Thursday, 13 November 2014

No Leadership Crisis

Well the scaredy cat politics of the current age comes home to roost. No leader of any party will say or do anything definite as this gives something to measure them against and allows a target for the others to attack.

So they are all more or less happy to say pretty much the same things, whilst rubber stamping EU diktats. Obviously evil does well when a good man does nothing so the Marxist project rolls on.

Curiously, the son of a rampant Marxist hopeful of carrying on the dream, is hiding in the middle ground Labour party. This party of amnesiacs are currently trying to convince the electorate, that all the problems they caused under Blair and Brown are somehow the Tories fault and another Labour government would get us back on track.

Now, if you are paid by the state, whether to ostensibly do a job of some kind, or not bother at all, then of course you can be tempted to vote for Labour (unless you actually believe in putting the welfare of others somewhere in your priorities). But otherwise, I cannot see any appeal.

You can have the reality denying idiots like Burnham and Balls back to once more wreck social mobility and the economy generally, led by Miliband who feels that the previous Labour administration failed to take us back to the 70's. And he is confident that his level of stupidity can finally get us there.

Cameron is an altogether simpler animal, in every way. He likes the idea of being the latest incarnation of Tony Blair. He falls for every fad, whether anti-capitalist projects like the Global Warming scam or the Marxist EU. The fact that clearly, from every poll the country is crying out for traditional conservative values and leadership (for proof combine Tory and UKIP polling) evades him completely.

Of course, to adopt that change of direction he would have to do something definite and, being like Blair fundamentally a coward, he will do no such thing. Just enough to survive should do. And like all of his colleagues in the bubble, the needs of the country are irrelevant to their 'politics'.

The Lib Dems. Do they still exist? Representing the loony extreme of the Labour party they are merely a deflating balloon. As long a Miriam (an amalgam of Tony and Cherie) can secure sinecures all is well, the rest is flim flam. But it is curious she attached herself to such an obvious loser.

UKIP? Well they're not really a party are they? They were just supposed to be a thorn in the side of indolent conservatives. A corrective to get the would-fit-well-in-the-Labour Party Dave back on track. But the voters seem to have underestimated how dense he is. Pity really, because previously we have always been able to rely on the Conservatives to get us out of the mess left by Labour.

It's going to get colder before it gets warmer.

Tuesday, 23 September 2014

Labouring Labour

Apparently, there is only a short period of time and only one person to save the NHS. Again. Ed Miliband says he will hire loads more medical staff so the current poor dears aren't too rushed off their feet to cope.

Generally, it is an arrogant disregard for the job they are paid to do that causes the problems, but it would be asking a bit much to expect a Labour politician to understand something before pontificating.

The arrogance seemed to appear just after Blair decided that nurses were all graduates and should no longer do 'menial' jobs. When it became apparent that someone had to do it, a new grade was invented and 'lesser' nurses appeared. But with strict demarcations so they didn't do anything really nursey. Like stop people from falling over, even when they are the only person around.

Blair did a lot of this sort of thing, insisting that everyone should assume that they are the most important person and act accordingly. If you fancy getting steaming drunk, go ahead, who should have the right to stop you? Your enjoyment is paramount.

Any politics gets staid if a party comes to see power as a right, but ten years of Miliband is as near to a guarantee that Britain will be a poor, crime riddled, socially immobile, uneducated cesspit as you can get.

Every Labour government has ended with the country in a mess and always required solid Conservative common sense to get us back on our feet. With this recession very much of the climb back has been due to the hard work of individuals, control of our currency and some Conservatives sticking up for us, under a Labour and Lib Dem  leadership, although one claims to be the leader of the Conservative party.

Friday, 19 September 2014

Not So Stupid Then

Scotland has voted to stay part of the United Kingdom. This means that they are not stupid, of course. But one and a half million people did vote for Alex Salmond and that is amazing. Beyond amazing actually. Doubtless some people did vote for an independent Scotland, not understanding what was really being offered.

Essentially, at the outset the offering was between status quo and giving power to Alex Salmond. Scotland would be separated from the English parliament certainly, but the idea was that Salmond seized power.

I don't know how many Scots realised that all the Yes campaign talk of the greater social feeling innate to the Scottish could only be delivered through him. Independent Scotland would be immensely wealthy (somehow), with almost free energy, free higher education, prescriptions, buses anything in fact. Hell, everything!

But Salmond isn't a socialist or anything like it. He is a hard nosed Communist and he knows that he mustn't tell you that or even more, most Scots wouldn't give him a second thought. Did not all his talk of a Utopia born of Scotland sound suspiciously like all communist regimes and their promises? Always promises.

But countries like North Korea and Venezuela under Chavez appeal to Salmond not because they are superb places for people to live free, unfettered lives, without the oppression of capitalism, but because of the power that resides with an elite.

Well, for now he is thwarted, but is violence his next option? It usually is for such people.

Wednesday, 10 September 2014

A Coming Referendum

The day of the referendum concerning the opinion of some Scottish people towards splitting from the United Kingdom and rejoining the European Union as an independent state, gets ever closer.

The things that seem clear; Alex Salmond is mad in the same category as Tony Blair. He is power crazed, lacking any interest in any other aspect of his supposed role. A Yes vote is a Yes to Alex Salmond seizing power in Scotland, nothing much else changes, organisationally. It is not a Yes vote for Scottish independence.

Scotland will be reincorporated into an EU of regions, possibly as the Scottish region, allowing some continuity of identity, but just as likely North Britain. The only reason Scotland got its own Parliament after all, was to prepare for the split up of Britain into EU designated districts or regions.

Other areas of clarity are; capital will take flight from Scotland, major companies will, by necessity relocate away, the debt ratio of the new 'nation' will be massive, as will its public spending overspend. Additionally, much harm will be done to the economies of all other areas of the UK.

Less clear is what currency the Last King of Scotland intends for his people. Will it be a Scottish pound, on parity with the British pound? Without the links that Salmond will have so carefully severed, this will lead to a Eurozone style disaster. Or will it be the Euro, as is required for new member states?

This of course will place Scotland in pretty much the same state as the pound parity; a currency completely independent from the needs of the country, region, sorry. But then there is the small problem of meeting the entry requirements on debt...... oh dear. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

So, how can the madman convince his intended subjects to vote for Christmas? Well, by copying other Marxists by rigging the vote! Can you vote on the future of your nation if you, even temporarily, are not living there? No. Can you vote on the future of Scotland if you are a foreigner living there? Yes.

If you are unemployed and particularly if you would like to stay that way, Salmond is offering pots of free money, but you have to vote for him. And lastly, he has scooped idealistic and easily gulled, let alone influenced children have a vote. Yes, minors are on the in it too.

The deepest irony here is that we need to maintain one union, of peoples who have a shared history and overlapping culture, but ditch another alien system, the EU.

