Thursday, 26 August 2010

A walk in the park

The academic park one should interject. Your humble correspondent and narrator will be taking a break from this blog for a few days because the pyrrhic kingdom of academia requires his services to intervene in one the most boring areas possible. But alas it will have to be done in order to sooth the mind of this young kinsman.

Pints will be flowing like beavers through a burst dam, and the wine, oh thy wine, will shine like moon shadow as it touches the lips of the sweetest of maids. But only when, when this test of fortitude is over and done with.

Farewell I bid, farewell! And we shall brave the dangers of tomorrow together like the guerilla underdogs we have become. Alas it came to an end; the loudest of vociferations from the smallest of speakers, of the vast beyond - he cried as the hero was wounded and died.


In the global historical weather records, for every thermometer reading, there are associated readings of windspeed, wind direction, rainfall, atmospheric pressure, cloud cover, etc.

What use is the arithmetic derivation of a single figure for the yearly global average of local temperatures, without the equivalent for windspeed, rainfall, humidity, cloud cover and air pressure?

Why is the emphasis on temperature only? It appears that the production and use of such a number is for metaphysical as opposed to physical purposes.
“Climate models do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.”
-Freeman Dyson

Wednesday, 25 August 2010

An appropriate picture of Britain

I can, with hand on heart, say that I completely and fully despise Harriet Harman and her Equalities Act.

Royal Navy to get new uniforms

I know what you are thinking; "what the fuck", yes I am on the same page as yourself. If there is one project to scrap then surely it is fashionista tendencies of Her Majesty's rear admirals if you get my drift - or perhaps I am not being colloquial enough?

A swedish company called the LBM Group have this statement on their website (beware these people have never heard of the concept of paragraphing):
The British Royal Navy, is well-known, especially in England, the Anglo-Saxon world and the British Commonwealth. The British Navy image has been built up for centuries and is one of the oldest brands in the world. The licensing program that LBM has developed together with the British Navy has been developed in order to achieve a clearly defined objective, to make it possible for the brand Royal Navy to create an increased strategic value for the brand that they have built up over the years. The responsibility of LBM has been to make sure that the values and the ethical standards of the British Navy are projected in an adequate way. The Royal Navy is characterized by a strong brand and a well-known logotype that also includes several dynamic and historical sub-brands [sic] such as the Royal Marines. The brand is characterized by capacity; clothing that at the same time is designed to be unique, functional and unified. To achieve this objective, three distinct requirements have been set by the licensor; Functionality, Prestige and Specialty. The objective is to position Royal Navy in such way that it simulates, and is associated with, the property and attributes of the British Royal Navy. Not only will the Royal Navy collection be produced in high-quality material, but it is also important that it will be perceived as appropriate, tough and resistant in order to attract the consumers. Both the products, as well as the way that the marketing is being made, shall reflect the values that the British Navy stands for. The Board of Directors for LBM considers that it is important to position Royal Navy in the higher price segment to convey a feeling of luxury and outstanding quality. The objective is that Royal Navy shall be considered the ‘Rolls-Royce’ of the industry. The brand has to be marketed through established distributor, and in relatively low volumes to achieve this. In this was the market is allowed to assimilate the brand and that rather creates a demand than forces LBM into push it out to the consumers. During the first years in the United Kingdom, the strategy will be focused on retail companies that are specialized in marine and lifestyle-related shoes and clothing collections. Beyond this, there is a pronounced objective to establish sales through larger department stores such as Harrods and Selfridges as well as specialized companies as Yacht Boot Company. Within the framework of the cooperation with the British Navy so far, LBM has developed a sample collection of shoes and initiated the design of a clothing collection. LBM estimates that the first products will be launched in retail during spring 2011.
[My Emphasis]

How about it Mr. Fox? Does the Royal Navy really need new uniforms, has the colour of the sea changed that much to warrant a complete overhaul of the naval fashion? Perhaps they are fighting in variable terrain, like the army, and need new uniforms in order to blend into the environment. Yet last time I checked, regardless of what the demented warmists say, the sea is still blue which coincidentally goes strikingly well with the colour of the current uniforms which are, lo and behold, 'navy-blue.' Thus, flabbergasted I remain; surely Mr. Fox, surely, this project will not go ahead. Surely their uniforms are good for at least another war, surely.

