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...

Psychology

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....

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!"

Liberal...

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.

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:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/SaveBFPO/

History

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?

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.

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.

Give the BBC to Brussels

When we eventually leave the EU I think we should give Brussels the BBC - they are made for each other. Mind you the EU already has a web TV channel called Europarl TV to the tune of 9 million euros. Giving them the BBC would be like handing Judas a machine gun, imagine how many people they could indoctrinate by "fostering left-of-centre thinking".

Is it worth fighting?

Having now gone over what I perceive to be my daily round of the MSM and independent blogs which purvey they stories as they really happened, I must ask is it worth fighting anymore? Are we winning the battles but loosing the war? Sure, Guido has his moments and sometimes he really gets a rotten egg or two, and forces them out of office. But that person is always replaced. Yes, Hannan is an amazing orator as well as a good author but being vehemently academically eurosceptic does not turn politics around, for the "people who matter" as Barosso so patronizingly did not refer to us British, are not listening.

Last week a poll showed that the support for a 'yes' vote had dropped, good news we all thought, they are finally seeing reason. Yet today it seems as if 2/3 intend to vote 'yes' instead. Ok that may well be the situation, but we solider on and we will overthrow this leviathan one day, after all Cameron has precious little options left for him should the Irish vote 'yes' this time around. However with Cameron you cannot be certain of anything and certainly not anything as principally requiring as the EU. The Economist have him as a "eurosceptic" whilst the most us, I would hazard a guess, know that he is nothing of the sort. Dave along with the Tories wont do anything to jeopardise the 'project' we know that. As if to confirm this; in 2007, the latest complete year for which accounts are available, Britain received 4.2 billion euros (£3.7 billion) compared with 6.9 billion euros given to Germany, £6.9 billion euros going to Spain and 5.9 billion euros to Italy. The biggest winner was France, which received 10.3 billion euros. What does big bright and dandy Tory spokesman on Europe, Mark Francois, say about this then

"There are serious problems with the EU budget and it badly needs reform.There was a great opportunity to achieve it when the last budget was agreed in 2005, but thanks to the government's cack-handed negotiations nothing was done."

My dear friend you have been trying to reform it since 1972, when are you going to realise that no such thing is possible. It is not a coincidence that the system works like it does, this is the final design, the master blue print, a perfect being needs no change - stop deluding yourself. It is all very well feeding the voters all that horse-poo of how you are going to reform the EU but surely you could at least try to sound sincere could you not?

That front is being lost as well. As was expected I suppose, what with the Union (the British one) about to be cracked open as well, it is very timely indeed. A second front then, the one in Afghanistan which our proud MoD is fighting so hard to cling onto. One would expect that with such a commitment the British Armed Forces must be getting the very best treatment in the world as proof of their invaluable service to the United Kingdom - well you would think that would you not, it stands up to reason so why not to the MoD?

British troops, including many injured on front line duty in Afghanistan and Iraq, are to be eased out of the army in an efficiency drive being overseen by Kevan Jones, the veterans’ minister. Smashing indeed. At the same time John Barrowman reckons that contestants in talent shows should get treatment after having appeared in such a show. Yes, poor contestants lets spend tax-payer money on unfulfilled egos who had to face up to, voluntarily, the harsh British public - I hope they get all the treatment they need, at least, suffice to say, the troops are not.

This may not be such a jolly 'my take on events' section as displayed by other blogs, notably Iain Dale and Subrosa. I ask what is the point? We can all trot around the blogosphere in our little groups and talk about the problems that beset our once great nation - in truth little are we doing, like marching and protesting, against the foes themselves. What is the point?

'Apocalyptic' and 'Fatalist' people will scream and shout at the above content, I conquer who would not? But that is the harsh reality, being pragmatic is not a crime. Being a soul-quenching optimist at a point when the country most needs its stern, realistic managers that is one.

Addendum: For the small claque of you who find pleasure in reading my blog I thank you for your wisdom and comments. I can assure you for all my cynicism I will never stop fighting. As Margaret Mead said

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.”

PS. Watch out for the coming 'series' on Constitutional Vandalism. Why was the Lord Chancellor's department really abolished in favour of a Ministry of Justice? Why did Jack Straw remove the dress code for the judiciary? Stay tuned!

