Thursday, 29 April 2010

The EU Must Read of the Day

“Ultimately, we want to move towards a federal United Kingdom – devolving power within England further and thus resolving this question”

Note the LibDem words carefully – “devolving power within England further”. Not devolving power TO England, but within England.

Why can people not see, or choose not to see, that this ‘Federal United Kingdom’ is the 12 Regions of the UK as mapped out by the EU.

The rest is here and it is very scary indeed, for it maps out precisely the legal documents guarding the breakup of the United Kingdom.

Noted on Wednesday

Party Election Manifestos are apparently outselling the likes of J. K. Rowling's 'Harry Potter', as such prospective readers should henceforth take note that both are fiction.

Wednesday, 28 April 2010

Rational discource? Hardly

I have only to repeat the words of Cranmer, for they express precisely what I have on my mind.

13th Spitfire really does not know what to discuss today.

If he turns to immigration, he is racist.

If he queries issues of European Union, he is xenophobic.

If he expresses an opinion on the case of Philip Lardner, he is homophobic.

If he questions the Pope, he is a bigot.

If he expresses concerns over aspects of Islam, he is Islamophobic.

Thus is the level of political discourse in modern Britain: every contentious issue, no matter how worthy of scrutiny or debate, is swiftly closed down with threats of a fatwa or character assassination. In this age of hyper-sensitivity to offending anyone on any matter, discussion is suppressed and liberties are surrendered.

What do you call a liberal democracy which prohibits rational discourse?

Tuesday, 27 April 2010

Hung Parliament and Proportional Representation Maths

I am going to do some maths now with regards to the voting system know as Proportional Representation. Proportional representation (PR), sometimes referred to as full representation, is a type of voting system aimed at securing a close match between the percentage of votes that groups of candidates obtain in elections, and the percentage of seats they receive (e.g., in legislative assemblies).

Ralph Waldo Emerson said "Beware what you set your heart upon. For it shall surely be yours." I am just not sure the Lib Dems are aware of this nor anyone else for that matter.

Consider the election results in the European Election. Turnout across Great Britain was 15,136,932, representing 34% of the electorate. Which means first of all that no one gave a shit since it was such a profoundly pointless election anyway, more like elected dictatorship.

Conservative, votes received: 4,198,394
UKIP, votes received: 2,498,226
Labour, votes received: 2,381,760
Liberal Democrat, votes received: 2,080,613
Green, votes received: 1,223,303
BNP, votes received: 943,598
SNP, votes received: 321,007
Plaid Cymru, votes received: 126,702

Anyhow, 15,136,932 people turned out and that will form our main body from which the proportional system is based. If PR were used in a national election then a higher turnout would be expected somewhere around 30 million perhaps. But I want to demonstrate what would happen if the above number of voters in the EU Parliament election, were used for Westminster elections.

There are 646 seats in the British Parliament in Westminster.

The maths is trivial: Take the number of votes received per party, divide this by the total number of votes cast and take this number times the number of seats available i.e. 646. Then this is what would happen:

Conservative, seats received: 179
UKIP, seats received: 107
Labour, seats received: 102
Liberal Democrat, seats received: 89
Green, seats received: 52
BNP, seats received: 40
SNP, seats received: 14
Plaid Cymru, seats received: 5

Only the most naive and arrogant political pundit or mandarin would suggest that these results could never happen. This is politics, nothing is certain, who thought that arch-mongrel Nick Clegg would actually have a real shot at Nr 10 a few weeks ago? And this is the fundamental message of this exercise, if you adopt PR you will truly adopt elected dictatorship and the UK will most likely follow in the steps of every other major European nation: revolution, death, war and finally a shit coalition government to sort the mess out. The BNP would get 40 MPs for heavens sake! What is more, the LibDems love the EU yet the do not seem to realise that adopting PR might actually results in the UK leaving the EU. You might wonder then why I am so against the PR if it aids the UK leaving the EU, simple: I want to leave on the strength of argument not simple human shortcomings reflected in the PR system. I want to convince people, make them see and believe that the EU is a very very dangerous concept which does control our lives to a very high degree. If you convince by argument, reason and debate you win, if you do it with a hodgepodge coalition government who gave the people a say on the EU because of political advantage - that is not fair play. I do not care what the current political class or what the current 'Political Science' Degree tells its students; always country before party, those are my principles. Always.

The UK was taken into the EU on a lie, lets take her out on the truth.

Just because the establishment is drenched in dirty politics does not mean that we have to be; raising the bar is no particularly hard seeing as it is set so low already. Perhaps I am just a sucker for historical poetic justice but somehow I think it is wrong to change the constitutional settings for short term political gain. It leaves a very bad taste in the mouth.

However, we do get the final say on PR. The cattle are yet again queuing up to get whacked. Funny how they always fall for the same lame old story: the farmer just pretends that they’re going on a little trip to pastures new where everything is nice and sunny and lovely and the grass is greener etc. Today we have the politicos herding the bovines into the same old queue with the same old yarn and telling them that the politics is greener on far yonder hill, in the next valley, over the hill, just beyond the rainbow, round the bend.

Changing the system is the easy way to out, taking responsibility for their actions is not, clearly why no one is offering that platform.

By the by, you do not have to be a Ladbrokes Mathematician, with a PhD in statistics to work this out; I did it with Excel at 2AM in the morning.

Monday, 26 April 2010


Very Bad News

I am just repeating what is going around the airwaves, but it appears that some kind of Mandelson-Clegg deal is being done behind doors, to put Clegg into Nr 10. If you are one of those undying cynics who think we should in fact sod the lot of them and why a backdoor deal is simply business as usual, let me remind you that this is a deal between a minister who is absolutely barking mad and the party leader of another even more socialist party who will comprehensively ruin any semblance of right-wing government for ever.