One would be forgiven for thinking that perhaps this money could be better spent on say, oh I do not know; more ships, more aircraft and more marines.

Tuesday, 24 August 2010

What is Greece doing with its euros?

What has Old Holborn dug up now?

Time to bring back O-levels

'innit' ?

('innit' is slang or colloquialism for 'is it not' - it makes absolutely no grammatical sense but that is today what passes for a "hip" or a "chic" vocabulary)

I feel that the great plethora of degrees around today means that the degree itself has been devalued. This must impact on those students who choose to study those subjects with more gravitas, especially in a world where job applications are vetted through agencies rather than directly by the employer.

The very idea that 50% of the population could be of degree standard intellect when 25 years ago only around 5-10% were even considered to be at A level standard tells us much.

While fully supporting the concept of further education I hope the government will introduce a new criterion by which degrees can be recognized according to their true value. So many of today's degrees are really vocational rather than academic qualifications and should be tagged as such.

Monday, 23 August 2010

For fucks sake...

There we go then, the EU has officially pissed of the nurses as well. I suspect they wont be voting Tory nor Labour next time around.

Of course there is going to be an "investigation" -again- which will conclude -again- that we can do fuck all about this because we have signed every single piece of shit that has come out of Brussels since the dawn of the EEC.

Britons are famed for their tolerance, one would have to be fairly tolerant to live in Britain what with all the nonsense that goes on. But sooner or later even the eurocrats must surely realise that there is only so much tolerance left after having continuously, for years upon years, having been chipping it away in favour of Schadenfreude bureaucracy.

Primary Purpose Rule

I bet few of you remember this.

Sunday, 22 August 2010

My Manifesto

We bloggers complain a lot, some would call it legitimate criticism of the society we live in today and others would plain and simple call it whining. I think the former category is the most appropriate but I am by no means going to set upon the task of auditing myself; I am not the government after all, and I would like to think that I have some personal integrity.

We complain but we rarely offer any reasonable alternatives of what should be done. Of course sometimes we do, with the EU for example we always suggest a referendum as to our continued involvement with this organisation. But on drug classification we are split and more so than often we indulge in criticising the government instead of offering constructive criticism. I am as much guilty of this as are many other bloggers.

Hence, in the interest of fairness we either put up or we shut up. There is no point in complaining about every single thing if we do not seek to do something about it.

On the top bar I have added a new tab as you might see, it is called "My Manifest" for lo and behold it is my manifesto. This is how, if I were PM, my party would do things and this is probably how I would outline the manifesto as well: clear, simple and poignant. This is what I would do to transform the vices into virtues and promote the virtues to cornerstones of the country.

I intend, at first, to only limit myself to topics that I consider myself somewhat proficient to have an opinion on such as defence, foreign policy and education. As time progresses more policy areas of interest will be added to the manifesto; as I take onboard more information. It will be to all intents and purposes an organic manifesto which grows with time and the accumulation of knowledge of this blogger.

Saturday, 21 August 2010

EU Arrest Warrant does not work - deluded ministers think they have power to intervene (they don't)

I am no big fan of the EU, everyone knows that who follows this blogs frequently. I despise the organisation lock, stock and barrel. But I particularly loathe the EAW or the European Arrest Warrant as it is also know. The number of people in Britain seized under the controversial "no-evidence-needed" European Arrest Warrant rose by more than 50 per cent last year, figures obtained by The Sunday Telegraph show. That's right a foreign court does not need to present the evidence to the British authorities they merely need them to surrender the "suspect" to them.

This is not justice, it is not common law and certainly not habeas corpus. You have the right to face your accuser and a right to know the charges, if you live in a civilised country. I spoke about 'rights' in the previous post but it is becoming abundantly clear even to the most hardline ignorant, are having a hard time denying the disappearance of the latter. Don't take my word for it though read the article yourself.

I love the part in the end where it says, and I quote:
"The Government is committed to reviewing the UK’s extradition arrangements."
The complete and utter failure of the EAW should be insult enough but the chagrin continues. Her Majesty's government is not so ignorant that they do not know EU law. Once the UK has opted in to a measure, it cannot then opt out again should it decide that the direction of negotiations is not to its liking – a decision to opt in is irreversible. In the words of the House of Lords Committee, "the UK may end up bound by a measure with which it does not fully agree." (see House of Lords EU Committee, ‘The Treaty of Lisbon: An impact assessment”, 13 March 2008, p168)

The gentleman above, whom this quote belongs to, is complicit in a complete and utter fabrication of the truth. That quote is a lie and the gentleman to which it belongs is a liar .
The government has no more power over this issue than they have over the weather tomorrow. The British government does not control the day to day management of this country. When is the media going to comprehend this simple fact; we are not an independent country anymore and seized to be so a long time ago.