Malevolence

I never thought that I would come to hold this opinion, I thought it was the sort of stuff that occupied the minds of other people who were not as fortunate as myself to have had the upbringing and education that I did - one which supposedly would discourage me from taking any stance which was 100% black or 100% white, on any issue be it immigration or be it fashion. This is what my parents taught me and this is what I stick to, certainly most of the time; until now.

I can with all my honour and integrity intact say that I, 13th Spitfire, unequivocally, am disgusted by the Labour party. The sooner this lot are out, the sooner the two decade task of rebuilding can begin. Wilson's time was bad but this has been almost the end of Britain. Our poor country and poor Britannia. We are a pathetic shadow of the great nation we once were and politicians of all creed, rank and party are to blame. We are not so much 'Great Britain' anymore but rather 'Inadequate, Inconsequential, Inconsiderable, Insufficient, Limited, Little, Meager -Britain'. I do not know what else to say, it is so fiendishly hard to put all your anger and emotions into words when you are seemingly being consumed by hatred for such an ubiquitous article as New Labour. They are everywhere and everything they have ever touched and will ever touch, has turned to ashes. Perhaps you want me to refer you to some article or website so that you can understand the source of this rage, perhaps you want a link? Well I ask you simply; which one?

Mother and Father I am sorry.

I think it is best that these be my only words for today, for nothing rational nor constructive is going to be brought forth from this personna at this time.

Immigration

I was very affected by the article written by Max Hastings in the Mail. This is of course the purpose of the Mail to stir up irrational emotions in the reader disregarding fact but regarding fervour. However having established this about the Mail I am not sure about this piece, it is very well written I must concede (if you have not read it yet). Which is why I now have taken it upon myself to talk about some of the issues it raises. This being an article about immigration you must now assume that I am racist if you are still hooked in the smoldering Britain created by New Labour, where political correctness is law. Thankfully I believe people are starting to catch onto to the lie and normal conversation is slowly starting to reappear. We can only assume that when the Tories reach government they will abolish at least some of the PC.

The article describes how, in fact, we have been mislead by the ONS (Office for National Statistics) and that 'Mohammed' (in all its forms) is really the third most popular name in the UK, disloging 'Thomas' from that spot. There are two theories about this revelation (which was revealed back in 2007 as well...) either Muslims breed a lot more than normal people in conjunction with extremely high levels of immigration or all Muslim families name their male children 'Mohammed' as a homage to the Prophet. The former is not a theory as much as a fact. The latter however we must discuss.

Muslims do like their Prophet-a lot-so it is appropriate for them to name their sons 'Mohammed' to pay their respects sort to speak. While the statistics show that 'Mohammed' is the third most popular name it is partially because, well, every single Muslim boy is called 'Mohammed' but has a couple of other names so to not confuse the rest of us. Observe:

'Hi there could I pay with my card please?' says customer.

'Sure thing just sign here' says waiter.

'M-o-h-a-m-m-e-d S-h-a-k-i-l C-o-s-b-y'

Waiter walks away with the machine, gets stabbed and subsequently a new waiter has to give the card back to our Mohammed. The new waiter having no clue as to who the customer is exclaims, loudly, in the middle of the dining room, 'I am looking for a Mohammed Shakil Cosby - is he here?'

'Here!' ejaculate fifteen different people. Had she said only 'Shakil Cosby' the issue would have been quickly resolved but she fell into a particular Muslims trap whereby most Muslim boys are called 'Mohammed' in some form or another in their name.

However this is only half the truth. The name 'Mohammed' has not but one spelling but 14. Overall, Muslims account for 3 per cent of the British population, about 1.5 million people. However, the Muslim birthrate is roughly three times higher than the non-Muslim one. While they like to call their boys 'Mohammed' they do have a very much higher birth rate than to non-Muslims and as such we are indeed seeing an explosion in babies born to Muslims parents - who themselves can expect to be raised as Muslims. Is this a new phenomenon? Well yes quite frankly it is. The name Mohammed only made it into The 30 Names in the UK, in 2000. Which you will agree is very recently. Moreover in 2001, the average size of a Muslim household was 3.8 people while a third contained more than five people.

