Monday, 19 June 2017

Big Issues

There certainly is 'stuff happening' currently. Probably most important, of course, is the danger the nation faces from the attempts to bring about a coup by the Marxists, but mixed up in all that is the absolute scandal of Grenfell Tower and the murder at Finsbury Park.

In reverse order, we have the violence, expected much earlier to be honest, from someone doubtless confused by what is happening in Britain and the authorities response to it. Someone who feels not to have that fundamental understanding of what the country around him is about, what its morals and principles are. And so he lashes out.

Grenfell Tower, well what can you say; a symbol now of how badly modern day Britain can let anyone down and catastrophically so. The issue, once you take all the Marxist politics out of it, is that the building should not have burned so fast and the fixed advice to those who live there of what to do in a fire.

Simply put, stay in your flat in the event of a fire, is sound advice when everything else is in place; clear corridors, working alarms, emergency lighting, clear fire exits and the fire-proof integrity of each flat. But as any military person knows, even the best plans fall apart on contact with the enemy. If the fire doesn't play by the rules, the rules have to change, but we have no mechanism to make those changes, to inform people. So they die.

Tower blocks are the socialist utopia of people who never intend living in one. Admittedly their brutalist, Le Corbusier architecture does suggest the brutal way of living they offer. And from the outset, there was always the compromise with fire. We cannot reach the upper floors externally for fighting a fire or for rescue, so with fingers crossed we say there won't be a need to.

Despite the continuing confused news reports that are more dangerous than annoying (Sky had an interview with a politician who said 'we don't know what the cladding was made of and we need to find out', then ran an article afterwards saying that 'we know what the tiles were made of'), it is clear that modifications to the building had rendered it a death trap.

Whilst the cladding is definitely an issue, I think that there must have been breaches in the inter-floor fire-proofing. Indeed, it seems, between flats. And that will be down to the construction company as well. Whilst Theresa May doesn't seem to be able to come up with a reasonable response to any given circumstance, it is shocking that the Council and even worse, the private companies involved have kept absolutely schtum. I assume this is because they can only incriminate themselves.

We have to take greed, stupidity and corruption seriously and imprison those responsible; it is the proper, British way. Then, deleting all reference to political correctness, we can recover the nations dignity, integrity and promote the genius of our people.

Stupidity, greed and corruption leads us straight on to Corbyn. The disgusting way he and his acolytes have used every tragedy to further the Marxist agenda is something the people need to realise is the normal form of operation for his cabal. If there is violence on the streets they can use it, hence activists turning up to insist on marches (which become violent, with their help). Activists who don't give a damn about Grenfell victims or relatives, who turn up to incite them to violence.

Hopefully, those in England will wake up, as have the Scottish people, to the evil in their midst, using them for the benefit of a thoroughly odious, totalitarian creed, and stop supporting Corbyn in any way, shape or form. People in his constituency should be hanging their heads in shame.

Friday, 9 June 2017

Well You Cocked That Up, Theresa

No matter what else went on, Mrs. May has managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Corbyn pulled a masterstroke it has to be said, by offering endless giveaways, none actually possible, to empty-headed, lazy, well-off hipsters and students, too dim to realise they are being played.

In some ways, you wanted Corbyn to win so these Wuckfits would reap what they sowed (and refuse to take responsibility as they watch the country and their own futures go down the plughole). But that would be an act of self-harm to prove a point. After the arrogant, ignorant layabouts blamed "unintelligent old people" for ruining their lives by leaving the EU.

No really, we are at that level of simple stupidity.

We don't do extreme politics in Britain, we don't have revolutions, we have proper law, half decent democracy and a good standard of living. But the uneducated, useful idiots bred for the task are changing all that. And even being asked to vote for a party led by a man who actively supports and works to further the aims of terrorists, doesn't alarm them.

So we know Corbyn co-opted the vote-Labour-forever tribe and conned not very bright youngsters with its schoolroom politics, but what did May do?

