Friday, 30 March 2012

Taxing The Rich

Labour have tried to use the Tory reduction of the top rate of tax as a class war stick to beat them with. But this attack relies on a lack of understanding amongst the general population. Really, at the end of the day, the economy wants rich people to be setting up businesses that then employ people. The rich should be spending their money and redistributing it that way.

High levels of tax on the rich is political, punitive and usually pointless, as they can afford to find ways to avoid it. But it is an excellent class war battle cry. Though I do wonder how long it would last, if these die hard, unthinking Labour supporters were told that half of their £10 million lottery win was going in tax. £5 million pounds is a lot of money, but not when you 'won' £10 million. And the government wouldn't have even bought a ticket for their 'guaranteed' win!

No, the way we look at tax today is entirely wrong. We should not be clamouring for the rich to pay more (often based on the feeling that we are already paying more than our 'fair share'), but instead clamouring for the reverse. If you earn £20,000 then fuel prices will be a big concern to you and seem oppressive. If you earn £100,000 they won't.

So even at a very basic level, the poorest are paying too much for everything. And it is almost always the government's fault. They get too cosy with the energy companies and fail to regulate properly. They do too many things, all demanding funding which means high taxes.The common Man is the easiest and most numerous source.

Today, all of us I'm sure would love to 'avoid tax', to reduce its burden. I think some hard working families would probably even consider 'illegal' avoidance, so desperate are things becoming. So it is no wonder these people clamour for Porsche drivers to lose some of their wealth. This socialist view has become ingrained. The desire not to do well, but to inhibit others, to seize wealth where it exists, to 'rub their noses in it'. Not to achieve but to deny.

Yet consider the popularity of the lottery and the overwhelming number of players who come from poor environments. Clearly they would have no problem with wealth, should they themselves come into it. Envy is not a quality we should regard with any ease in our politics and yet it is the sole purpose of the Labour Party, to stoke up envy amongst their supporters.

Ed Balls is no believer in the politics he espouses. As much as any he seeks benefit from his position as a politician and uses device, artifice and not a little mendacity to avoid tax and increase his take from the taxpayer. Like any conman, he relies on gullibility to line his pockets.

The answer is to re-educate the taxpayers, so they can then demand that the government becomes what it is intended to be; small, but of consequence, honourable and undemanding. In the Telegraph today David Cameron says he will not rest until people have control of the choices and chances in their life. This will come as a surprise to most people, who will be totally unaware he is working in this direction.

Indeed, on this front, it would have long ago been believed that Cameron was reclined luxuriantly on a chaise longue in a pleasant home called Mon Repose. Had it been something of the utmost national importance it could not have been more secret, more unknown. Most people, if they could discern any direction, felt vaguely that he is committed to the destruction of the UK by slavishly following the diktats of his EU masters.

His supposed policies are androgynous and evoke the same passion. He quietly signs EU documents and loudly pursues unhelpful policies to please small, usually noisy homosexual activists. He has time he finds, to take up the moral fabric and endlessly pick away at it. The Greatness of Britain is a stain, in his mind and must be done away with forever. It is no wonder David Cameron is negative about things in general; he lives in a reverse of the real world.

Where is his restless plan to shrink government and hand back this country to its people? He promised it, he still does when reminded, but he has not lifted a finger to bring it about. How could he, when he so fervently believes in the central control of an EU superstate. The antithesis of local government (let alone good government!)

Must we rise up David Cameron before you heed us? Must the British people once again cast off tyranny and 'save the world'? We have Galloway on the rise so time is short perhaps. He offers political focus for those who would do violence in our midst.

Navel Gazing Fails

It has been apparent for some time that modern politics is just about the political class talking amongst themselves and trying to publicly score points over each other. It is more playground antics than anything connected to the real world. Cameron is not detached because he is rich. He is detached because he lives in the world of Westminster politics.

Just how this inward looking cabal would fail us is now becoming abundantly clear. Whilst Blair used the insularity of 'the bubble' to hide himself from proper scrutiny, Cameron is just disconnected. Hence they plot and plan 'strategies' for how to present things and how they can 'catch the others out', without any realisation that their childish pranks affect a nation.

If the theory was that by telling people to keep their tanks topped up, so any tanker drivers strike must fail, as people are perpetually able to cope with one, it has itself failed. Having created a nation that can't tie its own shoelaces, the politicians really shouldn't have been surprised when they told everyone to buy petrol that people did just that. Maybe politicians also don't realise how commerce runs on this fuel stuff.

That every time they turn the screw on fuel tax, the nation suffers and loses a little more of its ability to cope in the world. This disconnect, this political navel gazing is taking us down very dangerous roads, whilst enemies gather strength.

A clearly unhinged Scotch person has been elected to run an enclave where it seems a large number of deranged people have gathered. A fifth column exists in Britain. It is not the colour of their skin that worries us, but their supposed culture (one the cultured would call culture less). Of course, Galloway has to scuttle around the country looking to be 'elected' where people are as stupid and unprincipled as him and where vote rigging is 'cultural' and easy.

Galloway would love to be Britain's Hitler, or Stalin or Gadaffi. He dreams of power and wealth and oozes malicious harm. He is not the conniving, money grubbing Blair, he is not the oleaginous Mandelson, slimy and deceitful. Galloway is much more dangerous. He is Gollum pretending to be Smeagal.

Thursday, 29 March 2012

Francis Maude Orders JCB

Good grief! There is no fuel shortage. There is no strike pending or planned, that would affect supplies. Even so, with a level of stupidity that beggars belief, Francis Maude urges drivers to 'stock up' on fuel. Maybe keeping some in jerry cans 'in the garage'.

It didn't take long for the criticism (richly deserved) to start. The Fire Brigades Union said it was stupid and dangerous advice and the law limits what you can store anyway. (Why the Union by the way, cannot the actual fire service give this advice? Or was the comment political opportunism. Ah yes).

Maude though, once pursued into the hole he had dug, decided not to stop digging, but to accelerate the process. Wearing an 'I'm with supid' T shirt, with the arrow pointing at his head, Maude continued to stress that people should keep their car's fuel tanks topped up, 'just in case'. In case of what?? Someone should stuff a pasty in his mouth.

When the Unite political strike, timed to coincide with anger at fuel price increases through the Budget, which has absolutely to do with the strike threat but people probably won't realise that, does happen we will have advance warning. Then we need to consider 'strategies'.

As an example of how stupid and ignorant people are today, unable to make decisions based on actual facts, but instead do 'what they are told', the panic buying of petrol can hardly be beat. What a nation of fools we are.

Wednesday, 28 March 2012

Pasty Update

The Battle of Greggs hots up! Not only did Ed Balls and Ed Minivan go into a Greggs and buy 8 sausage rolls (Balls reluctantly let his 'leader' have one), but now we hear that David Cameron is a fan of the pasty too. I can't really stand them myself; I don't find the filling appetising. Now a good, puff pastry oozing fat sausage roll in the other hand.....

A mention was made by our man of the people PM of a Pasty shop at Leeds station and the sleuths were on to it with vigour. Ha! They said, the last pasty shop at Leeds station closed a month ago. And the one he actually named, in 2007. Impressive is it not how these people can find such information but can't read very well. The article in the Telegraph says that Cameron likes pasties and last had one 'some time' ago in Leeds station 'I think'.