Simply put we wont be seeing Shari law in the UK anytime soon (well there are already 60 Shari courts with "laws" that are legally enforceable) but it is very inaccurate to claim that the Muslim population is growing alarmingly fast. Why "alarmingly"? Because they are the least likely to integrate into the British society. And if you somehow manage to link that to racism please please please, I beg you, say so in the comment section and then back it up.

A poll found that 63% of all Britons had a favourable opinion of Muslims, down slightly from 67% in 2004, suggesting that the London bombings did not trigger a significant rise in prejudice. Attitudes in Britain were more positive than in the US, Germany and Spain (where the popularity of Muslims has plummeted to 29%), and about the same as in France.

Less than a third of British non-Muslims said they viewed Muslims as violent, significantly fewer than non-Muslims in Spain (60%), Germany (52%), the US (45%) and France (41%).

By contrast, the poll found that British Muslims represented a "notable exception" in Europe, with far more negative views of westerners than Islamic minorities elsewhere on the continent. A significant majority viewed western populations as selfish, arrogant, greedy and immoral. Just over half said westerners were violent (the last one 'violent' is interesting since the police records of the last decade show "domestic violence" (man beating a woman) as 45-65% higher in Muslim homes than in any other communities, including the notoriously violent-towards-women African ones). While the overwhelming majority of European Muslims said westerners were respectful of women, fewer than half British Muslims agreed. Another startling result found that only 32% of Muslims in Britain had a favourable opinion of Jews, compared with 71% of French Muslims. Safe to say we are doing something very very wrong over here and I think it is quite simple; we are pandering to their differences and make it seem as if being British is a bad thing. While simply not saying 'no' when they overstep the mark and insult our culture (yes we actually do have one despite what the government says).

Moving on in 2007, 28 per cent of children born in England and Wales, rising to 54 per cent in London, had at least one foreign-born parent. In 2008, 14.4 per cent of primary school children claimed some other tongue than English as their first language.

But this is where we need to stop and think. How does this compare to other nations?

These are figures taken from here. They show the total number of immigrants in the country respectively.

# 1 United States: 38,355,000
# 2 Russia: 12,080,000
# 3 Germany: 10,144,000
# 4 Ukraine: 6,833,000
# 5 France: 6,471,000
# 6 Saudi Arabia: 6,361,000
# 7 Canada: 6,106,000
# 8 India: 5,700,000
# 9 United Kingdom: 5,408,000
# 10 Spain: 4,790,000

Those are raw numbers but if we look instead as percentage of the total population we might get something useful to play around with.

# 1 Holy See (Vatican City): 100
# 2 Andorra: 77.25
# 3 Qatar: 75.9
# 4 United Arab Emirates: 71.4
# 5 Monaco: 70.11
.
.
.
# 40 United States: 12.81
# 41 Germany: 12.31
# 42 Sweden: 12.3
# 43 Belarus: 12.21
# 44 Spain: 10.79
# 45 Grenada: 10.68
# 46 Libya: 10.56
# 47 Costa Rica: 10.19
# 48 France: 10.18
# 49 Netherlands: 10.05
# 50 Bahamas, The: 9.907
# 51 Saint Kitts and Nevis: 9.369
# 52 Barbados: 9.311
# 53 United Kingdom: 8.982

Presumably then all the other big western European countries must be in the same boat, n'est pas? Well perhaps and perhaps not, consider the net migration instead and then suddenly something interesting is revealed.

# 1 United States 26.8%
# 2 Afghanistan 9.9%
# 3 Spain 9.4%
# 4 Germany 5.1%
# 5 Canada 4.9%
# 6 United Arab Emirates 4.4%
# 7 United Kingdom 3.2%
Italy 2.8%
Australia 2.3%
Sierra Leone 2%
Russia 1.8%
France 1.4%
Hong Kong 1.4%
Eritrea 1.3%
Chad 1.3%
Japan 1.2%
Saudi Arabia 1.2%
Portugal 1.2%
Iraq 1.1%
Kuwait 1.1%

We have a very high net migration which in raw data becomes 686,400. And herein lies the real problem, for this is a problem, in 2008 the average number of people per square kilometre in Britain was 253, rising to 395 in England. Latest figures from Holland show that its population density was 395 a square kilometre in 2002 and 393 in 2005. It is estimated that English population density will rise to 464 people for every square kilometre by 2031.We are alas the most densely populated country in Europe and we have very high net migration. Germany has a much larger percentage of net migration but Germany is also a much larger country. If you bunch people together who have no inclination at all to be this 'friendly' it is a receipe for disaster. This is also, most likely, why the government sought to make the subject of immigration a 'non-mentionable' and label people who disobey them, racists. Furthermore why we cannot have a meaningful debate, yet, on the subject for it is assumed that anyone who does is just that; a racist.