To start with, she made the campaign about her; strong, stable leadership. But she hadn't really established herself and normal, thinking people were slightly offended in a "who does this woman think she is" kind of way.

Then, to make herself appealing to Labour voters, to destroy Labour as a party, she launched some un-thought-out policies which quickly rebounded. She never pushed the real Corbyn hiding behind the soft voice and the cabal of, frankly, evil henchmen and women hovering around him, like flies on a turd.

She didn't talk about the things Tories are doing and will do and about the communist threat to the Labour Party and the country from the nasty party Marxists. And myriad other things, that should have made winning the election a stroll.

As you can see from the Conservative swings in safe Labour seats and the success in Scotland, people who struggle, in more depressed areas have no time for communism and posturing by a bunch of incompetents trying to takeover, not just the Labour Party but the country.

Thanks Theresa, for the mess you have left us in and for not being a proper Conservative. One who said that she thought we should stay in the EU at the start of the referendum campaigning and then vanished.

Friday, 2 June 2017

How Did We Get Here?

So Trump has left the meaningless jumble of countries signing that they may or may not reduce their CO2 output, for spurious and unsubstantiated reasons. Cue lots of wailing. Why? Why are we committed to Global Warming/Climate Change? Why mustn't it be debated? Why must the scientific method not be applied to climate change research?

Why don't people challenge these things? Well if you are a selfish idiot, the prerequisites for being a Marxist, then you will have to come up with a plan, a strategy to get your way (no one would vote for it, of course!)

First you need a wealthy, lazy, poorly-educated bloc. That would be the West then, with the poor education taken care of by Marxists infiltrating schools and introducing crackpot ideas of teaching that leaves children functionally illiterate. Tick.

Then, you need to come up with something big, something terrible, with a timescale to give it some immediacy. Something that can be portrayed as fashionable (hence of huge importance to the Rich, Wealthy, Dimwits), but that needs enormous amounts of money to 'cure'.

It is preferable that it is actually not true, in case it does get 'cured', or goes away of its own volition. Once a thing is fashionable, who is going to put down their Quinoa and say "the Emperor has no clothes"?

Man Made Global Warming! The idea that CO2 could cause a warming of the planet is rooted in sound science and if we were to output many hundreds of times what we are currently producing then, plausibly we could affect climate.

Modify the above though and say current levels are dangerous. Say that if we don't destroy our economies and stop driving cars, lorries, flying planes and making stuff, the world will fry. Governments will do what they always do and give some funds for people to find out this is true, which gets them and others, more funding.

And we are off! Now you have a client group who rely on finding a truth that doesn't exist. You don't get funds now, if you say it isn't so. And to protect their racket the funded tell the 'deniers' to go away, with limitless personal abuse and ridicule. You know, strong scientific argument.

This client group of Scientists-Who-Used-To-Have-Principles are the useful idiots who unbelievably keep the Marxist's quest alive for them by being the 'authority consensus'. Is it real? Ask a scientist! And the RWD's swallow it because they are not very bright, not used to discovering things, but they know what is fashionable and that's always more important.

And there you have it; the West is self harming, destroying its wealth and ability to continue by spending all its treasure chasing a chimera. To convince the pixies not to harm us - here be dragons!

Ironically, it is all hot air. If the Marxists and their useful idiots stop breathing there would be a) less plant food (CO2) and b) no one claiming that MMGW is real. Just a real scientific analysis that would say; why don't we try to develop technologies to stop us chucking all these various fumes into the air?

Pollution is an issue, and scant resource is being directed to changing it, mainly because of the mis-direction of Global Warming and partly because of the vested interest in the massive, worldwide infrastructure for obtaining, refining and selling oil based products.

Proper, well thought out technologies, not state subsidised moron fests like wind turbines, solar panels and electric cars. And we need to recognise Marxists for what they are, from the obviously aggressive to the smiling, soft spoken ne'er do wells like Jeremy Corbyn.

