tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70676423971443340502023-06-21T06:03:06.749+01:00Seed FeederPolitics, current affairs and ideas as they drift through my head. UK based personal opinion designed to feed or seed debate.EyeSeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11150100860405466750noreply@blogger.comBlogger698125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7067642397144334050.post-7330740988679573332020-10-21T12:43:00.012+01:002020-10-21T12:53:18.478+01:00Covid 19: Where Are We Then?<p> What exactly is going on in the UK today? Having only 9 months experience of a new strain of a known branch of coronavirus, our scientific experts are still of the opinion that what we should do is hide. It didn't work before, but they assure us, that was because we didn't lockdown everyone hard enough and the public keep disobeying their masters. </p><p>Evidence suggests the virus was receding before lockdown commenced in March, but science today seems to rely exclusively on predictions and ignores evidence. At the outset, when some science was involved, we knew we had to take care, but wait for herd immunity to do it's thing.</p><p>Then someone had a great idea; why don't we get some modelling done on the likely path of the disease. Why not get a known failure to work out what he thinks will happen. He can gather all the data we have on how infectious the virus is (none), any likely existing immunity (unknown), what the fatality rate is (unknown) and various similar parameters that were, at the time completely beyond us.</p><p>Using this almost total absence of data, a figure of 510,000 deaths if we don't lockdown was produced. Cue Boris Johnson panicking. </p><p>In the early days, hospitals were the main source of infections and the staff some of the only people allowed to travel and work. To clear space in hospitals for the undeniable tsunami of Covid cases, medically trained people saw no issue with sending people who may, or may not have the disease we are terrified of, to care homes. (To help things along, care homes' PPE was diverted to hospitals).</p><p>Hospitals have, of course a terrible record for infection control and so it proved again, killing many of their own. Now, with our sophisticated approach to this disease, we know that we should shut pubs and restaurants, when as many as 5% of infections are thought to come from there. Hospitals remain uncriticised, even though recent figures for those hospitalised with Covid 19 included up to 24% who caught it there!</p><p>Students have returned to their universities, a time when we see all kinds of infections soar. But imagine our surprise when this included coronavirus! So, a cohort who are resolutely not ill with the virus leads to all kinds of renewed panic. More dire predictions and lamentation. Lockdowns follow.</p><p>Just what are we basing our continued pursuit of lockdown, with all its concomitant misery, economic destruction and unnecessary deaths, on?</p><p>Well, we are testing vastly more than previously, targeting where we expect to find it, like university towns and then even more so, the contacts of those testing positive. So we are finding loads. But we don't know if it's 'loads more' or not.</p><p>We know that the PCR tests are grossly inaccurate and do not tell us who among them are infectious, which is actually all that matters (it's probably around 10% of the total). Hospitalisation means a patient in hospital, with Covid 19 - but many didn't go into hospital with it. so it is not a representation of the public at large, being infected. </p><p>Then the bizarre notion that we should include anyone who a doctor felt, not definitely knew (they could have tested positive, or had a cough) had coronavirus within the 28 days before they died. Even where the coronavirus had no role whatsoever in their death. And some who were going to die anyway.</p><p>Again, the 'died of' Covid will be very much lower than the government figure, which strangely they seem keen to inflate.</p><p>We are left with inaccurate tests, leading to unknown numbers of hospitalisations and an unknown number of deaths which causes our politicians and not least, their scientific (!) advisors to go into an absolute panic. There is no other way of describing it.</p><p>The other point is; we could be more accurate but we don't seem to want to. We could factor in the inaccuracies but we don't and the public are certainly not alerted to any of this (and the media, outrageously, don't ask).</p>EyeSeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11150100860405466750noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7067642397144334050.post-45465664338423430402020-08-18T13:28:00.004+01:002020-08-18T13:28:43.364+01:00Exams U Turn<p> Before going on to the recent turnaround in how grades have been awarded to A level students recently, let's just look at what we are considering. Due to the government panic over coronavirus, the exams were cancelled for this year and guesswork grades would be handed out, without the children having to do anything for them. </p><p>A formula was arrived at between the teaching Unions and the education regulator, Ofqal as to how the grades should be arrived at. It was explained that some 'downgrading' was necessary as teachers had submitted unrealistically high assessments.</p><p>Once the 'results' were announced those with grades that didn't suit them, started objecting loudly, including little flowers telling the BBC, that they would have got A's or A*'s if they had taken the exams. The option exists to take the exam in the Autumn. No one seems to want to take that route and the BBC don't mention it.