Constitutional Cononundrums Come May

What of a Hung Parliament?

There appears to be something overlooked here, namely the question of who is the Sovereign and who is the servant. As Sovereign the Queen may do as She pleases [that includes any appointment] for as long as she acts within the perimeters of Her Coronation Covenant.

Parliaments may only consent to Bills pursuant to a Royal Decree under the Petition of Rights, 1628. It cannot enact law. It is interesting to note that governments, courts, and Parliament uphold their right under the Petition of Rights, but deny the inviolable birthrights of the People under same.

Constitutional practices and conventions count for naught as they do not make for law, and often violate the same.

Only a King or Queen enjoys Divine Right to reign and govern (Constitutional Monarchy and the Established Church of England), not any Parliament or any Minister of State. The latter are only elected by the People as Members of Parliament and become Minister of State by appointment and choice of the Sovereign. As such they only at best enjoy delegated authority, which can be lawfully repealed by the Sovereign at any time. That is to say if one applies the Law of the Land ('legem terrae' or the European version 'lex terrae').

In 1297, this term was used in the Magna Carta. The most famous clause of Magna Carta states: "No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land." You see, we already had a 'Human Rights Act' 700 years before the present nonsense came into existence.

Sunday, 25 April 2010


Seeing as I have been forced to post nothing but stupid images, due to lack of time, I have chosen them with great care. This one refers to one of my favourite pints. It is rapaciously un-PC which is why I love it.

Friday, 23 April 2010

St. George please reincarnate yourself

Yes I know, pretty pointless post, but I thought it was a nice picture and would like to share it with you.

Thursday, 22 April 2010

My Advice

My advice to all the party leaders for today's debate is very simple: Always forgive your enemies--nothing annoys them so much. Then perhaps you will be the one who stands at Downing Street announcing 'Veni, Vidi, Vici.' Just like Caesar a couple of millennia ago said.

UPDATE: It has been duly noted as the day has progressed, that Mr. Clegg is not happy about all the attention he is getting in the media. He is calling it "smear." Mr. Clegg should look under page 23 of Mao's Little Red Book and look under 'scrutiny' for the correct definition of what he is undergoing. No one knew about him until a few days ago and suddenly he does not like being in the spotlight. With great fame comes great responsibility; make sure you screw up as little as possible. It appears though, that Mr. Clegg has been doing quite the opposite.

Wednesday, 21 April 2010

An interesting insight

This following piece of connected words and dots is not of my making but it is nonetheless very interesting.

Everyone needs to take a deep breath and calm down. Fact: people want change. Fact: the next election will provide it. If one thing is clear, Labour are dropping towards their hard core vote and are effectively dead. We are just watching the body twitch. We just need the stake and the mallet. If the Lib Dems have one and we the other, then so be it.

The reason is that New Labour no longer exist. Gordon has marched back to the old Left, back to where the union money is – leaving all the New Labour voters looking around for something they can identify with. For some, it will be us. For others, it will be the Lib Dems – who are the natural left of centre political party for a modern Britain, much more so than Labour. I believe history will show that New Labour were the last gasp of a mass labour movement whose original goals have been effectively fulfilled.

So, what do we do? Make sure nobody pushes us off the middle-to-centre-right ground, which is an honourable position to hold in a democracy and which will win us elections. New Labour worked because times were good and people could vote with their hearts. Now times are hard, people will vote with their heads: we just present a simpler case based on 4 core messages – less waste, less government, less unnecessary immigration and (as soon as possible) less tax. Do not mistake this for using a dog whistle: these are not the old messages, they are the new reality which will be implemented in a pragmatic way. People know we have to do it, they are just waiting for it to be clearly promised, with the invitation to throw us out after a term if we have failed. This is just a short step from where we are now: harden the tone and cut down on the mood music. The Big Society may work, but people need to hear the Big Points very clearly first.

For those in UKIP who want to fight battles over Europe first and foremost, I would say that those battles must come: but unless Labour are dead, none of us can ever fight to regain powers that were never Labour’s to give away. Hold your noses and vote for us or what you want will never, ever happen. Judge by actions in power, and hold us to account after a term.

People want to punish Labour. Let’s make that happen.

Mr. Spitfire again; this is a very motivational post and it does strike some very important chords. Like Mr. North over at EU Referendum, I too think that the only way for Britain to leave the EU is for the Tories to take such action - not a minority party like UKIP. That said, I do not know this, it is just a hunch. Naturally they cannot leave with the current Tory administration and a couple of UKIP MPs would be very useful in compounding the message.

But how to vote on 6th of May? To me at least it seems as if all the best Prime Ministers were bald. None of the current people standing are bald; they all have hair and are hence not fit to rule the country since they are not bald. Bald is good, implies wisdom and implies having lost sleep over something important, which implies that the person cares about something which means that the prospective candidate has principles which guides his morals.

None of the candidates are bald, this is bad. Prospective candidates shave head, implies will get vote from Spitfire. Simples. Sod personality; bald is where it is at.

Tuesday, 20 April 2010

Immature immigration numeration

I intend to take the lead on this new approach to debating which I fully intend to adopt after this post. The approach rests upon the assumption that I myself am hopefully clever enough and knowledgeable to rip apart an attack upon my person. An attack based on a legitimate view I hold with regard to government policy.

In polite circles everyone who even mentions the BNP in a comment piece is supposed to preface it with a condemnation of the party (Microsoft Word should create a programme for journalists that automatically types out “of course I loathe the odious BNP and everything they stand for…”). No one is obliged to write the same things when discussing the Socialist Workers Party or other similarly odious entities who have a very small support section.