Thursday, 1 June 2017

The Appeal Of Youth

After the EU referendum, the young were shrill about how it was the old people (you know, their parents, the people who gave up more than just money for them), who had ruined their futures by voting to leave the EU. In the same way that a university education hadn't helped them, they felt it unnecessary to base their opinions on any actual understanding.

Such as, what is the EU? When did it start? What were its objectives? Is it democratic? And if you think it is, explain how. Fairly certain most of the whinging youngsters wouldn't have a clue on any of this. But more importantly, they also don't understand why that is important.

After all, they have read stuff, in passing on social media about the EU and their friends say it is good, so, like, research done, stop hassling me.

Actually, their parents along with countless other old people they don't know, have deliberately not given them the money they need to 'do stuff'. Despite being rich enough to do so, having a house and pension and all. It seems, that these horrible people, who spent money bringing up children, buying their homes and paying into pension schemes, now expect their offspring to do the same! You can hear them;

Imagine! Like, where to begin. I've been to university and everything. I mean, it was the unintelligent, older people who voted Brexit. Just because they know where countries are, how to spell properly, understand the country's history and can conduct a rational debate, doesn't mean they are intelligent.

I bet most of them don't believe in Climate Change! More ruining our futures! Apparently they base this ridiculous assertion on some notion they have that you study the scientific data and you, get this, observe reality! Morons, I've been to university (I probably hadn't mentioned that) and I know study has no place in science. You let other people do that, and then they tell you what is right.

You can trust them because they get paid to do this stuff. All the oldies want to do is wreck our futures and debate and analyse things.

Well, don't look now but people who think and talk and act like this, are now able to vote. Yep, so no matter how closely linked Corbyn is to terrorism they just won't care. They will go with social media, fake news (a Left speciality) and fluffy emotional stuff. Facts and substance, apart from eing too hard for them, will have no traction. Labour have wrecked the economy each time they have been in and Tories recovered things - will that have an impact? In the main, no, because they will choose not to believe it.

If Corbyn offers cheaper train fares and no tuition fees and more hospitals, none of the 'fluffies' will ask any questions, like can we afford it. As long as they can see a benefit for themselves, that will do. Who cares about the good of the country, that in turn supports everyone, I care about me, they say.

Wednesday, 24 May 2017

Hmm, Troops On The Streets.

In what can only be described as an open and obvious display of panic, the UK government has agreed to deploy troops on the streets. There are all kinds of issues here; on what basis? Aiding the civil power, martial law, or has control been handed to the military?

Are they to guard locations considered targets in a tactical or visible manner? Are they for go or show? Will they have body armour (the police do)? What are their rules of engagement?

Let's look at the decision. It is believed that the Manchester suicide bomber had a device that was sophisticated enough to make it likely others were involved (design, supply?) Plus of course, who made it and who convinced this imbecile to do what he did?

This suggests a wider 'cell' and a still extant ability to strike again. But would they? Well, if we accord them the status of dedicated fighters (soldiers, as the media insist on calling them), then yes. But if, as they undoubtedly are, they are cowards who don't quite make it as human, then they will go to ground, vanish.

The bomb maker is a valuable asset and the 'brains' will have no intention of getting caught, or killed. So my prediction is, that there will be no incident in the coming days, no follow up. Sure some other loner smack-head, psychotic cannabis freak might drive a car at people, but that will just be copying what they see on telly. Certainly no part of a plot.

So again, why the troops? Well, our senior police officers, who have repeatedly shown they are complete and utter failures, will have seen the political opportunity the murder of children presents. Whilst the rank and file want to keep a mainly unarmed force, the senior officers want an armed force (sorry, service).

What kind of ambitious, self-regarding officer of rank would not want to have high profile police, dripping with bags and equipment openly displaying guns? The bigger the better. And helicopters and maybe armoured cars.

But they have had to ask for the unusual and (in Britain) hugely political deployment of soldiers, because that will release the, clearly small number, of available trained firearms officers to face this 'imminent' threat. Of course, if they had the right numbers and the right weapons.....

