Tuesday, 31 March 2015

What Your Licence Fee Buys

Well, the election campaign is barely under way and the BBC are possibly more blatantly supporting Labour than usual. Mind you, over recent years they have been more open about their decision to break the law and be biased.

So we get a statement about Cameron's claim that Labour will raise taxes and make cuts, giving a figure of £3000. The BBC then give a commentary that they can't possibly know this. Switching to analysing Labour's claims things are different.

Labour have quoted business people in an FT advert, but just forgot to ask them if it was OK. The BBC modify this truth to explain, they did tell people in advance they would be using the quotes and that most stand by Labour.

The quotes were about staying in the EU and big business has done very well in their dealings with the Brussels bureaucracy. If the EU want to bring out new regulations, they bring in big businesses to ask about its impact. So the big boys agree rules that suit them and do the most damage to small competition. Cushty.

But the BBC 'missed' the biggest point regarding Miliband's advert. And that is that Cameron is offering a referendum to see what the people of Britain want. Miliband is saying he will allow no such thing. The people cannot be trusted with such things. He knows best and he will decide.

Now as the EU, big government and having an elite ignore the general population are all dear to the BBC executives hearts, of course they don't bring it up. Ed is right!

Labour have, of course, countered Cameron's claims to some degree, by admitting they have no plans to balance the books and will be borrowing more. The BBC didn't mention this, naturally.

Monday, 30 March 2015

The Dangers Of The Left

Mostly I think, people see the General Election now rushing towards us, as a battle between two mildly different parties. Both very British, one focussed on the poorer people and the other on businessmen.

There has been some hardening on these traditional views lately, more of which later, but they are still widely held. That if you vote Conservative, it reflects your general outlook and will do no great harm. Similarly, the Labour voter.

Handing sovereignty to Brussels has had a corrosive influence of course, by giving politicians less to do and thus more time to fiddle and engage in pointless personal jousts, pretending it is in some way related to politics.

But quite apart from that an underground movement has been gaining strength and flexing its muscles ever more openly. The objective is totalitarian government by a self chosen elite, along Marxist lines. The first casualty has been socialism. The laudable aims of the Labour movement, to espouse genuinely social policies to improve the lot of the greatest mass of the population, have been subsumed and deleted.

They are too soft, too irrelevant for the modern 'progressives' as they love to refer to themselves, despite their retrograde thinking. Simultaneously, they had to demonise the Conservatives, to make them seem extreme, living black shirts always on the edge of violent repression and war.

Despite a complete absence of factual evidence, it was working too. The virulent hatred for Thatcher is designed to impress that she was some kind of witch, despite saving the country from a ruinous Labour administration and even having the focus and clear-minded approach needed to deal with the Argentines. If you remembered her successes, you would doubt that the Conservatives were what the progressives claimed.

It is why the Left and their useful idiots attack UKIP so savagely and so quickly, because they represent a resurgence of traditional Conservative values, when the mainstream Party had accepted that it was 'nasty' and moved to the left. Such thoughts, of voting UKIP, must be expunged and viewed as beyond the Pale.

All of this is going on mainly out of sight, as it is clearly understood that if their intentions were made plain they would be dead in the water in a current democracy. The only way to achieve their aims would be by force and they lack the means or support to carry that through. So, they use guile.

They infest the institutions such as the judiciary, the teaching profession and the Civil Service, to ensure that the thought control, Groupthink, is imposed on an unsuspecting society through Political Correctness.

The EU is doing much the same thing, by hiding its real objectives and playing the long game to achieve an empire that was previously beyond the reach of military conflict. It has always wanted to be a single country, with unified laws, taxes, police and armed forces and currency. It isn't working too well, but they are persevering and hope to have their completely democracy free country, run by technocrats.

It would be a useful vehicle for the hard Left progressives to take over of course, but otherwise they continue their own projects. Based in small cells, like a terrorist organisation and for similar reasons they chip away at the underpinnings of Western democracy.

