, as well as my wife and my sons’, good fortune.

I have often observed that there are no new ‘news’ items, but the same ones repeated many, many, times; withg only the date and the names changing. When my mate David wrote of the incineration of aborted babies in hospital furnaces, I was busy with other ideas, but have found the time to reflect upon this strange and savage disgrace.

Apart from the natural revulsion expressed by many, these ‘burnings’ are of course against any guidance given by, amongst others, the Royal College of Nursing’s Guidance on theSensitive Disposal of all Foetal Remains; especially in view of the quotation which states, “on the potential to develop into a human being; the foetus  is entitled to respect;”, and I was reminded of the post I made here a while back on the saddest space I have ever seen.

A strange yet telling silence from just about all the political punditry is evident on this story, with the sole exception of Labour M.P.  Jim Dobbin, who expressed his disgust when he said:- “This callous disregard for young humans is the fruit of 50 years of legal abortion in the UK”. and “And it is no use pro-choice people wringing their hands about treating unborn babies as clinical waste when it is their relentless dehumanisation of unborn life that has led us to this point.”

As can be seen by the statistics for 2012, some 185,122 abortions were performed in Great Britain, ( but not of course in Northern Ireland, which sends all its butchered babies to the Mainland, as the Province has apparently moral scruples about legal murder in its hospitals, but not elsewhere) in a ghastly clinically-cleansed routine which is mirrored only by the published statistics of establshments with names such as Bergen-Belsen and Auschwitz.

Many might state that I should never equate legal abortions with even the shades of the Holocaust, but, I ask sincerely, what else did you expect? When the so-called grounds for abortion are so wide that you could drive a Caterpillar tractor straight through the middle. I have maybe written before of my own view that abortion should be the personal path of the woman involved, but the sheer laxity of the law allows virtual ‘abortion on demand’, and when a muslim Pakistani or Bangladeshi woman demands that her pregnancy be terminated because the child would be a girl, and so much less desirable than a boy within their humourless ‘culture’; the medical people cannot refuse, because if they do, they will be accused of ‘racism’ faster than a scalpel hits the ground. The same applies to the majority seeking abortion, or to use the ‘correct’ terminology, a ‘termination’; those of course being white and British. Whatever the reasons, they are all allowed, I mean; have you ever read of an abortion being refused? That folks is what the Law has become; access to an inconvenience removal service!

And you voted for these people; you knew that this would happen, and yet no-one stood against the flow, and said “Enough”, so you should be content with the resultant increase in hospital central heating fuel usage!

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.


Florence used by the Machine

The Prime Minister has sent out his official Christmas card, and how charming it is. It shows him and Samantha with their adorably pretty three-year-old daughter Florence Rose Endellion Cameron. You can see she’s pretty because her face is not pixelated. Let me explain. DowningStreet has sent out ferocious letters to newspaper editors explaining that photos of Mr Cameron’s children must on no account be published unless their faces are pixelated. In the same breath, however, it invites the media to reproduce Florence’s face prominently – in a Christmas card photo that bears no sign of photoshopping at all. Well, unless you count the suspicious disappearance of one of Dave’s chins, but I could be wrong about that.


Using an innocent child for political ends…..Yes, he really is a true Leader.


Do you remember?

Where were you, or rather were you even alive, on the day Kennedy was shot? I was  home on leave from Merchant Navy service, seated on a bus travelling back to my home, when a mate of mine spotted me, sat down and told me of the news. It seems to me that this one question, tells us more about how the world, and the people, have altered perceptions, and changed viewpoints than any other political event in the last one hundred tears.

Imagine, if the Internet, and citizen bloggers, and 24/7 news cycles, had existed on that sunny day when John Kennedy sat down in that motorcade which slowly wound its way through downtown Dallas.

It is indeed, more likely than not that LBJ would have been seated in that limousine, as the word, and fact, of Kennedy’s many flaws would have already driven him from office; either through resignation, or impeachment. Can you even imagine of the furore which would erupt if the news cycle was able to grab and run with stories of the American President having multiple sexual liaisons whilst his wife was in the White House caring for their youngest child? Can you even contemplate the size of the headlines when the assassination attempts on Castro were uncovered? Or the plots to overthrow the South Vietnamese President? Can you imagine the blog pages when Monroe serenaded Kennedy in public? All those huge problems would have been uncovered within hours of happening, because today, no-one gets away with much, except maybe bogus asylum-seekers and killers in Britain, and of course the SinnFeinIRA murderers in Stormont.

