Wednesday, 30 September 2009

Depressing Manufacturing...

We truly used to kick the shit out of manufacturing and then, among other things, Atlee came along... bollocks. Consider the railway industry if you will.

Active companies
  • Alan Keef Ltd (narrow-gauge diesel/steam locomotives, permanent way)
  • Clayton Equipment Company Ltd (diesel/electric/battery locomotives)
  • Brush Barclay
  • Brush Traction (diesel/electric locomotives)
  • Exmoor Steam Railway (narrow-gauge steam locomotives)
  • Hunslet Engine Company (diesel locomotives/narrow-gauge steam locomotives)
  • Cowans Sheldon (railway cranes)
  • TMA Engineering Ltd (narrow-gauge diesel locomotives)
  • 5at project, steam for the 21st century
  • Steam Loco Design
Defunct companies
  • Andrew Barclay
  • Armstrong Whitworth
  • Aveling and Porter
  • Avonside Engine Company
  • Bagnall
  • Baguley
  • Beyer Peacock
  • Birmingham Railway Carriage and Wagon Company
  • Black, Hawthorn & Co
  • BREL
  • British Electric Vehicles
  • British Thomson-Houston
  • Cravens (multiple units/coaching stock)
  • De Winton
  • Drewry Car Co.
  • Dübs
  • George England
  • English Electric
  • Fletcher, Jennings & Co.
  • Fox Walker
  • Gloucester Railway Carriage & Wagon Company (multiple units/coaching stock)
  • Greenwood & Batley Ltd (Greenbat)
  • Hawthorn Leslie
  • F. C. Hibberd & Co Ltd
  • Hudswell Clarke
  • Kerr Stuart
  • Kitson
  • Stephen Lewin
  • Manning Wardle
  • Metro-Cammell (multiple units/coaching stock)
  • Metropolitan Vickers
  • Midland Railway Carriage and Wagon Company
  • Motor Rail
  • Muir-Hill
  • Nasmyth, Gaskell and Company
  • Neilson Reid
  • North British Locomotive Company
  • Peckett and Sons
  • Pressed Steel (multiple units/coaching stock)
  • R and W Hawthorn to 1870
  • Ruston & Hornsby
  • Sentinel Waggon Works
  • Robert Stephensons and Hawthorns
  • Robert Stephenson and Company
  • Sharp, Roberts and Company
  • Sharp Stewart and Company
  • Thomas Hill (Rotherham) Ltd
  • Tulk and Ley
  • Walker Brothers - narrow gauge for Ireland
  • Vulcan Foundry
  • Wingrove & Rogers
  • Yorkshire Engine Company
In 1950 70% of British economy originated in manufacturing today that figure stands at 12%. Boys and girls we need to start making things again.

(If you are wondering, the entire list was copied from Wikipedia).

Tuesday, 29 September 2009

Britain's favourite poem


If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too:
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;

If you can dream and not make dreams your master;
If you can think and not make thoughts your aim,
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same:
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build'em up with worn-out tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings,
And never breathe a word about your loss:
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings---nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much:
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!

Mr. Rudyard Kipling knew what he was doing. No point in trying to score political points or award myself moral points. This is abstract animate beauty which should stand above our internal bickerings.

Monday, 28 September 2009

Poor French

We now have to look to a small island of our coast to defend our sovereignty, guess this is what it feels like to be French. I do not like one bit.

Milk Politics

Do you remember the Milk Rounds or the School Milk (in all honesty yours truly was not born when this was around)? Well this is another one of those areas where the country has gone completely bonkers.

Consider what we now get our milk in: awful environmentally hazardous plastic cartridges that have to be thrown out once they have been used. This of course is counter productive as the damned things are made of plastic i.e. oil and have to be burned and thus releasing all those nasty gases the Green lobby keeps banging on about.

Well they have not done anything about it at all to be quite honest. But before we get to the Milk rounds lets have a look at what some food chains are in fact offering. Tesco have nothing but the plastic gear which is utterly useless particularly if you throw out the damned thing with the lid screwed tight. Some councils now employ people-this is not a joke-whose soul purpose is to pop the cartons so as to free some space in the bins. The same story is true for most of the big stores except Sainsbury's and Waitrose. They have in their larger supermarkets started using bags of milk (see picture). Even the bags themselves are recyclable which is always good. But obviously the main benefit comes from not having a physical carton which you have to smash with your bare knuckles in order for the damned thing to become somewhat 'flat'. Other benefits include saving plastic and spending that oil on say better gear for soldiers.

Sainsbury's claim that the only way to open the bag, without ending up covered in milk, is to place the bag inside the jug and shut the lid. A spike then pierces the bag releasing the milk. Your humble narrator can comfort the dear reader that this is all complete bollocks. You do not need a special jug. You need a jug but not a special Sainsbury's jug, and a pair of scissors. Cut of a corner and pour the bloody milk into the jug. It is not rocket science.

It is a bit odd that it only arrived in the UK about a year ago; you can only buy milk in bags in Canada. They do not sell it in any other form (well supposedly 60% is sold in bag form but I never saw anything but bag milk). Which begs the question; why are they intent on destroying the country side when they might as well just outlaw any packaging which does not necessarily have to be made from the most inconvenient of materials? Do you really need cereal in a carton, is not the bag enough? And so on. Not wishing to be a mouth piece for the Green lobby, for I truly despise the lot of them for their inconsistent and deceitful ways, but we do need to reconsider the way we pack things at least to save material.

But now the more pressing of questions: Why the fuck have they let the Milk Rounds fall into despair when it was probably the most environmentally friendly way of delivering fresh, cheap, locally produced, milk? Bear in mind that companies like Lidl insist on their milk being sent from bloody Germany to all its stores in Europe. I.e. the milk you buy from Lidl is not even by any stretch of the imagination 'local'. The Milk Rounds used and use glass bottles (as you will know by now that glass is 100% recyclable) and the vehicles they spin around in are driven by electricity.

This is not to say that the industry is dead - far from it. From the website we have it that (my emphasis)
"The UK’s 9,500 milkmen and women deliver to around 5 million homes every day. Whilst fresh liquid milk in environmentally friendly returnable glass milk bottles remains the cornerstone of this service, your milkman can also offer a large range of other goods. They will be more than happy to discuss the range of products that can be delivered regularly to your doorstep."
Now a normal person in the UK consumes roughly 2 litres or 3.5 pints of milk each week. This is a fair amount of milk. But one must wonder why are only 5 million homes in the UK getting their milk from this service which ought to be the Emperors of the milk trade (and media and government policy) in the UK, yet are not. A decade ago, more than 2.5 billion litres of milk were being delivered to the doorstep each year, which by 2004 had fallen to 637 million. Only 13% of the milk now consumed at home comes from delivery rounds (2006).

We can get pretty nostalgic about our doorstep milk deliveries. After all, there can’t be many countries that have had a record at number one in the singles chart about a milkman. Comedian Benny Hill’s record Ernie (The Fastest Milkman In The West) topped the charts in 1971 for five solid weeks. Before the milk float, milk was delivered on wheeled carts – either horse-drawn or simply pushed. The milk was in a churn before the advent of the milk bottle and the milkman poured it into the jugs his customers left on their doorsteps. A cloth cover over the jug protected the milk from flies.

The early morning chink-chink of the milkman or woman and the hum of the electric float is declining in 21st-century England though – despite efforts to extend the range of products on offer to include eggs, bread, juice and more. Despite rumours to the contrary, there is no threat to UK milk deliveries from the European Union - yet. However as we move further into this century it appears that the trend is being reversed because people are starting to realise what this article has been arguing that there is simply no way in which supermarket-milk beats Milkman-milk. As such it is becoming more popular again and it is only a question of time before an MP of one ilk or another seizes upon this issue to include it in their portfolio of "green policies".

Instead of building expensive fucking "eco-towns" perhaps we ought to retrace our steps to a time when people were far more sensible (and greener) than they are now.

Sunday, 27 September 2009

A new UKIP slogan

Doing the daily rounds of the newspapers at 3 in the morning is always good for your health I find. Anyhow everything is shit as usual, education system is hopelessly screwed and the best brains are heading to America where academics can be just that and not social bloody engineering a la New Labour. Immigration is out of control in Greece where they have roughly 500-1000 new people arriving each day. They think the answer to this problem is the EU. Dream on. Most people though wont stay there they will come to the UK because our benefits system suits them, oh and also, apparently, our democracy. They have got another thing coming on the latter part.