Race has long been a weapon and why they helped set up all the racial awareness bodies, to keep difference in the forefront of everyone's minds and ferment racial intolerance, which was really their own intolerance. The same with class hatred, global warming, 'greedy bankers', homosexuality and paedophilia.

Now, there is a committed Marxist leading the Labour Party who wants to further undermine pretty much everything Britain has ever stood for. His goal would be to bring forward the project of totalitarian government, where the state controls everything. A major plank will be the continuation of borrowing to increase his support by buying 'clients' and to destroy the economic viability of the country.

Remember, these are the same people who, when last in power told us that state sector jobs would lead to a growth in the economy, despite the opposite being (quite obviously) true. You are expected to believe this though, because the population is increasingly poorly educated. again this is a deliberate plank of the progressive project. Most of the people need to be 'proles' of low expectation who will do the work needed by the elite, without an ability to realise how they are abused.

And in an age of instant mass communication information must be controlled too. There is much barking from the Left and the 'environmentalists' about a hostile, Right wing dominated press. Again, it is laughably the opposite of the truth. The BBC is ludicrously in thrall to the Marxists, Channel 4 is more blatantly there too, Sky has Adam Boulton  to cheerlead for the Left and the Daily Mirror, Guardian, Sunday Times, Financial Times and numerous magazines sing from the same hymn sheet.

It is thus hugely important that until and unless the Labour Party becomes a Socialist Party once again, no one should vote for it. That goes for their 'branches' too; the Greens, the Lib Dems, SNP and other crackpot groups.

A proper, libertarian leader is needed, to strip out root and branch the corrupt and festering malignancy that infests our politics today. Think how much could be spent on genuine welfare for the genuinely needy, on the NHS, on educational resources and all the rest, if we cut out the stuff we don't need. The Left projects of diversity monitors, drug addict support networks, a whole raft of Non Governmental Organisations and pointless Quango's  that nevertheless bleed the treasury dry. Billions wasted on the attempt to destroy capitalism by spending our wealth fighting non existent 'global warming', more again on supporting the EU project, a 1920's solution that is irrelevant in the 21st century.

Ask yourself why the State should run everything as the Left wants, when everything it does run, doesn't work. Then ask where the real, actual political violence comes from; the Left. From the Poll Tax riots, to the Occupy mobs, the attacks on the Countryside marchers. All of it Left organised though claiming to be spontaneous. Bear in mind, from Blair organising the 'public' applauding him as he arrived at Downing Street to the lies of Global Warming and the need for class hatred, the truth and the 'progressives' are rarely in the same place at once.

Thursday, 26 March 2015

Mark Duggan Lawfully Shot

It comes as no surprise whatsoever that the career criminal Mark Duggan was shot and killed quite lawfully, by armed police officers. There doesn't seem to be a situation in which our superb police ever shoot people wrongly.

Sure there have been completely innocent people shot, and the deranged man with a gun, shot to hurry things up, and the baddies who should have had a gun, though on this occasion didn't, but they were all shot with the best intentions and purest of motives.

Mark Duggan put himself in harms way when he devoted himself to a life of violent crime. The police killed him, but it could so easily have been another gang, or a street argument. He chose to play with fire and he got burnt.

I don't have a huge amount of sympathy that he found himself in front of armed police and I'm not that concerned that he was shot. I am however, always concerned that our police do things the right way and for the right reasons. Usually these days you can assume they won't. Firearms officers really do not need to be in that kind of culture.

I understand that people like the Met Commissioner are probably too dim to understand the consequences down the line of their inept, ideology driven version of policing. But in a free society (which clearly he despises) we demand better.

So, my problem, as ever is the IPCC and their protection racket and the way armed police deploy, act, are led and when they fire their weapons. With the Duggan case, the main issue for the IPCC to gloss over is the actual shooting, most of the rest is self evidently easily supported.

The summary is this; the police knew Duggan was involved in using firearms, they knew on this day he was going to acquire a firearm. They even seem to be aware that this fatal cab journey was to pick up a gun. So a team of firearms officers (CO19) was scrambled to intercept him.