Camelot was always a straw building, and Kennedy was not even a very good politician, never mind President. He was a reluctant convert to the civil rights movement, and just about the only thing he got right was to stand firm against Kruschev over Cuba and the missiles, and even then Kennedy benefited from the spy Oleg Penkovsky’s advice on Soviet intentions. A pity that Penkovsky was later arrested and burnt alive after being betrayed by an American KGB mole.

So where indeed were you on the day that Kennedy was shot? Does it matter if there was a conspiracy? Why did Jack Ruby gun Lee Harvey down? Who indeed was on that Grassy Knoll? Who, if indeed anyone, really cares?

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!”


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.

‘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!

The BBC, otherwise known as ‘No right-wing views here; please!

When we read or hear something broadcast especially when it is in a  political context; from a National broadcaster such as the BBC, the ‘more alert’ amongst us have to bring into use (in computer and phone parlance) an App. In a thousandth of a second, we have to a) remember who is talking, then remember b) what they have said in the past, then we have to c) decide if their built-in left-wing and liberal bias is firing at full blast, then d) decipher the news and determine how to approach the item to determine what has actually happened. If I were such a composer, I would name this App. as ‘The Searching the Haystack Syndrome’.

I write on this well-known problem mainly because it should be both well-known and acknowledged, but somehow is not. The BBC seems to bask in the glow created during its formative years, which was reinforced by its operations during the Second World War; and the manner in which its World Service broadcast arm seems to have avoided the dreary group-think adopted by just about all of its national and local broadcast stations. I think the problem is best described by an interview between a mildly right-wing commentator and members of the BBC journalism staff. They interviewed him, and seemed (to the interviewee) to be satisfied with the recorded clip, but it was never broadcast. When asked why the clip was silenced, the communal reply was that although the man was perfectly polite and sincere, he was also quite obviously mad for holding and propagating the views he held so steadfastly!

As background to that which I am about to write, we must examine the reasons behind the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Egyptian President. For many centuries, Egypt has been a country with a Muslim tradition, but one lightly applied. Orthodox and Coptic Catholics have lived and thrived, there has been no tradition of Theocracy, or religious rule; the mullahs have had their place, but have never been allowed to interfere with how the Nation is run, as it should be. But ex-President Morsi intended to grab even more power than that handed to him through the electoral process, and once he commenced meetings with Iran’s swivel-eyed leadership, and installed former terrorists as Provincial Governors; and pushing for ever-more Islamic rule and diktat, the People, in their tens of millions, said ‘Enough is enough’. Fortunately, the military were and had been listening, organised their ranks against their old foe, and kicked him out.

When Jim Naughtie of the BBC’s Today Programme was broadcasting this morning on his travels through Cairo, and of the Egyptians whom he met and spoke with, he told of a man who approached his car and attempted to sell him a photocard featuring General Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, the leading general and author of the military take-over. Jim Naughtie did not say how he turned down the offer of the photograph, but left the listener in no doubt as to his (Naughtie’s) opinion of that courageous military soldier who had acted in Egypt’s best interests. At every opportunity, we are reminded by all the BBC’s reporters and commentators, that Morsi had been ‘elected’ and as such should have been regarded as akin to a minor god, instead of the scheming and obdurate political and religious cynic he so obviously was.

To give you further insight into the very way this influential broadcaster’s mind works, I recall he was doing a small clip with a Scotswoman who was retailing how she had trapped and despatched some small rodents. When she told him she had killed around twenty, his reply was a shocked “but thats murder!”

My Lords, etc., etc.,……………

When I was a much younger man, the House of Lords’ membership was that of hereditary peers. Their birth denoted their ability to walk into and work in that august Chamber, but at the same time, there were many remarkable minds voting and advising within the Lords. Then came the legislation which allowed the ennoblement of people who had served their country well, and they emerged as Life Peers. The theory was that Britain had the best deal because the new Peers would be scientists, engineers, academics, but nothing is ever clear or perfect, especially within the murky world of politics.