Now Max Hastings said this very sensible line "No government massage of the numbers can blunt the fact that a host of migrants is here, most of whom espouse an entirely different cultural tradition from our own". You will all remember the series Star Trek and what is more the Borgs. They sought to 'assimilate' their enemies into the collective a sort of high-tech New Labourism/Socialism. Being the antagonists of the series the Borgs got a lot of crap but they got that one thing right, assimilation for it made them stronger. Now we do not have any fancy laser guns and we are no big fans of socialism either since it has ruined Britain, but 'integration' however is not too shabby at all. In fact it is quite beautiful when it works. But now we are really hitting the head of the issue.

The amount of people coming to Britain is overwhelming, there is no buffer capacity left to deal with the unheard of flow of immigrants. There are no social services, no schools, no hospitals no nothing which can properly take care of all these people. If there is no care then they turn to their own devices and turn away from Britain and lead their own little lives in, but not part of, these isles. When they come in small trickles they are easy to deal with, to share our values (yes we do have values even though the government will tell you otherwise) with and to show them 'This is Britain - enjoy!' But if you overwhelm a nation you create fear, fear of the new, because they have not been integrated, they are just foreigners and nothing else in the eyes of the public. That public, as the European elections showed us, seems to have had enough (1,000,000 out of 15,000,000 voted for the BNP...)

The British are not racist, not at all, probably the least racist nation in Europe and possibly the world. But, and this is a very big but, if you create the kind of conditions that New Labour has there is nothing but despair left to feed the masses. Whether or not "the immigrants are stealing the jobs" is true or not (more than seven in 10 jobs created under the Labour government have been taken by foreign workers, according to a report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), it becomes true for they along with the government are the scapegoats. "Because we know this, because we have lost confidence in our own cultural identity, we flail and blather about how to respond to the unprecedented ethnic and demographic turmoil which our politicians have unleashed upon us".

Do not expect any miracles from New Labour before they are assassinated. According to Migration Watch UK net immigration has quadrupled since 1997 to 237,000 a year and to keep the population of the UK below 70 million, immigration must be reduced by 75%. Government measures so far may reduce it by 5%.

Enter Cameron and friends who will do two things:

1. Put a cap on the number of immigrants entering the UK from outside the EU.
2. Not face up to the EU - that is to say they will not represent the wishes of the electorate.

In fact if the man plays his cards as he has done thus far you can be quite sure that #1 is nothing but plain rhetoric. Yes, there is global recession going on and yes Britain is by far the most screwed. But with increasing unemployment he cannot allow this level of immigration. If people start drawing parallels between unemployment and immigrants he will have riots and that is not scaremongering that is the simple truth.

A Spectator article

I think people should read this article from the Spectator - it sums up very eloquently what everyone knows it the truth bar Labour of course. Snippet...

"This profound sense of despair will take Mr Cameron into government almost by default. But the mood is itself a problem. No senior civil servant has yet said that the government’s job is to ‘oversee the orderly management of decline’, as Sir William Armstrong, the Cabinet Secretary, famously did in 1973. But this time, no one needs to. The politics of decline is stamped in everything this exhausted government does. Decisions on our defence are being taken on the basis that Britain no longer can claim to play a major role in the world, that we are a little country, which should stop pretending to be a big one.

This sense of defeatism may be pervasive, but it need not be terminal. It can be turned around — as Britain demonstrated, to the world’s amazement, 30 years ago. All that is requires is the right kind of courage and leadership. Thatcher had it. Heath did not. But does David Cameron? It is not much of an exaggeration to say that Britain’s future now depends on the answer."