This preamble is dangerous because it removes responsibility from the BNP and onto the person writing the comment piece. They never have to defend their polices because anyone who comments upon them is automatically supposed to say "bla bla bla, immigration is too high and I think we should reduce it BUT the BNP are racist scum". Enough already, we know that they are racist but for heavens sake focus on their polices; play the ball not the man.

If you start a supposedly probing piece on the BNP with the word "these crazy racists thugs" people will automatically assume that you are having a rant about the BNP and not the actual policies which compose the party. This has lead to the BNP being labelled a right-wing party when everyone knows, who has read their policies, that they are in fact a left-wing party. And this is the gist of the argument; few if any people have read their polices, they only know that a rather large man with a funny eye does not like immigrants and neither do his followers. Nothing is said about the increase in the state sector that would come with their highly unlikely government nor that they intend to give back Gibraltar if they win the election. Only the fact that they do not like immigration, which is why the media has (I reckon with some help from the current left-wing government) labelled them right-wing to distance the government and in particular the Labour party, from any embarrassing ideological connections with the BNP.

This is what it comes down to; drop all the prefaces and drop all the PC as well, everyone else is doing it privately and probably thinking the same things as you: lets control our borders sensibly. If you do not play into the media and government hand they will essentially be powerless since it will be very difficult to label the internet and more specifically the blogosphere, 'racist' even though, I am sure, they would very much like to.

New Labour's approach on immigration can be summed up as thus: A volcano in Iceland has done more to stop immigration in one week than the New Labour government has done in 13 years.

UPDATE: Word of the day 'lackadaisical.'

Gerald Warner on Good Form

Just ninety minutes of PR candy-floss from a Liberal Democrat wide boy – that was all it took – and the papier-mâché construct that was Cameronian Pseudo-Conservatism crumpled and dissolved. Yesterday William Hague, the Cameronians’ best debater, was taken out in the course of the Daily Politics debate – a defeat analogous to Marshal Marmont surrendering Napoleon’s last army as the Allies closed in on Paris. Then the supposed fight-back election broadcast turned out to be a session of meaningless Daveguff delivered in a garden against a background of piano music, like an old silent movie. Vichy Toryism is assuming the past tense – the whole Potemkin village is collapsing.

Already, on last night’s edition of the Daily Politics, they were asking the teasing question: if Dave loses the election will he have to go? The answer, axiomatically, is yes, within 24 hours, and his whole tainted clique with him. Yet Michael Portillo, the first begetter of Tory “modernisation”, maintained he should stay (it would be fun watching him try); he also insisted that Cameron and his accomplices must not respond to their present emergency by venturing onto the topics of immigration or Europe, which Dave succeeded in removing from their agenda.

Whom the gods wish to destroy… The implosion of the Cameronian imposture is not difficult to understand. The nation is massively concerned about immigration, but the Cameronians refuse to discuss it, beyond a pledge to import “tens of thousands” a year. The only policy on immigration that would come within a mile of meeting public demand would be a total moratorium on incomers for a minimum of 10 years, accompanied by a focused and exhaustive drive to discover and expel all illegals. Nothing less will be seriously entertained as an “immigration policy” by the British public.

On Europe, the obvious Conservative policy would be to guarantee to hold two referenda within the lifetime of the next parliament. The first, to be held within six months of taking office, would be a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Yes, it would be a referendum on an already ratified treaty – AS WAS THE ONLY PRECEDENT, THE 1975 REFERENDUM ON EUROPE, after smirking Head Teeth misled us into the EEC. If the answer turned out to be No to Lisbon, Britain would unilaterally derogate from its provisions, followed by a further referendum on continued membership, Yes or No, of the European Union.

Other obvious policies would include the abolition of 90 per cent of quangos; the repeal by a single-clause Bill of all PC laws passed by Labour since 1997 as listed in an annexed schedule; an end of tinkering with the constitution but a Draconian crack-down instead on financial fraud by members of both Houses of Parliament with all offences criminalised; the scrapping of all proposed taxes, subsidies and other measures relating to the global warming myth; a referendum on the restoration of capital punishment; and the imposition of punitive sentencing for criminals, with victim status restored to the person against whom the offence was committed, instead of the perpetrator.

The tragedy is that any moderately competent Conservative leader offering such policies would now be within a couple of weeks of being swept to power on a landslide. Instead, Cameron and his clowns are fighting desperately for survival, after 13 years of the worst misrule Britain has ever experienced. They cannot organise a “fight-back” because they have no real policies beyond toy-town socialist fantasies such as “Big Society” (dear God!), no principles, no grounding in basic Conservative philosophy, no genuinely Tory instincts, no understanding of the people of this country and how they think and live.

The Vichy Tories live in a metropolitan cocoon, sharing a comfort zone of liberal-left political correctness with their supposed opponents in the other two main parties. They have used consensual complicity for half a century to frustrate the wishes of the nation on such issues as capital punishment and immigration. Mesmerised by the Great Charlatan Tony Blair, they imagined they could use the same marketing techniques to sell themselves into government. Dave has a masterly blueprint for winning the 1997 general election: in the 2010 contest he is hardly any longer a contender.

Police Powers

I just wanted to spread this around lest anyone was confused how exactly the Police function.

Remember the golden words - "Are you detaining me?". Use them constantly when the Police want to have a quiet word with you (and they always do, can't think why). They HATE it. Unless you are committing a crime, the Police have no right to stop you going about your lawful business. Remind them as often as possible, unfortunately they need it.

This goes for PCSOs as well, or rather, especially for PCSOs who are nothing but glorified BS.

Monday, 19 April 2010

The best idea since Chocolate

Why can we not vote for HM the Queen?