Having read most of the comments, where the MSM graciously, allowed them, we find that UKIP have a new election slogan, which is quite a good one I think (for a dysfunctional party):

Release your inner Tory, Vote UKIP

Perhaps it is just easier to sod it all and move to some forlorn country where there is nothing but grass and sheep and no bloody people who congregate to create further misery for their fellow human beings. Yes, that is the easy way.

Saturday, 26 September 2009

Vague Hague and Mirage Farage

Before writing the piece below this one please talk to my friend: Vague-Hague. The epithet is a strikingly revealing feature of the man's character. Mirage-Farage, however, has other ideas on Vague-Hague.

(I will be releasing my Hip-Hop EP very soon - stay tuned).

Outside of EU - British entrepreneurialism flourish

This is an article which I shall continue tomorrow but I will just write down the basic points now so I do not forget the damned thing.

When we have left the EU there is a potentially massive market for stuff, and I say 'stuff' with a massive emphasis of ambiguity, which is not anymore bound by ridiculous EU rules and directives. Like steam trains in the UK not being able to get fucking coal from the UK but have to get it from Russia because of shipping legislation. I propose that if the UK can be seen as a safe haven from the EU and its directives, companies will positively flood back to the UK because of its soft-touch approach to business legislation. R&D centres will formally pop up everywhere because there is so little bureaucracy (of course this involves convincing the then government to repeal a lot of acts) and no EU madness to hamper the prospects of science and innovation.

Remember the EU has not legislated business per se, but the way it is practised with a billion forms to fill out to buy e.g. a drill.

What is more since the UK is a net importer of goods that means that companies would flock here anyway because we are not only a net importer but also the second largest economy in Europe after Germany. The EU might threaten with trade embargoes because we left them, but companies would scarcely care; they want to do business and make money. Money always comes before politics - the laws of legislature are silent in boardrooms most, if not all, of the time. Why do you reckon companies dump so much crap in the oceans even though it is 'not allowed'?

Makes sense does it not?

Supreme Court Article worth reading

...only problem is that anyone with any sense knew all that stuff already. As my mail to Dominic Grieve shows, the Conservatives think it will be too costly to break of the whole project now that it has begun. Apparently we can scrap vital equipment for troops, that is cost-effective, yet scrapping cornerstones of constitutional lunacy is not. Oh dear, we are up for a tough decade chappies.

And when Tony Blair sleepwalks into his retirement, preaching world peace and open markets, do not think for one second that we have forgotten him. He will have, as Kipling said, his "unforgiving minute" but he will not have the satisfaction of becoming a man, for never in life was he even close to holding that esteemed office.

Hmpf how boring

Just wanted to let everyone know that ConservativeHome was exceptionally boring today. Normally I fight with just about everyone there, but today people agreed with me on subjects of utter disinterest.


Thursday, 24 September 2009

Scaremongering anyone?

This article reads like a snippet from a zombie movie, it really is some of the worst kind of scaremongering that has ever been produced. The EU-sponsored 'yes' campaign in Ireland is bad but this is bordering on criminal. Of course it was found in the EU mouth piece that is the Financial Times.

What an Irish No would mean for Europe

By Andrew Duff, MEP

Published: September 24 2009 14:29 | Last updated: September 24 2009 14:29

On October 2 the people of Ireland will vote for a second time in a referendum to determine the fate of the Lisbon Treaty. Most voters will naturally focus on the consequences of a Yes or No for Ireland. Yet, while Brussels looks on nervously, we might do well to reflect on the repercussions of an Irish No for the European Union as a whole. Here are some of them.

First off, there would be the mother of all constitutional stalemates. The EU last managed to revise a treaty as long ago as 2000, in the form of the unloved Treaty of Nice. Since then we have had attempts at the draft constitution of 2003, the constitutional treaty of 2004 and the Lisbon treaty in 2007 – now, in 2009, adorned with legal guarantees for Ireland, plus the promise of an Irish member of the European Commission for eternity.

If Ireland were to say No, there would be absolutely no appetite to reopen the well-thumbed treaty dossier. The result of another round of constitutional talks would surely be worse than the last. The decisions enshrined in Lisbon which shift the balance of power between the institutions and among the states were difficult enough to arrive at in the first place: they would become even trickier.The financial and economic crisis has tested the arrangements for economic and monetary union and found them wanting. Any new intergovernmental conference to amend the treaties would be bound to open up the terms of the Maastricht treaty (1991) in addition to those of Nice. The discord would be magnificent to behold. So there will be no second renegotiation of Lisbon. A second Irish No would shunt Europe into a constitutional impasse.

EU politics would become shockingly complicated. Lisbon is the first project of the newly enlarged Union of 27 member states: its failure would tarnish the reputation of that enlargement. All future enlargement after Croatia would be forced off the agenda. Even Iceland could not be certain to join as its own sceptical public opinion is unlikely to be attracted by a Brussels in constitutional paralysis.

The Western Balkans if denied a route into the EU could succumb to criminal disorder and ethnic conflict. A Turkey whose EU bid had been rejected would be bound to make overtures to Russia, Iran and Syria, none of whose governments are well disposed towards the EU. Europe’s reputation in the Muslim world would slump again. Cyprus would remain the torn island it is, emitting insecurity. The hope of building a genuine common EU security and defence policy to come to the aid of a languishing Nato would be dashed. Without Lisbon, with fewer ties to bind them together, one can be sure that France would want to pursue its own interests in the Mediterranean, as Germany would with Russia, and Britain with the US.

In the wider world, the EU without Lisbon would carry the stigma of failure. Europe’s loss of global credibility would leave China and America largely to their own devices. Any remaining impetus to finish the WTO’s Doha Round would disappear. The Copenhagen climate change negotiations would have to make do without confident European leadership and, inevitably, without a generous EU contribution to finance the adaptation efforts of the less developed world.

At home, Lisbon’s defeat would shatter the EU’s hopes of improving its system of government. There could be no streamlining of procedures or rationalisation of instruments, no codification either of important case law of the European Court of Justice or of modern ways of getting the institutions to work well together. The EU’s values and principles would remain opaque and its objectives unclear. The Charter of Fundamental Rights would stay a mere code of conduct without being legally binding, and the EU would not be allowed to sign up to the historic European Convention of Human Rights.

The European Parliament, without Lisbon, would remain only half built, being cheated of its long-sought and badly needed extension of legislative and budgetary powers. MEPs would lose their extra grip on the election and scrutiny of the Commission, and would have to forgo their prospective greater say on foreign affairs and international treaties.

Other democratic improvements, too, simply could not happen: the Council of Ministers would continue to pass laws in secret; the Commission would not have increased powers to enforce compliance with EU law; there would be no right for citizens to petition for new legislation; the European Council of the heads of government would remain without the scope of judicial review and would lose its proposed stable presidency; the right of access to the Court of Justice would remain too narrow; and civil society, including the churches, would be deprived of being better informed and consulted. National parliaments would be left out in the cold, losing their Lisbon right to interrupt EU legislation.

Both the scope of the EU’s activities and its capacity to act effectively would be badly dished by the ultimate fall of the Lisbon treaty. The Union’s federal character would remain indistinct, the residual rights of member states ill defined, and the catalogue of competencies conferred on the Union suppressed. One could expect growing conflict between national courts and the Court of Justice. States would lose the right to negotiate secession from the Union. The European Parliament would not gain the right to initiate future treaty amendments. Flexible ways of revising the treaties would be lost, making it necessary always to resort to the ponderous (and clearly dysfunctional) constraint that everyone has to agree to everything, however trivial, before reform can happen.

In practical terms, the whole area of justice and interior affairs would remain in the hands of national governments, whose efforts so far to reach common positions on sensitive issues concerning asylum and immigration, or police and judicial cooperation, have proven weak and indecisive. New legal bases to allow the EU to develop common policies in intellectual property rights, space, sport, tourism, civil protection and public administration would be lost. Notable, too would be the loss of expanding EU competence to energy supply, as well as demand, and to positive climate change measures, rather than mere pollution control.