They decided to use a tactic known as 'hard stop', which involves blocking in the vehicle a target is in with police cars and apprehending the suspect at gunpoint. When you know where he is going, I'm not entirely sure you need to do this, but it is what they decided on. I would think the best way to apprehend someone would be to present them, in a calm situation with a fait accompli. They are caught, by armed police and only the terminally insane would then react.

The best way to get an unpredictable result I would guess would be to surprise and disorient an armed man. He is likely to make an instinctive self preservation movement that may include firing a weapon (in defence as he would see it), to run, or to dispose of the weapon. He may, calmly stop what he is doing and raise his hands. Though that is akin to not jumping when someone pops a balloon.

Duggan looked to escape (his police profile refers to him as an escaper, that is, someone liable to try to escape). So the entirely unforeseen action of Duggan exiting the vehicle no doubt increased the tension in the police officers. As the lead car was blocking the pavement and with a wall and railings alongside, Duggan could only run in the direction of two police cars behind the taxi.

At this point, the police allege, Duggan reached inside his jacket and produced a gun, which he was raising when one of the officers fired two shots. One of these rounds proved fatal to Duggan and also struck a police officer. The sort of thing that happens when you surround someone and start shooting. Possibly better to deploy with tactical forethought but hey, ideal worlds and all that.

The report has the officer saying he could see the gun and that it was being raised towards him. Now I don't care if Duggan was going to throw it away or whatever, that alone would justify opening fire. You know he has a gun, there it is, fire.

Only, the photo of the weapon as found 4.35 metres from the taxi is a picture of a sock. Because the gun was in a sock. So if the officer had said 'I saw him reach for and produce a sock' that would have been factually accurate. But he said he saw a gun. This is a bit of semantics as I accept that the intelligence was good and in the split second and with the suspect moving, he should expect to get shot. Gun, gun in a sock, it doesn't matter.

But the report presses many areas on detail, yet here it accepts the officer saw a gun. Which didn't then just drop to the ground apparently. And a police officer caught Duggan before he hit the ground too. Which suggests even further than he was unlikely to escape, so close were they.

Mark Duggan is dead for two reasons. Firstly because he chose to become involved in criminal behaviour with firearms, but also due to the faulty tactics of our armed police. And the report makes clear that neither the police nor the IPCC care.



Some things become symbols, a cipher for larger events and so I believe is the 'sacking' of Jeremy Clarkson. The state subsidised Left wing broadcaster, the BBC cannot contain itself that finally they feel justified in shooting the golden goose, who has the wrong political ideas.

Despite an inquiry, at the highest level in the BBC, news gets out early and the world, including Clarkson presumably learnt that he has been sacked, via the media. So, done deliberately then. This becomes more obvious when the announcement that the Live shows were cancelled was made during the 'investigation'.

The legions of incompetent half-wits, whose only true ability is to gull similarly challenged people to give them high paid jobs, who run the BBC can now update the motoring show 'Top Gear'. So expect legions of lentil eating soap dodgers to whine endlessly about how to get rid of cars. Whilst demanding a limousine to pick them up, or possibly a helicopter from their tax haven home.

This will be presented as 'cutting edge' and 'a daring new direction', with the word diversity slipped in every so often.

In the past, we all found someone who was monumentally useless at their job and whilst we would moan about them when they caused us grief, if they kept their head down that was usually it. Rare and moderately tolerated. Now, with organisations like the BBC stupidity must stand out on your CV every bit as much as statements of support for a range of pointless or better still, damaging Left wing concepts.

And you must mention diversity.

Of course the publicity hungry, political police couldn't wait either. So up they pop to see if they can arrest and charge another non-Left celebrity with something. When one of their own politicians was filmed punching a member of the public, they spent a month reviewing the evidence to see if a crime had been committed and then decided, probably not.

Enormous resources devoted to chasing sex pest celebrities from decades ago, who turn out to be innocent or the politically motivated pursuit of journalists, to shut them up when there is no proof of wrongdoing at all. (Well apart from the police hacking phones in the desperate hope of finding something even mildly incriminating).