'This is the electoral voting form for the General Election 2010. Put an 'X' next to the party or person you prefer:
  1. Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth II
  2. Liberal Democrats
  3. Labour Party
  4. Conservative Party
  5. UKIP
  6. BNP
  7. The Green Party
  8. UKLP
  9. Scottish National Party
  10. English Democrats
  11. Plaid Cymru - Party of Wales'
I for one am an unapologetic royalist and am sure HM the Queen could do no worse than the hodgepodge fucktards who currently pose as leaders of this country.

Note the word of the day 'minarchism' (the spell checker is underlining the word with a red line, well I did not really expect it to know such a difficult word...)

Sunday, 18 April 2010

A prediction

There is an awful lot of talk about the Liberal Democrats running around. Apparently they are in the lead in the polls, for the first time in 104 years. I am however going to predict this: people wont so much remember the fact that the LibDem poll share shot up during this period, as much as they marvelled as it comprehensibly deflated down again to previous levels, between now and May 6th. They will call it the greatest lost opportunity in British political history. It is quite easy to see why they wont keep this going: they are a completely pointless party.

The novelty factor will have worn off by election day.


I most certainly, however, agree with Mr. Clegg when he said:
When the issue of the UK’s position in the European Union comes up again, as it no doubt will at one point, we think that should be resolved by having a referendum on the big underlying issue.”

Friday, 16 April 2010


If the 'Blue Mob' get in, they are not going 'to get powers back'.

The very nature of the Grand European Project means that it can't give powers back as to do so would threaten the rationale of it's very existence. And before you go down the "it's no longer a treaty it's the law" line, bear in mind that when Wilson offered the 1975 referendum on leaving the EEC, Parliament had "ratified" our membership in April of that same year.

The powers in Brussels make no secret of this fact therefore sooner or later, Ol' Cast Iron is going to have to face the choice of either going along with the current European Integration project or getting out.

No 'ifs' or 'buts'. The UK isn't going to get anything back from the EU as to do so would force a 'reset' of the EC Councils core philosophy as espoused by d'Estaing and continued by his successors.

It is disengenuous on the part of David Cameron to pretend that under his leadership huge swathes of EU law will simply be ignored or somehow disappear into the 'ether' (the matter in which light was supposed to travel in).

As much as DC tries to hold both wings of the Party together when it comes to Europe, sooner or later the dancing on the head of the pin will have to stop and he will have to accept the fait accompli that is Europe or get out... Why am I telling you this, well because clouds of pragmatism seem to have blow from Iceland, along with the ash, onto my head. I truly, with my whole heart, despise the EU and I certainly make no secret of this whenever the floor is given. But, the Tories are the only thing resembling anything remotely right-wing in this election (Labour, LibDems, Greens, BNP - they are all left wing) so my pernicious vote is standing in the balance. Either it goes to the Tories or it does not. I am more than aware that what currently constitutes the Conservative Party is nothing conservative whatsoever. But it appears that this is all we have in this very troubling monoglot Fabian world. Where do we cast our allegiance when the receptors have no intent of using it? We are in a no-mans land really; every election is a defining moment for a country but not anymore. Not as long as the bulk of sovereign power lays in Brussels with the EU (notice the oxymoron) - is a vote for the Tories a means to an end or an end altogether? Can we trust them to swing that mighty Trident of the British Parliament like it was swung 60 years ago? Or will it simply be left in the English channel to rust and be withered away by the waves of time.

Blue Labour or New Labour... perhaps it doesn't matter when powers are in the hands of the great Eye in Brussels. UKIP are not the last hope of getting the UK out of the EU. UKIP are the last hope of getting the UK out of the EU politically. In the mid 1600's men fought and died for the right to vote for our political leaders - no-one voted for the 27 EU commissioners who are our political masters now. In the early 1900's women also won the right to vote for our political leaders - no-one voted for the 27 EU commissioners who are our political masters now. Whatever this Orwellian construct is, it is not permanent.

Wednesday, 14 April 2010


I know that I said I was going to leave this blog alone for I a while, but I have spent the entire day doing some of the most boring coursework imaginable so I think I deserve a little relaxing via this blog. Now I am not actually the author of the main post but I found it on ConservativeHome. It regards immigration. Now I know that you have been brain washed into thinking that anyone who discuses immigration is in fact a racist (see my previous post for the correct academic definition of the word) to you I say this: fuck off. If you are still trapped in the New Labour bubble you are probably on this blog by accident as well - I want you to leave, your foul stench is scaring away all the other readers who actually want to know what this whole post is about. You are more than welcome to return when you realise that ostracising an entire country is wrong.

But I hope this emphasises precisely why I hate you: your loathsome moral righteousness espoused by your vindictive urge to crucify anyone who happens to disagree with you is the bane of all of this country's traditional adherence to common sense and the highest codes of conduct. I am sensing that you did not understand the previous sentence dear Socialist so I shall explain the one word which you need to know: "bane" means 'murderer' and it is a very old English word, of course you would not knowing anything about 'old' either since you seem hellbent on destroying any form of history.

But know this: the pseudo- courts whom you so dearly love and constantly refer to for moral guidance, with their enthusiasm for European 'rights' culture, are becoming sanctums for political correctness and are actively subverting British society. But they are merely a symbol of what once constituted a system that we believed in, a symbol which no one believes in looses all its powers because of that, it is nothing but an old rusty statue now. Why? Because the majority of the electorate simply do not buy your Fabian, multicultural and feminazi bullshit.