After the gerrymandering of the Labour Government years, when the hereditary element was virtually cut to a tenth of its previous number, the Life Peers were almost exclusively appointed for political means. Otherwise, how can the ennoblement of complete non-entities such as Floella Benjamin, a t.v presenter; John Prescott, universally acknowledged as the worst disaster to hit Westminster; as well as Baroness Uddin, who was forced to repay £125,000 she had fraudulently claimed as expenses: along with many, many others of equally bland or sordid pasts be explained? The Lords has become the second home of failed or useless politicians, from all three parties. And it is a truth that they, these hacks, these useless appendages who think so highly of themselves, believe that they deserve to be ennobled, and to sit in that once great Chamber and deliberate upon what Law is left to oppress us as a Nation.

As a typical example of this brand of complete failure, I present Anne Widdecombe, formerly of the House of Commons and ‘Strictly Dancing’, naturally. She was quoted as stating ‘she was a natural candidate, but Cameron vetoed me because of my support for hunting’. She ‘expected to become a member of the House of Lords because ‘thats the way it works’. I used to have some time for Anne, mainly because she spoke her mind in the House of Commons, but I see she  has joined on to the pile of lepers waiting for preferment, in the belief she deserves it. Just a little bit sad.

Its a long way from ‘excellence in thought and deed’ to ‘its my turn now’! I would remind all  readers that these people determine our Law, ands we should be proud of our representattves. Can anyone, these days, claim to be proud of the House of Lords?

avowal, consent, token, word of honour

When I married my wife, some forty-six years ago, we married in Church. We married by exchanging vows before the symbols of God. Over our heads was an invisible sign which stated “Be still, and know that I am God”. We promised to love and honour each other all the days of our lives, until ‘Death do us part’. Implicit in this ceremony was to acknowledge the fact that we would be having a family, because marriage and the conception of children have been inextricably linked, both in and out of religious belief, for almost three millennia; from the earliest days of what has become to be known as civilized society. I do not look upon the past nearly half-century as anything other than a testament to my own good fortune, in meeting, courting and finally persuading my wife that we should marry. I knew, approximately ten seconds after we first met, that she was the one for me; and the delay in our marriage of nearly two years was mainly due to the fact that I left England to join my last ship for a thirteen-month trip some four weeks after we first met. We have seen great happiness, and also great sadness in the long years together, but my view is simple; we made a promise together, and I would be a poor imitation of a man if I ever broke that promise. 

So don’t ever let a set of mealy-mouthed politicians, who have joined with another, and larger set of scheming liberals and socialists equate the joy, the wonder, the sadness, the happiness and the hope of my marriage, along with millions of similar marriages; to the ‘union’ between two mincing queers as the same thing: because it is not, will not, and cannot be anything but a pale imitation of our promise that day, in that church; some forty-six years ago

Your voice…. Your vote

As we approach the day when we, as the people who are supposed to count; supposed to have been consulted; and supposed to be satisfied with the results of previous endeavours; finally have to chance to actually VOTE,  just pause for a second and ask yourself if you are indeed content with the ‘status quo’ of Local and indeed National Politics over the past few decades?

Because of decisions taken by a very few, we no longer hold control over much of our local assets, over how they are handled, or indeed mis-handled. We have seen large swathes of matters which used to be held under local control grabbed by Central Government; and indeed much of our Sovereign identity handed over to a bunch of bureaucrats in Brussels without so much as a murmur raised at the wholesale looting of the public purse which has been the result. One glaring example of the ‘Looting’ was seen as it emerged that my uncle died in Normandy, and my father served throughout 1939-45 whilst Great Britain, alongside its Allies, were fighting the European Civil War.

So go to the Council Election Polls tomorrow, and vote; but think well before casting that precious token. I would not dream of attempting to tell anyone how to vote, but just take a wry look back, and then attempt to reassure yourself that your vote has been well spent in years gone by. I shall be voting tomorrow, but not one of the candidates who stand behind any of the three main Parties’ banners shall get my vote. I shall be voting for any candidate brave enough to hold to an ‘Independent’ banner. We do not have a UKIP candidate in our local constituency, so the Independent Candidate shall get my vote.

But whether you take my advice, or listen to your own mind and experience, it does not matter which: as long as you go and vote, that is what men have fought, bled and died for; so that you can tread the boards into the booth, and choose!

“We who are living in the west today are fortunate. Freedom has been bequeathed to us. We have not had to carve it out of nothing; we have not had to pay for it with our lives. But it would be a grave mistake to think that freedom requires nothing of us. Each of us has to earn freedom anew in order to possess it. We do so not just for our own sake, but for the sake of our children, so that they may build a better future that will sustain over the world the responsibilities and blessings of freedom.”