But no resources at all devoted to dealing with real crimes against huge numbers of young girls. Or actual pervert politicians.

The Lefties are the reason the BBC is as bad as it is, are the reason we had a world wide recession, are the reason you pay so much tax, why you cannot think certain things, why people die so routinely in hospitals and why your children will struggle to get a quality education. Have you not had enough of this yet?

Wednesday, 25 March 2015

A Telling-Off From Judith Wanga

The Telegraph has an article by someone called Judith Wanga today and I have to say I haven't read such confused, yet pontificating drivel in quite some time. And I say that despite the Left squealing loudly everyday about some affront, hurt or pretend crisis.

Judith feels that her personal opinion trumps that of millions of people, so a standard Leftie. She has to be right, because she knows how lovely she is. And she only asks you to hate people she doesn't like.

The article is about Jeremy Clarkson. Well, it is in passing because Judith is spectacularly comfortable interpreting what Clarkson meant in any utterance and invents others that he, probably only an oversight, never got around to saying.

Admitting we don't know the details yet, she prattles on about how his supporters leapt to his defence without knowing what he had done, but she knows he did a horrible thing. Although, we don't know what happened.

She says he called his dog Didier Drogba because he is racist and was 'harking back to the days of dehumanising black people and comparing them to animals'. I don't remember these days and I'm a bit older than Clarkson, but young Judith remembers them. When you are looking to take offence it is good to have done your research (or make it up).

The chance that he has the dog because he likes it and, as a Chelsea supporter named his dog after one of their stars not only doesn't occur to her, it is in fact a disallowed thought, because it suggests way too much humanism against someone she is demonising.

And that is clearly her underlying creed; when she wants to take offence everything you say is wrong. She will set the standard, she will tell you what you are allowed to think. The comment that Clakson supporters think 'PC gone mad' is what Clarkson is against, she makes the usual lazy Leftie assertion.

Naturally something as mad a political correctness doesn't need any additions to do its harm. Designed solely to allow lightweights such as Judith to shut down debate (you can't say that) and accuse anyone they target with a range of -isms invented possibly on the spot, tailored to suit. Even the phrase 'people like Clarkson' admits to stereotypes which is something Judith complains bitterly about.

National stereotypes always seem to have some real world relevance, but that can't be allowed in Marxist fantasy land, where everything must be seen through their political prism.

I don't know what happened in the 'fracas' and I don't know how one of Clarkson's employers, the BBC should react to an incident that didn't happen on their premises or while he was 'at work'. But the Left of course don't do truth, justice or fairness when they have a target in their sights. Judith proves it with an article of personal (affected) affront, full of arrant nonsense. There must be real and talented writers and commentators out there surely, Telegraph?

Tuesday, 24 March 2015

If Roger Harrabin Could Tell The Truth

A report by the vested-interest journalist Roger Harrabin on BBC news was laughable. It is more nonsense to support the global warming scam, which he benefits from financially.

He says that solar power could provide 4 percent of UK energy by the end of the decade and interviewed an industry spokesperson who said solar could be price competitive with fossil fuel electricity within ten years, if subsidies remain stable.

Now, if Roger was able to tell the truth, he would start by questioning the whole reason for vast, ugly, highly reflective fields of solar panels. Prices have dropped it is true, but not enough. Harrabin would then say that worldwide solar currently contributes roughly 0% of energy used and the UK will need to cover enormous areas of land to approach a 4% figure.

Even then, it will be 4% while the sun is shining. What the interviewee didn't say, he could disclose is that the companies building solar farms (and wind farms) do so only to farm the subsidies, not because it is a viable energy source. And the government must keep pushing the price of oil and gas up by taxing it. Oh, and not allowing fracking.

So Roger's headline comment wouldn't have been that 'solar has taken off massively in the UK', it would have been that the collection of state subsidies has been massive, for no benefit.

You think the Left have a use? That they help the small against mighty government? Then why are they the leading proponents of the redistribution of wealth from the poorest to the rich, via the raising of energy prices, which hit the poor disproportionately hard, merely to hand subsidies to the wealthy?