Our Legacy

Being in a very criminal mood today I have decided to steal another entry from another blogger-shock and horror-be he named Calling England. I think it is hilarious because all of it is so true and those are the best jokes, because inside we die a little every time someone confirms the fiendishness that holds this country's throat with an iron grip. The more we loose our being the more ignorant we become, and we all know that ignorance is bliss.





Nelson: 'Order the signal, Hardy.'
Hardy: 'Aye, aye sir.'
Nelson: 'Hold on, that's not what I dictated to Flags. What's the meaning of this?'
Hardy: 'Sorry sir?'
Nelson (reading aloud): 'England expects every person to do his or her duty, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious persuasion, age or disability" What gobbledegook is this?'
Hardy: 'Admiralty policy, I'm afraid, sir. We're an Equal Opportunities employer now. We had the devil's own job getting 'England' past the censors, lest it be considered racist.'
Nelson: 'Gadzooks, Hardy. Hand me my pipe and tobacco.'
Hardy: 'Sorry sir. All naval vessels have now been designated smoke-free working environments.'
Nelson: 'In that case, break open the rum ration. Let us splice the main-brace to steel the men before battle.'
Hardy: 'The rum ration has been abolished, Admiral. It's part of the Government's policy on binge drinking.'
Nelson: 'Good heavens, Hardy. I suppose we'd better get on with it ... full speed ahead.'
Hardy: 'I think you'll find that there's a 4-knot speed limit in this stretch of water.'
Nelson: 'Damn it man! We are on the eve of the greatest sea battle in history. We must advance with all dispatch. Report from the crow's nest please.'
Hardy: 'That won't be possible, sir.'
Nelson: 'What?'
Hardy: 'Health and Safety have closed the crow's nest, sir - no harness. And they said that rope ladders don't meet regulations. They won't let anyone up there until a proper scaffolding can be erected.'
Nelson: 'Then get me the ship's carpenter without delay, Hardy.'
Hardy: 'He's busy knocking up a wheelchair access to the foredeck, Admiral.'
Nelson: 'Wheelchair access? I've never heard anything so absurd.'
Hardy: 'Health and Safety again, sir. We have to provide a barrier-free environment for the differently-abled.'
Nelson: 'Differently-abled? I've only one arm and one eye and I refuse even to hear mention of the word. I didn't rise to the rank of Admiral by playing the disability card.'
Hardy: 'Actually, sir, you did. The Royal Navy is under-represented in the areas of visual impairment and limb deficiency.'
Nelson: 'Whatever next? Break out the cannon and tell the men to stand by to engage the enemy.'
Hardy: 'The men are a bit worried about shooting at anyone, Admiral. They're afraid of being charged with murder if they actually kill anyone. There's a couple of legal-aid lawyers on board, watching everyone like hawks.'
Nelson: 'Then how are we to sink the Frenchies and the Spanish?'
Hardy: 'Actually, sir, we're not.'
Nelson: 'We're not?'
Hardy: 'No, sir. The French and the Spanish are our European partners now. According to the Common Fisheries Policy, we shouldn't even be in this stretch of water. We could get hit with a claim for compensation.'
Nelson: 'But you must hate a Frenchman as you hate the devil?'
Hardy: 'I wouldn't let the ship's Diversity Co-Ordinator hear you saying that, Sir. You'll be up on a disciplinary report.'
Nelson: 'You must consider every man an enemy, who speaks ill of your King.'
Hardy: 'Not any more, sir. We must be inclusive in this multicultural age. Now put on your Kevlar vest - it's the rules. It could save your life.'
Nelson: 'Don't tell me - health and safety. Whatever happened to rum, sodomy and the lash?'
Hardy: As I explained, sir, rum is off the menu. And there's a ban on corporal punishment.'
Nelson: 'What about sodomy?'
Hardy: 'I believe that is now legal, sir.'
Nelson: 'In that case..... kiss me, Hardy.'

Defence Debate in Great Britain

I stole this picture from Mr. North over at EU Referendum but I too shall echo his sentiment about the cowardly way in which our defence capabilities are managed by the house. It fits nicely in with my previous post which asks, among other things, why does no one care anymore?