The EU really does push the right buttons for me but this particular issue really gets the old rage going into overdrive. I wrote a long and winding article about the EAW in our student newspaper back in the day, and that little stunt landed me in a cafe with an italian gentleman who had read it. I spent two hours arguing with him over the virtues of freedom and proper democratic process in the face of oppression, kleptocracy and autocracy. Make no mistake the EU is heading in the complete wrong direction on virtually everything in my opinion, but particularly so with justice and the legitimate process thereof. I could scarcely believe what I was hearing on the other side of the table "Independence is bad, strength in numbers etcetera." He will no doubt make a fine commissioner one day.

Friday, 20 August 2010

Fundamental Rights disappear again (but only for some)

What are the basic fundamental rights as laid down by judicial history?
  1. Right to equal protection under the law
  2. Right to freedom of thought
  3. Right to freedom of speech and press (cf. freedom of expression)
  4. Right to freedom of association
  5. Right to freedom of movement within the country
  6. Right to vote in general election
  7. Right to procreate irrespective of marital status or other classifications
  8. Right to direct a child's upbringing
  9. Right to privacy
  10. Right to marry
  11. Right to property
  12. Right to freedom of contract by parties with proportional bargaining power
Today 2, 3, 4 and 5 just disappeared from Englishmen in England courtesy of Theresa May, the incumbent Home Secretary. Granted this ban is only concerns the bank holiday weekend in Bradford, but its wider significance cannot be understated. It says that if you are from a minority group, via race or religion, there is an open playing field for you to do as you please and the tax-payer will fund you to that end. If you oppose the moves by such gracious chants as "Butchers of Basra" then you are the anomaly, the anachronism and the anarchist for not adhering to the cultural relativism of the UK2010.

Now, of course, I do not condone the views of racists thugs and nazi sympathisers but here is the punchline, the EDL are neither racist nor are they neo-nazis. They are a group who do not believe in the islamification of Britain and neither do I. Alas, seeing as they have been gaged into silence I am only awaiting my internet connection to be severed in the wake of this new attack on freedom of expression. Stupid little me for believing in the fundamental right to peaceful protest for anyone of any political or religious persuasion. Now of course the usual epithets will be pulled out of the hat in order to justify the banning of the protest: "nazi thugs" and the good old favourite "extreme right wingers" - yet consider the people they arrested the last time Bradford Muslims took offence (H/T Old Holborn).

Furthermore, the MSM, will as usual resists the calls for some historical vivisection as demanded by their continuous insistence to label everything they disagree with, as 'right-wing'.
  • Mao, left-wing, killed 70 million people in peacetime, more than any dictator prior to him or until date.
  • Stalin, left-wing, killed 23 million people in wartime and peacetime.
  • Hitler, left-wing (if you label him right-wing please leave a justification for that in the comments), killed an estimated 12 million people in wartime and peacetime.
  • Tojo, left-wing, killed 5 million people in wartime.
  • Pol Pot
  • Ismael Enver
  • ...
The list goes on as ever, and as ever, you will struggle to find a right-wing dictator. The past was and remains a century of genocide perpetuated by the left. People say you should not point the finger for it might offend, but I am bloody well going to point the finger at spurious socialist ideologies whose soul legacy is death and destruction. And I am going to continue to point that finger at the quite frankly demented people who seek to lay the blame on someone else's doorstep for they refuse to acknowledge the lessons of history that “socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

Thursday, 19 August 2010

Academic Dumbing Down

In the wake of yet another year of A-level improvement where magically this year's cohort of students was even better than the last, let me tell you how my department does things.