Clearly, he doesn't partake that often of boutiques such as Greggs, but then nor do I. It is irrelevant and beside the point, the tax demands should be going down not up. Government should be cutting spending by not having the Quango's nor anything but a small percentage of the staff the public sector currently employs. It could and should do much less. And we should leave the EU to hasten our recovery immediately. If only to annoy David Aaronovitch, the diametric opposite of James Delingpole. JD is right about everything and DA about nothing.

Hot Food

Trying to raise some more tax and fall in line with EC Directives, George Osborne slapped a tax on hot food. Strangely he wanted to do this more than he wanted to stop spending our money, so he wouldn't need so much tax.

So Greggs have gone nuts as they sell hot sausage rolls and pasties. How are you supposed to run a business in this country when you have no idea when drastic new rules will be introduced that undermine you (usually from the EU)?

Here's the thing Greggs. I come in the shop and ask for a VAT free cold sausage roll, recently reduced in price by 4p. Thank you very much. I see you also offer a warming service for 5p including VAT at 20%. Thanks very much I'll go with that and George Osborne can have his 1p pound of flesh.

Why do the Tories think they are in a competition to be more stupid than Tony Blair/Gordon Brown?

As If Proof Were Needed

This blog has repeatedly asserted that armed police in Britain are of an appallingly low standard and very dangerous. Whilst mainly due to the incompetence of senior officers, it is plain the training and quality of the officers is also sadly lacking.

Today we see publication of a photo showing armed police fooling around with weapons for their own amusement. Everyone should be able to have a laugh and the black humour of surgeons and undertakers is well known, but some things are beyond the pale. Acting out scenarios would be one area I would stay away from. You may make jokes that would seem shocking to the ordinary public, but you don't fool around in operating theatres.

And guns are definitely a no-no. But this photo gives an insight into the childish mentality of the people we hand guns to, to the lack of control over them; an inexcusable lack of discipline. No wonder their mindset when actually sent out to real or imagined 'armed threats' is notoriously hit and miss, with no predictability on outcome.

Will the person have a real weapon when we arrive, they think and will we shoot them anyway, regardless? Thank goodness for the IPCC and the compact with government never to pursue gun crime by police officers.

In a society where policing by consent was the norm, where the police were integrated with the community they serve, where the law is the servant of the people, police officers such as these would be dismissed from the force forthwith and also their managers. They talk of the heavy responsibility of the armed police officer; well, this is part of it. But we live in a region of the EU called Britain, a region where the people are the servants of the state, the police its enforcers and as such subject to state protection.

Tuesday, 27 March 2012

Secrecy Does Not Serve Us

The inquest into the shooting of Mark Duggan by police officers, may not be able to hear the decisions made by senior officers that led to the shooting. Why, is not explained, though I think it is fairly easy to guess. What is not surprising is that this reckless and careless elite, have no shame in asking to be able to hide from scrutiny.

It is no coincidence I'm sure that the rise in political corruption has led to an increase in calls for ever more secrecy in certain situations from them, particularly trials. I also don't think it coincidental that Kenneth Clarke is as keen on secrecy as he is the EU. When you know you have something to hide......

Game Over?

So called video games/computer games have almost always left me cold. I was mysteriously addicted to Galaxian in my younger days, but otherwise I cannot get hooked on them generally as so many do. Why intelligent people hang on these pixel fantasies I have no idea, probably it is the same problem as believing in global warming.

I have tried aircraft shooting games, that should have appealed to me, but it soon seemed essentially the same thing time after time. A few minutes of Angry Birds and I'm happy to hand the device back to a much more dedicated youngster. Nope, repetition it seems, is not for me. Lots of people do buy this junk, but even so the High Street chain Game is slipping under the water.

Perhaps these types of games are not really a High Street product and are more efficiently sold online, where overheads can be lower. But I still smell a rat. Even with 'economies of scale' Amazon seem to present, particularly new  release products, at very cheap prices.

Now, either the manufacturer is offering Amazon some pretty amazing deals, not also available to the likes of Game, or some predatory pricing is likely. Companies like Amazon and Tesco would jump up and down at the suggestion that they do such a thing, evidence not withstanding. But I also think there is probably an arrogance from companies like EA, who try to dominate by product and pressure.

David Cameron sucks up to big business just like any other politician, but the upshot of the shenanigans these people engage in, is a lot of little people, just trying to earn an honest crust get shafted and lose their jobs. I don't mind EA existing; they employ people too and I gather people with addictive tendencies like their products, but I do object to power corrupting.

Online retail was always going to hit the High Street trade, but the two can live together, though not if we turn a blind eye to 'sharp practice' and its less salubrious family members.

Monday, 26 March 2012

Fancy A Chat With David Cameron?

Wow, a chat with David Cameron costs £250,000! Even for a big company that has got to be an expensive half-chance to get some policy enacted from which it will profit. The fact that access is being charged for is no surprise whatsoever. Has Cameron ever hidden his desire to be seen as Tony Blair Mk2?

New Labour debased politics and was (is) corrupt to the core. It was beyond satire that Mandelson was on Sky News deploring this scandal surrounding the Tories. He must have been annoyed in the same way Tesco is when people shop at Sainsbury's.

Ever able to assume everyone is as thick as the average Guardian reader, the politico's start talking about ending the funding scandal by giving the parties money from the taxpayer. How delighted do you think all of them would be with that? Not only do they never have to worry about funding again, they can take as much as they like and syphon off a goodly amount too, for a little 'social activity'.

Taxpayer funding of political parties must never happen. But if there was any actual penalty for wrongdoing amongst politicians, it would become a much cleaner profession very quickly. Just looked at how shocked (not to say outraged) were those who did have to serve the odd minute or two in prison. Fancy the people who set the law, having to live by it too! Bring back Tony Blair and the times when you knew that only Tory politicians could break the law.

There is talk of natural Conservatives, moderate people who wish their country to determine its own future, to offer opportunity to all and to reduce drastically the power and reach of government, deserting for UKIP. But as the current, Cameron led 'Conservative Party' may be breaching the Trades Descriptions Act, perhaps UKIP should just call themselves The Conservatives? Cameron could call his little coterie New Conservative, or just merge with New Labour and be done.

Friday, 23 March 2012

Government Influence

Just to ram home that Cameron is a Big government PM at the head of a social liberal (liberal with state control that is) party, he is implementing measures to display his power to influence. Government, of course was invented to handle a few matters of national importance on behalf of the people, who elected them to this office. This has been corrupted by modern politicians into a fervent belief that they control the country and elections are a throwback, an inconvenience they have to suffer.

Cameron wants to attack the price of alcohol, so that the poorest people will find it just that little bit harder to enjoy something multi-millionaires, with hefty salaries from the public purse will be unaffected by. This, he assures us, will stop binge drinking in its tracks. Binge drinking you see, is something only poor people do and it is a considerable annoyance to socialites.

Naturally, small children asked for their opinion on the subject will point out that the price issue is only loosely connected and that it is more a social problem, maybe more influenced by things such as corruption in high places eroding the moral fabric. But it can't be that, because overall, Cameron is quite happy for MP's to keep dipping their hands into our pockets for a little extra cash. That they should corruptly hold private positions that relate to their public role. No, it can't be a moral issue.

Of course if we had laws to prevent bars and clubs from serving people who are clearly 'too far gone' and maybe we could have 'courts' who dealt with those being 'bloodthirsty in the streets', who could then imprison them, it might be helpful. This would show that the behaviour is not acceptable. It would be a drastic change from what we currently do, but I don't know, maybe we should try it.