Bonfire on Databases

I am not too sure what I am to write about today. It seems as if most things have been exhausted e.g. there is so preciously little we appear to be able to do about the malaise that infest our daily lives. When freedom and justice has died in the heart of man how are we, who still cultivate this belief, going to raise it from the dead like Jesus did Lazarus?

Why is it that no one cares anymore? Why is it permissible for the Independent Safeguarding Authority to even be set up - which sole purpose it is to check and see if people wanting to work with children are pedophiles or not. You might scream 'child protection' yet for all that we stand for, no other nation in the world has gone this overboard with databases. In Sweden your name appears, on average, on 300 databases ranging from private to public. Are we even to dare to estimate that number for the UK, I certainly would not like to know. It is one of these areas where ignorance truly is bliss where one is happier not knowing how many people know about my first failed exam - ever. Yet do you honestly think we will be safer if we are registered on 2000 databases or even 10,000 databases? Even if our name appeared on every single institutions' databases, that we came in contact with, that is not going to stop a wicked mind from being wicked. How could it?

What is wrong with us? Why is not Dave mentioning this when he is doing very well in making the easy choices, the superficial ones that will amount to a difference for you and me to the tune of naught. Yet the soon-to-be eradicated Labour Government have so much British blood on their hands it is almost difficult not to damn them for every act they have passed since coming into power. People make the argument that we elected them and as such have to stand by our choice. We made that choice on the premise that the people we elected were honest and descent, that is what it previously meant to be publicly elected. Yet we get a government that now is actively indulging in social engineering and is not ashamed of it, take Carol Ann Duffy's poem, 'Education for Leisure'. The exam board AQA has removed the poem from its GCSE anthology, and has asked schools to destroy old copies containing the poem, because it supposedly glorified knife crime.

What is poetry? There are as many definitions of poetry as there are poets. Wordsworth defined poetry as "the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings;" Emily Dickinson said, "If I read a book and it makes my body so cold no fire ever can warm me, I know that is poetry;" and Dylan Thomas defined poetry this way: "Poetry is what makes me laugh or cry or yawn, what makes my toenails twinkle, what makes me want to do this or that or nothing." Poetry is a lot of things to a lot of people. Poetry is what our heart tells us the words mean together, in their glorious, doomed escapade trying to explain and alleviate life in the eye of the beholder. Even if the message of a poem is so blindingly obvious - that in itself is a contradiction for being obvious is not a necessity of a poem nor is beauty only understanding. But understanding is also a personal concept, like meaning it cannot be thrust upon the stronger minds who seek to question the power lurking behind the cloak of words. That power however is now contained by the government which tells us, through decrees, what we can and cannot read. Recall that most films about autocracy always feature a 'blacklist' were artifacts of culture are hidden away from the public away because they are 'dangerous' and can corrupt feeble minds.

A cull on quangos indeed, all 1,162 of them. But what about these?

ContactPoint: To hold name, address, gender, date of birth, school and health provider of every child in England

National DNA database: Of 4.5m people whose genetic fingerprints are on the database, more than 500,000 are innocent, including 39,000 children

Communications database: Plan to centralise details of calls and websites visited from phone companies and internet providers, open to 510 public authorities

Onset: A profiling tool which examines a child's behaviour and social background to identify potential child offenders

Detailed Care Record: When rolled out, will allow hospitals, GPs nurses and social workers to update patient's records with unmonitored "wikipedia-style" entries

>>>>PROPOSED<<<<

Communications database Would bring together details of emails, telephone calls and web use

National Identity Register Will store biographical information and biometric data linked to ID cards

The NHS Detailed Care Record Will hold GP and hospital records

The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, pointed to significant legal and practical problems with a further 29 databases, including the national childhood obesity one and the planned NHS summary care record system...

It goes without mentioning that the ones we "share" with the EU are not exactly libertarian either.

What is wrong with us? Perhaps that is the key question, perhaps that is the Magnus Opus feat of this government, this seemingly Herculean question, not so much the question itself but the very fact that we are now so desperately in need for guidance that the only people who cannot escape from the disaster, unlike this government and its immasculated purpose, who are responsible - we are those people. Their victory lies in us having to ask ourselves that question instead of those whom we elected.

Huxley or Orwell?

Who do you reckon was right? Well use this to aid your judgement.