These 'trained' police, don't forget, managed to shoot and wound the killer of Lee Rigby (despite us being told police can't 'shoot to wound'), shot dead a man with a chair leg in a bag, shot dead a criminal who was naked in his bedroom. They also fell down the stairs trying to deal with an unarmed drunk man who they fired at several times, mainly missing - in a house.

The 'experts' who numbered an instructor in their ranks who shot and wounded a student on a firearms course, in a classroom. And as an interesting aside, the police never get criticised or legally pursued over these events, unlike our hounded soldiers.

Consequently, I see it that the politicking of certain key, yet pathetic figures, has forced the Prime Minister to move to panic measures. And panicking, as Cressida Dick could tell you, if she is about and not under a desk somewhere, doesn't lead to good outcomes.

It was once said that the sign of an effective police force is the absence of crime, not their visibility, rushing around after a crime has been committed. But the fashion today is very much the opposite, that lots of blue lights and guns and robocops shows the police mean business.

This lazy, easy resort to deploying troops is a dangerous precedent, deeply un-British and in the circumstance pertaining, wholly unnecessary anyway. The separation of our volunteer army from the people has always been clear and carefully controlled. Thatcher unleashed the SAS for a particular operation, where their skills were essential at the Princes Gate siege of the Eighties.

Control was, briefly handed over from the civil power (the police) to the military. Once over, so control was handed back. It is that controlled, when done right.

The Army, with high velocity weapons are not the right defence in this situation on urban streets and our police have repeatedly shown themselves too often not fit for purpose. And their leadership, the root of the problem, is of very poor quality.

Dealing with this terrorism is the opposite of what we are doing. The people of Manchester have instinctively got it right, go out and show that we stand together against their plots, brave in the face of danger. What they are doing is standing up for the British values that has and does make our society great.

Thus by inference we reject their value system based on violence and coercion. But the politicians become more martial, they puff and bluster, whilst maintaining all the safeguards to keep terrorism amongst us. The Trojan Horse schools? They are not just not educating children properly, they are the start point for radicalisation, creating division.

The hate preachers - why are they still operating and often true, why are they still here? The potential terrorists returning from fighting for ISIS in Syria. Returning? Don't let them in! Even if, heaven forfend it should cause Corbyn sleepless nights to take such action.

And finally, please can I never be told again, after a terrorist atrocity that the perpetrator was 'known to police'. Or how many plots were prevented (that strangely saw no one arrested, no one is aware they happened and no one goes to prison as a result).

Tuesday, 18 April 2017

General Election: June 8th

Theresa May calls a snap election out of nowhere, just after a paper was speculating that she doesn't like being PM and can't wait to stand down. Nicola Sturgeon says it is divisive, which she seems to say about most things, but like a stuck clock she is right every so often. Such as parliament, which is divisive, bearing in mind there is the government and there is Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition (and the Scots Nats who are neither).

As the useful idiots of Brussels and their hopeless Project Fear have been well and truly kicked into the long grass, it seems a little cruel of Mrs May to go into the long grass and kick them a little further. Maybe they will even reach the sunny uplands of their EUtopia, where unemployment is low to non existent (well, in Germany anyway), where economic woes have been dispelled and a trade surplus blossoms (er, if you're Germany) and your fellow citizens embrace as brothers, sharing the same laws, taxes, wealth and the holy benefits of the ECJ and Human Rights. All of which isn't true anywhere in Europe.

As long as Habeus Corpus doesn't matter to you, democracy doesn't matter, or the principle that the state owns you and tells you what to do and what to think is completely OK with you, then the EU is the place to be. A great idea.

If however, you believe in the Common Law, owned by the people and exercised on their behalf by an elected government, then Theresa May is the person to lead the country and deserves your vote. A further chance to tell the Marxist Left that we are fed up with their political correctness and being pushed about by the over mighty petty bureaucrats, so beloved of institutions like the EU.

Fed up with the Elite's sense of entitlement, the lies about tax cuts, green taxes and subsidies, the global warming scam, the end goal of the EU project, the whole lot.