Then there is Cameron's attempt to destroy my local Chinese and Greggs. He has added 20% to the price of the food they sell, in an attempt to further enrich the government, which has been spectacularly mismanaged and is in something of a mess. again, these measures should mainly affect those least able to pay so of no concern to wealthy, taxpayer funded social liberals.

What a government should do is make an environment that allows businesses to be successful and otherwise, stay away. Not be a monkey on the backs of those businesses. It should not make wealthy people richer through subsidies to idiot projects like wind farms, to address a non-existent creature of their nightmares. Government should not influence commerce, let alone corrupt its course.

I saw a Pizza takeaway shop take delivery of some new kit yesterday, which will have meant some money going to the delivery company and to the firm they bought it from etc etc. But should he have made that investment? Can he afford it, now that his business is likely to see a downturn in custom, due to his prices going up by 20%? Not 20% by his choosing and not 20% extra for him, but because a group of greedy, incompetent, but richly rewarded and very self-impressed idiots have the power to impose their will on him and destroy his business if they so wish. I suppose multi-millionaires don't use such tacky establishments anyway, so where is the harm?

I really don't believe in hatred for any reason, but Labour's constant attempts to whip up violence by promoting class hatred and class war, is particularly disgusting. But it seems Cameron is a fulsome supporter of a group of people who think they are 'a class apart'.

Thursday, 22 March 2012

Police -Faulty Thinking

We are forced to realise that the police decision making process is currently in some disarray, since the blindingly obvious mess they made during rioting recently. And it wasn't just in London. The other forces may moan that a lack of resolution in London's initial response, led to copy cat attacks in their area. But it doesn't explain their lack of resolve.

The groupthink in police circles today is clearly common and faulty. Indeed, it seems that as the force has become more 'intellectual' it has also become mired in a 'process block', where it cannot make a decision but rather spends time 'thinking about it'. A bit too much 'what would Marx do' I feel.

I'm not entirely sure what conclusion a 'risk assessment' would come to when considering confronting rioters. And maybe you shouldn't be sucking the end of a ball point pen, trying to fill out the forms, whilst the riot is happening. At Waterloo, Wellington knew he had to choose the ground and deploy his forces to best advantage. After that it was going to be down to the old basics; shooting and local command.

In a police deployment they rarely get to choose the ground, but they also ignore the basics; they don't want to be horrible and use force (even with rioters) and they certainly don't hold with local command. Not while CCTV, helicopter cameras and radios are available, for nice, warm, safe control rooms to 'control'. Though, when acting in support of politicians, attacking a peaceful march by farmers and middle and working class people (Blair - 'they won't vote for me anyway'), they seem completely at ease with force and local control.

No, there has been a fundamental change in the role of the police since it raised its proportion of degree qualified officers. And nowhere is this more glaring than with guns. There is a shooting, people desperately need help and the police won't attend, for their own safety and the civilians saying the gunmen has left, may be being forced to say that. Which could be true, but what would people say if they weren't under duress and the gunman had actually left?

Then we have police officers shooting dead a man with a chair leg in a bag, because a member of the public thought it might be a gun. This unconfirmed, unqualified opinion became fact in the minds of the police. And that is, quite simply the most dire faulty thinking. If it wasn't so serious, we could only otherwise conclude that their training was supplied by Baldrick.

More Budgie Than Budget

When all the arguments about robbing pensioners (no they will lose an allowance, possibly pay more tax), reduced red tape (to the degree anyone will notice?) and reducing the burden on business (yeah, but for your mates the big companies, eh George), there is something simple and wrong about the Budget.

There is a glaring omission from its actions and aims. Firstly, the basic tax allowance will go up a decent amount, which will be paid for by not giving an increase in handouts to pensioners. The top tax rate, that hasn't worked as a method of bringing in revenue has been reduced and companies are to see Corporation tax reduced.

So, on the one hand Osborne is giving to 'stimulate business' and so the economy and on the other he is taking away from the masses to pay for it. The bit that is missing is government. Tax is raised for government to spend and whilst G Brown Esq. is principally responsible for the debt that Britain is saddled with, Osborne is doing very, very little to abate it.

Think about it. Those tax increases on all of us could easily be funded by not giving subsidies to rich landowners and businesses doing little beyond holding their hand out for cash, though ostensibly in the business of renewable energy.We could stop having support groups funded by us for every fashionable cause a Leftie can think up.

In short, if the government stopped doing a whole raft of things we never asked and certainly do not want them doing, the tax burden would diminish drastically. And that is before they try to run government as if it were a business and make a) the money and b) the 'staff' accountable. Reducing fraud and waste within government would be another big boost for us as a nation and as wealthier individuals.

But it won't happen because politics is about power and the last thing you do as a politician (and particularly in these days of insular politics, unconnected with purpose) is give away power. And money  is power. So no, give a little here, take a little there but strangely, don't let it impact on politicians. Heck, if they actually had to work at their parliamentary job, there would be no time for all the other things they do, usually corruptly to increase their personal well being.

Wednesday, 21 March 2012


I hear that David Mitchell, whom I think very witty and Victoria Coren, who is witty, pretty and lots of other things nice too, are engaged. Excellent news; I wish them well.

Ashton Continues To Be A Disgrace

It is fair to deposit a quivering lump of useless human detritus into the halls of power of the European Union; it is a place that collects such flotsam. But these half-wits can still do damage as they have a paid coterie of 'journalists' to repeat their mutterings. It is a scene from One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, as jobbing scribblers jot down the ramblings of semi-comatose, rocking idiots.

But Ashton is such an extreme example of someone viscerally incapable of learning, due to an over weaning sense of self-importance, that maybe even Bedlam doesn't deserve her. Yet there she is in all her pomp and expense, bewildered and uttering offensive nonsense of the first order. Small children, the very definition of innocence, gunned down in the street cannot rock her stony heart from its belief that Jews, by defending their land, are some special murderous creed and those that create and perpetuate the violence some special class of victim.

Would she suppose abused women are to blame for their plight and children for paedophiles? Is hers the view that the rise in crime is because we own too much? Clearly ugliness for her goes much further than skin. Why do we pay this harridan a sinecure? Who exactly does she speak for? It may not be in vogue to speak of Christian values, but people such as her make you believe that a modern tower of Babel is being constructed in Brussels and that it is just as offensive now as it was then.

Tuesday, 20 March 2012

Roads 'Privatisation'

The debate over proposals to charge for road use has me amused. Comments seem to be all over the place, from it being a 'privatisation' of roads, it will 'get roads moving' to 'it will only affect new-build roads'.

Of course, the view is that taxation on motorists would need to be reduced, to act as a balance. This is the most laughable of all. What is the likelihood that a politician, faced with the opportunity to charge and tax, would consider any other option? The biggest fear over toll roads is that a) they will just be an additional cost and b) they will slow every journey you make as you have to continually join queues to pay.

Oh, I bet they will bring in remote payment, sensing your car passing a gantry and billing your 'card'. Ooh and while they are at it, they could put a box in your car that could rate your tax based on miles covered. And 'report' you for exceeding speed limits. Isn't technology wonderful? It is almost matched in inventiveness by politicians ability to find ways to impose tax.

And nowhere near meeting the greed of politicians (who will soon be identifiable by their cars having blue lights to gain priority on the roads and also signifying a car with no electronic tags).