Degeneration

This is not an accident; this is not a combination of a few pieces of bad luck or misfortune in the national life. Westminster awash with rumours about Brown, rumours about the General, rumours about the Chancellor and rumours ostensibly about Britain. Politicians used to put the higher vested interests in the nation above their own petty party politics. It is not an accident that our government now looks more like a Britney Spears album; a work of pure fiction, produced only to make money and not even the slightest trace of any heart or soul.

This is the result of the very careful grooming of the UK and also the other West European states, that was given direction when the USSR and its fellow-traveller leftist sister parties throughout Europe formed a plan in the mid 1980s. Remember that is was Gorbachev who likened the EU to the USSR. This may all be superficial stuff, for in truth we do not really know what goes on behind the curtains, be quite sure though that it is not for our benefit.

The plan was a reaction against the free markets and philosophy of personal choice of Thatcherism, with the intention of undermining the national identity, moral certainties, will and confidence of nations. One conspiracy theory goes that Thatcher was told by the Bilderberg group to disestablish Britain's sovereignty but she supposedly refused. A conspiracy theory as said but seems that Major and Blair carried on where she left of.

The purpose is to get the nations of Europe, including and particularly the UK, to accept an un-democratic super state with institutions modeled closely on those of the USSR. Blair inadvertently gave it away when, in commenting on the 'peace process' in Northern Ireland, he said to his colleagues who did not entirely see the subtlety "its the process, stupid". 'Project' or 'Process' it is a horrendously strong force which can topple governments. Look at Cowen's government in Ireland - it has the lowest approval ratings in Irish history, well since 1915. Look at Brown's government same story there. Both are kaput, both will be raped by the electorate come the election but that is the fine detail of the scheme; once the election is held in the respective country they wont need to bother for they "democratically" signed the constitution and that is the final piece of engrenage - the gears will kick into over drive once that is signed.

In other words, keep pushing a degenerative agenda. Because as a matter of fact, that is the whole point.

The more ridiculous and untenable positions you force on the populace in every sphere - in wars abroad - in multiculturalism - in economic madness where debit is wealth?! - in hospitals where patients are killed - in local government where people are spied on and children of decent families are abducted by the state - in policing where you can be arrested for your opinions and killed during a demonstration - then the more you tie people up in chasing their tails, in trying to reconcile impossible inconsistencies and in trying to make sense of a society that seems to have gone mad and dysfunctional. This interestingly enough fits well into the list of aims of the Frankfurt school of Marxism:

1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. The undermining of schools and teachers authority
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity
6. The promotion of excessive drinking
7. Emptying of churches
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
10. Control and dumbing down of media
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family

Throw in bread and circuses -that is, bribe the people with their own wealth and the mortgaged futures of their children and 'deliver' (a rotten New Labour use of the word) the Olympics or whatever -and we the people are sleep-walking like shell-shocked zombies into the grim, "post-democratic" nightmare in which the Westminster parliament will be irrelevant, British institutions of worth will be reduced to pastiche, trashed and we will no longer be a free people.

As for civil society, there will not be one, not in their gulags. The most brilliant part in the scheme is that all of this, all that you have just read, will be derided as common conspiracy nuttery and will be treated as such with due respect. It really is a brilliant move. It would be interesting to see how many ministers and MPs know they are being pulled by the leg, who know that they are the "useful idiots" as Khrushchev said.

Its all deliberate. This kind of reduction of a nation does not happen by accident. If it had happened "back in the day" people would have done something about it. One rather famous adage about the British people is that 'we do not do revolutions' it is not our thing. It is not our thing because on the whole, over the past 300 years, we have been comparatively happy with our existence as a prosperous Island nation. We even managed to stick an Empire in there. Somewhere along the line it all went terribly wrong, somewhere someone got the idea that it would be better if us little islanders were bereft of our standing in the world, which by comparison, was huge. Somewhere, someone for some reason - it is all very ambiguous for it completely nonsensical for a Briton to commit such a huge act of treason. Well, today it is not of course, today a politician would sell whatever part of Britain was desired by a foreign state, for a loaf of bread. But before all of this began such behaviour was unheard of.