Margaret Thatcher.

A final word, perhaps.

Taking full advantage, as one does, of modern technology I recorded the whole broadcast of the Baroness Thatcher funeral for two reasons; I was unable to be home for the first sector, and I wished a permanent reminder of the ceremony afforded my long-time political heroine. We are not often able to claim that we lived through a defining change in the history of this Nation of ours, but with those eleven years in which she bestrode the Westminster and indeed the World stages, I reckon that it is indeed a justified claim. She was a strange mix; a scientist, a deeply religious person, heavily involved in politics from a comparatively early age; and of course the largest handicap of all, for most people who have been involved in either local or national politics: she was, obviously, a woman.

Many people danced and sang as she was slowly carried onwards to Wren’s masterpiece for a final farewell, and they expressed hatred for both the woman and her politics, and I regard them with a quiet pity, mainly because it is obvious; to myself at least, that they refuse to simply take one step back, and view her policies, politics, actions and beliefs with a dispassionate gaze.

Yes, her economic policies and ‘who governs’ approach to the stranglehold held on the British economy by the Unions generated massive antipathy, but she was supported in her endeavours by the ordinary working-class voters who saw, in her and her approach to the ‘British disease’, possibly the only saviour of a once-proud Nation slowly sinking into decay. Remember, she won three General Elections in a row after winning the Tory leadership from a moribund crew of no-hopers who had not an original idea between them.

When she was told of the invasion of the Falkland Islands by the Argentinian General’s forces, her immediate response; after ensuring that the Armed Forces were ready and available, was to order a Taskforce south to re-establish the right of the Falklanders to choose their own Government; nothing more and nothing less. The rights of that issue can be tested by viewing the results of an Island-wide Referendum held on March 10-11 this year, where the replies were an overwhelming 99.8% in favour of remaining a British Overseas Territory.

In the decade of Thatcher’s domination of British politics, she oversaw changes to many things which we, today, consider normality. Imagine a country where, if you wanted a telephone with a private line, you went on a six-month waiting list; and if you simply agreed to a ‘party’ or shared line, you maybe got a phone after three months. Imagine a country where the majority of the trucks and cars were built by a State-run organisation; and most products were so badly made that the call went out, ‘please ensure my car is made on a Wednesday’. Also imagine a car industry virtually run by its Unions, with feather-bedding rampant, quality control non-existent, management useless; and where a delivery date was routinely scheduled ‘give-or-take a month’, due to the strikes which were routinely scheduled. Imagine a shipbuilding industry where the agreement and presence of eight different types of artisans had to be arranged before a single weld, hole or bolt could be made, burnt or tightened; and where a six-week strike was called over a disagreement as to which type of artisan plucked the string of a chalk line marking a steel plate.

We have maybe lost some of the fires which were lit in the heady days of Thatcherism, but we are considerably free-er in a thousand different ways. The world is different because of Baroness Thatcher, and we should be proud of her achievements. As I have noted before, she was not perfect; with her negotiations which became the Anglo-Irish Treaty, she began the disgraceful process which resulted in murderers and their lackeys sitting in Stormont; she pushed through acceptance of the Single European Act without understanding the implications of that devious document, which resulted in the various Treaties which have removed so much of our National Sovereignty  and handed to Brussels, but as a Leader, as a Conviction Politician and a Prime Minister, she was, simply, without peer!

Ah-hh-hhh; the price of everything, and the value of nothing!

I want to echo the rising chorus of complaint regarding the cost of the funeral of the late Baroness Thatcher. I think that, in these days of austerity, of cutting costs, of reducing deficits; of slashing Welfare benefits to the needy, the deprived, the disabled: to spend an estimated £10 millions of public money on the funeral of this ‘divisive politician’ was appalling.

Some claim that to spend such an amount of cash on the Security, the gathering of members of the Armed forces, the many aspects of this, the largest ceremonial funeral for a politician since Sir Winston Churchill was wrong amd indefensible.


Personally, I would have brought over the Red Arrows and the Battle of Britain Memorial flight; I would have marched the massed bands of the Guards, the Royal Marines, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force along the whole route, and literally rubbed her very name into the noses of that sorry band of losers who ‘protested’ against the Nation’s salute to a truly Great Lady.


£10 Million?

I would have made it £20 Million, and every penny well spent!


Passports please.