When we started our first year on my course there were 82 of us. The majority of us had been subject to interviews, real interviews, with academic questions not "so how do you like our building?". After our exam results were released it was clear that a significant proportion would not advance to the second year of the course. In fact 25% of the year failed and had to either do retakes the subsequent year or redo the entire year. This is in the light of what our department also decided to do:
  • The pass rate was raised from 30% to 40% on all exams,
  • The majority of all tests were put into a new format where you had to do the questions provided. I.e. you could not choose which questions to do based on what particular part of the syllabus you knew, you had to do the entire thing.
  • The following year all exams had entered into this new format.
The total fail rate on the course is between 25-30% which means that in the end fourth year there are only roughly 55-60 people left. The rest had been weeded out. This is the point I am trying to put forth. You see, instead of making the examinations easier, like the government would have done, afraid of offending someone's intelligence, the department made it harder because the industry had told them that some of the department's graduates were not up to scratch on some parts of the course. That would not do, if it did not improve industry would stop favouring my universities' graduates. Even if you magically manage to make it onto a tough university course with having barely lifted a finger, it is not going to fly, not at the university and not in real life. You are immediately categorised as being stupid, average or clever. Me, I am probably hovering around the 'stupid-average' border but at least I know that.

Even though the government and their bloody quangos massage the statistics in favour of their policies, British students are still tumbling down the international league tables in maths, science and literacy. They are not becoming dumber but the system sure as hell is. What is more, you enter students under the false premise that they are actually able enough to pursue a proper university education in a real subject like English or Physics, when really they are not. I am not saying this because I am an arrogant git who thinks he is better than the rest no; I too failed one subject and had to do a resist. This I am not proud of but it just goes to show that real courses and real universities are hard, some of them, very hard. They are certainly not places for people who are complacent about their work ethic.

You need to be able to tell individuals that they are not good enough, that they need to work harder in order to comprehend the material, otherwise you risk not only failing the individual but the collective as well. It is abundantly clear which side the government has chosen. Socialism UK hard at work again, what was once an absolute measure of academic achievement has been all but destroyed in pursuit of an educational egalitarianism that was neither obtainable nor desirable. It is hardly surprising that more top schools are opting for alternatives such as the International Baccalaureate and the Pre-U.

And who is to blame for keeping the poor out of university? The middle-class of course. I thought, as did the Telegraph, that with a new government, this sort of self-destroying (not 'defeating') rhetoric would end with what appears to be seen as a "sensible" government. No. It would appear that only underdogs are able to be honourable in the face of certain failure. A man must be big enough to admit his mistakes, smart enough to profit from them, and strong enough to correct them. Though I suspect that it was not men who destroyed the educational system of this country. Call them anything but men for that they were not. Men, in the most serene sense of the word, apply their actions for the benefit of others, admit their mistakes and are quiet about their successes. Those are the virtues of a true statesman and we have not had one in years.

Wednesday, 18 August 2010

Small AGW victories count and Graph design can be misleading

I was greatly surprised, and delighted, this morning when I ripped open a popular-science magazine to which my parents subscribe. They like to stay in the loop when it comes to science but they have gone with the most politically correct and left-leaning (you know the type who proclaim to be 'progressive' but mean that we should all shut the **** up and follow their rules for you see they know what is best for us proles) periodical there is out there. If there is anything sensational going on with AGW - birds are flying into concentrated blocks of CO2 - you can bet this bollocks magazine is on it. They never seem to check any of the most ridiculous claims they relate as "news" and you can be quite sure that they would never, ever, break or even scratch the "consensus" on global warming.

Which leads us to this morning's joyful occasion; there was a letter from a reader saying precisely what I have been thinking about this magazine. How it is so hopelessly entangled in its own dogmatic ways that it really is not any fun to read anymore. Never questioning a topic, taking the opposite view for good or for bad, and always -always- delivering some expert who of course has a government grant to back-up him up on what he or she is saying; naturally, not challenging government policy etcetera. A breath of fresh air this letter was and even more so because it was written by a professor of particle physics at a very respected university. Well, what does a particle physicist know about global warming I hear you say? A damn sight more than Chris Huhne that's for sure (and if you honestly did think that rhetorical query to yourself, even subconsciously, you are bloody stupid - truly). Anyone who is in the loop when it comes to science knows that whatever you do, you do not stick your nose out and go against the flow on AGW. You are seen as a maverick, a raving loony charlatan, who bought his degree online. Or worse yet: did your PhD in something useful. The horror!

This man should be knighted for his bravery.