</p><p>Boris the Weak, as he left to holiday in Scotland seems to have instructed his Education Secretary to give in to the wailers and a 'U turn' as the media like to call these things, was performed. Now the outrage (from the BBC and Labour, who supported the formula strongly originally) is that Gavin Williamson hasn't been sacked and won't resign.</p><p>The BBC are slightly amazed that Williamson is blaming Ofqal on the weak basis they feel, that Ofqal are actually to blame. Labour think he should go because he chose a system that they agreed with, but now don't. Honestly, the BBC isn't a news outlet and the Labour party has no integrity left, whatsoever.</p>EyeSeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11150100860405466750noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7067642397144334050.post-1096435415535869152020-08-17T19:11:00.002+01:002020-08-17T19:11:24.204+01:00Me And My Shadow<p> So, we have now long known what should have been blindingly obvious from the outset, that the charlatan Neil Ferguson's modelling was, once again, a million miles off track. 500,000 deaths without lockdown. So we shut our country down on his say so.</p><p>The test though was Sweden, who didn't lockdown and ran numbnuts programme for their country, producing a figure of 90,000 dead by the end of May. Slightly out Neil, slightly out. By which I mean parallel universe out.</p><p>Currently, something interesting is going on as the virus seems to not be as killy as it was. Hospitalisations are down over 96% since the peak and reducing. Deaths are running at 10 a day. But Boris the Weak is absolutely terrified because the massively increased testing is finding more infected souls. Which apparently, no one expected. </p><p>The infected are not getting ill, but that doesn't matter any more! Wear face masks to show your loyalty to the regime. They are pointless as the scientists told us before, but now they are a symbol of those committed to being frightened of their shadow.</p><p>However, I hear nothing about what we think is happening with the virus, has it weakened? Have we virtually achieved herd immunity (all that would ever save us - hiding as we did guaranteed a 'second wave')/ If we have got that deplored and laughed at herd immunity, then even the second wave won't happen. </p><p>After all, from the Swedish experience, we should be pretty much done with deaths. If you think we had too many deaths already, then you need to concentrate on the geniuses who decided to ship elderly people out of hospital, untested into care homes, so they could introduce the virus there and kill many. Another outstanding example of the leadership of our wonderful NHS.</p><p>Also, causing many more deaths from ignoring the sick, while waiting for the tsunami that never came. But the sloth with which it started return to it's usual role, whilst blaming people for not going to hospital if they were ill, tut!</p><p>What this virus has really done is shown up the weaknesses in our public sector and its supposed experts, the talent in the Civil Service for deflecting blame and the ineptitude of government and the mentality of politicians today, who concentrate on entitlement rather than service. Root and branch, Root and branch.</p>EyeSeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11150100860405466750noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7067642397144334050.post-79500295013586265672020-07-29T15:33:00.001+01:002020-07-29T15:33:53.670+01:00NHS PerspectiveLet's get this straight, so the absolutists are dealt with from the start; I think the NHS is a great <i>idea. </i>But the way it is run is typical of an uncontrolled bureaucracy; it is dysfunctional and too often not capable of fulfilling its primary role.<br />
<br />
A graphic example of this was of course, the recent decision to send elderly patients, untested, to care homes (whilst simultaneously diverting PPE away from said homes). There is no way to view this as anything other than completely crazy.<br />
<br />
Prior to 1948, more was done as a collective effort at local level, with well intentioned doctors. What often was the outcome was that local hospital you may dimly remember. The one that was closed by the bureaucrats to 'centralise' 'healthcare provision' in 'supercentres' that would be better able to provide a full range of services. Plus save money.<br />
<br />
Well, that hospital was probably paid for by local subscription, by people keen to ensure they had medical assistance <i>locally. </i>And the NHS gladly received it, without paying anything for it, when the NHS was set up. Seemed a good deal at the time, bearing in mind the state would now provide and cover the costs.<br />
<br />
Up until they don't. Then the hospital gets sold and the proceeds, for no discernible reason, went into the NHS coffers. Not back to the local community, who had more claim to the title.<br />
<br />
Like many other successful projects of the Left, such as destroying education (except for an elite) and increasing the power of the bodies surrounding and controlling elected politicians, the NHS now has an almost perfect system, within the parameters of state control.<br />
<br />
Set up specifically to treat sick people and make them well, hospitals have transmogrified into industrial warehouses. Naturally, some medical staff do stick to some of the traditional tenets, but it soon gets beaten out of them (or should they highlight medical negligence, with dismissal).<br />
<br />
Under the auspices of a managerial class, hospitals are now concerned with <i>output </i>while talking about outcomes. Once a <i>patient </i>came into a hospital and the objective was to discern what ails them, to take them through restorative medical treatment, whether drug treatment or surgical, and once satisfied to allow them to return home.<br />
<br />