Monday, 23 March 2015

Latest Farage Stunt

I gather some approximations of human beings drove Nigel Farage and family out of a pub at the weekend. I'm not sure if they objected to Nigel existing, to his family, to his right to have a pub lunch or what.

But here is the thing; we are constantly bombarded by stunts and media bile aimed at UKIP for daring to represent views contrary to the Establishment view. That Establishment view now being of course deeply Left wing. UKIP we are told are so nearly extreme Right (which it goes without saying means vile), really just a bit of the EDL etc. Violent, racist, homophobic thugs.

And where does most of the actual, real, happening violence come from? The Left, the Marxists and their travelling companions. 'Poll Tax' riots? A concocted effort of the Left. So called 'race riots'? Again, not based on anything but the agitators of the Left.

It really is time to wake up Britain. This is how the totalitarians attain power everywhere be it Russia, North Korea, Germany or France. Tin pot tyrants use the lack of resolve of the calm majority to their advantage by being extremely violent and simultaneously pointing and saying 'look over there at the nasty man'.

Blair wasn't such a beast. He didn't care about anything but himself and his bank account, but at least he hardly bothered to pretend otherwise. Deeply unpleasant, but easily disposed of. The likes of Miliband however, with his deep rooted Marxism is very dangerous.

Look at how political (and strangely useless at the same time) the police are. Look at the sustained attack on freedom of speech, first using the 'you can't say that' line, then enacting laws and pursuing the Press -using useful idiots like Hugh Grant.

You are told the Left is caring and the Right is only ever 'hard Right' and wishes you harm and includes the Conservative Party. The truth is the extremes are the Left of Miliband, Clegg and all the Marxists bands hiding alongside them, including fascists who are also mere totalitarians and the other end, the Right if you will of those who believe in freedom, liberty and individual justice.

I don't care how benign someone says they are, I would rather have a country where we can change our leaders and not just have to do what some self impressed gimp says.

And that is the point. The attack on Farage is and always is, because someone with a profile dares to oppose Left Groupthink. He hinders, merely by being allowed to speak, the Left wing project to turn this country into a single party dictatorship. Hence the lampooning of anything he says (usually by wilfully misquoting) and attempting to shout him down.

Monday, 16 March 2015

Sack Danny Cohen

The Jeremy Clarkson fuss has thrown into the spotlight just how the BBC operates, perhaps more clearly than ever before. It is time for change.

The Marxist agenda running through (and ruining) society has had too much sway for too long and the BBC has been the main propaganda source of the Left. It pushes the global warming scam, it undermines capitalism, freedom of speech, proper education for children and much else besides. Indeed, it helps the Political Correctness mantra of 'you can't say that' by direct measures and interventions.

So the licence fee paying public should at last stand up and be counted, other than by the BBC and its mysterious detector vans! However the BBC is allowed to continue we need to be demanding that standards are set and met by the Corporation and a proper accountability put in place.

No longer should endless Left wing politics be the sole reasoning, repeats and mindless drivel (thinkin' of you Frankie Boyle, oh yeah, you know it) its entire output. The culture of bullying embedded in the way it operates should be dismantled too and all of these things can only happen if we break up the cosy cartel of jobs for the 'correct'.

A good place to start would be the arrogant, without substance, Danny Cohen. If you work at a place like the BBC (a renewable energy company, a council, school, NGO) you are not allowed to have any views contrary to Left wing edicts. You must speak well of any amount of patent stupidity or risk losing your job. All around you are automatons spouting mindless politicospeak, who shriek like frightened mice if you disagree.

Disagreement is not debate to them, there is no prospect that they may have missed something, might learn something; you are just wrong. And as with Jeremy Clarkson, Danny Cohen would have you sent for 're-education' in proper Marxist thought processes (that he calls re-hab!)

There are too many overpaid dumplings taking up space in the BBC. It has long been fashionable to moan about their number and their salaries and whilst these are offensive, they are not really the point. No, despite being overpaid and too numerous by a large margin they actually and actively do harm. That is the reason to get rid of them all.