Tuesday, 26 August 2014

Cultural Marxist Utopia

I went to Ascot recently, which doesn't seem a promising start to an item about the Left. It was for the Red Bull Air Races and it was my first visit to this mecca of horse racing. Happily could be my last. What moron put such a large and prestigious venture in a town centre?

The queues to park were horrendous, they forgot to effectively relabel the car parks and the tickets for the 'Grandstand', permitted you to stand on the grass in front of the Grandstand. Must speak to Trading Standards about that.

Anyway, Ascot race course seems a grubby, badly organised place as you arrive, but is really quite fabulous. Good luck to all those lucky enough to have the wealth to really get the best out of the place. I mean that, I have no fear or loathing of rich people.

The day was fine and the racing close. We left early though, to avoid what must, has to be bedlam as everyone leaves at the same time. And this is my point, not the event or the venue but the journey.

Perhaps foolishly I went there mainly by motorway. Well, I still call them motorways and I think that is their retained official title, but they are now some kind of Marxist Utopia. Firstly, in a way of taxing that led to Magna Carta in the first place, cameras to calculate average speeds have been erected alongside, expensive and sophisticated gantries and signs, to allow our very own Stasi to manipulate road speeds.

These displays are operated like a child playing with Buckaroo; just for the users entertainment. We used to just have the idiot matrix board, always displaying a message about something that happened yesterday or offering some pointless 'advice', now they tell you that there is congestion. In real time. And they know there is congestion because a) they can see it on yet more cameras and b) they caused it.

Yes, a key reason for the variable speed limits (after fund raising, naturally) is to cause congestion, which then allows them to further lower speed limits and hopefully catch more people out who can't remember what the last set of 'instructions for driving' were.

If you have experienced this, or if you are fairly normally perceptive, you will realise that this creates dangerous situations and you would be right. But the variable speed limits are for your safety. Or for the safety of people who may at some point have been working in the road, but aren't now.

So we are treated to broad expanses of three and four lane roads, motorways, that used to be the safest of our roads, now reduced to desperate drivers watching signs as to whether they need to slow down further and trying to keep current with the last change, terrified of a possible fine, points and/or loss of licence. At no point has any hint of danger emanated from their driving, though has been introduced by constant vigilance to signs and the sudden need to brake

This braking caused by all the traffic concatenating due to all travelling at 40mph and lorries, now able to change lanes to 'overtake'. It is horrendous, stressful and dangerous, but it serves a very important purpose. For too long, drivers have been able to make decisions, repeatedly on how to drive. Firstly, speed limits were introduced, then technology meant they could be enforced more strictly but motorways still evaded the Left's need to control.

Average speed cameras and variable speed limits were the solution. All you need to do, is slow the traffic until cars, coaches and lorries are all travelling at the same speed. Cars that used to pass a given area at 70 (or so) miles per hour, now traverse it much more slowly at 50, or 40 mph. People lane change to seek some small advantage, lorries included.

So all the spaces that such fast travel allowed are now taken up by a solid mass. You know this is true, because the 'congestion' clears the moment the 'limits' are lifted. But you don't get to make decisions, you do what you are told. You are conditioned just a bit more to accept the dead, controlling hand of the State.

And you know if the subject ever comes up on the TV some idiot will, quite happily and to camera say, 'yes, but if it's keeping us safer.....'. Seeing this sort of thing must make Cultural Marxists sigh with satisfaction, that someone has accepted their prole status, knows their place.

So yes, our motorways, with variable speed gantries and average speed cameras are an example of the Marxist Utopia we are heading for. Just remember that before you grumble about your journey in future. It is for the greater good.

Tuesday, 19 August 2014

Cameron and War

In a slight twist to the US 'War on Terror' David Cameron has said recently, that he has identified the goings on in Iraq as having the potential to threaten us here in the UK.

He seems to mean that the people currently beheading and murdering their way around the Middle East may decide they don't like us and attack the West, including Britain. This makes me wonder if he saw the attacks on New York on the news. It was a while ago now, perhaps he has forgotten.

Then there have been the odd hopeless attempts to blow people and stuff up here. And the fact that so many of the nutters in this organisation called Islamic State (although that may have changed again by now) are from Britain.

Our country is in danger and has been for some time, from an ideology (not a specific, regional organisation) and that ideology is a branch of Islam. It is a totalitarian order in the mould of the Nazis and Soviet Russia, which is perhaps why it has the backing of the Left here in Britain.

If Cameron or any of the lightweights masquerading as politicians these days, actually wanted to protect this country they would recognise the truth in this and identify, openly the real enemy. Then start dealing with it here, by getting rid of those who live here, but claim to hate us.

We should also stand up for ourselves against the childish rantings of the Left. Their support for the rise in anti-semitism is akin to the early days of Hitler and is being used by the Left to achieve the same things. By acting like nice guys we are letting thugs, murderers and their political acolytes rage around us. We cannot wait until it is too late.

Why exactly the Left think they can use Muslims to help overthrow Western capitalism and then step in to run things as a totalitarian state themselves, I have no idea. Thinking as they do suggests they are thick and/or evil, but do they really think the totalitarian theology will stand aside for them? They hate you too, you idiots!

Thursday, 22 May 2014


Today, in mock signatures we put an 'X' in a box and then put our folded, hidden answers in a box. In the Polling station I attended this morning, the distant observer, with an idea of the order of the candidates would have no problem knowing who you voted for. Obscured the non-booths most surely were not. There are legal requirements around the running of elections, but in today's world of bureaucracies and politics, who 'in authority' need feel constrained by law?

But who will these people, trekking in rain to 'have their say' vote for? This left over of times when the liberty of the individual and the the sanctity of the Englishman in his freedom, is strangely at odds with the rest of our experience. Enormous effort is made to coerce us to vote according the the whims of those who know best, with the BBC and a chorus of other media outlets not just singing the praises of half-wits, but also screaming abuse at the usurper.

You see politics has settled into a cosy career, where as a politician you pretty much don't do anything, but strut around in the certainty of your importance and seek ways to enrich yourself. It is difficult to get caught out on anything of substance because you will espouse no policies, your party will contain no great thinkers. Ironically it will be stupendously easy to catch you on detail, as you won't have the faintest idea about your 'brief'.

Then up pops a party who generally have a list of policies that are supported by a very large section of the community (and certainly the forgotten class; the wage earning British person). I speak of course of UKIP. Now UKIP are seen as being like a bad smell to the career political elite, like the mediaeval poor who offended the rich by their very presence. UKIP don't have the manners of the Westminster bubble, donchaknow?

The politicians, to continue their work avoidance suggest that the attitudes of the people (the hoi polloi) is evidence of a need for education. The poor lambs don't understand in the way the elite does, so it either needs to be explained to them until they are compliant or the option to have a say be removed. They are such a hindrance to progress!