PS. Here is a very easy trick for you non-scientists if you want an easy way to distinguish proper science (most of the time) from bogus politically motivated hacks. Scientists, the real ones without an agenda (and I am sad to say some with an agenda who have no regard for scientific impartiality and process), use a program called MATLAB (short for Matrix Laboratory) to make their graphs and tables. This program is not that difficult to learn, but most people don't for the simple reason that Excel is 10 times easier to use. Which is why hacks and warmists usually use Excel for their graphs and tables. The difference is very easy to spot; you all recognise an Excel graph, it looks very slick and I do not really need to describe one for you. The one below is of a typical MATLAB graph; quite grubby, not very pleasing to the eye but it does the job and that is the key point. Next time you think someone is talking bollocks and is backing it up with dodgy data: have a look at his graphs and check to see if he knows his shit or is talking shit. I think it noteworthy to add that the now infamous 'Hockey Stick Graph' was made in Excel (most of the versions I have seen at least). Sort of says it all really.

Observe though: this is more of a guideline than a rule.

Tuesday, 17 August 2010


There is a really good word.

Saturday, 14 August 2010

Stand on two feet

Maybe we should stop being so fucking afraid of the rest of the world and then perhaps we too can again stand tall on our feet rather than our knees. Then maybe, just maybe, we might be able to emulate some of the great things going on around the world and hopefully cast off some of the lesser aspects of Britain.

Friday, 13 August 2010


Today we celebrate the passing and existence of my kinsman and ally '13th Friday.'

Thursday, 12 August 2010

Not a revolutionary prospect but close

You read it here first, a long time ago actually, but the next election will be the election of the so called "fringe". Only difference of course is that the fringe is not longer the perpetrators of the right or the left, they will be the flag-bearers of the left and the right. Why? Because no other political parties do; they have no colours to nail to the mast and no defining streak which sets them apart from the other in the majestic political landscape (notice the sarcastic hyperbole), they are to all intents and purposes 'centre'. Not 'centre-right' or 'centre-left' but bang, slap, middle of the bar, is where most mainstream political parties have set up camp today, and guess what, I reckon that voters will realise this too a much larger extent once the next election creeps closer. Consider why:

Have we had reduced immigration? No
Have we repatriated power from Brussels? No
Is the defence budget being slashed in the middle of a war? Yes
Can gypsies still set up camp wherever they want? Yes
Is the Human Rights Act going away? No
Is health and safety madness still prevalent? Yes
Is political correctness madness still prevalent? Yes
Are the trains and bus-services still too expensive? Yes
Is Britain still being sold off; lock stock and barrel? Yes
Are the pubs still dying? Yes
Is religious insensitivity to every single fucking thing, still clogging the news? Yes
Is there still too much red-tape? Yes
Are the righteous still preaching 24-7 how we should live our lives? Yes

Now consider why nothing has happened with these rather large issues, it has to with political ideology or maybe it just has to do with vested interests - personally I think it has to with principles or lack thereof rather:

New Labour: Centre-left
Conservatives: Centre-right
Liberal Democrats: Centre-left
The Green Party: useless and pointless
BNP: Left
UKIP: Right
SNP: Centre-left

Now this is what I think is going to happen come the next election. People who at this election were on the verge of not voting for either LibDems, the Tories or Labour wont be on that note again. This time it is abundantly clear that all of their parties have moved away from their traditional ground and into the centre where, as this post so fragrantly demonstrates, everyone hates them particularly those us with a very firm set of principles, and that pretty much entails the entire blogosphere.

The Tories will most likely loose a lot of votes to UKIP because after 13 years in opposition and perhaps two or three in government it is as clear as daylight that they do not espouse right-wing policies. A lot of working class voters will probably shift to the BNP because of 13 years in government they were completely ignored and their two or three in opposition was an abject failure and a complete waste of everyone's time, because they are trying to defend the most abysmal mandate period in British political history. They have not yet succeeded in that goal and if anything it will turn into a pyrrhic victory if they do, but then the party at large will probably disappear as well. Here comes the interesting part; a lot of LibDem voters wont know what to do with themselves. They are at face value left leaning people who were not completely convinced by Labour but they have also come to realise that neither their party nor their most obvious successor, Labour, are going to serve as a reasonable substitute for their vote. Who they go for instead is anyone's guess but probably some really weird party like Socialist Alternative or Trade Unionist & Socialist.