People are upset that they are being accused of racism whenever they comment or complain about the level of immigration; they feel that they have been let down by a government which has promoted culture that has encouraged this to happen. Think of this way; being called a racist was previously a very harsh accusation, some would say even one of the worst. By de-contaminating the word you remove its novelty, its tour de force. Formerly Goliath swung the hammer of ensuing horror of the word; but now it not worse than calling your everyday man a 'wanker' which is more like David wielding a BiC pen. Not particularly frightening but very infuriating, especially if you are on the receiving end. I am sure very many a reader can relate to what I am saying, I certainly can myself since I have been on the receiving end more than once.

Anywho, here is what the jolly man had to say:
Its not just permanent immigration

Its also supposedly temp immigration on work visas (many of which end up being given idefinite leave to remain anyways)

Why have we got a standing army of multiple hundreds of IT and Telco workers here on intra company transfer visas working for the outsourcers and subcontracted into our largest companies? mainly Indian nationals it has to be said. breaking many employment and immigration laws with no policing of the rules.

Why are a couple of hundred thousand Indian nationals still "on the journey" to residency, here on a work visa, when this route has supposedly been stopped for new entrants - why not stop it for those here already too

Why do work visa holders get tax and NI concessions?

Why so many families of work visa holders here attending state schools free, and clogging up the NHS - we have to pay for healthcare and kids schooling if we work in their country why is it different for them here?

Why does the famous "points system" not apply to intra company transfer visas?

Why so many sham marriages in places like Bradford allowing countless folk from India and Pakistan in when we all know many are not genuine loving couples?

Why are we allowing so much of the UKs leading technology to be moved to India in the name of outsourcing? we need to play a 1st world countries game and retain our IP we cannot hand it all over to the 3rd world or we really will continue on a downward spiral

Why are we borrowing an extra half a billion a year to give to India as "aid" when they can perfectly well borrow it just as easily

Why are we being so naive with India when they are systematically raping our country

Go look at any large BT site, the IT depts of Lloyds bank, the IT depts of any large British company and observe the 80% Indian national to less than 20 % Brit split. tell me it isnt obvious why no grads want to go into IT or Telco business. tell me we are not throwing our world lead away.

We need to be much harder with countries like India, their bullying working practises, the slave ship like outsourcing companies Cognizant, Wipro, Tech Mahindra, Satyam and so on. They are just laughing their socks off as they rape us.

Immigration will become a very big issue if educated folk like me give up on the main parties and over the coming years are forced to take another approach such as move to the BNP

The BNP are idiots, racist idiots at that, I genuinely dont think I am racist BUT WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO ALLOW THOUSANDS OF NATIONALS FROM THE 3RD WORLD TO WORK HERE it just doesnt work, and we cannot keep dishing out residency like confetti

Force employers to use and train Brits and Europeans, stop printing intra company and other work visas like confetti - and our competitive position will get better as we return to a leading position in the world IT and Telco business

Protect British IP from being moved to the 3rd world by multinationals

The steel plant also deserves a much bigger reaction

We have to support decent honest existing residents of this country and protect them from the slave labour racist practises of the outsourcers

I am back. Now I think most parts of that post were quite sensible bar a few bits which were a bit aggressive, but I am not in the business of censoring. Clearly the person knows what he is talking about and we would do well do listen. Let me just repeat this: England is the most densely populated country in Europe, we simply cannot go on like this.

This is about sheer numbers, not race. (I appreciate that this last line has helped little: I can already hear the cries of 'racist' and the need to rape and pillage my humble person, so much for modesty then). Racism is man's gravest threat to man - the maximum of hatred for a minimum of reason, numbers on the other hand are cold and unbiased proprietors of the truth. They know what is wrong and they know that their value needs to be severely reduced. Harangue the messenger if you want, I am just telling you what everyone else is thinking but dare not say for reasons stated above.

Monday, 12 April 2010

Hibernation with propellers

Dear readers and kinsfolk, Mr. Spitfire has entered the unholy period of revision and will as such, as the circumstances present themselves, inhabit the vast realms of the blogosphere somewhat less in the coming weeks. Fret not, for he shall return, stronger than before and all the more vigilant in telling our rulers precisely what they do not want to hear. Long I do for the day when I have the honour of being such a thorn in the political side that I am being censored. Somehow I reckon, my relative unimportance will most likely render such a fantastic hope moot. But who knows.

Now wipe that tear out of your eye and rejoice at the picture below, which is the first of a set of four propellers being built for the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers.

Anyschmoot, revision calls, mañana ye dwellers of the past.


It has come to my attention that this is going to be a very dirty election and that all sorts of foul treatments are thrown around. For your benefit, here are what some the 'insults' actually mean:

RACISM: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

XENOPHOBIC: an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange.

Saturday, 10 April 2010

TIME's take on the British Armed Forces - interesting

An interesting article from the Time on UK Armed Forces.

Well worth a read,8599,1978680-1,00.html

Update: At 02:09 AM I made up my mind to emigrate, once I am done with my degree. The United Kingdom is not united and it certainly is not part of something "great" know as Great Britain. We have lost; they won. I think we lost because we only talked about the problems and never actually did anything about them. We never put up a fight, never resisted, never protested; we publised a few meekly articles but for the better part of the day we just rolled with something we knew in our hearts was inherently wrong. I am resigned to the fact that we wont make a jot of difference and though we preach very strong words, we're really only a lot of mouth but no trousers. Hence, I would only like to add this, in proper British fashion, bollocks to them all. Come 6th of May I hope they crawl up their own arses and think about their lives, and ours, and how they have successfully not added one fucking useful thing to this planet since the day they were born.