The idea that the elite might be wrong, in error, not just doesn't occur to them, the mere thought would fill them with horror. It could never be so, they would aver, because they know best and always have your best interests at heart (like when Blair increased his police escort and required traffic lights to change in his favour, it was for you. When an MP makes a fortune selling a second home you paid the mortgage on, it is for you).

So, UKIP have attracted ire from all across the spectrum of political entrenchment. They are racist, they will destroy Britain, they will cause riots on the streets (rivers of blood anyone?). None of it is true and the vitriol is extreme and so severe that you just know the fate of Britain or your welfare is not behind it. In fact you are being attacked just as strongly, because so many it seems will vote UKIP.

This is because we have been misled, they say. No it isn't. We have been misled on many things from the NHS to the police, from taxation to the Global Warming scam. But UKIP have one very useful talent; they scare these complacent, money wasting parasites to death.

Thursday, 1 May 2014

Independent Police Complaints Commission

Just a quick question. Why is it that in the latest iteration of the IPCC website it is much more difficult to find reports on police shootings and information in general? Just wondering.

Do You Dream Of Diesel?

After insisting that we use diesel in our cars to save the planet, we now hear that it is killing 7,000 people a year. Apart from the fact that everything an 'expert' says these days needs to be viewed with extreme caution, it seems that once again the Left make a mess of a pet scheme.

We removed lead from petrol because of a panic over it causing children to become less brainy. It wasn't having that effect, it was a panic. We stopped using DDT and allowed malaria to carrying on killing millions because some daft bat felt DDT was probably doing harm. Rachel Carson doesn't appear in our league of dangerous people who doomed millions, but she did with her idiotic book 'Silent Spring', that Leftie Hippies loved.

I suppose that when ideology has that firm a grip on you and you are extremely unlikely to suffer from the consequences of your actions, then the deaths of those millions wouldn't concern you, as a tree-hugging, planet-saving moron.

Governments aren't completely stupid though and no matter what we think of how deeply dippy it is to fall for the Global Warming scam, governments have not missed the opportunity nor been slow to act in raising taxes. No one worries about a few extra quid when you are paying to save the planet, surely? If you think that way, you may want to cut down on the number of Superman films you are watching.

Interesting, is it not that the much-better-for-us diesel, which also provides better mpg, is that bit more expensive than petrol. And then it kills you. Or might do. Personally, I always found the entreaties to use diesel, or worse take the bus as ridiculous every time my car disappeared in a cloud of smoke belched from the diesel engine of a bus.

On the subject of buses (this rant is now wandering all over the place!), I was brought up to pity the poor passengers with their uncomfortable and long journey to cover short distances, and the timetable of the bus company and the poor driver repeatedly stopping and then trying to rejoin traffic, and I let them out. Now, with their fascistic, under-used 'bus lanes' I think 'stuff 'em', they are on their own.And so does the State, little by little become the enemy of the people not their servant.

Although the poorly researched, clearly incorrect and of propaganda purpose only, film 'An Inconvenient Truth' was forced on schools, if ever a text book existed that was of great use to schools in preparing their charges for the world of Al Gore & co., then it is 'Scared to Death', by Booker and North. Don't read it though to be given a view, but to challenge yourself to find out more, follow up references, be critical and find out the substance of why it is suitable for even schoolchildren.

In other words, treat it in exactly the way that Al Gore and all the Global Warming liars do not want you to do regarding their output. The science is settled, there must be no debate, no more research!

Tuesday, 22 April 2014

Well, Here We Are

Welcome all those sharing my existence, by which I don't mean reading this blog, but in fact just being alive at the same time. What is consciousness is a big question, but let's not do that just now and agree for now that it is 'not being asleep'.

So the primroses have given way to a massive bloom of bluebells in the woods and the warmer days see a good scattering of butterflies. Can it be true that warmer weather beckons? As the days grow longer, the trees green over and the Sun becomes stronger, I usually say, on the dog walk that 'soon we will be doing this in T shirts'. (It is more depressing when it turns to 'not so long ago we were doing this in T shirts').

Optimism and taking joy in the simple fact of a summers day are wonderful things and stave off the depression of greed and never having enough. We see this from the benefits claimant who thinks of themselves as a victim because they cannot afford the latest trainers or TV and in the mega rich who are searching for something that apparently money can't buy, but their ability to dodge needing an education (in life, but often it seems, at all) has left them ill equipped to identify what that might be.

David Moyes is no longer Manager of Manchester United which spurs many thoughts. Should he have been given the summer to reorganise the team and to hell with this season? Was it just too much for him and if so was he 'set up' by Ferguson to fail, to show even more clearly what a great Manager he was? Did Ferguson choose his moment with precision, even if he meant no harm to his replacement, as the team was becoming staffed with mediocre talent?

In the last game, against Everton Fletcher was probably Man U's best player, which is a terrible place to be as he is usually someone you can rely on to be useless. The defence is disorganised and was under Ferguson, the 'strike force' non existent. And the continued over-rating of Rooney continues. At the weekend he was less a £300,000 a week player and more £25,000. A year.

Usually, getting rid of the Manager is to increase the productivity on the pitch, but here it needs to be the start of a wholesale clear out. But can they afford what needs to be done?

Tuesday, 1 April 2014

BBC: No Point Complaining

To support the lies of the anti-capitalists pushing the Global Warming scam, the BBC has gone into overdrive with its propaganda. Now, whilst in a sane world this would attract a sustainable complaint, it is not the worst of it.

Last night the BBC wheeled on Roger Harrabin to talk about Global Warming. He said the glaciers in the Himalayas are melting (we dealt with that ages ago- isn't happening), the Arctic melting (he means in the summer, not mentioning it comes back in the winter) and other tired lines.

The problem is though, the BBC omitted to mention that their employee, given this airtime, has a vested interest in the continuation of the Global Warming theme. He has a financial interest. He is involved with Green projects from which he personally benefits.

The BBC feels that it is so morally superior that anything is justified. What is actually the case is that the stench of corruption is so prevalent, that they can't smell a new arrival.

Expert, Textpert, Choking Smokers

Are there any honest scientists around these days? Any who got into science for the science and the thrill of discovery? Because the airwaves are constantly referring to 'experts' pontificating about something or other and they are usually more interested in their involvement than its veracity of accuracy.

Today, strangely soon after 5 a day was questioned due to the new hatred for sugar, we are told that 5 a day is not enough. No, to hell with the sugar, you need 7 portions a day of fruit and vegetables. Now I don't know about you, but I would expect this to be science based and tell us something important and provable.

I would expect that the science would show how our bodies interact with the food we eat and helps to prolong our lives. But nope, we still don't really understand that so it is a survey. Wonderful 'experts' have told us that they have found that people who live longer eat lots of fruit and vegetables. Were other aspects of their lifestyle factored out?

In fact, how do they know that the food they ate was a causative factor in their long life? What about genetics, exercise, wealth?