In a successful economy, the people retain most of the wealth they earn or generate and redistribute that wealth by buying things. In our society we cannot be trusted with, well anything, but certainly not money, so ever more is taken off us so the state can, er, lose most of it. I wonder if our promised 'tax statement' will show 'government waste'?

I think it goes like this in order of cost; NHS, Welfare, Foreign 'aid' and Government waste. Things you actually want the government to do consumes about 2 percent of the money they spend.

Friday, 16 March 2012

Newsnight Debate

OMG!. I watched a painful few minutes of the live Newsnight debate on same sex marriages. There was a Catholic clergyman who was against it, an Anglican who supported it, a gay Catholic man who thought civil partnership was enough, a gay couple, two lesbians and a woman representing an organisation that wants to keep marriage as it is. So, three against-ish the unasked for legislation and five for. I guess that is what the BBC calls fair.

Though Paxman suggesting the woman for, was a bigot was unhelpful. Maybe, in ideal Paxman world you wouldn't be allowed to have a different opinion, based on hundreds of years of history and experience, but we are not there yet.

Paxman couldn't control things either, because all of those supporting same sex marriage continually shouted down the others, thus not allowing them to be heard. Not a strong argument I feel. One lesbian was incensed at the mention of 'gay' marriage, because she is obviously aware that the Left and its activists need to frame the debate and capture the way words are used., Again, poor argument.

The other, Scottish, comedian (of course) sneered at agreeing with a Tory and then shot off at a tangent to demand he not only support her view on marriage, but also stop the 'massive cuts to the NHS' etc. I'm sure she is well aware there haven't been any and that even an imbecile knows we are spent out, due to her idiot friends.

The gay men said they wanted to marry, they have children and just want equality. Well, those children came about through a biological process from which you are excluded. Who decided on that inequality then, God or Darwin? And who decided, for the children, that they should be given to a homosexual couple? What if their brain chemistry doesn't predict for homosexuality? What then of nature and nurture?

It is not 'progressive' of a society to allow homosexual relationships to be openly accepted, it is just a societal decision. Progressive, as is intended by the political activists, suggested correctness, something that just has to be. In that sense, of blind obedience to natural logic, homosexuality would only ever be wrong, but in a sentient being other decisions can be made.

The past decision to force homosexuals into the background was rational; they had to seek each other out where they could identify each other, natural except for the psychological harm done to them. By making it mainstream we have eased the burden on them, but haven't cured the three part society that now exists instead of the old two part. If I go into a ladies changing room, I am a pervert and liable to arrest.

They have no protection from lesbian viewing though. Why is that? Should we not now have three changing rooms?

Anyway, the debate was rubbish, Paxman partisan as ever and clearly showed homosexuals in a poor, self serving light, which isn't true either (but is of the politics of the gay movement). Thank goodness ice hockey was on at 11.

Highmoor Cross Shootings

This incident is a fairly well known one, due to the extreme nature of the incompetence displayed, with its suggestion that we have a grave misunderstanding of what the police are there to do.

Despite the likely familiarity I will give an overview of events. A family barbecue was interrupted by the ex husband of one of the females present, who climbed over a wall into the garden and shot three of the women. Two died, both we understand shot to a degree that they couldn't survive and the third wounded, badly in the stomach.

The man then left. Neighbours attended, attempting to help those shot and called emergency services for help. At this point, something strange happened. The most senior officer, as is usual, at the control centre taking the call was an Inspector, not a terrifically high rank perhaps. He decided that no police should attend the scene. His reasoning appeared to be that it would put police officers in danger, though with no police there, pedestrians and vehicle traffic still passed the location. Consequently his actions were only for the protection of police officers. That was his over-riding concern.

Obviously he was told by the civilians present that the gunman had left, but he chose to ignore this as potentially unreliable information. Eventually it was decided to deploy armed officers, but not to the incident. Those dealing with the injured frantically requested help 50 times, frequently being told by the control centre that they would be there in a few minutes (as they thought police would de dispatched).

As more senior officers arrived to get involved decisions moved on. To establish a time line; the initial reports came in to police at 4:37pm. At 5:41pm armed police actually went into the house and reported that the gunman had gone. Ambulances and paramedics turned up at 6:04pm, (it should be noted though, that at first the paramedics refused to attend as the offender had not been located. They finally agreed when provided with an armed escort).

The 'process' gridlock occurring within the command structure is put down in the IPCC report, to a focus being placed on finding the offender, not dealing with the victims. I'm not sure how a human being could make that decision, as if it was a one or the other choice, let alone a report that accepts it in any way, shape or form.

The report finds that the lack of urgent response was wrong but later states that they are not advocating 'that all firearms incidents are responded to immediately', as this would be 'irresponsible and reckless'. I find this amazing. Police officers should not be ordered to risk their lives, but should be expected to attend, taking care. We may have known the specific threat here, a gunman, but can police attend riots?

Maybe officers should not deal with fights? What if someone produces a previously unseen weapon? Where does the 'caution' inherent in this advice end?

It appears that the priorities for senior officers on hearing of a shooting with multiple victims were; 'finding rendezvous points, briefing senior commanders, obtaining tactical advice and setting up a command suite'. Which leaves you asking yourself 'and these people serve us how?'

The IPCC  report makes a number of recommendations and does say that none of those would work if the culture remained unchanged. This is the only hint that they have any inkling of what actually went wrong; a policy had been drawn up and a culture engendered that was diametrically opposed to the true function of the police. How can police officers ever, ever come to the conclusion that they are merely a bureaucracy and that the public turning to them in times of mortal danger is outrageous and they will not suffer it.

This fundamental misunderstanding of purpose is at the root of most failings in today's police force. The mindset is faulty at its core; the senior officers. This is the maturing generation of 'graduate policing' whereby cadets with Degrees were fast-tracked to senior roles. This has apparently only resulted in an intellectually corrupted police force, one that doesn't understand the simplest concepts of policing. This may be due to the lack of actual police work they have done in their 'career'.

And now we have a review saying this failed process should be more extensive!

Do you know how they decided to send in an armed unit? A plain clothes Detective Sergeant went, on his own initiative and in his own car, direct to the address and reported back on the situation. The report applauds his action saying that this was what should have happened at the outset (though possibly an ARV), which is true and highlights the failure of senior officers, wrapped up in their intellectual approach, as they were. His action though, is exactly the basic desire to do the job, to help people that we want and thought we had established over the decades.

I find myself wondering if the DS had a Degree and if so, what role this played in his decision making. And if he had no Degree, if it mattered. Wisdom is the application of knowledge and knowledge can be acquired through experience as well as reading, sometimes with greater understanding. Knowing the theory doesn't always help when faced with a real situation.

The police have to relearn their role and then rebuild a force that fulfils that role. It may require the dismissal of some officers for whom politics and trade unionism, lectures and libraries are more suited.

Friday Feeling

What is going on with Cameron and Obama? Obama is issuing a seemingly endless stream of platitudes about Cameron and Britain, best mates etc etc. He flies Cameron to a basketball game! Janet Daley has speculated on her blog that maybe an agreemnet is being reached over Iran.

But now we have this bizarre notion of releasing oil reserves to bring down the price of oil (as opposed to reducing tax, which is what a Conservative would do). Mind you, Iran likes high oil prices so maybe there is something in it.