Alongside most people who look upon the world from a right-wing perspective, I have always taken the BBC for what it is; which is an institution populated and dominated by Left-wing and creepily liberal minds, bound by Charter to be independent, but seeking always to inculcate its audience towards its own ‘common purpose’ mindset. But I have always also believed that some of the finest journalism and exposure documentaries have also made their way onto the BBC screens and airwaves, mainly because you cannot always keep the talent from making a solid programme. But I now feel that the BBC has not only overstepped the line in terms of deceit in  pursuit of a story, but also placed unsuspecting students in grave danger from the most oppressive regime in this world.

Allow me to explain. BBC Panorama producers were desperate to obtain good solid footage of life as it is ‘lived’ within the paradise which is the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. As all foreign reporters are barred from entering the People’s Paradise, they forged official documentation to state that John Sweeney and two colleagues were on the teaching staff of the London School of Economics, and so joined a students tour of DPRK organised by the LSE’s Grimshaw Club. During their stay in the dictatorship, Sweeney was continually called ‘Professor’ by the North Korean guides and military minders.

The BBC’s Sweeny writes of his experiences in the Mail today, and brushes away his lunacy with false documents by writing ‘North Korea doesn’t allow journalists here so I’m going in with a group of holidaymakers.’!

Just imagine what would have been the fate of the unsuspecting, and probably rather naive students from the LSE’s  Grimshaw Club if the regime had discovered that three of the party were actually engaged in making a documentary for BBC Panorama?

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.

It all depends what you mean by ‘odd’.

The Prime Minister has previously referred to UKIP members as “fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists”,


“There are some pretty odd people,” he said on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show.

Eastleigh By-election results:-

  • Mike Thornton (Liberal Democrat) 13,342
  • Diane James (UKIP) 11,571
  • Maria Hutchings (Conservative) 10,559
  • John O’Farrell (Labour) 4,088
  • Danny Stupple (Independent) 768


So there appear to be 11,571 Fruitcakes, Loonies, Closet Racists, and a whole lot of ‘Pretty Odd People’ within the Eastleigh Constituency, Mr. Cameron.

Do you still believe in your previous statements regarding the UKIP members and supporters?

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!

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!

and the difference is?

In the present somewhat amateur attempts at mass assassination by the terrorists of Hamas, and the more qualified and targeted killing responses by the Israeli Air Force, I have noticed a somewhat telling similarity in the reporting of the conflict, not only from the entirely-predictable BBC (Israelis….really nasty, brutal and bad); and the Palestinians (noble, hard done-by and forlornly waging a war against a brutal oppressor): but also from such as Sky, CNN and others.

Let me tell you a story, and see if it sounds feasible!

You are living in a country which has been at war for over four years, your Nation’s leaders have made some really bad judgements, but there is still an overwhelming support for the war to be fought, and won. Your Armed forces, alongside your Allies, have crossed the narrow waters which separate your lands from the Occupied Continent; landed successfully along a broad beachhead, and have broken through heavy defences, and are making headway towards the enemy’s borders. Your Eastern Allies, who indeed have suffered more than any other are moving ever westwards, seeking revenge. The nightly raids, the incessant terror-bombing of your cities and towns, which destroyed so much, and killed so many, is now but a distant memory, because your Country’s bombers are heading outwards at night, along with your Allies’ bombers during the day.

You live in a quiet street in a West London suburb called Chiswick. You have heard the enemy bombers as they drone menacingly overhead, you know when to take cover, or hasten to the shelter areas. The air-raid sirens’ wail is still well-remembered, and your relatives have drilled it into your head that any warning is better than none at all. So you are as relaxed as is possible, as there are no alarms, or warning noises, or indeed official broadcasts or warnings. You have no warning before being blown into smithereens, along with two others, together with 22 injured; the explosion also demolishes 11 houses, and seriously damages a further 22. The crater measures 30 feet across, and is 8 foot deep. You are the first victims of the V2 ballstic missile, the V standing for  Verwaltungswaffen, or retaliation weapon. Boosted by a sixty-five-second explosive burn from an rocket engine, the V2 soared some fifty miles into the stratosphere in a parabolic arc which ended with the detonation of just under a ton of explosives upon impact. There was no defence, as the missile was faster than the speed of sound; no defence, as radar could not possibly interrogate the path of this terror weaponry. If your Nations’ main enemy can manufacture enough missiles, they can strike anywhere. The only means of retaliation is to destroy the means of missile production.