Then we have the wailing banshees of Global Warming. I cannot believe, actually, really cannot believe the news stories that reported the latest IPCC comedy script. How could anyone say, with a straight face that Global Warming has been worse than we feared, when there hasn't been any for 17 years?

Why are we even listening to people who a) can't explain why they didn't predict the lack of warming and b) can't explain how the supposed Global Warming actually occurs? Anyway, the rise in temperature over the last 150 years has been 0.7 degrees. This is not only insignificant and irrelevant, we also have no idea how out of kilter that is with historic climate variations.

What we do know is that it has been warmer and colder before without our CO2 having any input and that as we continue to pump out CO2 the temperature hasn't risen. Sure, anti-capitalist, AGW alarmists and even some people who support them and are scientists as well, have come up with some catch-all, speculative comments to explain away everything they get wrong, but generally they don't want to talk about it.

There is proof that CO2 isn't warming the globe, but none to say it does. All of the posing by the IPCC led by a railway engineer, doesn't change the fact that the only story they have is, there has been some overall warming and at the same time we have produced more CO2, so they must be linked.

Or maybe it was because Charles Dickens wrote some books, in that time window and reading them causes Global Warming. Really, that is no wilder than what we are asked to believe by the alarmists. Why otherwise would the latest IPCC report say Global Warming, even in the weird world they inhabit  is less than we thought and the summary says 'we're doomed, doomed I tell you'.

Is it because the summary is for 'policymakers' so it is the bit that has to contain the con?

Tuesday, 25 March 2014

Met Office May Have It Right

The BBC via its science editor David Shukman is pushing the latest output from the Climate Change Propaganda Unit otherwise known as the Met Office. This time however, after repeated attempts to predict the weather based on Climate Change ideology and getting it spectacularly wrong, they may have hit on a winning formula.

Apparently, the Met Office thinks that our summers will be hot, unless they're not, dry unless it rains and our winters will be milder, but sometimes cold with snow. Which sounds very much like the weather Britain has had as far back as I can remember.

In fact its unpredictability and variability is precisely why the British have a reputation for always talking about the weather. The twist of course, is that this variability is now portrayed as new and due to human factors affecting the climate.

Interestingly, neither Shukman nor the Met Office are troubled by the lack of science involved in reaching these politically motivated results. The Met Office is 100% on board with the Left oriented, anti-capitalist project that is Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Ask the Met Office why so many scientists have a problem with their prognostications and why their 'consensus' is almost entirely derived from vested interest, Left wing political organisations and they will refuse to talk to you. Offer to debate the subject and they will say it is a settled issue so there is no need. Because they have no ability to prove their case and they know it.

Generally, you can tell if you are being duped (and that it is a Left wing project) if you are not allowed to object to it, debate it, or that you are in some way defective if you disagree. Debating a con is not the way forward as many a criminal would tell you, so the weapon of choice of the Left is the one that shuts out and closes down debate.

Argument and 'proving your case' has long been the way the British have done things. It has shaped our culture and a broader civilisation and it has achieved great things. It is a fundamental of true liberty. So it is no surprise it is something the Left avoid as if it were a contagious plague. For them, it would be utter chaos if everyone was allowed to have an opinion and openly state it.

A command and control system cannot function unless the workers are kept in place, uneducated and with no ambition, without access to any forum for exchanging ideas. For their own good, of course.

Monday, 24 March 2014

The Importance Of Bureaucracy

In Britain today, public sector workers and particularly those in charge of anything, have an absolute belief in their own moral superiority. When something goes wrong, they are most concerned that no blame is attached and no-one is held accountable. Public officials are, they feel, saints who only have the purist of motives. If something goes wrong, it cannot be their fault.

So, to hear that Kettering Hospital puts its 'reputation' above patients lives is no surprise, really. A young girl has an operation to remove her appendix and subsequently bleeds to death. A number of issues of hand-over and handwriting are mentioned, but the glaring omission in the 'care' provided was the gap between her last observation and when they found her dead - nine hours.

Although the hospital carried out an investigation into what happened, it will not disclose the contents of that report to protect their staff whose mental health might otherwise be endangered. It has the added benefit of being able to hide who might be responsible and exactly what went wrong. After all, what purpose would knowing that serve? None of the saints and angels involved meant any harm.

I can't help thinking that many of the problems in our public services would be at least lessened if not completely cured, if public servants were held to account in the same way private firms are. Come to that, the politicians could be required to fall in line too, or pay the price. But I think that really is the block on reform. MP's will not countenance any suggestion that they should be accountable! Elections are bad enough, what with all the twaddle required to deceive voters!

And in the end Kettering Hospital upholds its reputation by not letting you know how bad it really is and no changes will be made for the better, because it was only an accident and as no one, but the victims family, suffered no-one will be that concerned if it happens again. As long as the cloak of invisibility is still available to the guilty parties.

Remember, whilst you might struggle to forgive yourself if there was an accident in which someone died, but where you could have done nothing to help, these people through indolence and a criminal level of negligence have allowed a death that was preventable in all likelihood and they continue to turn up to collect their wages despite being woefully inadequate.

Monday, 17 March 2014

Which Empire?

Trying to pick the bad guy in the Ukraine incident should be easy, bearing in mind Putin is involved, but it isn't. Take the current flashpoint, Crimea. Lots of ethnic Russians live there and they are completely happy to 'rejoin' Russia rather than stay part of the Ukraine. So, a referendum is organised and it probably didn't even need to be rigged, 95% want to be with Mother Russia.

Surely, though, this still amounts to Russia interfering with the internal politics of another country, not least due to the military in and around the country? Undoubtedly, yes. But when we look at how this all came about we find that it was the EU attempting to sign up Ukraine to deals that are really the early stages of joining the EU and all is not so clear.

No referendum there and in fact a semi-violent overthrow of the existing regime to allow the EU to keep on track, absorbing the Ukraine into their empire. And I'm not sure that joining a completely undemocratic, command and control superstate is what the Ukrainians think the EU is about, (the EU are somewhat coy about mentioning it).

So rejoin the corrupt and flawed former Soviet Union state of Russia, or sign up with a proto-Soviet Union in the making, such is the choice facing the Ukraine.

Where Do You Hide A Boeing 777?

The Malaysian Airlines jet mystery would be an interesting intellectual problem, were it not for the fact that it had 239 people on board. It is an agony not knowing, not knowing that someone is dead and grieving or whether to have hope that they are still alive, even though it can be dashed in  a moment.

But all we can do currently is speculate in an effort to find it and answer the questions. So what do we appear to know? That the aircraft was completely 'normal' in its crew, fuelling and all other issues relating to its flight to Beijing. That it turned soon after crossing over the sea, back towards Malaysia, crossed the peninsular and turned off the devices most likely to give away its location.

Reports now suggest that it flew low, at 5000 feet. All of this suggests two things, that the aircraft was deliberately taken in this direction and that it was trying to hide its intentions. This further suggests a third, that dying was not part of the equation. If crashing the plane into the sea, or just blowing it up were the objectives then these actions would only make knowing about it and finding the wreckage more difficult and why would that ever matter?