Friday, 9 April 2010


These are strange times indeed, very strange. We assume an awful lot of things, we chirp out sound quips like 'do they not, do they not understand...' - when we speak of politics with socialist and marxist tendencies, we rally against them forthwith since we cannot comprehend how they cannot see the wickedness of their ideas. The totalitarian ideas, the enlargements of the state, the power of the bureaucracy how it is literally lining businesses up and then executing them one by one. This makes sense to us, since we, erroneously it must be said, accept some kind of self-righteousness. We say free-market, small state, strong defence, enterprise, science, technology, help them help themselves. But, and this is a very large but, this really does not hit home with a lot of people.

We are loosing the argument in favour of freedom and personal responsibility. It seems people are in such a pitiful state that they want someone to make their decisions for them. Follow the leader for better or worse, at least we have one?

Having talked to people over the past days, I am truly shocked, some of them "felt sorry" for Gordon Brown. Which is why this is a pointless election, again. Most people my age seem to judge the politicians on their personality not their policies. Speechless.

Thursday, 8 April 2010

Just a note

You really wont find anything useful on these pages over the coming days; I am far too busy with procrastination. Though I can add that I have started to write another book which brings the total being worked on in this present moment, to the grand total of two. If readers would like to discuss their own literature projects then I more than welcome your comments.

That was a mortifyingly boring paragraph and I do apologise for its lack of substance, but to borrow a phrase from the poet Mari Evans, "when in Rome". I am not in Rome but if I were I would chill the hell out with a glass of Chianti, courtesy of Tuscany. Really that is all you can do; chill-out and pray that the party leaders of the 'Big Three' die of an early heart attack as a result of ubiquitous consumption and expulsion of lies, lies and lies... While they bang on about this and that domestic non-issue our real laws are still being made in Brussels where they do not give a shit about the British as long as they pay.

I wonder for how long this will go on.

Wednesday, 7 April 2010

Defeat implies reading

It appears that any hopes I had of doing any revision (currently) have been completely dashed, in honour of this complete and humiliating defeat I decided to read Churchill's autobiography instead. Just to let you unwilling readers out there know that, whilst there is an election campaign going on out there I will try to ignore it as much as possible, it is nothing but theatre and our laws will still be made in a different land without an almighty Queen, who has the power to strike down a parliament which takes popular support for granted.

Tuesday, 6 April 2010

Gay as Christmas or Mr. Grayling?

I am not going to take sides on this one simply because I do not care that much. If it is your private property then perhaps you should decide who gets to eat and live there and not the state. Perhaps it is your civil right to dine and sleep wherever you see fit. Perhaps a case-by-case approach is needed instead of the big stick of government.

What I would like to add to debate is this: numbers. The Telegraph says that support for the Conservative party has dropped sharply since the B&B row. We knew all along that the Conservatives were fishing for particularly the Gay vote, consider this poll from Gaydar
This is how members of the Gaydar survey panel said they had voted in 2005:

Labour: 39.9%
Conservative: 22.1%
Liberal Democrat: 19.8%
Did not vote: 6%
Other: 4.1%
Green: 3.7%
Scottish National party: 3.5%
Plaid Cymru: 0.9%

Unsurprisingly, a big lead for Labour. Compare that with the voting intentions for 2010:

Conservative: 28.9%
Labour: 27.5%
Liberal Democrat: 27%
Green: 4.5%
Other: 4.3%
Don't know: 3.7%
Scottish National party: 3.4%
Plaid Cymru: 0.7%
I hope it is quite obvious that since 2005 the Tory gay vote has increased dramatically. Now let me add a spoon of perspective to this. There are 3.6 million gay people in Britain. The 2001 census showed that 42 079 000 identified themselves as 'Christians'. This equates to 71.6 percent of the population. 'Operation World' 2001 puts the percentage at 67.6 percent. Now as a party leader you have to look at the figures you have 3.6m vs. 42m - looking at it from a purely political point of view not involving morals, ethics or religion then their policy makes no sense. If we assume that those 42m really do find gay people a tad odd then surely their money would not be on the Tories with their current policies.

My point being, as Gerald Warner notes
Christian B & B owners do not want acts they regard as profoundly sinful taking place inside their own homes, with themselves as unwilling facilitators. Formerly both their scruples of conscience and their rights as homeowners would have been respected, even championed, by the Conservative Party. Today, however, it is enslaved to the PC agenda and obsequious towards the tyranny of metrosexual opinion formers.

To continue to call this synthetic organism manufactured in a social engineering laboratory the “Conservative Party” would be an imposture. It is no longer the Conservative Party, it is a completely different entity: the Cameronian Party. Today any Christian who votes for the Cameronian Party is contributing to his own marginalisation. That is the other issue raised by the Grayling faux pas: the position and appropriate response of Christians.

Christians in this country today are hurt, concerned, bewildered by the increasing attacks on their faith – the repeated banning of the emblem of the cross is a totemic example. Yet, from force of habit, in a Pavlovian reflex, large numbers of them intend to go out on polling day and vote “Conservative” (or even Labour). They have not made the connection between their supine support of their persecutors and the escalating crusade against their religion.
But that was Gerald Warner's point and mine taken from a libertarian point of view. PC has become a great big cancer on this state and it is growing day by day, because people actually believe in their own stupidity. The two pillars of 'political correctness' are:

a) willful ignorance

b) a steadfast refusal to face the truth

If you add 'a' and 'b' to 'religion' and 'sexual orientation' you have got a pair of simultaneous equations, with an infinite amount of equally corrupt solutions.

Whoever you are, whatever you believe in and however you wish to live your life; exercise it with a bit of common sense. If you want to shag your boyfriend or girlfriend senseless in a private B&B then do so, but do not be offended if you are asked to leave as a result. Everyone is not gay, get over it. Similarly, owners of private establishments, gay people are not the second coming of the plague and are ordinary people just like you and me. If you reject them you are only doing yourself an injustice by loosing out on their business. There is no moral imperative for either side to influence the other, there are gay christians as well as gay atheists and christian heterosexuals.