If Ireland scuppers Lisbon, there will at once be talk of forming core groups of federally-minded states (excluding Ireland) to press forward the European project. However desirable such differentiated integration may be, the Treaty of Nice does not lend itself to variable geometry, and core groups are actually prohibited in the area where they would matter most, namely foreign, security and defence policy. So any new attempt, post-Lisbon, to relaunch a federal Europe would take place haphazardly outside the framework of the EU.

The fate of the Treaty of Lisbon at the hands of the Irish matters very much. Once Ireland has spoken, we will know whether Europe is to be a united democracy or not.

Andrew Duff MEP is president of the Union of European Federalists

Bring out the guns and the bibles, we might as well commit mass suicide if the Lisbon Treaty does not come into force. In fact we will all die on the second if it is rejected. Bombs will rain from the sky, birds will self-destruct mid air, children will implode and Barrosso will explode.

It is death we all face if Lisbon is rejected. The curse of Jonah is amongst them again, Gordon is supporting the 'yes' side. Fail. As a parallel (not really I just thought I would stick it in here) James II dug up Cromwell's body, cut of his head and stuck it on a pole which later blew down. Could a similar venture be visualised for Heath's body - we could stick his head on the European Central Bank's little statue they have outside their office and it would be even grander if the Queen herself did the chopping, that I would pay to see.

On this note it must utterly suck to be David Cameron right now. What the article above rightly points out is that if the Tories manage to get a referendum and kill the treaty of that would mean a two-tier EU. For the simpler reason that most member states have invested so much political and financial capital in passing the damned thing there will be hell to pay if it is not ratified. Enter Britain, whether or not we have a referendum pressure is going to grow on Cameron to seriously realign our relationship with the EU.

This in turn presents Mr. Cameron with two options either he says "stop banging on about Europe" again and leaves it at that for the remainder of his tenure as PM. Upon which he will have really pissed of a lot of voters and a significant amount will move to UKIP and other anti-EU parties. He could also however suggest a true realignment - this of course, in my opinion, will not happen simply because Mr. Cameron is a europhile. Most will agree I think that Britain is already on its way out even if it may not appear so, polls show it and talking to people shows it. Most people who are not Guardinistas, which is most people, want out or rejoin the EFTA. Even more so the w-word (withdrawal) is not taboo anymore and has been frequently mentioned over at ConHome and Telegraph as of late.

On a 'no' vote Cameron will say that thus a referendum in the UK is not necessary and that will be the end of the matter. Upon which he will have really pissed of a lot of voters and a significant amount will move to UKIP and other anti-EU parties. Which is why it really must suck to be Mr. Cameron right now; he has to take a stand and a stand which he cannot win. He wants the EU but not the full monty, he wants British sovereignity but not Nelson-style sovereignity where we actually decide for ourselves how we are to live or what lightbulbs we are to use.

As said before and observed by many more astute people than myself, if we have a vote on anything EU that will be a vote on in or out for the polarities will be so extreme and the climate will open upp for more powers to be nationalised and thus increase a sense of relevance for Westminster. As the EU process has shown over the past decades, if you even give them a little power they want more and more and more and more... by the same token the process works for the UK. The more power we get back the more we want until we become fully independent again when we must ask why on earth does the EU exist?

I am just going to sit here an laugh over the coming weeks when the true face of politicians will reveal itself. This could of course turn really nasty for everyone, Labour could do another u-turn and suddenly offer a referendum or the LibDems could again seek a referendum on in-out on the EU, as was their previous policy. As I said laughing with popcorn and political elite torch each other.

More Supreme Court letters to HM Opposition

The following is the mail I sent to Dominic Grieve, shadow justice secretary, with regards to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 which created, amongst other things, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.
"Dear Mr. Grieve,

I write to you with regards to the newly created Supreme Court. Will the Conservatives go along with this constitutional vandalism or will you seek to restore the law lords as created by the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876? Further, as the party seems to harbour, quite rightly in my opinion, some objects to the ECHR upon who's advice, apparently, part 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 was based on - will this accelerate your position on the Human Rights Act which you seek to abolish?

Finally, what are the prospects of scrapping the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 completely?"
This is the reply I got from one Mr. Robert Prager - aide to Mr. Grieve.
"Dear xxxxxxx

Thank you for your recent email to Dominic Grieve regarding the Supreme Court and the Human Rights Act. Your comments are duly noted and have been passed on to Mr Grieve for his consideration.

Conservatives appreciate your concerns regarding the newly established court. The Judicial Committee of the House of Lords has served this country well since the Nineteenth Century, and at negligible cost.

Now that the Supreme Court is in existence, it needs to function properly and within a sensible budget. Current plans, however, show it will cost £14 million per year to run, compared to £3 million for the previous arrangement. Most will consider that this project, conceived on the back of an envelope by Tony Blair and Lord Falconer represents financial profligacy that cannot be afforded in our current economic situation. However, we fear that the cost of undoing it would be even higher.

The Government has done this whilst at the same time refusing to make other changes that would improve the balance of the constitution. Parliament needs to be stronger, MPs more independent and the Government more accountable to the electorate. David Cameron has outlined Conservative proposals in detail, which can be found online at

With regards to the Human Rights Act, the Conservative Party has consistently expressed its concerns over the way it has operated in practice. The Act has failed to protect our core liberties, and exacerbated the impact of excessive judicial legislation from both the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and our own domestic courts. If elected, a Conservative government would replace the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights in order to better protect our freedoms whilst giving Parliament greater democratic control over the process of creating new rights. Conservatives are confident this will preserve our personal freedoms, whilst strengthening democratic accountability and social responsibility.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact Mr Grieve."
Alas it was confirmed what most of us already knew; the Conservatives are patriots in word but not in name. They seem to believe that they are being financially pragmatic by not scrapping the Supreme Court. Yet to Mr. Grieve, somehow, you wont save money by using the Law Lords which are 460% cheaper than the current hodgepodge. Apparently saving £11 million each year is not a viable option, in turn meaning that they would pay of the whole building renovation in just 6 years (the Guildhall building had a price tag of £66 million for renovation costs and accessories). This is at a time when Mr. Cameron wants to cut the price of politics. Yeah right, pull the other leg.

Note also another piece of legislation which aims to bring us inline with the rest of Europe (yes I know that that Constituional Reform Act 2005 was conceived because of the ECHR) which will be put forth for further readings next year; the Constitutional Renewal Bill.

Useful idiots, Lenin would have been proud

If there ever were a case of Lenin's famous "useful idiots" remark it must that of JEF - Jeunes Europeens Feraliste or Young European Federalists.

From their website
"The Young European Federalists is a supranational, political movement active in most European countries. It is an autonomous youth organisation which has no party political affiliations or commitments. It participates in the exchange of opinions and experiences with other political movements, but will not identify with any of them. JEF's interlocutors are political parties, European, national and local institutions and associations, as well as the general public. In this sense JEF is a political movement, but not a party.

JEF is not interested in the direct management of political power: it concentrates its action on the achievement of international democracy through the establishment of federal systems in Europe and in the world. The aims of JEF are to work for the creation of a European Federation, first step towards peace and World Federation, and for a freer, more just and more democratic federal society."
You say 'wow, what stupendously high levels of ignorance' I would agree but that is the case with most federalist loonies. May I just focus very quickly on my emphasis before this post is finished: the group received €132,927 from the EU between January 2005 and October 2007.

In the words of Einstein "two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." Now of course we must be nice or we risk falling into the same trap as the EU that of taking everything very seriously. Federalists are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are federalists.

Flog what is left of Britain never mind the bollocks

New Labour are supposed to represent socialist ideas as epitomised by the Fabian society. They were frantically upset back in the 80's when Thatcher and her Tories went around selling all the public companies of the United Kingdom including such prominent features as the National Engineering Laboratory (we sure could need that now when we when there is hole of 20,000 engineers missing in the British industry sector). There is a common misconception that New Labour have been better and that they have not been vigorously trying to forward their own personal agendas, by that account I mean of course feeding their on psyche by getting richer and richer all the time completely disregarding the ideals of socialism. To date what have these hypocrites sold of since they came to power in 1997 (this is an ongoing article which I cannot possibly compose in one go since there are so many national industries that have been disposed of since 1997).