I have always said that it would be a great idea to develop a technology to replace oil, if only to stuff the regimes in the Middle East, who since they became wealthy on oil revenue have acted very much like spoilt children. Complete with tantrums.

When you see them all lined up for the photo shoot, Samantha Cameron seems genuinely unhappy to be in the limelight and Michelle unhappy that people think Barack is the President. I'm sure she gives her husband a sense of perspective away from the cameras.

Don't you just love the display of disconnection when Cameron, talking to US students said that the price of filling up a car in Britain would make them faint. Luckily, it doesn't particularly concern the ferried-around Prime Minister with a multi million pound cushion, who seems completely unaware of where much of the eye-watering cost to the motorist comes from.

Does Cameron the PR man know how he comes across? I mean an honest version of him, confronted by an old lady freezing to death because she can't afford to heat her home, due to his love of the Green scam, would say 'I don't care'. Because that is how he appears; stupid for believing such dumb ideas as wind farms and Global Warming and careless because he never does anything to help the people of Britain. He is completely and utterly wrapped up in being a politician, as if it were an end in itself.

Thursday, 15 March 2012

The Corruption Of Politics

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is a self-evident truth and we know it. The absolute power of people like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il meant suffering and death for tens of millions of people. Yet these people always claim to be 'socialist', of the people.

We are conditioned to see the Left as Communism and state control and the Right as fascist, moneyed, elitist and er, state control freaks. So it is clear; they are both actually the same and only one ideology can lead to this state of affairs; the Left.

The real Right is a way of thinking that applauds achievement, that allows all to aspire and all to achieve better things by their own efforts. Naturally, it also has to have a government which, whilst promoting these things doesn't allow an over-mighty organisation to appear with an ability to crush competition.

Today's politics has been corrupted by the Left. They have infiltrated the institutions and control the Establishment. You think senior judges are idiots because they don't punish criminals? That is because they are in thrall to Left ideology. Your children uneducated? The Left indoctrinate teachers at University and they pass on the ridiculous creed to children (and also ensure they are not taught anything -an educated population asks things of its leaders).

The police, the Unions, your local council, Heath and Safety zealots, hate crimes. Do you wonder how these things now crush us and let us down? Because the Left has corrupted them. The upshot is a population that accepts what it is told, that is basically supine and cannot function without Big Government.

But we are still notionally a capitalist country and the other side of Leftist destructiveness is coming into play. The Left likes Big things, big government, big projects, big buildings, big warehouses and big companies. Big companies can tell you a lot about their market sector all at once, without having to ask 4,000 little companies the same question. Both share the same market percentage, but with one, you can have just one conversation.

Whilst chatting, the politician might ask if a political donation is a possibility, or perhaps a Directorship available. The company might ask if a little laxity in planning law might be allowed. So all in all, for a politician in power, a big, rich, powerful company is an attractive entity. If, as Industry Secretary you receive two invites, one from an electronics company in Cambridgeshire, who want to talk expansion from 50 people to 80 over a cup of coffee in a paper strewn office, and one from a chap who wants to chat about subsidies and wind farms on a yacht in the Med. which one do you go for?

Though the important thing here is not the type of corruption, but that all of it, even the seemingly innocent is corrosive. Do you think the guy in the corner shop has any say in legislation affecting his store? Cameron wakes up one day convinced that binge drinking is caused by cheap alcohol, so he wants to set a minimum price. The local guy shouts as loud as he can and prays. Tesco rock up with a threat or two; unemployment, affect on business, profits, tax, any angle as long as the politician gets the idea that they don't want it.

Surely though, the small guy benefits when Cameron loses interest and concentrates on some other dream state inspired crusade? Not when Tesco get to maintain their stranglehold and price to destroy the competition. If we are not careful, the Big State will engulf us with Big Supermarkets and Big Energy being a part of Big Government as surely as if we were a Stalinist state.

And it is not just our identikit politicians here, the EU absolutely loves big companies. In fact, they promote the evolution of ever larger entities, controlled, ultimately by them, through favours and legislation that ensures their success. Wind farms? As an idea it couldn't get off the ground, as a project of the Left they are literally guaranteed success; planning laws ignored, subsidies introduced, higher bills passed on, and legal obligations to buy their over-priced product enforced.

Wednesday, 14 March 2012

Phone Hacking Scandal

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that, apart from the original two people banged up, anyone has actually been charged with anything in the Murdoch-only phone hacking scandal. There seems to have been plenty of arrests, with the police having a strange predilection for early morning swoops, which I find bizarre. Though I'm sure the drama appeals to officers pretending to be competent, even when they don't seem able to keep their mouths shut at times.

And what on earth did we learn from Charlotte Church's phone being hacked? We certainly know the value of celebrity when she had to bring a wheelbarrow to take away the 'compensation' for the heinous crime. Is it the case that only reporters working for Murdoch knew how to hack phone voicemails? Or were other organisations so morally correct and well run, that they never stooped to such lows?

If public servants were being corrupted, which has been the latest we have been hearing, then where are the arrests of the corrupted officials? I haven't heard of any. Leveson we are told was not supposed to ask questions about individuals in detail until prosecutions had taken place, but he has and people of the calibre and with the understanding of legal niceties such as Sue Akers, have been happy to blab at length.

But on it will go, this circle of scandal, where the deceit of newspapers meets the deceit of the Establishment.

Being Prime Minister

I wonder if David Cameron ever gives a thought to nature of the role of 'Prime Minister'? It represents the leader of the government, the point from which decisions affecting a nation emanate. Does that make him feel important or humbled?

I'm guessing he would say the latter whilst whole-heartedly subsumed in the former. He gives every sign. Nothing he does ever seems geared to be for the national good, but more part of a political game that reflects well on him, amongst other members of that group.

Gay marriage. Cameron, completely unbidden has decided to spend vast amounts of political time on the subject, something which in the grand scheme of things probably needs legislation slightly less than the size of chocolate bars. Homosexuality exists. That's it. That is the sole concern of government. We have decided after hundreds of years of thinking differently, that we will accept it as something no longer beyond the pale.

There are a number of real societal problems that this necessarily requires us to ignore, toilets, changing rooms, approaches etc., but it is an evolutionary dead-end and marriage should be left to those for whom the institution is designed; those carrying on the tradition of the human species. Maybe whilst we are on the subject of seizing language for political purposes, perhaps we should make clear the difference between parents and homosexuals who have acquired children. Perhaps they should be called child-minders.

Cameron keeps popping over to France/Greater France to sign pieces of paper that the French Empire (usually referred to as the EU) require him to. He shows how important he is by doing so. Not only do we not know what he is doing, he also hasn't considered the effects on Britain as a nation. He hasn't done that duty, because he doesn't care. He cares about himself and his standing amongst other politicians.

Is PMQ's ever about anything important? Has any light ever been emitted from one? No, it is just the jousting bit of the political games they play as a group. Points scoring, that's all. Look how confused they are when the supposedly ordered world that doesn't require their attention, suddenly flares up. Rioters on the streets? What on earth is that about and what should we do about it? Please don't let it have political ramifications.

More properly, David Cameron should be referred to as the Prime Minister of the Coalition Cabinet. He certainly isn't operating outside that bubble and he definitely isn't the Prime Minister of Britain.

Tuesday, 13 March 2012

The Fetish Of Armed Police

Let me give you a scenario and see if you can guess what happened. Whilst reading the tale, think what response would be enacted today and then consider which is more appropriate. Ask yourself if things are better or worse.