Now the 'customer' is a number, a nuisance. Something to get out of the system as soon as possible - a successful outcome, <i>for the system.</i> A single discipline will consider the subject, for example, if a GP refers a patient believing the cause to be cancer, you go to oncology. If the condition is not cancer, they will not be passed on until every possible test has been done to prove cancer.<br />
<br />
This may be detrimental to health of the 'customer' but it is clean for the system. Treatment, once decided on, will be monitored for cost control and the pressure is on the 'free up the bed'. Discharge will be effected as soon as possible and without reference to the suitability to the 'customer'.<br />
<br />
An elderly person may be given the news that they can go home with great enthusiasm and not a little hurry up, at 2am on a Friday, when they have no money. Hospitals are keen to get people out before the weekend, when there will not be enough staff on to cope. Once again, all thought is on the effects on the system.<br />
<br />
Once gone, a green tick is applied to the chart and the system clocks up another success. Now the bed is free for the next person who relapsed through having been discharged too early. There is no penalty for that and, while being an annoyance to the system, it still keeps it clean. (What do you mean, what about the patient?)<br />
<br />
Hospitals are not about healthcare any more, they are about getting people through the system as quickly as possible. We are to be grateful they exist. But they are supposed to exist to treat the sick, that is their<i> raison d'etre. </i>But what is wrong with you when you come into contact is no longer, really, of interest. <div><br /></div><div>This is just a snippet to provoke thought on the subject, because it is extensive and constantly feeds bad practice and wrongly focussed effort. This bureaucratic maladministration is causing so much harm and is way beneath the talents and abilities of the British people. </div><div><br /></div><div>Consider how Grenfell happened and the pathetic response to it. Watch the reality programme about the ambulance service and have the sympathy for the pressure they are under evaporate, when having just heard they now have no ambulances available, but have sent two ambulances to a suspected heart attack, because that is 'protocol'.</div><div><br /></div><div>The NHS is a great idea, but you know, instinctively, that no private company could survive operating as it does. It doesn't need to be privatised, it just needs to be run properly. </div>EyeSeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11150100860405466750noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7067642397144334050.post-73021954377492527732020-07-23T11:30:00.000+01:002020-07-23T11:30:24.090+01:00GeographyI thought I was OK with geography, generally. OK, so there has been a fad for renaming countries for unknown reasons, but you know, OK.<br />
<br />
But I am really confused. You see, there have been a number of 'spikes' in cases of Covid infections and they have been in certain areas of Leicester, Bradford and Luton. Whilst the problem of carefully not identifying the cultural background of these communities (the BBC referred to the Luton outbreak as 'in the LU4 postcode'), it is clearly among those of Pakistani and Bangladeshi heritage.<br />
<br />
Nothing wrong with that, as such, but the propensity to not speak English doesn't help keep information flowing. But speaking to a Council representative, himself a Muslim he referred to the problem as being among 'South Asians'. Other commentators have made the same remark.<br />
<br />
But, pretty much the only Asia <i>North </i>of Pakistan is Kazakhstan. Lord knows what Indonesia is. Possibly in these re-named days Southy McSouthface.<br />
<br />
Or maybe there are way more Indonesians and Vietnamese living in the UK than I thought. In Leicester, Bradford and Luton.<br />
<br />
EyeSeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11150100860405466750noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7067642397144334050.post-19238155484315025792020-07-23T11:12:00.000+01:002020-07-23T11:12:25.106+01:00Conservative ConfusionWell this is weird. I distinctly remember a Conservative victory at a General Election, but incompetent panicking has defined the government's reaction to the Covid pandemic. And these are primal Labour characteristics.<br />
<br />
Obviously, there is way too much to cover in detail, but let's look at face masks. Originally, we were told these were unnecessary and possibly harmful, they would give people false confidence. We were told about the science behind the decision.<br />
<br />
This was handy, because there was a desperate shortage of face masks at the time. But we looked and we saw that it was good. And calmness prevailed.<br />
<br />
Then, to ease our way out of the now fairly recognised mistake of lockdown, but without admitting that, we were told we could go to shops again. Then, a while afterwards we needed to wear masks in shops. But not the shop staff. And you don't have to wear them in a restaurant or bar.<br />
<br />
I'm assuming that the new update is that coronavirus has become very picky about who it will infect, not people enjoying themselves for instance, and that masks are suddenly efficacious because coronavirus has put a lot of weight on.<br />
<br />
But we don't know for sure because we don't need to know the science any more. Just some panic activists and invested scientists saying, 'yeah, blimey you need to wear a mask, because we know it stops large amounts of the deadly big droplets'.<br />
<br />
Yes, a mask will help catch a sneeze and smear it over your face, rather than over other people. If you have Covid 19, I'm not sure why you are wandering about, face mask or not, but there you go, that is what 'scientists' fear. If you sneeze, you could try putting your hand over your face, or go really old school and use a handkerchief.<br />