DERA (Defence Evaluation Research Agency)
Royal Mail
London Underground
British Energy
Council Housing
British Nuclear Fuels
British Nuclear Group
33% Atomic Weapons Establishment
Royal Mint (This has not actually been sold, yet, but they are planning to. Which again highlights the economic/financial brilliance of New Labour: Who in their right mind would sell anything in these times?)

(The picture accompanying this piece allures to what kind of people you will end up with if more and more of his daily services become more expensive by the day, suffice to say the government will need more than their largely defunct (in the sense of public appreciation of) police service to stop a hoard of him).

Also selling all industries and at the same time failing millions of youngsters who cannot find jobs that is a tad short sighted. Further when 80% of new jobs are going to immigrants perhaps it is time to stop and ask what kind of a society do we want in the future. No doubt most immigrants are hard-working yet regardless of this; jobs are supposed to an integral part of passing from boy to manhood. How is this possible if there are no jobs?

Really I am asking how much more family silver is remaining for this government to flog off. What happens when there's nothing else to sell?

Monday, 21 September 2009

Laugh then Cry

One cannot but first laugh at this story but then one has to try. We first laugh because as the EU seeks to denigrate British immigration policy it is playing right into the hands of the Eurosceptics which already have a massive majority in the UK. They are in fact creating the UK's exit from the EU. We thought that we would have to do that but there is not a single day that goes by when the scales tip in favour of the highly eurosceptic parties in the UK. The latest story that all asylum seekers should be let into the country according to the EU's Justice Commissioner makes you wonder if this guy is truly aware of his employers popularity in the UK. I beg to differ.

Now of course it would be political suicide for any party to actually abide by these rules since if they did they would alienate pretty much the entire electorate whom they thought would vote for them in the first instance. That is never a good thing for a political party. The Justice Commissioner could play it safe of course and get this over with before the Labour government is terminated both as government and political party. If I were a French Justice Commisioner that is what I would do.

However now we have to cry. Just as this will play into the hands of UKIP it will also, unfortunately, play into the hands of the BNP. That is the tragic moral of this story. A moral which will continue I fret lest the Tories i.e. the incoming government gets its act together. You have to listen to the people no matter the content. You are here to serve us not yourselves. Now I do not think this will happen but I am a die hard cynic as well. Since I propose that whenever this country has changed over the past 20 years it has always been for the worse.

The BNP will clock up electoral success after sucess until they form somewhat of a majority in the political establishment UK. This is impossible you say? I thought so to but people are truly desperate. The main three offer nothing but platitudes and rhetoric on matters essential to the public. Take this simple immigration policy from the Conservative home page:

"Immigration can be a real benefit to the UK, but only if it is properly controlled with its impact on the economy, public services and social cohesion taken into account.

Our approach will ensure that we admit both the right people for our economy and also the right number of people. For economic migrants from outside the EU, we propose a two-stage process:

  • The first stage is making eligible for admission those who will benefit the economy
  • The second stage is an annual limit to control the numbers admitted with regard to the wider effects on society and the provision of public services

A Conservative Government would also apply transitional controls as a matter of course in the future for all new EU entrants.

To enforce such controls, and to prevent illegal immigration and combat criminals who compromise our security, we need a new, integrated approach to managing our borders.

So we will introduce a dedicated Border Police Force to bring together all the agencies responsible for border control.

Unlike Labour’s Border Agency, which does not even include the police, our force will have the power to stop, search, detain and prosecute the terrorists, traffickers and illegal immigrants who currently slip through the net. Only then will we be able to start making Britain safer."

Ambiguous to the bone at a time when the electorate's main concern is immigration and the economy (which Boris has a good take on) - two concepts which are inextricably interlinked. If it seen that the few jobs which are now available are going exclusively to immigrants prepare for another winter of discontent. Further I intend to spearhead the campagin whereby it becomes 'legal' again to speak of immigration without being pounded by the r-word. However if you are still trapped in that little New Labour world whereby any criticism of immigration or asylum seeker policy is a tabu, I tell you: grow up. This is politics, you cannot outlaw ideas and thoughts.

The Truth about the European Union

Well I suppose I will have to do my bit as an arch eurosceptic citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Here is a video that has begun circling around the internet, even though some of the content I recall having seen a couple of years ago. Enough of the details though. It is a good video which is certainly worth the watch despite its rather lengthy 45 minutes (to be fair if you cannot concentrate for 45 minutes on a subject of this magnitude you are probably better served by not watching it since its intellectual content is beyond your comprehension) . The history is not quite correct in places. To mention one: the notion that the EU is somehow Hitler's legacy - it is not as is claimed in the video.

But a very good video indeed thus a hat-tip to The Man of the Woods is in order.

Sunday, 20 September 2009

Rebuilding a Nation

Does anyone know really how this takes? Any previous experience? We all know that destroying something is far easier than producing something valuable which is beneficial to mankind at large.

For Britain...?

I am having one of these were cynical days again when there seems to be no hope. I base this on very many things. Mostly that our government have fucked up every single echelon of the pillars that constitute our society. What is more they have installed their henchmen in the most odious of places, who force their twisted policies on people who had no interest in politics at all. Take the farmer who employed 55 Brits only to find 44 never showing up, upon which he was slapped with a 120,000 pound fine for employing illegal immigrants. Then he has do prove his innocence because he was presumed guilty.

We used to be a fairly clever people, certainly we came up with some magnificent pieces of engineering and exported both English and parliamentary representation. We fiercely held back the forces of republicanism as sported by Cromwell even to this day.

What happened over the past 13 years?

Where did the common sense of people go? Did it take a holiday? Did it vanish in to thin air even though it is an abstract concept? What happened to it?

What I do know is that the Labour party is going to have the guillotine prepared for them. We are not so much completing the revolution as Lord Fairfax could have done, supposedly, had he stood by Cromwell's side at all times. No, we will be doing something quite different we will be expelling those forces of Marxism from these isles for God knows how long. It seems that New Labour have cemented the viciousness of this doctrine despite them being very capitalist. Perhaps for good then. Of course every government needs and opposition so as to not overstep its authority, pray let it not be the Labour party next time around.

Labour has made 'racist' a nasty word even though it has now lost all its stigmatising properties for being over used. Even the Nazis could easily shrug their shoulders at the word today, had they still been around. I propose that 'Labour' has become the nasty word and though some ministers appear to think they will make a comeback I say; do not count on it. The Conservatives have been out of power for a good 13 years now as have all meaningfull forces of centre-right politics.

When the Thatcher government unleashed their hegemony on British industry to the extent that it barely exists today, they did it with the best interests of the UK at heart. I cannot believe that it was done on orders from higher up despite some very convincing arguments produced by Naomi Klein. Further this seems to have been appreciated by the UK at large as well. There are talks of Mrs. Thatcher being given a state funeral when she dies. The same response for Blair and Brown would probably be to ship them of to the continent or Ireland to have their remains buried. Their legacy is so tainted with malevolence that their mere presence on this island would only serve to upset the people to whom they were buried beside (and they are dead). 'Who is going be buried beside my grandfather? BROWN?! Gordon-fucking-Brown?! I will have none of it, over my dead body. Find somewhere else to put him.'

You see when they are hauled from Parliament next year the Brown&Blair bashing wont end. If anything it will intensify for now we have a new government at the helm and now they will truly be able to examine the full extent of the damage that has been done to Britain. I suspect that their findings will be anything but delightful. Even that is a mere historical construct nowadays; Parliament. Its very purpose seems superfluous now that none of its core values and functions remain. Fraser Nelson got it spot on in his article "The politics of decline" over at the Spectator.

What is more, the changing face of politics in the UK is nigh. The 'main-three' as bloggers and journalists alike call New Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, is also something which is completely out of the window. It used to be very hard to change the perception of the electorate. Those who were firmly to the left stayed there and the same for the right. But most have come to realise that the main-three simply do not represent at all what they used to. New Labour is as capitalist as a dollar bill, the Tories refuse to tackle the immigration problem. The Libdems, well, what is their purpose that remains an enigma.