Monday, 27 March 2017

Another Killer Muslim

Sorry, a deliberate headline to infuriate. Did you leap to conclusions, based on your own prejudice? Adrian Elms converted to Islam and as a result of the Muslims he came in contact with (who sought to influence him), drew him to kill innocent people indiscriminately.

He wasn't involved in international terrorism as a senior police officer jumped to judge. He was a Muslim when he decided to murder. But, that doesn't mean Islam is our enemy. It is a religion that has held back many countries around the world, being a faith of political control. Particularly here in the UK, Muslims can join a tolerant society and blend with people of all faiths and backgrounds. Where they choose not to, they allow evil people to use the cover of their religion to harm them and us.

Integration works exceptionally well, placing responsibilities on both sides and requiring an acknowledgement that British values must be shared. Ken Livingstone, despite being keen on creating division to further his political ends, said that Muslim Londoners will be horrified by what happened in Westminster. In correctly so doing, he accidentally agreed that integration was crucial.

Let us not be blinded by a tunnel vision towards communities refusing to integrate and speak English etc, to the failings of people paid to look after us. The Left-liberal weaklings, useful idiots to Marxists trying to undermine Western democracy, have for far too long held sway, fearing to act in a balanced and unbiased way, paving the way to extremist violence.

Tony Blair surrendered to the IRA, so why shouldn't political activists, who also happen to be Muslims, use violence to find another weakling to surrender to them? That they have such limited support that the best they can do is get loners and misfits to do their murderous bidding, is all the proof we need that we are not fighting Islam, but murderers who happen to be Muslims.

What success they have had here to date is massively due to the insidious creep of the Left, destroying our society and capitalism in particular. The weak, lying, scared senior policemen. Politicians who keep saying the 'extreme Right' are a significant threat and that their assertion that Muslims are the enemy is unacceptable. Except there is no real 'extreme Right-wing violence'. No-one who has considered what is happening conflates a killer who is a Muslim, into all Muslims being killers.

Yet this accusation is often repeated by normal people gulled into parroting Marxist tosh, and further reinforces the pathetic policeman in refusing to prosecute crimes by 'minorities'. Instead, they need to be rooting out the people who whisper venom into the ears of the easily confused, turning them into murderers.

Find the base, the root cause and deal with it. But so far the 'authorities' remain in thrall to finding spooks everywhere but hiding within Muslim communities. Where the evil men hide.

Finally, whilst deploring the snowflake generation as they continue their virtue-signalling after atrocities, I do actually think the image of Muslim women standing hand-in-hand on Westminster bridge was quite useful. Pathetic that they should feel they have to do that, but powerful in saying 'Adrian Elms is not one of us'. Which of course, he wasn't.


Brexit, Brexit, Brexit

Question Time is on, that programme designed to answer nothing, but get some soundbites for the BBC's left-wing audience to shout about. Quite late in joining the first thing I see is the rambling comic Salmond, the ex-leader of the SNP who was replaced by someone who isn't so obviously mad. But is. Then there is Keir Starmer, fresh from running the CPS as a political branch of 'justice'. To be fair, he isn't the worst in the debate by a way.

Ooh! Nick Clegg is talking now. Apparently, he wants to stay in an organisation that pays his wife. and him probably, there is of course a massive propaganda fund in the EU.

But anyway, the stunt driven 'Remain' camp keep asking questions they know there is no answer to and then say, 'they haven't got an answer'. What is the EU proposing when we inform them we are leaving? We don't know, they haven't said (for good reason). So why, how could Theresa May have a fully formed plan?

Thankfully no-one asked the clearly deranged Heseltine his view. He is after all, a key player in keeping us in the German empire of the EU, which he turned on its head in his recent muttering. Just be satisfied you knifed your party leader in the back and go away.

But there it is, the Remain camp funded and shouted for by those who benefit from it or are directly paid by it. Why should we (and why do so many scaredy cats) listen to what a bunch of corrupt, anti-democratic, unelected technocrats say? How long should we go on supporting a bankrupt France and allow Germany to impoverish so much of the European continent, to maintain their own economy?