Police are called to a small block of flats on a seafront. The day is sunny and warm and the area is thronged with holidaymakers and daytrippers.  A 13 year old girl has seen from the window of the flat she lives in on the second floor, two young men park and get out of a small hatchback, open the tailgate and one of them remove a pistol, which he shoves down the waistband of his jeans at the front.

When questioned the girl is shaking and had a clear view of the car from the window. She seems sensible and gives a very good description of the two lads. The car is fairly new, clean inside and out. On the back seat is a Snoopy toy dressed as a chef and on the parcel shelf a tidily rolled up umbrella. It doesn't seem like the kind of car two youngsters would be driving, though it isn't listed as stolen. Wires can be seen coming from the cigarette lighter socket, going up under the dashboard.

Recently, a well known terrorist organisation has been found to be targeting seaside towns for a bombing campaign. All police forces have been made aware of this and a heightened state of alert is in place. The officers sent to investigate are in uniform and unarmed. No back-up has been assigned and force headquarters has not been informed (as standing orders at the time said they should for a 'firerms incident').

The officers wait in their car. Suddenly two people clearly matching the girl's description appear at the entrance to the car park. On seeing the police car they immediately turn and walk away. The officers walk after them. The lads quicken their pace at which point one of the officers calls on them to stop.

What happens next? Should a more senior officer be in charge than the station sergeant? Should armed police have been deployed with the two young men surrounded and forced to the ground at gunpoint? Maybe one or both might have been shot for the protection of the officers and the public, because they made some move which was deemed threatening? Was the car a bomb? Should the area have been evacuated and the Army brought in to conduct a controlled explosion? Is it not better to be safe than sorry? Why should officers have their lives put at risk?

In the actual, real scenario detailed above, the lads stopped, and one lifted up his T shirt to expose a black, oblong wallet. The car belonged to one of their fathers and the doll was because they were both trainee chefs. They had walked away because they had parked in a private car park and thought they were in trouble. The wires were to power an alarm they had fitted and it was the only place they could get power from.

You see, the girl was a reliable and sensible witness and the car presented some deviation from what you might expect, when viewing things as a stereotype, but the simple explanation still turned out, as it does most often, to be right. A non-event passed off as a non-event instead of the massive drama of police in paramilitary garb, lurching about shouting and pointing rifles at completely innocent members of the public, that is the acceptable (apparently) face of policing today.

The above actually happened in the mid-Eighties in a less drama prone part of the country, in less drama prone days. Not necessarily safer days. Let us now consider the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting in the same light.

The police had a block of flats under surveillance because they were pretty sure at least one terrorist was living there and they knew what he looked like. Someone emerges but has been partly missed by the team, anxious messages are passed back and forwards trying to ascertain if anyone can identify the man and what should be done. Eventually the decision is taken that he must be 'neutralised' (my word) as they couldn't 'risk it'. So he is followed, grabbed and shot in such a way that he is definitely dead.

There may have been a terrorist in the block of flats, but there were also a lot of other people, so the chance of an unidentified person being the target is low, statistically. The person they follow hasn't been identified, so there is no known 'risk' that they cannot afford to take. He is aware he is being chased before he was caught but didn't try to blow himself up.

When caught he was put in an immobilising bear hug and then killed. Even at this point, as a terrorist with a bomb, he has been caught, immobilised, yet he was shot. Perhaps this final act was necessary as they 'couldn't take a risk', which would have been fine, unless he had a trigger that detonated the bomb if he let go.

I still have less of a problem with the officers on the ground, who whilst clearly brave had not deployed well, than with the idiot senior officers who failed completely to understand and deal with the situation appropriately. The murdered man's family and the British people can rest safely in their beds, as the officer in charge has since been further promoted, so no telling what damage can be done now.

Operation Weeting

News arrives of the early morning arrests of six people including Rebekah Brooks, the huge haired indestructible of the Murdoch empire (well, he seems to protect her at all costs). Maybe the recent suggestion that Sue Akers, apparently a senior police officer, doesn't understand what prejudicial information is, has fired the over promoted lightweight up to get some high profile arrests under way.

You never know, she may also consider the law doesn't apply when she doesn't want it to, who can tell with modern political policing? Maybe the Left don't think that anyone Murdoch-related deserves a fair trial, you can't tell when they are going to really push their power.

But does anyone else find Operation (T)Weeting it bit strange? Phone hacking is thoroughly unpleasant but if your house was broken into and your granny murdered, your jewellry stolen and your voicemails listened to, I'm guessing the latter wouldn't register too highly. Naturally, the queue of 'famous' people forming up for a payout is not remarkable.

What though, is the great scandal? The great hand wringing over why police officers didn't investigate further in the initial enquiries, may be misplaced and just show they have a sense of proportion. I appreciate the tax-avoiding Guardian newspaper wants the Murdoch empire removed from the face of the Earth, now they no longer support Labour, but otherwise, what has really happened?

The Guardian and the BBC tell lies and support an ideology, AGW, that is causing untold damage and suffering through increased taxes, energy costs and wind turbines with the utility of porcelain ornaments blighting the countryside, but I don't see a public committee's looking into it.

We also heard of the corruption of public officials by journalists (from Murdoch papers) and gasps of shock were heard. But if this shocking revelation is true, where are the dawn raids on police officers and such like?  It must be amusing behind the scenes though, as they plot and plan just what they can say and do, to 'get' the enemy without showing up friends, or the culture within the police and politics. But then, when the putrifying corruption of the Left takes hold, this is what to expect.

Bill Of Rights Fiasco

The rumpus over a committee looking into a Bill of Rights to take precedence over the European Court of Human Rights has been a farce from start to finish. Firstly, if we don't like what the ECHR is doing, then we should ignore it, simple as that.

Secondly the recent events have been useful in flushing out some nasties who would rather stay hidden. The people who slowly but surely, in secret seek to remove your civil liberties and turn the UK into a Stalinist police state have been exposed.

These people come up with the 'save a murderer' campaigns and are always frightfully upset that you should be allowed to criticise them, so they make that illegal. Hate crimes etc. Your life is immeasurably worse because of these people and don't think they are just misguided. People who do their work in secret are not unaware of the damage they intend. They are just careful none of it affects them.

Nothing good can come of it and unless we have some kind of benign revolution, a decent set of politicians turn up or some such, then the only response to the constant attacks on ordinary people will be violence. The Left have already engendered a distinct distrust of the police and put placemen in the senior roles, now all the police have to do is realise they rely on the politicians and the perfect mix exists for the police state the Left desire. For evil to flourish it only requires that a good man does nothing.

Monday, 12 March 2012

I Could Fix Government

I reckon I could fix the government you know. It is a matter  of addressing the fundamentals. Certainly as many have perceived, locking MP's up for criminal activity would be a good start. But my thoughts drift elsewhere.

When I return from a supermarket visit, I have a piece of paper on which the supermarket has helpfully printed a product description and the price I paid for it, with a total at the bottom. Very helpful in checking that I have been charged correctly and even for comparing prices.

Compare this with a 'Tax Statement'. This pop through the door and has things like 'opening balance', with a figure, then some other to-ing and fro-ing of numbers, maybe with an explanation such as 'on account' and then a total.

You may have no idea where the 'opening balance' came from, nor how it is calculated. You most likely won't be able to follow what the other items are and so have no idea why they arrive at the total they do. It is this assumption on the part on the state that they owe you absolutely nothing, no courtesy, no explanation, nothing that is the root of the problem.