There are many new players in the game; the Greens, BNP, UKIP and so on. We will gradually see the outfacing of the old main-three for they have no purpose and do not represent the people they sucked up to back in the day. We know this. Question is do they?

My Muslim friend, sort of

I have a few Muslim friends and most of them really are like the coming quote. Some are not of course and we often have very many disagreements but at the end of the day we walk hand in hand into the pub (no they are not particularly strict Muslims it must be said).
"As a muslim I abhor this tip-toeing attitude towards muslims. I do not care and never will care how much someone eats in front of me while fasting. If I ever do become sensitive to the smell of food then I WILL leave that environment. It is not for others to pander to me and I will never want that. It is advice like this that promotes nothing but hatred, so I get dismayed when such pathetic advice is promoted! MPAC are completely right in attacking this stupid document."
I really do not want to reveal where I found this but keeping with blogger integrity I am compelled to, so here we go.

Aaahhh EU law you have to love the democratic process

  1. The unelected Commission proposes all EU law in secret
  2. Their proposals are negotiated by bureaucrats from nation states in secret
  3. The proposed laws then go to the Council of Ministers, still in secret
  4. The EU Parliament itself cannot propose legislation
  5. Our Parliament is powerless to change any of those laws
  6. There is no appeal against them in the Luxembourg Court
Hat-tip: Lord Pearson of Rannoch

There is an awful lot of 'red' there which ought not be in the democratic process... I hope the dear reader understands my affection and love for sarcasm. If you cannot beat them, make fun of them.

As for the Lisbon Treaty, again, Mr. North at EU Referendum has a good take on it and Mr. Cameron.

Update: Turns out I was wrong parts of the above post. But I unlike politicians and dishonest people do not delete my previous posts and then claim never to have written them, I admit my own mistake and hope that people will think better of my character for this.

Saturday, 19 September 2009

Why is the MSM copying each other so obviously (and vigorously)?

I found this article aptly named 'Voters demand EU Referendum if Cameron becomes PM' by Patrick Hennessy and Melissa Kite at the Telegraph. Having listened to Daniel Hannan over at Calling England it appears that I am somewhat of a Field marshal of cynicism for I do not think Mr. Cameron will issue any kind of referendum even if the treaty has not taken legal personality upon entering Westminster. I simply do not trust Mr. Cameron to do what my vote supposes him to do. I do not trust him enough to exercise my democratic power on my behalf. He is as greasy as a barrel full of eels - perfect for politics but rather improper for the descent people who are tired of their country becoming the back and beyond of the Western World.

Back to the article, the copy-paste begins quite unashamedly.

Here is exactly the same article copied straight from (I presume) the Telegraph.

Pressure on Tories over Referendum
by Ananova
Pressure on Tories over Referendum by Loughbrough Echo
Pressure on Tories over Referendum by the Southport Visiter

WTF? Journalistic integrity anyone? Just to draw a parallel with one of the aspects of the Lisbon Treaty - the more law the less justice, they would do well in remembering that. British people might be the most reluctant to stand up to its oppressors (see WWII) but there will be hell to pay if we do. Personally I would prefer to remove Labour from government by force. Losing an election is just not adequate punishment for them for all the utter crap they have put us through.

Love Lisbon damn You!

A pretty boring after-noon with a bit of the Economist laying on the table waiting to be read in its entirety. In the mean time I thought I would just link to these two lovely clauses from the Lisbon Treaty.

The treaty contains a 'ratchet clause', meaning that national vetoes can be scrapped one by one without the need for summits or referendums.
"Lisbon does not give you, as a citizen, the means to control the executive or the politicians who decide on your behalf"
Trying to find the bloody link...


When you thought that politicians could not get any dumber your are yet astonished by their immense ability to stun us yet again with their seemingly insurmountable pool of gripping naivety.
Charlie McCreevy, Ireland’s European commissioner, who joked during last year’s Lisbon treaty referendum that he had not read the document and “no sane person would,” on Friday warned a second rejection by Ireland next month could turn a “very serious economic problem for Dublin into a full blown economic crisis”.
Mr. McCreevy does not know the first thing about basic human psychology (nor does it help when a person who is no taller than a Mini weighs in on the threats), something which he should have picked up at day-care where you are first introduced to this most basic of human instincts.
When someone orders you to do A you automatically think of doing B.
Of course I do not think there is a hope in hell of the Irish voting 'no' this time around since there is only so much propaganda the human psyche can take before it folds. It is not their fault it is partially our fault. Our glorious leader is so incomprehensibly slap handed on this whole issue that it is astonishing that he is leader of the party. He could have saved the Irish from the European Commission, he could have saved them from having their arms bent, he could have saved them the belittling & patronisation and above all: when they do vote 'yes' this time around he could have saved them the embarrassment of a nation; that of relinquishing all your principles.

Mr. Cameron has left the whole ordeal to the Czechs and the Poles - both very respectable people but sadly countries without any geopolitical influence at all. Mr. Cameron could have said Britain will have a referendum regardless of what Ireland will say. Browbeating countries like Poland, the Czech Republic and Ireland is one thing, taking on Britain is an entirely different prospect all together. The Commission knows this and most likely the Tories as well. Yet I think we can unequivocally now say what kind of a 'leader' Mr. Cameron will be in his tenure of the UK.

Most of you knew this dire news already I fear. Mr. Cameron has been pandering to the needs of the centre people ever since he became leader. True, the party is no longer the 'nasty' party but it is a party without the morals required to call itself centre-right. Upon UK-EU relations I urge you to read this article from the Telegraph, which is good representation of things to come, they have not got everything right of course in terms of EU bureacracy. But it is only a newspaper and you cannot expect them to tell you the whole truth.

Of course Mr. Cameron could dine in the halls of Churchill and Pitt, if he follows his heart and not his lobbyists....

Thursday, 17 September 2009

The Farmer and the Yuppie

I was too tired to write something meaningful so I lifted this from the Blaney's Blarney there are a lot of really good jokes about the little pickle were in as a nation - a pickle the size of Neptune. Have a look at this one which I posted a few days ago.
A farmer is overseeing his herd in remote valley when suddenly a brand-new BMW advances out of a dust cloud towards him.

The driver, a young man in a designer suit, Gucci shoes, Ray Ban sunglasses and YSL tie, leans out the window and asks the farmer: "If I tell you exactly how many cows and calves you have in your herd, will you give me a calf?"

The farmer looks at the man, obviously a yuppie, then looks at his peacefully grazing herd and calmly answers, "Sure, why not?"

The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell notebook computer, connects it to his iPhone, and surfs to a NASA page on the Internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite navigation system to get an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the area in an ultra-high-resolution photo.

The young man then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop and exports it to an image processing facility in Hamburg, Germany. Within seconds, he receives an email on his Palm Pilot that the image has been processed and the data stored.

He then accesses a MS-SQL database through an ODBC connected Excel Spreadsheet with email on his Blackberry and, after a few minutes, receives a response.

Finally, he prints out a full-colour, 150-page report on his hi-tech, miniaturized HP LaserJet printer and finally turns to the cowboy and says, "You have exactly 1,586 cows and calves."

"That's right. Well, I guess you can take one of my calves," says the Farmer.
He watches the young man select one of the animals and looks on amused as the young man stuffs it into the trunk of his car.

Then the Farmer says to the young man, "Hey, if I can tell you exactly what your business is, will you give me back my calf?"

The young man thinks about it for a second and then says, "Okay, why not?"

"You work for the British Government, Gordon Brown's Office", says the Farmer.

"Wow! That's correct," says the yuppie, "but how did you guess that I am from the Labour Government?"

"No guessing required;" answered the Farmer. "You showed up here even though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked. You used all kinds of expensive equipment that clearly somebody else paid for, you tried to show me how much smarter than me you are; and you don't know a thing about cows...This is a herd of sheep you wanker! Now give me back my fucking DOG!"


Yippiee kay fucking yay I am

Created by LPUK

Who gives a shit?

PM Name Game - notice the alliteration

  • MacDonald
  • Attlee
  • Wilson
  • Callaghan
  • Blair/Brown
What do they all have in common with 'Destruction' and 'Economy'?

For a chance to win a special mention on this blog post the answer in the comments!