But if you wanted to land somewhere, unobserved then this would be what you would need to do. The question then, how on earth can you land something as big, noisy and obvious as a Malaysian airliner without someone noticing. Someone at least, inclined to mention it?

Naturally, countries run by idiots, like North Korea fit the bill, but what would be the agenda, for North Korea let alone the pilot? The easiest place to hide something of course, is in plain sight. A Malaysian aircraft landing in Malaysia is hardly news, but you would hope that the airfield receiving it would have had some filed flight plan, to allow it to land, and then when the story broke, mention it.

Maybe a fictitious flight was invented? Not sure how easy that is, in Malaysia. But then, how to explain 239 passengers in the wrong place, who are not allowed to contact anyone?

No, it seems most likely that the plane has landed somewhere and some nation, or elements within it are hiding it. But as above, a motive for such an action is unclear and would have to have involved at least both pilots and the conviction to carry it out with some threat to the passengers. The pilots could have been coerced by a terrorist taking over the plane, or who had the ability to fly it himself, but that doesn't change anything, other than blame and detail.

For me, the plane has been landed somewhere West of Malaysia, where no-one would report or notice the aircraft. But it is still the most bizarre of actions.

Friday, 7 March 2014

Left And Right In Politics

I think we ought to bring a little honesty into the discussion of politics. The people who seek to form the framework of political debate have suggested that there are two opposing ideologies in play and they represent the two extremes. So far so good. However, these extremes are then explained as being from Stalin, for instance, on the Left to Hitler on the far Right.

This has been the accepted logic for a long time and it has been massively successful for the Left. Because Stalin was 'correct' in his thinking, people of the Left such as Ed Milibands' father and Eric Hobsbawm have absolutely no problem with all the killing. Well, OK, they would rather it wasn't publicised.

But good grief, the horrors of that nasty Right wing bloke and all like him. Have you seen what they get up to? And it is all aimed at you!

Problem is, these are not two opposing points of view. When you talk about teaching a child the difference between right and wrong you are trying to pass on something important and pointing out that one is unhelpful and socially unacceptable and the other is much better received by everyone.

Hitler and Stalin are very much at the same end of the scale. They were totalitarian and they fall at the Left end of the scale. This scale balances the realities of human life and experience. Whether someone else runs your life and tells you what to do on pain of death or at least punishment. Arbitrary and at the whim of a faceless 'state'. Or whether you have personal freedom as long as what you do is not to the detriment of others, or cause them harm.

All Left ideology believes in dehumanising society for the benefit of better controlling it. This ideology believes that the state exists as if it were a living organism and needs to be served by the people. In return it will provide (by imposition) order and safety. Obviously, when you get to the level of the elite who make the rules then things like wealth, luxury, personal freedom and such like will come back into play. They do the difficult bit after all, making it all work!

At the other end of course is a loose society, held together by mutually agreed and acceptable limitations. A state exists but it is seen for what it is, an invention to serve an end and that end is to do as little by way of control as is necessary for the good order of society. There will be some rules, but the absence of overt rules exerts an influence of its own, that of individual responsibility.

People must accept their place in society and participate. At the simple level of the policemen, a citizen in uniform operating only by the consent of the people, will be assisted by the people in the apprehension of an offender, for instance. They will see it as their duty and understand that their right to freedom is upheld by their responsibility in maintaining it. The policeman will not fear the community and will operate freely and openly because he is a part of it.

This free society will have its problems and it must face them by introducing laws to point in the right direction, but still allow as much freedom as possible. The biggest danger such a free society faces is if (when) people who wish to have without giving agitate for power. Due to the nature of a Right wing, free society it will allow these people to speak and the gullible will be drawn in.

The totalitarian has little problem with lying of course and operating apart from the 'society', merely seeking to undermine it from within.

Today, Britain finds itself heavily influenced by the totalitarians and is some way down the path to giving in to them completely. There may never have been a 'golden age' when everything was better, but it is tangible and self evident to those old enough to know, that politically and in societal terms this country is very much worse now than it has been for a very long time.

Once socialism had done its good work (mainly riding on the backs of the rich, philanthropic Victorians) it was subsumed as the first useful tool of the Left and strangely became associated with the Left.

A structured and technological society is an easier one for command and control ideology to grasp of course, but it only requires a small effort to fight it off. You have to think for yourself. So put down your iPad a moment and consider. Do you want all that you have and the ability to do what you want when you want, how you want (within the rules of a civilised society, not harming others), or do you prefer the route being taken now of being instructed by politicians on the how, where, when of life?

Thursday, 6 March 2014

Pistorius On Trial

I'm not familiar with courts here, let alone in South Africa, but even so, from the questioning so far Pistorius would appear have hired a comedian for a lawyer. His strategy to date has been to invoke wild counter theory to dismiss the evidence given by witnesses.

He said that the neighbours couldn't have heard screaming  because you couldn't have even heard it on the balcony. Now that seems straightforward. Either that is true or it isn't. Haven't heard any substantiation, so it appears to be his opinion. An assertion. And he wasn't there!

Then there is the 'you didn't hear gunshots you heard a cricket bat banging on the door, trying to break it down'. Now I'm sure the latter activity would be noisy, but I know a gun being fired is. I'm guessing that they at least heard the gunshots and maybe the bat too.

Best of all of course was his use of a plot line from a Simpson's story (as I saw reported on Guido Fawkes), that the screams were Oscar not Reeva, he just sounded like a girl.

I can't wait though to hear OP explain how he didn't know where his girlfriend was, but thought she was in bed. On hearing a noise, guessed it was burglars rather than the other person in the house and couldn't see whether she was in the bed or not because it was dark, but he was quite happy to pop out onto the balcony and get in two fans, without putting the light on.

Presumably burglars don't use balconies, or prefer toilets or something. Anyway, going with a gun to confront the evil person, 'to protect Reeva' he didn't even say anything to her, like 'stay there' or maybe, a wild guess here - just something I think other people might do- ask her to call the police. Or at the least the community guard.

Much is said about his 'paranoia' regarding burglars, though we don't know where this fear came from (other than he lives in South Africa, maybe that's enough?). He cites a previous occasion when he came home and thought there was a burglar, so went into combat crouch mode with his gun drawn, only to find it was the washing machine.

That he is a borderline nutter seems fairly evident, but he doesn't seem to have a record of calling the police about 'noises' or any of the other stuff you get with the paranoid. I guess we know why he didn't have a dog and he certainly isn't the sort of person you throw a surprise party for.

Maybe the defence lawyer just knows how thin is the evidence suggesting he didn't actually do it on purpose. Possibly what the French call a crime of passion, a heat of the moment thing but still deliberate. Maybe. Strange things turn out to be true sometimes, but still....