Cure that mindset and you start to cure an awful lot. It is beyond the wit of politicians though, They would first have to come to believe they exist to serve the people and their country.

BBC Bias

The BBC just cannot stop themselves from going flat out against their charter commitment and adding their own ideologicall bias, whenever they feel like it. Humble Kate on the programme plotting the Earth's year did her usual sterling job and there was some genuinely interesting points put across extremely well. Educationally, in many areas I would rated it as some of the finest I have seen.

But Lordy, when they get a chance to introduce Man Made Climate Change the quality falls off a cliff. And it is not just that they believe it so they say so, oh no, they are clearly aware that it doesn't stack up, because of the planning that goes into how this element is introduced and presented.

Melting Arctic sea ice was the subject. First the winter was mentioned and then Kate went straight on to talk about the fact that the sea ice has melted to a far greater extent over the last few years. But clearly the ice doesn't melt during winter, so she was talking about a summer melt. Why should she wish to confuse these two things in your mind? Because she would then have had to say that in winter the sea ice covers a greater area than it did.

The other nice little touch was to address the natural instinct that this may be wrong as we have just had a  few cold winters in Britain. This she said, couldn't be taken as important as it was only two or three winters. So her two or three 'massive melts' are statistically important and proof of something Man is responsible for, but a couple of cold winters are insignificant. Which one is it?

Items such as the formation of clouds and the way massive storms develop near lakes etc were excellent and because there was no political point to make, presumably based on the best knowledge. The bits where they were happy to repeat made up stuff was when an ideology the BBC supports was touched upon.

I just loved the fact that, overall the assumption was that people watching the programme would be so thick that they would blindly accept that repeated ice ages (which naturally required intervening warming) had occurred, but 'Global Warming' was caused by man's output of CO2. The fact that this is unproven as we cannot see the mechanism by which this is true and also don't understand the full complexities of climate change, seems to concern them not a jot.

Nor does the fact that the planet isn't warming, but CO2 output continues. In fact the only place that Man Made Global Warming occurs is in the computer models of people who want MMGW to be true.

The other thing that stunned me was the explanation of how ice ages occur. Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but I have never heard this 'combination of circumstance' cause before. Seemed highly plausible, but why hadn't such an important and fundamental fact found its way into my head before?

Friday, 9 March 2012

France -Always The Same

I was reading an Air Pictorial magazine from 1971 last night. It was querying the defence implications of joining something called the 'Common Market'. The leader column decried the suggestion by Ted Heath and Monsieur Pompidou, that such matters could be discussed later -nothing changes in politics does it!

They also disliked the fact that France had left NATO but was happy to gain from its protection, as all the countries around them were members, without paying for it. Wherever you look, the French turn up as a duplicitous and disgraceful 'relative on the make', a perpetual nuisance and scrounger, lacking any morals.

Who can claim that God doesn't have a sense of humour? He may have needed to rest on the Seventh day, but he must have had some fun along the way. Why else would a country of such stunning beauty have such awful people imposed upon it?

This Recession And Banks

We are all aware I think of the central role played by banks in the financial mess we currently find ourselves in. It was a case of very stupid people being allowed to run banks, with greed as an overriding motive. This is common, as even children display this proclivity if not reined in by their parents. The role of parent to banks of course is supposed to be supplied by government agencies.

But let us think back. When the seeds were sown of this disaster the principal banking centres of the world had Clinton and Blair in government. Stupidity certainly breeds stupidity and here it was full blown and at the highest level. Clinton indeed kicked off the whole thing by insisting (in law no less) that banks give mortgages to people who couldn't afford them.

Banks then saw a need to 'hedge their bets' and bundled and sold on debts. Everyone had their eye on the profits and didn't consider the consequences. It really is that simple. Here, we also had the unstoppable Gordon Brown on a crusade of his own imagining. He used the liquidity the banks provided to borrow insanely and urged other people to do the same, by keeping money rates low. 'What happens when rates go up?' nobody asked.

Indeed, this also slipped Brown's mind. Either that or he simply didn't care and there is plenty of evidence that was the case. On top of this we had the communist experiment taking place in Europe, where to support a power grab, a single currency had been 'agreed' by 27 countries across Europe. The one size fits all imposition was a disaster waiting to happen. It completed the perfect storm of financial crisis.

But what has happened since? What is happening today? Well, banks are handing themselves handsome bonuses and pushing up interest rates and not loaning businesses money, all without any real complaint from Ministers. Quantitative Easing is pouring new money into banks and the 'rescue' of Greece is just money that the EU gives to banks that Greece owes money too.

Do you see the connection? No matter how grave the situation, no matter what you think should be done to get us out of the financial downturn. all that is actually happening is money is being channelled to banks. Something, reader is afoot and I don't know what. Clearly you and I are not party to it.

Consider. Tony Blair (or Gordon Brown) did one 'good thing' according to popular history and that is giving independence to the Bank of England. They didn't but hey, gingerbread houses don't exist either but there is a story. The Bank's sole 'job' was to keep interest rates low. A political objective then.

But in what way is printing money (Quantitative Easing) compatible with 'keeping interest rates low'? It is, naturally, a prime cause of inflation. But we are still doing it and by 'we' I mean the Bank of England, so what is going on? Why are politicians and the BoE ignoring this sacred directive and the political consequences of driving up inflation? It must be a pretty important reason and it isn't to help the economy.

I don't think it is a Right Wing conspiracy and I don't think it is driven by Jews as I'm sure the left would aver, I think in all honesty that it is because the politicians have given too much power to banks and now cannot rein them in. Frankenstein has created a monster. It is a time of national disaster and we need a Churchill, but what have we got? A Cameron and a Lord Haw-Haw (Nick Clegg).

In The News Today

Back in the news is the inability of white people to adopt black children. This is caused by good, old fashioned racism by the leftie social workers. And this is the real deal, not the pretend racism that is thrown around all the time. This is an ideological stance that black people are different and must not be affected by white people. Not bad for stereotyping. I'm not sure the black child of British born black people is too concerned with their African heritage, but the social workers are. Sure, as they grow up they might have a 'genes reunited' moment, but that doesn't mean they reject their British heritage and go to live in the Congo.

The racism here is based on the belief of white left liberals who know, in their very soul, that non-white people are inferior and need the special care and attention that white, left liberals have in their hearts. Why else all the race equality paraphernalia? Why the insistence on setting up black organisations, for groups such as black police officers? Why would it be racist if there were a white police officers organisation? Black people, they feel, need special help. Why else does the left treat 'ethnics' as if they were children?

It has been a very effective weapon in maintaining white hegemony in socialist circles and in maintaining a tension between people of differing colour skins. Left to their own devices people, like water find their own level. Indian people may keep some traditions for instance and maybe dress in an Indian style, but they will  buy a coat, because it's bloody cold. Integration occurs, not sublimation, but integration. And we all get along, unless the leftie pops up to stir up difference again -it is in their genes I think, having done it for so long on class lines.

It strikes me that most of all, social workers must hate mixed-race marriages (as they are called; they are just people with different colour skin usually).

I find it ironic that on the day Cameron is signing us up to some other European initiative he has been too busy to mention, this time the protection of women against violence, he is also lamenting the deaths of six servicemen in Afghanistan. Ironic, because the regime he is supporting with our soldiers lives has a very different, entrenched view of the value of women.