By leaving the EU is Britain really, once again saving Europe from French and German empire builders?

Clegg delivers the Remain bottom line; referendums until we vote to remain. Very EU of him.

Friday, 10 March 2017

Portion Police

Well, completely flying in the face of the nannying injunction on the wrapper and risking the introduction of a new fining bureaucracy, I ate all 120 grams of a Nestle Crunch bar (Dairy Crunch before 1992).

Fines are a wonderful thing aren't they? Initially, when justice referred to, well, justice a fine was imposed when a gaol term would too extreme. Invented to deal with crime in a proportionate way.

Today of course the law, as defined by low grade politicians and implemented (interpreted, don't ya know) by pompous Judges is speeding towards total disrepute. If you imprison people, politicians must provide the budget to provide the structure for incarceration.

But a fine, oh my a fine, well that just requires bureaucrats to catch you out (Portion Police) broaching some arbitrary and pointless rule and then the politicians actually raise money! Win, win!

Who cares about proportionate? You can only truly display power if you fly in the face of such constraints. It is almost important to be disproportionate.

If you want to get even more philosophical, I suppose you could consider that the previous belief in proportionality was because the people owned the law and it sought to serve the people. At least it lived as an entity in fear of the people.

Now of course, to fit in with our overlords in Brussels (please God, not much longer) that has had to be turned on its head. To suit the French desire for everyone to have the appalling system their elite have imposed on the people, we have to put state ahead of nation, government before people.

Everything is illegal unless the elite choose to allow it. And bizarrely, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats absolutely love this system. Your watchword can be 'outrageous disregard'.

Saturday, 4 February 2017

All You Need To Know About Ken Clarke

Ken Clarke MP(!) is the sort of person you should not trust to hold your ice cream while you tie your shoelaces

Friday, 27 January 2017

Our Tickle 50

Little punning there, sorry, serious subject. Well, to people that understand it!

The people of this country, under a law of 2015 voted to request and require their democratically elected government to withdraw the United Kingdom from the European Union. It is amazing, after years of propaganda, threats of doom from all and sundry, apathy and the general fear that maybe we should cling to nurse for fear of something worse, that we voted to leave.

But we did. And Jeremy Corbyn thinks that is the reason his party should not think it knows better, rather carry out the will of the people. Article 50 of course is an article of an EU treaty. It is the formal way to inform them we are leaving. Some of his MP's think their view more important than the public's though.

But wanting to leave is only something that stupid people and fascists voted for, according to the liberals. Now these are interesting people, because they call themselves liberals, which suggests freedom and tolerance (as it is intended to).

The manifestation though is that they are deeply and often violently intolerant of people having different ideas from them. So, a narrow, dictatorial society is what they are after, as long as the power rests with them.

This is OK though, because they are cleverer than you (clearly, you voted to leave the EU) and are lovely people who would never do you any harm (unless you disagreed with them).

I was trying to think if any country has ever been run on these principles and how it went. Nearest I can come up with is Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, oh and the very similarly structured EU.

Tuesday, 24 January 2017

Judges Cogitation Over

It was a nice delay wasn't it? The judges 'deciding' on the powers of government. I mean, you know they really thought about it. In a democracy, should the people be allowed a say? Once given a mandate, should a government be allowed to carry it out if they haven't checked with 8 judges first?

Well, no apparently. The delay though was a con. How long do you suppose a group of judges, who are mainly either in the pay of or associated with organisations reliant on the EU, would take to decide that they should interfere in the political process of leaving the EU?

Add to that the fact that judges have for quite a while now felt that they are the pinnacle of decision making in the UK, not parliament. So they could have said 'no' within seconds, but you know, propriety and image requires a delay. Let the idiots think you are serious people.

They should be completely ignored and the government continue with their legal obligation, under an Act of Parliament to withdraw the UK from the EU. Parliament can have all kinds of input in the workings of the process, but informing the EU formally of our intention, Article 50, needs to be triggered immediately. It is only fair on the 27 other member states.