The best chance for the defence is the police. I bet we see the lawyer step up his game when any of them are on the stand and I bet his questioning will be about technical issues and procedural stuff. Because from what we have seen so far the police have not covered themselves in glory over this case and are highly likely to have done something which can have the trial halted.

Wednesday, 5 March 2014

The Real World

We often talk of politicians needing to live in the 'real world' and it is true. But we also are excluded from a real world, this time deliberately. Politicians operate a cosy club that they don't really hide, but they certainly don't talk about. That world is the one that see's them taking up sinecures related to their political work, moving on from MP to 'renewables consultant' after being involved in the energy brief in government.

It sees them hiding their corruption (thankfully usually fairly petty in this country to date), shielding their friends and as we have seen lately, with advisor Rock, delaying our access to information involving serious crimes within the government machine.

Today, the United Kingdom is in the hands of a cabal of hopeless types. With the EU calling the shots, our politicians mess about with trivia, play their silly political point scoring games, but mostly spend their time either a) seeking to improve their grand image, if a senior politician or b) increase their income, if of the lower order.

Consider; if you thought that a local community elected someone to represent them in parliament and that group of MP's then met to decide on the bigger issues facing the nation as a whole, decided how to plan and run the infrastructure for all and debated and sought best advice at all times, then you would be imagining the system devised for this United Kingdom.

However, having strayed away from the manacles of service into the more exciting command and control areas, politicians have corrupted the process in every way. Your MP may get some local votes and win his way into parliament but he will not represent you in any way. He will cleave to his party and follow its instructions, his career depends on it.

Parliament, having handed sovereignty to a foreign power, will seek to enforce the instructions from above as all good bureaucrats do, in an unthinking and uncaring manner. Listening to vested interests is both easier and more rewarding than any other mechanism and one size fits all solutions require less time and thought.

As the poster boy for just how stupid the people pulling the strings think you are, take Global Warming. There is no scientific justification for thinking any warming is man made. There just isn't a link. There is plenty of evidence for both other mechanism in play and that Man's 'greenhouse' gases are insufficient to cause any identifiable change. Then there is observation.

Despite the infallible computer models predicting ever increasing temperatures as CO2 concentration increases, this just hasn't and isn't happening. Do the politicians and all those activists who form a global consensus know all this? Yes they do. Their agenda is not connected to climate but social change, they are just playing with you. Coming up with the most ridiculous things for you to believe and seeing if you actually do.

Quite how people like George Monbiot don't literally explode with hysterical laughter I do not know. Although, when you read his output, it is entirely possible that he does believe in AGW and as such is even more stupid than the people others are laughing at.

Getting our country back is relatively easy it terms of the changes required, but very difficult because those entrenched in the pay boat of the public purse will not let go. Like a child with a packet of sweets. All we need to do is leave the EU and require MP's to represent their constituents, debating freely in parliament.

A good start would be this kind of rule. If you don't turn up for three debates, without a reason such as ill health, then you are immediately stripped of your status and there must be a constituency election. And also, abstaining should be banned. Being excused due to vested interest is different. MP's acting corruptly should not as now be treated with special, kid gloves, but receive immediate and much harsher sentences than the general public. Why should we expect higher standards? Because what they do is important and pivotal and they put themselves forward.

Monday, 3 March 2014

Conversations: A Politician And A Wind Farmer

P: We are going to remove subsidies on wind turbines. The technology is now established so I'm sure prices have come down. And if the turbines are all you claim them to be you should be able to make a profit.
WF: Remove the subsidies? Are you mad? It's not about making a profit, it's about making a lot of money. You'll be suggesting we should work for a living next!
P: Possibly
WF: I only set up this company because you promised to hand over wads of cash, regularly for ever. It was like printing money. Now you are talking about changing the rules!!
P: Well I realise you might make less money, but it will still be a good business surely? I mean, people always need electricity.
WF: You really don't understand do you? These bloody things are useless, they don't generate anything like the amount of power we claim. That's just to get the subsidies, make it seem like a good deal. Think of our claims as your manifesto. It's what people want to hear so you say it. You know you can't possibly deliver what you say!
P: Ah yes, I see. Perhaps there is some arrangement we could come to.

Weather Forecasts

I know the British are obsessed with weather. And to conform to stereotype, here I go. Is it just me or do other people get annoyed about the way the Met Office presents its forecasts? What I mean is, last weekend we were bracing for snow, with several inches predicted, quite widely and a yellow warning pasted up.

Then, without reference to having said it was going to snow, they just said that it was going to rain. I mean, it doesn't matter Met Office, stuff like that happens. As the day gets closer, its a bit warmer so rain instead of snow. It would do no harm to say 'well, it looks like we're going to dodge the snow, but it will rain instead'. The Met Office however, seem intent on giving the impression that they are never wrong and this is backed up by not mentioning an earlier 'incorrect' forecast.

This nervousness about being wrong is strange when you consider their penchant for ideologically framed statements. As they believe in Global Warming, it will be hot in the summer, mild in the winter and we will have droughts. This idiots approach to pronouncements is nearly always wrong, yet they persist.

I suppose it is what we should expect when the Met Office is run by ninnies.


Just quickly. Was the Labour woman on QT last week only there because she is able to do a pained look? She seemed to play victim to a tee. The nasty Mail printing stories about her colleagues, which whilst backed by documentary proof of the support given to paedophiles, were smears and outrageous. And dropped in that this terrible paper had also printed a story about Ed's dad being a Marxist and trying to undermine Britain. Despite that being his position, it was a terrible thing to bring up, him being dead and all.

I mean, how can the Left operate successfully if newspapers are allowed to print the truth, when it does harm to the Left? It's not censorship, it is just ensuring that people don't get confused. So to be clear, the Left supported paedophilia in the 70's as part of the strategy to undermine British society, but they don't any more. Although they are still keen to lower the age of consent. A bit. You know, to help the kiddies not feel oppressed.

Saturday, 1 March 2014


There is much debate as we approach the 100th anniversary of the start of WW1 about whether Britain should have stayed out, exactly why it was fought, is the Blackadder version actually what the Left believe to be a documentary?

But one thing is clear, a small incident in a backwater kicked off puffed up indignation from powerful countries looking for an excuse to take offence. Countries took 'positions' not to protect anything tangible, but to validate action they wanted to take anyway.

And then there is the excuse for WW2; that Germans in a foreign country needed protecting.

Which brings us to where we are today in the Ukraine. The EU has been in the region (and was heavily involved in the trouble at the inception, trying to scoop Ukraine into its empire), but have you any idea what they have been saying, what they propose? No, didn't think so.

The US? Here the weak and habitual work-dodging President, Obama, seems to have had a recollection that the Russians are the enemy. So he is quoting in that weird, homely, insincere way platitudes of American resilience and standing firm. And Russia should take care. Who knows, he might even try to find out what the hell is going on out there and maybe even, where 'there' is.