If Hamas gets a new delivery of more sophisticated Iranian weaponry, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem will come under daily bombardment, despite Jerusalem being the third holiest place for all Muslims.

Is Israel willing to move? Is Hamas suicidal enough to continue encouraging their rocket attacks on Israel?

Place your bets!

All Hail the 25th Amendment!


I wonder how much guilt the various Irish politicians feel when they read of the death of a woman whom they condemned to death by a combination of inertia, superstition and ignorance?

I doubt very much if Enda Kenny feels anything more than a momentary annoyance at the stupidity of a woman who held the belief that she was in a country which would protect her against that same ignorance, superstition and inertia, but there again, she must have forgotten she was in a country which just doesn’t care!

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.

to form a more perfect Union!

The usual uproar surrounding the very word ‘Abortion’ commenced about five milli-seconds after the announcement that Marie Stopes was opening an abortion clinic in Belfast.

Firstly, I would like to clarify my own position on this extremely touchy subject, which is that whilst I dearly wish the mothers-to-be would not seek to terminate the new life which is inside their bodies, I hold the belief that their bodies are their own to control, and if they wish to terminate that unborn life, so be it! My reasoning has nothing to do with any religion, or indeed a belief stemming from any religion; it is just that if that future child is indeed unwanted by its mother, a life which is begun in hate, rejection and loathing bodes badly for that life.

I listened to the voice of Jim Allister this morning as he placed his views on record that the proposed Clinic has no place in Northern Ireland because of the Province’s culture, and this is maybe where I part company with Mr. Allister, partly because of the many statements by the T.U.V. which encourage ever closer links and ties with the mainland of the British Isles. I would say to Mr. Allister that you cannot pick and choose which parts of the United Kingdom’s Laws should be held to a higher standard in Northern Ireland than on the mainland. Abortion is a fact of life in England, Wales and Scotland, why should there be any difference in the Province of Northern Ireland? The Law is more strictly controlled in Northern Ireland, is much more restrictive, and the question which should be asked is simply ‘Why is Northern Ireland so special?’ Is life, or future life, looked upon as more precious than in, say, London, Bristol or Arbroath? I would also ask Mr. Allister if he likes being of one mind with Sinn Fein on this, or any issue of individual judgement or morality?

I am a great believer in having one set of laws for everyone, with no special dispensation or caveats for ‘certain areas, cultures or creeds’. If we all have to obey the same Law, then the same facilities, legal and lawful, should be available to all the Subjects of the Crown, wherever that Rule pertains!

An alternate view of that Report!

In the earlier part of my life, whilst I lived in England, I used to hold the Police as, generally, a friend. My support for the Police has decreased over the years as they have steadily become more and more politicised and political; in their structure, their controlling philosophies, their attitude towards civil liberties and the Rule of Law. It is a fact that the vast majority of law-abiding British people accept the Police, but don’t really trust them. The failures of Policing over the past thirty years are both well-known and substantial, and many of these failings stem from a grasping of the ‘politically-correct’ attitude at all times. But some of the failures are also known because they literally tried too hard, knowing that the accused were guilty, and therefore attempting to gild that same lily with evidence not manufactured but ‘embellished’.

But after going through the ‘Report’ from the ‘Independent Panel’ ( and you can well believe that the title was given them by the last Labour Government without a single blush), I can see that the Police are being hung out to dry. I did not listen to the nauseating self-justification of the Bishop of Liverpool on the BBC this morning, but I would lay good odds on the inclusion of the phrases ‘Justice for the families’, as well as the well-worn words of ‘the truth finally emerging’ about the deaths of 96 football fans at the Hillsborough ground those 23 years ago.

These questions, after the production of this truly self-serving and nauseatingly-righteous report, should be asked:-

What was the common identity of the clowns who massed against the fences, crowding so much that a mounted policeman on his horse felt unable to move? Answer…Liverpool ‘fans’.

The layout of the fencing and manner of static control within the ground had been made necessary by much previous riotous and threatening behaviour by whom?  Answer………..Football club ‘fans’ of all shirt colours and hues, whose behaviour could best be described as animalistic.

What was the mass identity of the crowd who literally tried to smash the fencing around the entry gates?                Answer……….Liverpool ‘fans’.

Did the ‘alterations’ of police and witness statements provide evidence that any one of those people who died that day could have been saved?  Answer………Probably not!