And such is my thesis (and has been for about 1.5 years now, remember you read it here first); The election that really counts was not the one past, but the one we are about to have sometime in the next 4 years.

Tuesday, 10 August 2010

Phrase of the day

Burka Bollocks or 'BB'.

I am a libertarian at heart and believe that people have the right to wear what they want. I do not support oppression of women, however, by religious fanatical husbands who cannot get over the fact that they have small penises, and feel that because of this they have to cover up the only biological object which would ever consider sleeping with them. That is pathetic.

What is more disturbing; whenever someone raises an objection to the burka they are called "islamophobic" and "ignorant". Well, newsflash for you medieval fucking schmucks: there is nothing in your holy book about dressing up your women so that they look like mobile tents with a pillbox-like gap for vision. It's just not in there. So, whenever someone raises an objection and you cry "islam" it just goes to show how little you know about your own religion and that makes you ignorant not us.

Finally, I do not buy the argument that they are wearing the burka by choice I simply don't. I have met enough women to know that the one thing they care more about than their shoes are their clothes. Are they honestly saying that the burkha is a valid substitute for their fashion of choice?

Sunday, 8 August 2010


I heard something rather well put today, a very simple phrase in between my studies (no recess for summer you see); "we are going to politically correct ourselves out of our own liberty" - which is true. Currently (dwindling at an alarming rate) we have some form of liberty to say and suggest what we want; when we disagree we are allowed to criticise. If liberty means anything, anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. When we loose that right we loose our liberty. If you are worried that we are seeing some form of 'new' state oppression here in the form of censorship then don't be, Aristotle figured as much way before (some 300 years in fact) the big J of C was born in good old year 0.

I myself have been censored more than once at our university paper for writing about things which did not go down well with the editor (a thoroughly pleasant fellow I will have you know, but he did not appear to be able to stomach someone who took the opposite view on Antropogenic Global Warming theory, mind you most of my mates think I am completely bonkers as well). The title of this post is 'PC' in arabic, I tried going with 'Political Correctness' but apparently there is no such thing in arabic according to Google translate - ohh, the irony.

PS. Please forward any eventual death threats to and have a lovely day.

Saturday, 7 August 2010


I have been meaning to write a long, very long, post on the Strategic Defence Review as ordered by the coalition. I started writing it months ago, before the election, but I cannot bring myself to its conclusion because it is going to truly destroy the mere concept of 'defence' that today exists in this country. Naturally though the boys over at Think Defence are doing a majestic job of keeping their trained eyes firmly on the ball.

As ever, I salute them.

Having spoken to a couple of senior officers (well the most senior was a lieutenant colonel) down at the pub you get the feeling that they really, really, despise the government - past and present. It is not so much a feeling really; they said so themselves.

For myself, well, I am just glad that the fucking PFIs are finally coming to the end and in particular the MoD ones. Those which could be most vulnerable to cuts are the £13.8bn defence training academy; a £7bn programme to replace search-and-rescue helicopters, which has already been put under review; and a £10bn contract for aerial refuelling planes.

I have written a lot about these bloody things:
  • Defence Academy in St Athan, Wales - utter shite
  • The SAR rescue package from bloody Sikorsky and a load of other wankers
  • And my favourite hating object; the A400M - what a load of dog shit
Now, a lot of people disagree with me about private contractors in the armed forces. Of course the are a lot of good arguments for them, they do save a substantial amount of money for example, but there are also a lot of arguments against them; they have no allegiance and their soul purpose is to make money. This makes them dangerous and complacent so much so that they take a very cavalier approach to human life. That is my biggest grudge against them.

If you want a bit less of the adolescent hodge podge that this blog is currently producing, and instead what to read a proper defence analysis then I suggest this piece.

Harry Potter Politics

Cornelius Fudge = New Labour and some politicians in general - arch general denyists that there is anything wrong at all with the country.

Mr. Fudge vehemently denies that Voldemort is back with all the ensuing terror that this foul prospect would entail. Our politicians on the other vehemently deny that the EU is a problem that Islam is in fact a "religion of peace" and that the war in Afghanistan is actually going well.

I think we can all draw the conclusion that J.K. Rowling got her inspiration for Mr. Fudge from the British political establishment. And that is the sad part.