Russia under Putin, it has to be said is doing a half decent job of catching the West out and getting his own way. Yet the feeling always is that he is a thick, thug and spends all his time concentrating on corruption and how to get away with it. But the thug bit is definitely there, so he will push the military side. And he won't want to lose influence in a region such as Ukraine. Not sure, apart from the 'democracy' shout, what the reason is for the US (or the squeaking Cameron) to get involved.

Unless it is to posture against 'the enemy' Russia. in which case there will be war.

Tuesday, 25 February 2014

Harman And The Paedophile Information Exchange

First of all, I was amazed to stumble across the Harman/NCCL story on Newsnight last night (a usually unwatchable programme). I was amazed because it was a negative story about a Left wing person and fairly extreme Left at that, who are normally a protected species as far as the BBC (and Guardian/Observer) are concerned.

Cynicism held its ground though as the interviewer, Laura Kuenssberg started with a leading question blaming The Mail for making her have to speak out, to defend herself. Harman readily agreed and I expected this to continue, but as Harman was plainly not going to give a straight answer to even fairly innocuous questions, Laura appeared to get a bit annoyed. She started insisting on getting an answer, or failing that, to keep asking.

Exasperated at such unexpected quizzing from the normally reliable BBC, Harman launched a remarkable, unsupportable tirade against The Mail, suggesting, but not directly saying, that it prints pictures of 'very young girls in bikinis', meaning under-age. Meaning, but not saying.

The performance of the money grubbing politician (her and her husband both suck on the State) was incredible. The NCCL didn't vet 'affiliates' they just took the money, so it wasn't a 'real' relationship. She knew nothing about the PIE, spoke out against them at the time and they had been got rid of by the time she joined. Laura said they were affiliated from 1976 to 1983. Harman did a 'and your point is?' reply.

At the outburst about Mail pictures, Laura tried to get her to confirm she was all but accusing The Mail of publishing paedophile pictures, but all she got was a smug smile from Harman of the 'its self evident, surely' variety. The lawyer in her carefully not saying what she is clearly inferring. Like trying to ignore the letter she wrote for the NCCL objecting to the possession of pornographic pictures of children becoming a crime.

Just as outrageous though, was when normal service was resumed next day on the BBC Breakfast programme. Here the 'news' article about the interview, concentrated on the 'fact' that The Mail publishes pictures that are, well, you know. And that Harman had been smeared by the paper. The report even said that the NCCL was 'once' associated with the Paedophile Information Exchange. 'Once' here meaning from 1976 to 1983.

As ever, Left wing politics trumps all, including the welfare of children. Nothing is more important than ideology.

Friday, 14 February 2014

Politics And The Floods

Last night on Question Time, Professor Sir Robert Winston said that the floods are not a political matter and was admonishing the point scoring politicians present. He then went on later to give 'six points' to deal with the issue. All of them were political as all of them were injunctions to fight Global Warming.

He mentioned rising sea levels, which is just untrue, he talked of cutting back our water use (not sure why when the subject is floods) which is highly political. We have a water shortage in the UK only because the EU forbids the building of enough reservoirs to meet demand. Apparently, it is the only way to force us to reduce our usage, which we need to do due to the droughts which Global Warming is causing. Like the one we are experiencing now, for instance.

No, Winston didn't mean take politics out of it, he meant cut out debate. The loony Left are correct and he wants us to dismantle Western civilisation and capitalist society because he doesn't agree with it, but has done very nicely out of it, thank you. Actually, forget the thank you, he no doubt has a strong sense of entitlement about his own position. He is after all clearly a holder of Marxist values and that always includes an elite.

We must I suppose be thankful that he was a surgeon and not bending his mind to how to destroy this country, full time.

Tuesday, 11 February 2014

Conversations: Outdone

I thought these Conversations of mine would be a humourous way to present current affairs. And then Chris Smith goes and outdoes me with his own, hilarious conversation with a journalist! Mind you I was trying to be satirical, this idiot is being 'serious'. Question is, is Cameron allowing this man to stay in post because he's weak or stupid? There isn't a good answer Prime Minister.

Politics And Crisis Management

I am very confused. In the past a Conservative Prime Minister would have been outraged at the scope and duration of the suffering of those flooded. But we have had a generally quiet PM, now visiting the flooded areas. He isn't mad at a government agency that hasn't performed well, he isn't taking any action against the imbecile that runs the Environment Agency. He isn't demanding to know, well, anything. He's just, you know, concerned.

But concerned in what way? People are being seen on the TV saying they are doing what they can but are amateurs, exhausted etc. What they are actually saying is that they need direction, specific help and some idea that we can and are getting on top of it. The government reply that they hope it will stop raining soon. This from the people who tell us that if we pay enough taxes we can change the whole world's climate!

Oh and of course, Cameron is 'pretty sure' the imaginary friend, Global Warming is to blame. The deliberate flooding policy of the EA, seen now taking its effect, was of course a directive from the EU. And so proud are they of this and all their policies that it has to be kept out of conversation and debate. So, a scam to support the dreams of anti-capitalists and a ruling from unelected technocrats are wrecking lives in Britain and it must not be discussed openly. Proud of the country you live in?

Thursday, 6 February 2014


I don't understand. Surely, all that needs to happen to get rid of the flood waters in Somerset is to send George Monbiot, or some other such green zealot? With their religious fervour over Climate Change and the belief that Man can control the climate, surely he can turn back the waves? Ask the water to leave? I suspect he would tell us that he could, but first we would have to shut down most of Western capitalist society, tax ourselves to death. That sort of thing.

Conversations: An Environment Agency Bigwig and a Journalist

J: 'What do you say to accusations of incompetence over the recent flooding, particularly in the Somerset Levels?'
EA: 'The people working for the Environment Agency have been doing an excellent job in trying circumstances. We can't be everywhere and do everything, there are so few now after recent savage cuts'
J: 'There are 11,000 of you'
EA: 'Exactly, how can we cope with so few?'
J: 'Other countries have only a small percentage of the staff you have'
EA: 'Our role is very complicated'
J: 'In what way particularly?'
EA: 'Well take your questions for instance. You and others go on about floods, and sea defences and dredging'.
J: 'Only because they are relevant'
EA: 'Yes but what about wildlife? Do you want all the birds to die? As an agency committed to undoing the harm Man does we have to return land to the sea, to manage bird migration routes, to ensure we do everything possible to combat Global Warming.'
J: 'It hasn't got warmer for 16 years'
EA: 'Climate Change then, same thing'
J: 'Who asked you to return the Somerset Levels to the sea? To prioritise wildlife reserves?'
EA: 'We sometimes need to take the initiative'
J: 'On Climate Change?'
EA: 'Of course'
J: 'And stuff the people who get flooded, who you never told you had changed the rules. Never mentioned that the proven policy of dredging rivers was actually a mistake'
EA: 'No one could have predicted this'
J: 'What? Rain?'
EA: 'This much and it's windy'
J: 'We coped better in the past, when your 11,000 strong army didn't exist'
EA: 'In your opinion'
J: 'No the facts speak for themselves. You chose not to dredge, awful flooding followed'
EA: 'Look this is a nice part of the country, people like to come here to enjoy the scenery. A natural scenery, where the Levels flood'
J: 'Visitors from towns and cities?'
EA: 'Yes proper folk with a solid understanding of the important things, Climate Change, government cuts, the environment as an abstract thought. Anyway, are we done, its a long drive back to London'
J: 'You live in London, with proper flood defences and everything?'
EA: 'Yep. You have to let nature find Her way, but still protect important centres of population, and their property. None of the people who were flooded here believe in Climate Change, so its their own fault really'

Conversations: The Unbelievable Believed

Two friends (probably Andrew Normal-Person and a Mr. Ot, who likes to be called by his surname as his first name embarrasses him, being the same as ex-President Amin of Uganda).