Quote of the Day

The attorney general sacked her housekeeper last night amid claims the woman had overstayed on a visa and was no longer legally entitled to work in the UK. This odd for a couple of reasons. Employers face a civil fine of up to £10,000 per illegal worker and up to two years' jail for the most serious breaches. We should point out that these are "normal" people alas not part of the elite - they can do what they like. More astounding however, these rules were brought in 2006 by the Home Office and you would have thought that their employers ought to know them. But hey one rule for them and one for us. Whatever she does she wont resign be quite sure on this prediction.

"The attorney general is Nu-labour, female and black makes her pretty untouchable don't you think?" - Guardian comment

Again this blog will talk about all those toxic subjects like immigration, social cohesion, Islamism, Europe and Britishness. Why? No one else will.

Wednesday, 16 September 2009

Radical Islam? No, Furious Britons

More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot.
Those were the words of one 'V' in the movie V for Vendetta which has now become synonymous with people taking on the government in the UK - those who are truly fed up with the whole shenanigans of this office. Naturally Guy Fawkes held this position long before Ms. Evy Hammond a.k.a. Natalie Portman shaved her head.

The movie did something else it gave birth to another form of resistance, the one we are fighting today albeit online. How many bloggers own a Guy Fawkes mask as sported in the motion picture? Quite a few I would guess, some have even taken it upon themselves to epitomise this great citizen notably Old Holborn. More significantly however is that the battle for the future is not waged in the streets nor in Whitehall it is waged online - everyone seems to know this except the 5th column placemen who are now firmly entrenched in every level of our local and national government. Cameron, as said many times before, will need to wage war against these people to whom the object of destroying the UK far outweighs the object of improving it.

This leads us to the main topic of this entry namely not that Labour has radicalised Muslims but they have severely pissed of the nation and I do not mean that in a Thatcher pissed-of way, that was bad enough, but this is something wildly different as will be shown.

We all know that this regime, we are a democracy trapped in a swastika, is taking a silk glove approach to Muslim Extremism in the UK. Lets get a few things very straight before we launch ourselves into this debate. Commonly we say that there are only a minority of people who are really involved in Muslims Extremism - the kind where they plot to blow us up or themselves for that matter. However there is something else which I think must be given a grouping for itself a second tier sort to speak. These are the very large number of young men who comport themselves as defenders of Islam shouting "Allahu Akbar" in front of, well everything they see which looks like a microphone or a police officer.

These are people which will need a hard push or a really hard kick to really slide them into the warm hug of extremism. But they are angry no doubt (and seem to have little understanding for free speech) and they are directing that anger towards the UK for some inexplicable reason (that was sarcasm, we invaded 'Muslim' countries so we are thus baddies, no really we are at least for the Iraq war, I fully agree with the Afghan war). But even more so what we are doing is pandering to their differences. We allow them to come here and set up camp but not take part in Britain's way of doing things. Some argue that this is because we have lost our identity as a nation - and really we are not being greatly helped by our educators either. Others argue it is because we are British and imposing our values on immigrants well that would just be racist now would it not? Some think it is because media is severely twisting the facts (this is really a non-issue for we all know that it is true but for distinctness sake). Remember those three handsome young men who thought it a jolly idea to blow up some more planes, well here is how the media covered the story (you will notice of course which ones are the mouthpiece of the government)

The Times: Islamic extremists guilty of airline bomb plot.
The Daily Mail: Islamic extremist guilty of liquid bomb plot to blow up transatlantic jets.
The Daily Telegraph: Britain is at war with Islamist militants.

BBC: Three guilty of airline bomb plot.
The Guardian: Three guilty of transatlantic bomb plot.

I argue, however that our identity is hidden beneath a coat of 13 years of New Labour hegemony and a bit of Major government thrown in there for good measure. Believe in coincidences if you wilt but it is not so when suddenly the fundamental cornerstones of the glue that binds a nation together suddenly disappear. This is everything ranging from teaching British history in schools to the character of Parliament and the people who supposedly are in it to serve us as they rule on our behalf. Moreover Britain is or rather was a truly fantastic country in all its little peculiarities which made her stand out amongst the great nations of the world. All countries have their culture even though some larger entities are actively seeking to abolish them. But we have always done things in some very strange but yet adoring ways. You will note that in the 90s and in this decade there have been not one but 11 acts which have changed face of Britain forever. I have only included the ones under New Labour but even so this is an astonishing amount of acts filed under 'Constitutional Matters' (on this blog we have talked a lot about the new Supreme Court which we do not agree with at all) for any government to propose and pass. And of course they were all done under the dubious aegis of reform. As such following the slew of constitutional changes introduced after Labour came to power in 1997, the constitution analysed by Bagehot and Dicey no longer exists at all. For the records...
  • House of Lords Act 1999
  • Human Rights Act 1998
  • Freedom of Information Act 2000
  • Civil Contingencies Act 2004
  • Constitutional Reform Act 2005
  • Scotland Act 1998
  • Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999
  • Government of Wales Act 2006
  • Government of Wales Act 1998
  • Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000
  • Registration of Political Parties Act 1998
No doubt this will end up as a disaster, a bit like the man who thought it up, Blair, a poor QC in his time, who never really did very much in the field of law. Most of the most important reforms that have been undertaken were said to have been thought up over a glass of whiskey or on the back of a letter. I might be overzealous on this issue but have shot of about 6 mails to the Mr. Dominic Grieve, if the Conservatives intend to repeal most of them or create new ones of their own so as to mark their opportunism as a progressive party, something which seems to be in vogue these days. After all they are Conservatives but what precisely are they Conserving?

You see dear reader radical Islam is not only getting fuel to flame from our own self-serving educators but from the very essence of Parliament from the executive to the legislature. We are not dying as a nation nor is British culture, not in the least, but our constitutional way of pouring a bottle of Port will never look the same again.

Where does this leave ordinary Britons then? Those who just want to live happily as before, having a pint down at the local pub (before they were all shut down) or watching the footy. Well some thing is a foot, something which has not really happened before in the UK at least not on this scale. The British people are really pissed of. But as is one of our trade marks; we do not do revolutions over here, it is not our thing. We would rather have a cup of tea than rally outside parliament (though a few die-hard very commendable souls are doing just that at this very minute, and have been doing so for the past few years) and vent and express our anger. Who can for example cannot recall the now infamous words of Lord Ahmed when he said that 10,000 Muslims would rally outside Parliament if a private House of Lords committee viewed Fitna produced by Gert Wilders. Lo and Behold not a single person showed up, neither did the democratically elected Gert Wilders.

What of far right then and all that immigration business? I think Leg-Iron produced a very succinct and astute observation as to this end
Shouting 'Racist' at anyone who disagrees, on any subject, for the last decade has immunised the general population against the word. People are called 'racist' for any disagreement on any subject, whether race is involved or not. So the word has lost all power. You might as well call them 'poltroons' and 'bounders' now.

Now, the new tag applied to anyone who objects to anything is 'far right'. In the eyes of the Socialists, anyone 'far right' wants oppression and absolute control and violent suppression of anyone who disagrees. Socialists don't understand irony.
Privately of course people will say that they have had quite enough of mass immigration, draconian laws, 'soft' touch approach to Muslim Extremism, a failed state etcetera. But now it seems a few group (EDL and Casuals United among others) are taking action, albeit in a form which is not very nice admittedly, but nonetheless it is some form of action - agree or disagree protesting against Islam is as much a cause as protesting (?) for the implementation of Sharia law in the UK. Note though these are groups protesting against radical Islam and not the religion itself. Most religions can be quite lovely when you do not take them literally which is precisely what fundamentalism is all about be it in America or in Saudi Arabia. The media and main parties of course are trying to victimise the shouting young men who not only heckled returning soldiers and nearly had their heads ripped of by the Luton crowd, but were also labeled 'anti-fascist' by the MSM. As Leg-Iron noted
The press struggle to spin news of the riots to make the Muslims the victim. Nobody is falling for it any more. They throw around the 'far-right' label and nobody knows what it is. Especially when applied to groups that espouse no political views at all. Far-right football fans? Far-right bald men? Is every bald white man far-right now? Should we expect to see football crowds goose-stepping to the stadium?
Do the media even know what a fascist is anymore? It is a very dangerous word to throw around seemingly unchecked and most importantly unchallenged. It is just taken as fact when a media outlet claims that this and that is fascist for we have come to, rightly, fear fascism. But somewhere a long the line the MSM got the notion that they had the carte blanche to label anyone a fascist for the way he dressed, drank, ate, read, walked, ran or any other arbitrary attribute they dreamt up as being sensationalist enough to render a spot in the paper or website.