Without them the Corporation would have more money, to spend on proper programmes well made. And no-one to make sure that it all 'complied'.

If Danny Cohen is so sure about his Marxist tosh, then he should stick with it. I hear North Korea is lovely this time of year and do seem short of really solid top level managers in their TV industry.

Then Jeremy Clarkson can have his job back, but don't let him run the BBC. God, could you imagine that?!

Wednesday, 11 March 2015

Why Has Jeremy Clarkson Been Suspended?

Clearly biffing someone is not a debating stance that most people would accept as relevant or proportionate. Nor would it realistically be considered a fitting form of punishment for a transgression. Word is that Jezza struck someone, a producer, for not having organised a meal for the presenters, to be taken post filming.

Sounds a tad trivial to us and maybe a little 'superstar', but probably not far North of what anyone would do after a long day and when it is the norm and expected. I believe outlets for the provision of food are numerous and some open quite late. But if catering is part of the package, well, you know.

Still not right to hit someone though (for reasons of clarity, can I make clear that by 'someone' I am inferring 'anyone excepting Piers Morgan'). However, the story goes currently, that Clarkson says he didn't hit anyone.

But the BBC is right to act, yes? Actually, the question is irrelevant, the money, popularity and the money that Top Gear brings in has stopped the eager souls at the top of the BBC (nearly said 'work for'! Work? Not likely) from ditching the show years ago.

Left liberals (as they call themselves) have been screaming to delete Jeremy Clarkson for as long as he has been allowed airtime. He not only promotes cars, which are evil in their eyes, but he does so with a distinct lack of seriousness. In fact, you could go as far as suggesting a degree of tomfoolery. Worse, as part of the jocularity, he says and encourages others to say things that are not Left wing.

This ability to have an opinion runs contrary to all they have been working towards, and largely succeeded over decades. They do not want to see a counter-culture survive and thrive. Clarkson tells jokes without the target being Margaret Thatcher, he lampoons beloved public services on the supposedly important grounds that they lack use. And he suggests that things they say and do are idiotic, particularly heath and safety Nazis and speed limits for no purpose.

Clarkson has even objected, on occasion to the Left telling lies, as if that could ever matter, in the cause of the greater good.

So basically, Clarkson had to go and it seems that now he has given the pathetic wretches who run too much of everything in this country, enough to force their co-religionists to be rid of him. Good. Let's get the team on Sky where the programme could have some real life and not sully the BBC or hinder in their race to the bottom, largely on their own.

Perhaps they could call it 'Gold-Top Gear, the Cream of Motoring Shows'

Thursday, 5 March 2015

And There It Is

News in the Telegraph today that government advisors think that telling schoolchildren about drugs might be having no effect, or worse actively doing harm, by encouraging drug use albeit inadvertently.

I think this falls in the 'no sh*t Sherlock' category of revelation. Only something closely connected with government could find this a surprise, or take so long to notice what everyone else could have predicted and then realised in practice.

Still, they don't seem to suggest the harm was deliberate, so some pretty obvious stuff evades them yet. If the Left were not absolutely positive that aggressively pushing homosexuals to 'fight for their rights', by insisting that they can have children etc just like anyone else, and promoting paedophilia, particularly by sex 'education' in schools and ever lower age of consent, they wouldn't have bothered to push it.

The nuclear family is the bedrock of a stable and successful society. A stable and successful society is of no use to someone who can only achieve power through creating chaos (no one would vote in Stalin by choice). And the best way to destroy a family, to bring a feeling of utter hopelessness to these people, is to corrupt their children.

The lack of action to protect children by the police and the social services seen in recently exposed scandals, must have delighted the Left beyond measure. Here are key organs of state, with clear legal responsibilities who, following Leftie doctrine rather than the law, have allowed the harm to take place.

We need to be fighting back. A good place to start would be with investigations, with prosecutions as appropriate (meaning they must happen where appropriate, not that it is never appropriate to hold a politician to account), into the historic connections between the Left and paedophilia. Then, with their eyes opened perhaps the general public will see how they have been manipulated and duped.