A: 'I have just been on that lecture course I told you about. You know, Climate Change and how our polluting the world with carbon is causing runaway Global Warming - which reminds me, you got your heating on, I have. Always bloody cold me, dunno what my bill will be, why does gas and electricity cost so much?- Anyway. It was brilliant and sooo obvious when you are told how to look for the facts'.
B: 'Hasn't there been no warming for something like 16 years?'
A: 'Yeah, the computers predicted that. You get little pauses every now and again. Really caught the Deniers out; they hadn't predicted it at all - and they can't explain it'.
B: 'Hasn't it always fluctuated, the weather? You know sometimes warmer sometimes colder. Didn't we used to grow grapes here during Roman times, must have been warm then?'
A: 'No, apparently it's warmer now than it has ever been'
B: 'And you believe that, because of the lectures?'
A: 'Oh yes, they were excellent. The guy giving them had a PhD in Social Science, so you know he's clever and a Scientist. Plus, he cares, unlike those Deniers, because he works for Greenpeace'.
B: 'Right. Anyway, moving on. I have to go to New York next week, you should come along, we could have a great laugh'.
A: 'No, I couldn't go to America. They might be invaded by Martians again'.
B: 'Right. OK. I'll get you a Yankees cap'
A: 'That would be cool'.

Conversations: Global Warming/Climate Change Debate

This conversation is between two friends, normal people unconnected to anything 'climate' related.

A: 'Oh yeah, I got a book by that bloke you were on about'
B: 'Eh?'
A: 'You know, the one you said was brilliant, explained all the climate change stuff. Never really understood it myself'
B: 'Oh yes, I know. So you liked it then? He really knows his stuff doesn't it? Makes it clear what is going on. Before I heard about him I didn't really have any idea about it all either, but now I have no idea how anyone can deny it.
A: 'What I liked was that he explains it all, goes through the science and how he observed it out his window, really happening'
B: 'Thing is mate, Sir Crispin Tickell is a clever bloke, he was a close advisor to Margaret Thatcher, got her behind it all'
A: 'I remember you saying. All sounded interesting so I went into the bookshop and asked for the climate book by Crispin Tickell and they came up with this one Climactic Change and World Affairs. 
B: 'Now you know what danger the world is in from Global Warming and how he is right on it.
A: 'Er, Global Warming?'
B: 'Dur, yeah, Global Warming, it's what he bangs on about all the time
A: 'Does he?'
B: 'Of course he does. What book have you been reading?'
A: 'Well, it is from the early Seventies but he is banging on about Global Cooling, really makes a strong case, world wide temperature readings, decades of dropping temperatures. Clearly makes the case there is an ice age coming.
B: 'Crispin Tickell?'
A: 'Yep'
B: 'Says the world is cooling?
A: 'Certain of it.'
B: 'Well he obviously likes to believe in world wide catastrophes, because he is now convinced that the planet is warming'
A: 'Really? That makes it a trifle difficult to believe what he says doesn't it. Maybe I should look into it a bit more, read something else?'
B: 'My mate who mentioned him to me, massive on all this environment stuff, says you shouldn't look into it yourself, because you might end up reading a deniers book by accident. Apparently there are loads of them, because publishers get big payments from oil companies to publish them, he says. He said he has a list of approved books and they are the only ones anyone should read.'
A: 'Oh, OK'

Saturday, 1 February 2014

Useless Idiots

On BBC Breakfast this morning (I was waiting for Saturday Kitchen) was someone who apparently gets paid by the Guardian. The Guardian is the Left wing paper that is losing large sums of money and is owned by offshore trusts, so it pays no tax in the UK. Polly Toynbee also writes for them and claims to dislike tax avoidance intensely, but has never criticised her employer.

Anyway, this dupe held up a paper saying that Anne McIntosh, a Conservative MP who has been deselected by her local party, was the subject of a dirty tricks clique. Ignoring the truth and the headline in front of him our Leftie said, 'this is the fifth woman Conservative who has decided not to stand as a Conservative again'. Which of course is a complete fabrication. on his part. If you have a tendency to lean to the Left, do please ask why it is that the Left seem to have a need to lie over ever single thing. Do they not have any cogent, intelligent points to make?

Green Crap

So the money grabber, in receipt of a large income from Green firms, Tim Yeo leading as he does the Energy committee in the Commons (so useful for channelling funds to your projects!) has some bright ideas about 'sceptics'.

He thinks asking loaded questions is a proper inquiry. He thinks being a politically motivated activist, involved with anti-capitalist agendas, is no reason why they shouldn't also be a Chapter editor for the IPCC report. You know, the thing governments hang on, the thing that claims to be the best advice on 'Climate Change'.

Turns out, most of it is written by people to whom science itself is a stranger and who have a desired objective for the document that influences governments and it has nothing to do with weather, climate or the welfare of mankind. If I wrote a report that I had discovered life on Mars it would be no less incredible nor any less true than these infantile imbeciles come up with. All I would have to do is adopt the same tactics as the anti-capitalists (sorry, environmentalists).

I do not have to prove it scientifically. There should be no debate about my assertions. The science is settled. Everyone agrees with me and anyone who doesn't is a denier. When the nut-jobs come out of the woodwork to agree with me, I will claim they are eminent scientists and part of the consensus. Pointing out that being only a political activist, with a clear and biased agenda doesn't affect their ability to write a report about their chosen subject.

The people you see chanting outside power plants that keep them safe in their daily lives (too complex for them to grasp) fall into three categories. The political agitators mentioned above, idealistic schoolchildren (most at university) and people- mainly women -from leafy suburbia. If they appeared on mastermind their specialist topic would be social policy, or claiming benefits or where to get the best anti antimacassars. Climate science is not something they have ever really bothered with, just that it seems we shouldn't be destroying our planet, without knowing that well, actually, we aren't.

Please, please, please, deselect Yeo and tell him to never interfere with policy for personal gain again.