This is all very well, you cannot expect the media to actually produce quality journalism these days, they are struggling to stay alive and keep sales up. 'Quantity over quality' is the maxim for papers now and you cannot really blame them for that. But one would have thought that journalists at least had some integrity and independence. However when councils are actively seeking to abolish one form of protest (though they failed) and favouring another then we really are bordering on true fascism on behalf of the state - I cannot be frank enough about the severity of these actions. 'Double standards' and 'freedom of speech' the latter must always take precedence if we are to lay any claims of being a "democratic island".

'Get to the bloody point' I imagine some of you are thinking at this stage. We are getting there now for we are to tackle the issue of the BNP. I said that Britons were furious and I meant it. The BNP is the outlet of this anger but it seems as if the MSM are expecting it to die down for reason come the election. This is a very odd approach, people only turned to the BNP for they felt they were being betrayed by the main three. The main three have failed Britain miserably. Few can contend this I imagine. The BNP is at the fringe and really the only alternative left for normal working class people who were being overwhelmed by the disastrous failure in every policy area under the New Labour tenure.

Consider past European Elections results for the BNP

2009: 943,598 (6.4% of total) - First Two MEPs
2004: 808,200 (4.2%)
1999: 102,647

A worrying trend, consider now past General Elections results for the BNP

1983: (0.0% of total) 14,621
1987: 0.0 553
1992: 0.1 7,631
1997: 0.1 35,832
2001: 0.2 47,129
2005: 0.7 192,746

Not as worrying perhaps but we still have a general election next year and things are looking very good for the BNP sadly.

Here it is, the conclusion you have been waiting for. Basically, there are two parties to choose the next government from and neither of them is allowed under EU diktat to mess with immigration rules. That is one of the biggest problems right there 'neither of them is allowed under EU diktat to mess with immigration rules' - most people know that now and, I believe, are sick to the bone of it. Being unable to influence the big three they must turn elsewhere. I have nothing else to go by but polls so you will excuse my utilization of them, but if they are true then the 'other' parties now make up 15% of the parliament were there an election tomorrow. Yes, the BNP is only represented by 1-2% But that is still 1-2 MPs and that is an outrage in itself - not because they were elected but that fascism has made it way to the Palace and we just sat by and did nothing, thinking that our 'multiculturalism' approach to immigration would save the day.

(Blimey! That was a long post).

Well this is just funny

This reminds me of what the Anglophones in Quebec used to call the "Neverendum".

"You want to secede from Canada?"
"Eh, nope"
"OK, we'll ask you again in 6 months...."

The EU is at least being dictatorial with a spot of humour.

BFPO to close next year

I lifted this piece, in its entirety, from Aquila Victrix - it is too significant not to.

By this time next year the government intends to bring an end to BFPO operations in Europe.

The British Forces Post Office provides mail and Post Office counter services to Forces personnel and their families whilst serving outside Great Britain.

Using the BFPO means that, when members of Britain's Armed Forces are serving abroad, they have a postal address which is recognised as being part of their own country - even when they are serving on the frontline. This may sound a small thing but in its way it is a link with the people, something that helps bind together those serving abroad with everybody else back home. It is also a long-established tradition going back over two hundred years to the time of the Peninsular War.

The cutting of this service will be a significant blow to families with loved ones based in Germany, Belgium, Gibraltar and elsewhere on mainland Europe as they will no longer have the same postal rates that apply within the UK and they will no longer have the confidence that their mail will be handled in a safe and secure manner.

A petition has been set up on the No.10 website to get the government to reconsider its decision to remove British Forces Post Offices from mainland Europe. If you would like to add your name to this petition visit:

Tuesday, 15 September 2009


We do not teach history in schools anymore, well not at least compulsory. Fair enough both parties are to blame. From this article entitled 'Once upon a time there was a subject called history...' I read a very interesting comment

I have little sympathy. I have a Bachelor's degree, a Master's degree and a PhD, but I can't teach in schools unless I get a totally pointless PGCE. What nation on Earth could rank a year-long course above a doctorate? A joke from start to finish.

I was, to be frank, blissfully unaware of this. Apparently if you have a fucking PhD you need something as utterly useless as a bloody PGCE to teach when you are ten times more fucking qualified than the entire department to which you are applying? Oh dear... never mind the loss of national identity - the glue which keeps us together, if passionate over-qualified people cannot even be given a chance to teach without needing some BS qualification then surely, even the tories must see this, something is disastrously wrong. Mind you everything is completely coked-up in this country a result of decades of disastrous governments but that does not mean we cannot change it.

Apologists will say 'well highly qualified does not mean an inate ability to teach' no you can bloody well say that twice. But you do no require university lecturers to take fucking PGCEs now do you?

Monday, 14 September 2009

A lesson in destroying a country

Melanie Philips' article on the recent survey of teachers in the UK which found that most were utterly against any form of UK at all - a camp site is more to their liking, a camp-site where we are all part of one "universal brotherhood". What complete tosh.

One of the most startling aspects of our society at present is the way things that were once considered to be virtues have now become the object of intense disapproval, and vice versa.

A recent survey of teachers by London University’s Institute of Education found that some three-quarters of them believed it was their duty to warn their pupils about the dangers of patriotism.

In all honesty I do not think there is a single stone which could be overturned, in the UK, without finding New Labour disaster lurking beneath it. The teachers appear to be taking on a similar approach to the Germans and their banning of everything which reminded them of Hitler and the Nazis. From their blowing up of all Nazi buildings in Berlin (yet for some inexplicable reason left most of the others, scattered through out Germany, intact - the SS school in Saxenhusen is today a Police College) to their banning of the Swastika to it becoming unlawful to even think that the Holocaust never happened. Despicable the Nazis were in every shape and form, somehow they managed to get their autocratic agenda beyond the grave.

Who could really blame the Germans though, their country had experienced the worst fate of any for probably a couple of centuries. It made sense to make all those silly bans eventhough most people only pay lip service to them it seems since the Neo-Nazis are flourishing in Germany. It makes little sense today since it is a violation of freedom of speech and thought. The crimes which the Nazis created; thought-crime, post-Nazi Germany enacted.

Enough of that though. What does this have to do with British teachers? Drawing parallels between the above we can see quite a few similarities. The teachers are supposedly doing the pupils a favour by supposing that ignorance of Churchill will honour the suffragettes. Or more to the majority, ignorance of anything in British history will somehow stop British children from turning into little Renegades themselves, of hunting Jews and Gypsies. Obviously marking them all with stars and creating massive camps as well.

I must say I am rather dumbstruck about how they perceive children are to learn about historical protagonists and antagonists. You cannot live in the 21st century and not have heard about Hitler today. This is not possible for it will be mentioned in a newspaper or movie from time to time. Part A is complete thus; pupils know of the antagonist. But in supposing they are doing the pupils a favour by not teaching them Part B; the protagonists - this is complete madness. Why was it that Germany lost in WWI, what did the allies do to provoke WWII - did the allies do anything at all? WHO ARE THE ALLIES?!

They are not so much rewriting history, they are just omitting parts which they find (precisely why teachers should be allowed this much power is beyond me, if we are to have a national curriculum they must adhere to it or the whole objective is lost) objectionable. But, parents today who had parents who fought in WWII, I daresay, will not agree with this omission of facts.

Gordon Brown has spoken in favour of encouraging pupils to be patriotic, calling for ‘Britishness’ lessons to be part of the curriculum. He is right to be concerned about the erosion of national identity.

What he is reluctant to acknowledge, however, is that the root cause of this is the promotion of multiculturalism, which has turned patriotism into a dirty word.

But without patriotism, a society starts to die. If the core purpose of education is to transmit a culture down through the generations, it is not patriotism that is a menace to this country, but the teachers whose real target is Britain’s identity itself.