No one has the right to tell the other what to do, and political parties should take heed as to what determines their policy: sexual orientation, religion or that trivial matter of national necessity. The past few years clearly show a political class which would not touch the latter with a barge pole yet they expect our vote. Their false 'cri de coeurs' will wash of us like butter on teflon.

Sunday, 4 April 2010

Tories to stop British participation of EU Public Prosecutor

...according to the Telegraph:
In his interview, Mr Hague promised that the Tories would end British participation in the EU’s scheme for a European Public Prosecutor.
I think this will work for about 5, maybe, 10 minutes in Brussels and then they will all have a laugh, sign off, and tell the Brits to piss off. Moreover it is pertinent and polite to add that Europe as such consists of 47 nations, geographically speaking, whereas the EU is made-up of 27 member states. Perhaps it would not be a bad idea to change the name of their little scheme lest they want to insult states like the Ukraine or Switzerland. I hear the Ukrainians have the largest military in Europe after Russia, perhaps it would not be such a bad idea to keep on their good side? Personally I would like to see every EU building in Brussels levelled to the ground, but somehow I cannot see that happening in my lifetime, but perhaps with the help of the Ukrainians - who knows?

Next on the agenda:
The mistaken belief that the EU is responsible for as much as 80% of all legislation in Europe (it is no more than 50%)
But here is Dr. Herzog, of the German Ministry of Justice;
“It is true that we are experiencing an ever greater, inappropriate centralisation of powers away from the Member States and towards the EU. The German Ministry of Justice has compared the legal acts adopted by the Federal Republic of Germany between 1998 and 2004 with those adopted by the European Union in the same period. Results: 84 percent come from Brussels, with only 16 percent coming originally from Berlin” - Former German President Dr Roman Herzog, also former president of the German Constitutional Court, excerpts from article in Welt Am Sonntag, 14 January 2007, co-authored with Lüder Gerkin
It is a daring editor indeed who asserts himself and his newspaper to be more judicially perceptive and omniscient than a national Ministry of Justice. Personally, I nearly choked on my cornflakes when I read that little badger this morning over breakfast. What is more, and this does need repeating, Mr. Herzog is a former President of the German republic but also the former President of the German Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe. I cannot properly fathom how exactly the Economist, the Economist, not the Sun or the Mail, missed this. I know this, and I am just a dumb little ignorant student not a political journalist (whose sole occupation in life should be to know things like this; details which can turn a story on its head) - supposedly who writes the articles in the Economist. Shocked I tell you I am, to the core (not really).

But even so, how the f**k is 50% an acceptable figure anyway?! Perhaps if you live in La-La land and perceive sovereignty to be a trivial issue then sure 50% is not worth the binary code by which it written on this blog. Somehow, however, I think I was not the only one who choked on his cornflakes this morning.

Friday, 2 April 2010

Facebook - the bane of our (my) existence

I hate Facebook. Sure, we live in the computer-age (why not call it something cool like the 'Nuclear-age', no we had to go for "computer" ffs...) but where did this obsession come from? Where you have to have so and so many friends to be cool (I have worked out that you apparently need around 300 friends to be 'normal' in Facebook world). But honestly, there are about 20 people, perhaps 25, people of my ad-hoc "FRIEND" list that I would even consider having a pint with - who are all these other people and why do they feel so socially inept that they have to 'add' you to their abstract "FRIEND" list after having spoken to you twice - is that what constitutes friendship these days?

Apparently, my mates tell me, there is a difference between a 'Friend' and a 'Facebook-Friend'. Right. What does that mean? Has talking to people become so stigmatised that you have to 'know' the person prior to said conversation (being someones friend of Facebook constitutes knowing the person apparently). I do not understand; yes we live in a digitalised age but social interaction is a basic human function, hardwired into our brains since the dawn of our brains. But with Facebook (I am now struggling for the fifth time not to delete it, having deleted the account four times prior to this current rant) people appear to be sucked into this whole culture whereby your kudos is judged by the amount of "friends" you have. As an example if you have 1,500 "friends" on Facebook you are the meanest cat on the block, no really, if you touched water it would turn into wine - that is how much bang your presence evokes in the physical surroundings. That was sarcasm, but in reality people actually think there is something wrong with you (no really) if you do not have the golden number of circa 300 friends. I shit you not. Again, this was relayed to me when a friend asked why I did not have "more" friends on Facebook, to which I replied, with a blank stare, with a burst of laughter.

This was a rant, certainly, but it is important. Some people think the world does revolve around Facebook. Personally, I have told so many people to Foxtrot Oscar on Facebook that my number of "friends" is actually declining daily which is hilarious (there is such a function as 'defriending' someone which is quite harsh if you give a shit). If you do not get the point, it was that people are actively getting rid of me as their "friend" for whatever reason, I can think of plenty, but who cares. Point being that I cannot fathom where this whole online dependency culture came from - suddenly it was just there: social networking, join in, it is all a good laugh. Finally to really hit home why my declining number of "friends" is funny: I have never added anyone (you add friends in Facebook you see, you do not talk to them per se, not necessarily. You might have done in real life but that does not matter on Facebook) yet I am so unbearable online that I am being defriended. To honour that age old adage all I can say is this, 'lol'. Hence, if you do not have a Facebook yet, do not get it, go out and have a pint with your mates instead; trust me it is a thousand times more beneficial than jumping on this latest craze. Facebook appeals to a kind of vanity and self-importance in us. If I put up a flattering picture of myself with a list of my favourite things, I can construct an artificial representation of who I am in order to get approval. But that is not who I am, and you will never find out who I am unless you talk to me in real life.