The three main parties have stated their common position - one of treason against the native peoples of these islands - by refusing a referendum on the European super state.

However this is the basic law of nature; every action has an equal and opposite reaction. They would do well in remembering that.

I stole this from Old Holborn

Dr Vivienne Nathanson, the head of BMA science and ethics, said: "The BMA is not
anti-alcohol. As doctors our focus is to ensure that individuals drink sensibly so they do not put their health and lives in danger."

For which there is no more succinct reply that to quote from the Daily Mash:

Emma Bishop, a marketing executive from Twickenham, added: "How's about this? As an adult, I think a reasonable daily limit is me drinking as much as I fucking want.

"If it affects my work I'll get sacked. If it affects my relationships I'll be all lonely and sad.

"And as for my health, following a quick glance at my tax bill I've decided that the NHS will treat me and the government can keep its fucking opinions to itself."

With regards to this story over at Old Holdborn, highly recommended reading.

What insumountable arrogance

When you thought they could not care less about the electorate they went and did it anyway. Here is a snippet...

Roche, who was part of the Irish delegation that won concessions from Brussels on key policy areas after the first defeat, including the right to retain an EU commissioner, warned of the consequences of a second rejection.

"I cannot think of a worse time in the history of a European project for it to judder to a halt," he said.

"And what will happen if it does judder to a halt is that we will then have what we always feared, we will have the evolution of a two-tiered Europe."

"You don't have to be Albert Einstein to work out that if a two-tier Europe comes up, small and medium countries such as Ireland will suffer."

I am sure the dear reader knows as well as most people that they Irish will be voting on exactly the same treaty and the "concessions" they "won" are merely promises from the EU that they will be considered in the future. The EU is not exactly a straight shooter which is exemplified by their insistence on no objections at all to their Federalist Europe which they are pushing through engrenage - step by step and law by law.

FFS can the media learn the difference between Right and Left

A lot of newspapers are running stories on the newly formed English Defence League (EDL) who are protesting against Islam. Once you were allowed to protest against Islam but not anymore. However this is not about Islam, there are few religions that I find as vile as Islam, but this is out of the question.

The EDL have been labeled, and I take this newspaper as an example of the misconception, "right-wing" by the Times.

I think a short recap of history is needed before we tare into this highly objectionable newspaper. How did the terms 'right' and 'left' - wing politics come about?

The terms Left and Right have been used to refer to political affiliation since the early part of the French Revolutionary era. They originally referred to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France, specifically in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791, when the king was still the formal head of state, and the moderate royalist Feuillants sat on the right side of the chamber, while the radical Montagnards sat on the left.

Now the way the Times use the term 'right-wing' along with the article suggests that they are in fact fascists - the EDL that is. However looking at the proper fascists of history we see that not only one but two had policies which were suspectedly left-wing (along with the tiny fact that they both killed millions).

What is left-wing?

Centralised command control, trade tariffs, state owned businesses, increase in pensions (well not a necessary one but definitely there), expansion of the NHS and so on. A top down approach all the way through government basically.

Now the media have come to use the term 'right-wing' synonymously with 'baddie' however looking at the comments on the Times article few seem to agree with this stance which the MSM have, for some reason, adopted as their ipso facto approach to right-wing politics. I think we can safely say that the people can see through their little deception quite easily since the only people who do support them are the extremely violet UAF and New Labour apparatchiks.

Iain Dale and John Redwood adopt the similar approach as myself. However people tend to use as argument against this stance that Churchill said in 1939 that

I have always said that if Great Britain were defeated in war, I hoped we should find a Hitler to lead us back to our rightful position among nations.

This is just a pure and blatant misinterpretation of history.

Churchill said this before he became PM, before the nazis started exterminating everyone whom they disliked, before war had been declared on Germany by Britain, before the WWII started through and through. What is more the quote is not even referring to Hitlers policies but his character as a strong man. This is not a defence of Hitler most certainly not nor is it an apology for the Nazis. But do not misinterpret history for political gains. That is what happens in '1984' and it is a very dangerous theme to play around with.

Demonstrating against a concept which you find objectionable, in this case Islam, is not "right-wing" it is Democracy and it is not a spectator sport.

What an interesting map

I thought I would share this 'map' with you, very interesting, from 1870.