Quite. Mr Cameron really has his work cut out for him. In every echelon of society there are people with utterly warped priorities who have lost all sense of what it meant to belong to an entity larger than themselves. I am not going to be a poster boy for Conservative school policy for I do not agree with privitisation of education - but if it gives parents control of what their children learn then it will be hard to object to it, should the Tories not overcome this very large obstacle in bringing Britannia back to her feat. Removing her from the ostensibly ubiquitous position she currently has; that of giving every other nation on the planet a fellatio.

Legislation (Memoranda of European Derivation) Bill

Do you all remember this little beauty which was defeated in Parliament not so long ago (2004).
Require a Minister of the Crown, the National Assembly for Wales, a Northern
Ireland Minister or a Scottish Minister in respect of any primary or
subordinate legislation which gives effect to any European Community treaty,
obligation or instrument to publish a memorandum specifying the relevant
European Community treaty, obligation or instrument from which it is
derived and identifying which provisions in the legislation are so derived.
A fine bill it was indeed. Shame it was defeated, it would really have put some inconvenient information on the table for Labour (and the Tories).

I am trying to establish whether it will be put forth again later on when the Tories have a majority in Parliament. Remember that Wilberforce had to put forth his ban of slave trade -bill several times before it was passed. He headed the parliamentary campaign against the British slave trade for twenty-six years until the passage of the Slave Trade Act 1807 (which was only two years after the Battle of Trafalgar, 1805 - you can never mention this great battle too much).

Even so there is another very interesting bill going through Parliament currently, called European Union (Audit of Benefits and Costs of UK Membership) Bill 2008-09.
The Bill would establish a Commission to carry out regular audits of the costs and benefits of the UK’s membership of the European Union.
Of course there is no hope in hell of this passing into law since all main three parties are fiercely pro-EU but it will be nice to know how they vote.

'Perseverance' and 'Conviction' are key here for those of us who feel utterly abandoned by the political elite in the UK plc.

Is Gordon Brown a robot - really?

Have you ever stopped to think about it really and then I mean really? What if we were to remove his face, just rip it of like that, with a big sharp knife like the one sported by Lt. Aldo Raines in Inglourious Basterds. Would we find flesh and blood or would we find a metal skeleton?

One must give this proposition serious thought for the "man" (if he really is one) really has got no shame at all. Consider it just for a second he sold the majority of our gold reserves when it was at a quarter of the price it is at now i.e. loosing us out on billions of pounds. He is personally responsible for besetting Britain with a debt in excess of a trillion pounds. He and his party have single-handedly brought Britain to her knees, there is not a single party in the history of the United Kingdom which has done this much damage to the UK there really is none. Do recall that there have been some pretty disastrous PM and parties prior to Tony and Gordon. For example these are some of the issues that have been created by the Labour government and they cannot be overstated.
  • Foot and mouth crisis (twice)
  • Farm payments
  • Pensions theft
  • Gold reserves
  • Tax credits
  • Iraq war
  • Under funded ill-equipped Forces
  • PFI
  • Home Office failures
  • Uncontrolled immigration
  • NHS in tatters
  • School standards at the lowest ever
  • Thousands of knee jerk badly written laws
  • Rampant EU fraud
  • EU ignoring its own people
  • EU referendum promise reneged
  • Treaty/ constitution
  • Northern Rock
  • HMRC
  • Lost data – child benefit and dvlc
  • Donorgate
  • Cash for Honours
  • Single families
  • Economy in complete tatters
  • First time buyers taken out of market
  • Rich and poor divide becoming bigger
  • Plenty of tax rises – both direct and indirect
  • Uncontrolled private sector
  • Crime out of control
  • Young deaths
  • Guns on our streets
  • No Election
  • Catholics are to become Sovereigns annuling the Acts of Supremacy 1559 (actually there are so many things that New Labour have done which have annulled old acts that it really is pointless to make an issue of it. I just wanted to give this one as an example).
  • Afghan war
  • Quangos controlling parliament
  • Financial crisis
And so on.

So I am thinking... What if he really, really really is a metal robot? Conspiracy theorist gone mad? Well maybe but is there really any other option? He is mad of course but maybe that is because someone is controlling him with a joystick!!!! Be aware I might not be able to post any more for I have revealed the awful truth and MI6 will be after me like Muslims after recognition of their victimisation.
It is late, give me a break.

Sunday, 13 September 2009

His judgment cometh and that right soon

From Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus) 21:5, a book contained in the Roman Catholic Bible (what Protestants refer to as The Apocrypha) - if any of you were wondering were that curious title came from.

Dear reader, this is nothing short of a revolution! Read this at the Guardian.
"It takes 100 years or more for some species of tree to grow to full size but a few minutes to cut them down. The roots may live and sprout but the tree never grows back in quite the same way again. The question that faces the British electorate in the next eight months or so is whether the same applies to the conventions of liberty, trust and privacy which have been felled by Labour's chainsaw. Is the damage irreversible or can the opposition parties muster the leadership and will to guarantee a restoration of all that has been lost in the last 12 years?"
With this I would just like to remind everyone of two very important pieces of legislation which are up for debate in the coming years.
  • The Freedom Bill by the Liberal Democrats
    1. Reduction of period of detention of terrorist suspects back down to 1 days detention (without charge)

    2. Repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (i.e. Control Orders)

    3. Removal of the United States of America from part 2 territories (the unfair, unequal Extradition treaty with the USA needs to be sorted out)

    4. Repeal of the Identity cards 2006

    5. Amendment of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (independent magistrates warrants rather than self authorisation by officials or rubber stamping by politicians)

    6. Restrictions on the retention of fingerprints and samples (including DNA tissue samples and profiles of innocent people)

    7. Royal Commission to recommend on the use and regulation of CCTV (20 years too late, but welcome, nevertheless)

    8. Repeal of offences restricting the right to protest in the vicinity of Parliament (SOCPA sections 132 -138 Designated Area around Parliament Square and way beyond)

    9. Extension to the number of people constituting a public assembly (currently limited to just 2 people, with some doubt as to whether or not pregnant women are allowed out in public on their own or not !)

    10. Repeal of offences of trespassing on designated site (SOCPA section 128)

    11. Repeal of provisions which restrict the right to silence

    12. Repeal of provisions to allow for fraud cases to be conducted without a jury

    13. Restoration of the public interest defence for whistle blowers

    14. Repeal of provisions which allow evidence of a defendant's bad character

    15. Reduction in the number of cases that may be retried (i.e. double jeopardy)

    16. Repeal of provisions which allow bailiffs to use force

    17. Substantial prejudice in freedom of information (should make it harder for Government Departments to conceal policy advice from the public, but there are plebtyof other FOIA exemptions which need to be curtailed as well)

    18. Repeal of ministerial ability to veto Information Tribunal decisions (which currently makes a mockery of the whole Freedom of Information Act appeals process)

    19. Repeal of provisions to allow for the establishment of children's databases

    20. Regulations to govern parental consent for taking children's biometric samples (KiddyPrinting - brainwashing of children to accept that treating everyone like criminals is somehow normal)
  • The Great Repeal Bill courtesy of Douglas Carswell (not sure if it will be fully endorsed by the Conservatives, that remains to be seen).
"Britain is over regulated. Laws, regulation and red tape stifle individuals, infantilise communities and strangle enterprise. We need a Great Repeal Bill.
Bills are traditionally drafted by "experts" and professional politicians. But it will require the wisdom and experience of all those struggling to cope with them to know which ones to scrap. That's why the Great Repeal Bill is not being drafted by them - but by you.

Do you run a business or community group? What rules and red tape have prevented you from reasonable actions you'd otherwise have taken? Please be specific and only cite rules that you personally know to be overbearing.

Deregulation is too important - for our businesses, society and sense of civic pride - to "leave to the experts". We've been waiting for the professional politicians to tackle red tape - and we're still waiting. All they've so far done is set up more quangos - a Better Regulation taskforce - and invent more red tape - regulation impact assessments forms.

So why not act now and help us draft the Bill? If it is a success, we hope that the draft Bill will be introduced in Parliament in the next session.

Perhaps this experiment in open source politics won't work. Maybe the draft Bill will be overrun by ranters. But if like me, you think there's more common sense to be found outside SW1 than there is inside, let's give it a go."
For a very good take on things please extricate yourself from this page and read this piece by leg-iron.