Some argue that Facebook empowers people, it makes them democratically represented by the shear power of numbers. Newspapers love doing stories on "Facebook campaigns" where a bunch of people are protesting against something and have managed to get 10,000 to sign onto it. The MSM hold this up and place it on a pedestal, where it represents empowered people who are taking a stand against a wrong as perceived by them. What they do not seem to realise is that of those 10,000 there is perhaps 20-30 people who actually give a shit. People sign onto so many groups, literally hundreds, simply because other people do it. The one negative aspect of real life is 'peer pressure' yet this, of all things, managed to follow us into cyberspace, whereas love, comfort or companionship are left outside in the harsh nature that is physical reality. This is just an epic failure for everyone involved I am afraid. People tick boxes because everyone else is doing it, they sign pages, they leave comments but if these were actual campaigns, where their signatures would actually mean something they would back down in hordes, and would never again be so generous with their name. That is the ugly side of democracy, once you sign on for it you actually have to take part; it is not a spectator sport and there are no judges, there is just you and everyone else.

But what is more this is Facebook's Privacy Policy:

Facebook's privacy policy

Just for fun, try substituting the words 'Big Brother' whenever you read the word 'Facebook'

1. We will advertise at you

"When you use Facebook, you may set up your personal profile, form relationships, send messages, perform searches and queries, form groups, set up events, add applications, and transmit information through various channels. We collect this information so that we can provide you the service and offer personalised features."

2. You can't delete anything

"When you update information, we usually keep a backup copy of the prior version for a reasonable period of time to enable reversion to the prior version of that information."

3. Anyone can glance at your intimate confessions

"... we cannot and do not guarantee that user content you post on the site will not be viewed by unauthorised persons. We are not responsible for circumvention of any privacy settings or security measures contained on the site. You understand and acknowledge that, even after removal, copies of user content may remain viewable in cached and archived pages or if other users have copied or stored your user content."

4. Our marketing profile of you will be unbeatable

"Facebook may also collect information about you from other sources, such as newspapers, blogs, instant messaging services, and other users of the Facebook service through the operation of the service (eg, photo tags) in order to provide you with more useful information and a more personalised experience."

5. Opting out doesn't mean opting out

"Facebook reserves the right to send you notices about your account even if you opt out of all voluntary email notifications."

6. The CIA may look at the stuff when they feel like it

"By using Facebook, you are consenting to have your personal data transferred to and processed in the United States ... We may be required to disclose user information pursuant to lawful requests, such as subpoenas or court orders, or in compliance with applicable laws. We do not reveal information until we have a good faith belief that an information request by law enforcement or private litigants meets applicable legal standards. Additionally, we may share account or other information when we believe it is necessary to comply with law, to protect our interests or property, to prevent fraud or other illegal activity perpetrated through the Facebook service or using the Facebook name, or to prevent imminent bodily harm. This may include sharing information with other companies, lawyers, agents or government agencies."

Naturally, if social scientific study is of no interest to you then please ignore what you have just read above and go on and get a Facebook account.

Thursday, 1 April 2010

The Economist - fine verbose but just wrong

I rank the Economist as one of the finest newspapers out there, I tend to nick my parents' copy whenever I am at home and subsequently get a mouthful for not "sharing" (if you are not quick enough, then that is your own fault) it with the rest of the family. Well, tough love I suppose. This week, the Economist has done a lot of pieces on the Tories and their supposedly eurosceptic stance. You know as well as I do that there is nothing conservative or eurosceptic about the current Conservative party, but lets role with the myth and see what the Economist has to say on the subject.

In this piece aptly named "David Cameron's splendid isolation" they have it in the last paragraph that (my emphasis)
Sooner or later, though, Mr Cameron has some home truths to tell his own backbenchers. These surely include the fact that on many issues Euroscepticism has won. After the damp squib of Lisbon, further big treaties look unlikely. Thanks to a changed intellectual climate, to enlargement that took in ten largely free-market countries from central and eastern Europe, and not least to Britain’s own influence, the EU has become both more liberal and keener on competition—not a million miles away from the club the Tories always wanted. If they would only look and learn, the Conservatives could find some strong allies in Brussels, not just implacable enemies.
This is where you ask yourself 'and this is supposed to be a respected sociopolitical periodical?' - that is certainly what I did. They appear to have completely missed that only last week did Angela Merkel of Germany propose that the EU needed just such a big new treaty to create something of an EU-IMF. Thus I wonder is the Economist trying to pervert the truth or are they just trying to plant a false sense of hope into their readers, a hope which says that the EU is benign; that it has no federal aspirations; that it does not want an EU Army etcetera. I am quite frankly astounded that they completely ignored that tiny slither of news, particularly since it has the potential to bring down both an incoming Tory administration as well as a coalition government (which will fall anyway). Labour backbenchers are eurosceptic, the Libdems want a referendum on a complete in or out of the EU, and the tories are eurosceptic to the bone, all except the front bench of course (with some exceptions). Now if a new treaty were to be rolled out that means that there will have to be a referendum in the UK of some kind, which means that the parties will do everything in their power to prevent the people from having a say on the EU. For if they do, it will be very nasty indeed. The result will begin the slippery slope towards the UK's exit from the EU. But the Economist seems to just have blissfully 'forgotten' this - how very convenient.

They have another one on David Cameron if you can be bothered to read it, myself well I am very disappointed; I thought that if there were any paper out there which stood their ground as the paragons of honesty then it was the Economist. Well, what a wasted paradigm that turned out to be. Mr Carswell appears to share my sentiment as well.