Did the actions of a panicked senior policeman by ordering the opening of the access gates contribute to the crowd packing into the tunnel?  Possibly yes, but the police were simply outnumbered by an aggressive, booze-fuelled crowd of Liverpool ‘fans’.

What has been the driving force behind the eternal call by the ‘victims families’ for a re-opening of Inquiries etc.   Was it Justice? Was it that the truth finally come out? Was it revenge on a Police Force which, they believed, contributed to the deaths of those ninety-six people?

Or was it just for the Money?

A very personal view of a very personal problem

When one trawls through the website of Plymouth College, the first thing which catches your eye is the news that this Independent School had four pupils competing in the Olympics, one of whom, Ruta Meilutyte, won Gold for Lithuania; and another was a certain Tom Daley, winning a Bronze Medal for the United Kingdom. The website, however, does not delve deeply into the history behind Tom’s presence at Plymouth, nor of the deeply-personal bullying he experienced at his previous school Eggbucklands ‘Community College’, where he was threatened with having his legs broken, primarily because he was well-known as a diver and athlete. I have to admit that I watched the progress of the diving contest at the Olympics, as I was mildly interested in the progress of the British representative, Tom Daley; mainly because of the fact that this young man overcame the bullies, and went on to win a Medal.

The very concept of bullying is the domination of the weak by the more powerful. In the terms understood by millions of kids, it is the imposition of a deliberate terror for the sheer gratification of the larger or more aggressive person who wants, above all, to dominate and to terrorize. The attitude of the British education authorities in modern times is worrying in the extreme, as they insist that the perpetrators of the bullying be “talked to”, and “counseled”, and that all concerned must “understand” that bullying is wrong!

When I was a youngster in an English grammar school, I was smaller in stature than most of my school class being only four foot ten inches tall when I was fourteen; growing to five foot ten by the age of eighteen, as I received my growth later in life than most. So the ATW reader might understand that I was a natural target not, as one might guess, for my fellow classmates, but for a minority of the teachers, as they surmised I was less likely to answer back. I was regularly humiliated in front of the class, and also subjected to a denigrating regime of minor physical abuse. This abuse culminated in my being knocked unconscious because I opened my desk before the teacher had left the classroom, thus “insulting” the teacher in question! He jumped back across the classroom, caught me with the side of his hand and knocked me clean out of my seat and crashing into a cupboard door at the side of the room! I was unconscious for maybe two or three minutes. The form master was informed, but apart from establishing that I could walk and talk when I regained consciousness, nothing much was done! The reader must understand that, as there were very few limits on this side of the teachers’ activities, they tended to express themselves physically rather than verbally!

My travails were ended very shortly afterwards when my father, who learned of my problems at school, visited the school and came to my class when this teacher was present. My Dad, who was not that tall, but was well-built and extremely strong, just caught the teacher’s tie and pulled his head down level with my Dad’s; and explained that if he (the teacher) ever hit me again, there would be immediate and violent retribution! No histrionics, no attempt to “understand”, just a solid promise that the teacher in question would regret ever laying either a word or a fist upon his son again! Needless to say, for the rest of my time at school, I was left severely alone.

At one time in my engineering career, I was in charge of an installation project on a South African gold mine, and I used to travel down with the rest in the shaft cages to the six thousand feet level. One of the men travelling with us was an Afrikaner, an immensely strong man and an ex-wrestler. A man of limited intelligence, he used to amuse himself by grabbing his victim from behind, and squeezing their chests between his arms. As one of his victims was a friend of mine, a small wiry Welshman who really was in pain from this Neanderthal attack, I moved up, told this clown to stop and “Pick on someone his own size, strength and mental capacity!” He stopped his attack, only to become semi-hysterical with anger at some ‘Redneck Englishman’ who dared to tell him what to do, and that he would smash me into the dust of the shaft entrance, as we were now out of the cage.

I faced him, and said quietly that he might well beat me down, but I would break him in civil court, I would break him in criminal court, and that he would never work down a goldmine again! He backed away, but was in tears of anger and frustration as his friends led him away, To the best of my knowledge, he never assaulted anyone in “fun” again!

My stance regarding bullies and bullying is plain; the only thing which bullies respect is physical violence, and the stronger the retaliation, the better! All bullies are cowards, and it is only by facing down a bully, whether it be a single schoolboy armed with his fists, or a country armed with sophisticated weaponry, that they will realize that they are faced  with superior force and the will to use that force, and will cease their depredations!