You could take the view that the Afghans as a nation are backward and pretty despicable and in a real sense you would be right, countries and their borders create political entities. But it isn't actually the 'race' Afghan you dislike, it is the culture, or its absence. I think that it is patently obvious, not ideologically obvious or religiously obvious, that women are pretty much like men. Each tends to have something they do better than the other, but overall you could expect the same capability, intellectually out of both.

That is a human view. But it is not one that some countries can accept and there is no way of getting away from it, it is mainly Muslim countries that have this problem. People talk of 'advancement' but they really mean being more like us. I don't mind if a country doesn't, cannot build a Sistine Chapel. I care that, having learnt to talk they cannot develop a simple concept like fairness. Woman stays at home all day, looking after the children she has borne; man sits at a desk and earns money. In what way is one superior to the other? It is a division of labour to achieve a practical outcome.

Actually, Islam is a Socialist religion I think. Both revolve around a power bloc of almighty elites and both seek to rule by sowing discord to ensure there is no popular focus on their arrogance.

(Thinking about it, I do find it academically interesting why some countries cannot build a Sistine Chapel. Why, in all the world does the central part of Africa have no history of great buildings? We know of them in South America, we know of them in South East Asia. Europe of course has an immense tradition in this respect. By far the greatest achievements of ancient Man are in Egypt, but why did this ability not exist a little further South? I'm not trying to make what a Socialist would call a racist point here, I am just genuinely mystified.

How is it that a Briton builds a massive castle, or church, a Mexican builds a step pyramid and an equatorial African decides to give it a miss? I cannot believe there is an anti-Bob-the-Builder gene in that continent. If we all came 'out of Africa', what has happened? I don't think you could get the answer on a postcard).

Thursday, 8 March 2012

Question Time, Again

Still no idea why I subject myself like this, but sometimes it is good sport to watch the couldn't-care-less-about-the-damage lefties coming up with ideas of the greatest stupidity. Like someone skewering the extremely self impressed Will Self by saying, if there are not many £2m houses, why have a tax on them? Self then squirmed and twisted, but grudgingly admitted it wasn't a great idea, but then suddenly said 'but I didn't think of it!' as if that had any importance. He just wants it for the usual leftie reason; spite.

Will Young is for gay marriage, apparently. I guess people on death row would vote to abolish capital punishment. I still don't understand why the homosexual community don't understand that society invented marriage to create a family unit as a stable way to raise children. That the 'attraction' is just to procreate, we are a slave to it. Homosexuals cannot procreate and this is the essential difference.

A man who cannot supply the seed or a woman who cannot conceive are not the same as homosexuals in this respect, because they are drawn to the opposite sex by nature, as if they could conceive. Homosexuals are drawn to the same sex, contrary to the genetic coding to procreate and that is not a dangerous thing. It is a fact. I'm sure we could devise drugs to make everyone gay, but I'm not sure there is a future in that.

I don't really see it as a command from God, so the Church's angle is not something I am concerned with, it is the power politics being enacted by some homosexuals. I'm sure also that homosexuals, who demand that the word 'normal' cannot be applied to sexuality (which kind of ignores why one human being would be attracted to another at all), want to have marriages just like everyone else so they can claim to be mainstream. It is why they also demand to be handed or allowed to purchase children (the child of course, having no rights in our society).

Will Young keeps talking about being terrified by certain language, well he should try seeing it from the position of someone who doesn't think he has power on his side. Those people have to suffer, literally in silence, an outrageous assault on the freedom of speech that we once had. A world where I can have an opinion that someone else may oppose. We don't have to fight or even get nasty. We can just debate, disagree or ignore. But gays apparently need something else. They need to have a special category of crime; hate crime. This of course is based on the way you think. And that isn't worrying?

Hold on though, I don't think you are allowed to oppose Climate Change, so perhaps it is any leftist agenda that is protected by the tag hate crime?

Tuesday, 6 March 2012

Police Shooting - Update

And here it comes; no weapon discovered 'so far' in the GMP shooting incident. What will the line be if they find a gun locked in a metal case, in the boot? That, because he didn't raise his hands he was going for a gun, which we now know he had? Really the things we are supposed to take as serious comment these days is beyond parody. In Alice in Wonderland the eponymous character says she is able to believe six impossible things before breakfast. This is a feat routinely achieved by politicians and senior police officers these days and something they think we share with them.

Once again, what really happened, I feel sure, is that poorly trained officers were given guns and sent on a mission. Their weapons, para military garb and aggressive training were combined with a briefing that they should expect to face men 'with weapons'. Now, as the stand-off in the film Crocodile Dundee 2 proved, it is the nature of the weapon that conditions the response.

If you have a man with a knife in your gun sight you do not have to shoot him until he is in a position to actually harm someone. If you have an armed man besieged, you do not shoot him to get it over with, even if it is disrupting traffic in Chelsea.

The tactics and deployment of armed police is, I maintain, flawed psychologically. Worse, I think this is recognised but for some reason it has been decided not to address it. The IPCC assiduously avoid asking difficult questions that would reveal inadequacies in the police use of firearms. Training is conducted in a strange way that seems to assume Britain is awash with guns and anyone is a potential killer.

Children are castigated for playing openly with patently toy guns, because 'it could get them shot'. which is true, but instead of the police seeing the children as at fault we should recognise the danger lies in the faulty thinking of the men with real guns; the police.

The need for more armed police these days is an unfortunate fact. The need to have them trained to the highest standard would have seemed pure common sense. Apparently not.

Monday, 5 March 2012

Police Shooting

Once again we have a man dead after the deployment of armed officers and again in a planned operation, where the police decided the ground on which they operated. The plan appears to have been that the three men in question should be surrounded in a public car park, tear gas deployed and the occupants threatened by armed police.

Not sure about the tactic of using the gas, but there may be some sense to it that isn't immediately apparent, though I wouldn't suggest that anything impeding the sight-line of armed officers would be terribly helpful. I wonder too if the possiblity that the targeted men might try to drive away had been considered, bearing in mind the approach was made whilst they were in a vehicle?

But whether through the usual tactical ineptitude, or because of reasons wholly to do with the actions of the criminals, our armed police once again opened fire and once again we meet a wall of silence about whether the targets were armed. What was the actual reason, the absolute need to open fire?

Let's be clear on this. If a criminal finds himself facing armed police it is entirely his responsibility to ensure the police feel no need to shoot him. I don't feel a huge concern that criminals end up getting hurt. My problem is with the willingness of the police to shoot people at all. It is not just that the police train armed officers inadequately, it would appear that the training is inappropriate too.

Tactics, the actual weapons used and deployment are of great concern. That the IPCC do not see it as their job to urge caution and suggest change is outrageous. I am certainly not comfortable with the police becoming judge, jury and executioner. Whilst we act with vigour to convict soldiers of 'crimes' in war zones, our armed police are a protected breed, loosing off rounds with impunity.

Why does the publicly accountable body, the Greater Manchester Police and the publicly funded though doubtlessly unaccountable IPCC, both feel they have no need to reassure the public about the actions of armed officers? Were these men armed? They already know the answer, it cannot possibly affect any subsequent court case to release the information now, but we can't have it. The reason is likely to be the concoction of justifications that everyone is 'happy' with, politicians, legal advisors and police.

I don't understand why no-one seems to think a better trained and more competent force of armed police officers would be a good thing. We deserve better.