Monday, 9 January 2017

I Don't Do Groupspeak, So I Need Help

Having never quite grasped why Marxism is the only way to save humanity, which I only base on experience - Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, Cambodia, China, I need some modern stuff explained to me. For instance, Brexit.

Now to me, it seems straightforward. Having succumbed to lies and propaganda way back in the Seventies, we saddled ourselves with a Marxist bureaucracy. Luckily we dodged its worst bits and now have (mostly) awoken to it and elected to leave.

In order to do this, we need to give this club, this institution due notice and that is with something called 'Article 50'. This EU rule says that a member state wishing to leave must invoke Article 50, which gives the EU 2 years to try to talk them out of it. Basically, an opportunity to renegotiate the rules. Or not.

But we have a lot of very disingenuous people asking where is Theresa May's Brexit strategy? What will be her negotiating tactic? Surely (point out where I'm wrong please) her tactic will be to invoke Article 50 "we're offski". And then when the EU negotiates with such things as 'what if we offer to change the shade of blue on the flag?' or 'what about a special handshake?' , you know the usual substantive stuff they come up with, Theresa can say 'No'.

Sounds like a complete strategy to me. I mean, Britain has told its politicians to leave the EU, not just say we are going to and then stay in because they said we could have a cake named after us. What piece of paper could Mrs May come back from Germany waving that would say we should accept a Marxist future?

Not to labour the point, but in Mrs Mays shoes I would just pop over to Brussels, tell them Britain is quitting and leave saying 'let me know when the paperwork is done.'

Obviously, another thing is Global Warming, or Climate Change. Interesting isn't it, how liars change the name of things when people start to realise what they are saying is a crock. Nobody has said there has been no global warming, because there has, recently and repeatedly in the past.

The reason Global Warming morphed into Climate Change was to cover the embarrassment that the temperature hasn't risen since 1997. So, maybe the climate just changes, but it is still our fault, because of all the carbon. Except, they don't mean carbon. Carbon sounds dirty and carbon dioxide doesn't, so they manipulate the language.

But that isn't all it amounts to is it? These Marxists know that you are an imbecile, so it doesn't matter if there is no scientific rigour in what they say, you wouldn't understand anyway. But in fact there can be no scientific rigour in what they say, because then you would know it wasn't true.

Man's emissions are not lovely and we should be producing technology to reduce them, but carbon dioxide emitted by human activity is way too insignificant, on a global scale to affect the climate. They know this but, to use their own phrase 'look where the money is'. Try getting a grant to study why climate change isn't caused by Man, or get a book published by a big publishing house that shows the lie.

No all the money is in government hands and it only goes to the leeches who promulgate the lie. Know why you can't get your bins emptied or roads repaired? Because the councils spend way too much on green crap and other Leftie nonsense no sane person wants. Know why old people die of cold, unable to heat their homes? Because green greed has pushed up prices of energy for no purpose. Wind farms, solar panels? Near to useless and completely barmy if you looked at cost versus return.

Why do you think every 'Green' company squeals like a stuck pig if subsidies are reduced and then go bust. Wind farms only farm taxpayers cash.

National treasure, David Attenborough says that we should not apply the scientific method to Climate Change, it should be illegal to oppose it and no one should be allowed to debate it. Now why would that be? Why should you not even be allowed to talk about it let alone study it? Why should evidence based science be outlawed?

Well, because some have done it, we know for a fact that the ideology of Global Warming is just that, an ideology. It has no basis in fact. It is Attenborough's religion, nothing less. He believes in it as an article of faith.

WWF and all the other Marxist zealots driving the scam are using it to undermine and ultimately to destroy capitalism and with it Western civilisation. Apres la deluge they intend a World government, run by really clever, lovely people (them) and no hint of democracy or return on ambition and hard work.

At least that's what I think. You could point out where I'm wrong, but I guess that would be like providing evidence and I realise we are past all that stuff. So, can I have the change from the £50 I just gave you? What do you mean it was only a tenner? And don't ask for proof. See, I do get it.