<br />
Personally, I don't remember the last time someone fully sneezed over me without trying to stop or mitigate it at all, which is the scenario the 'scientists' present. Remember the government ads telling you that you would die if you hit a brick wall at 30mph, so slow down? Why would you drive into a brick wall at 30mph? If I lost control of a car and was heading at 30mph for a wall, I might press the brake pedal somewhat.<br />
<br />
In 2010, the University of Alabama tested face mask efficacy, mainly aimed at pollution and dust. They tested a surgical face mask (one that fits over your nose, closely to the sides of your face and down the neck), a bandana, or piece of folded cloth and a dust mask from a DIY store.<br />
<br />
The median particle size was 1.6 microns, which is pretty small. Unsurprisingly, the surgical mask did best stopping around 33% of particles. The 'dust mask' only managed 6.1%!<br />
<br />
Coronaviruses however, tend to be 0.1 microns or smaller, so none of the masks would stop it.<br />
<br />
So, the masks are useless, except against a sneezing, infected person who isn't quarantining themselves. And currently, your chance of meeting an infected person, assuming they <i>all </i>go out is about 1 in 2500. How many people do you meet a day? And with the rate of false positives in tests, it is reckoned that only around 44% of those listed as positive, actually are.<br />
<br />
So yeah, face masks in shops. Great idea. Should see this problem virtually disappear overnight I should reckon.EyeSeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11150100860405466750noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7067642397144334050.post-70174262667246290872020-06-26T11:15:00.000+01:002020-06-26T11:15:08.728+01:00SurveysI do surveys for Nectar points. I don't know who pays for these, but they obviously have money to burn. I get very annoyed about the quite lengthy ones who collect a lot of information and then drop you out as 'not suitable' or the survey has 'met its quota'. I may stop doing them because of that, as it wastes a lot of my time while they dodge 'paying'.<br />
<br />
Today however, hilarious. It was about Next. Have I shopped there in the last 12 months. Yes. Rank the three main reasons you shop at Next (out of about 9). How much did you spend? £101-200. Did you spend more or less than before? Well, more. Will you spend more of less next time? Less.<br />
<br />
What reason were you shopping? Pick answer from list, of which none were relevant.<br />
<br />
In fact I detest Next. I went in there and bought quite a bit for our granddaughter, who is somewhat abused by her mother's family, poor soul. Being four, she quite liked the experience. We went into Next as we were in the shopping centre and it was the most likely place we could get what we wanted for her.<br />
<br />
I never give the place a thought outside that and certainly have no plans to go back in there. I also seem to have found myself on a good number of email lists, but not theirs.EyeSeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11150100860405466750noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7067642397144334050.post-53881771746412592122020-06-24T11:33:00.000+01:002020-06-24T11:33:28.363+01:00Black Lives Do Indeed MatterIf you aren't that interested in politics, but are a lovely, caring person, the headline seems fairly straightforward. There is racism within the predominately white Western societies, that at worst shows itself with incidents like the killing of George Floyd. It doesn't matter that he was an armed robber, his killing was almost casual.<br />
<br />
But do think about it (and as I write this, I am thinking of white and black people). We don't know that the policeman killed Floyd because he was black. All we know is that the policeman is exactly the sort of person who shouldn't be a policeman and his basic immorality permitted him to kill someone.<br />
<br />
But more than that, why is there an organisation called Black Lives Matter? And you not only don't hear 'All Lives Matter' it is a theme that is actively attacked if you try to use it. The essence of BLM is the inherent suggestion that someone thinks black lives don't matter. Don't get started, yes I'm sure some people are like that, but they are the ones to ignore, not those actually targeted by BLM.<br />
<br />
I mean, some nit flew a banner over a football stadium (that's actual football, not modified rugby) saying 'white lives matter' which is also a statement of fact, but the professional outrage crowd went nuts. But it was playing into BLM's hands.<br />
<br />
BLM is actually fairly unconcerned with racial issues, beyond their usefulness to ideology, being an organisation dedicated to Marxist principles and consequently seeking to destroy capitalism and the justice system, which all stand in their way.<br />
<br />
Getting black people to riot and loot and burn on the streets, was specifically to say to other people (whites, similarly horrified blacks) that here were black people doing terrible things. We should oppose and clamp down on these people. Basically, promoting and perpetuating racial division, which would be largely non existent without their constant input.<br />
<br />
Pushing victimhood makes you feel oppressed, even if you aren't. That there is racism is evident in the range of names for black people, that are designed to denigrate, yet I am not aware of a reciprocal repertoire against whites. Though interestingly, the equally disgusting 'coconut' is amazingly racist, yet of more recent invention (from the Left, naturally).<br />
<br />
To accuse a person who's skin tone is darker, of being a white person within, is a particularly pernicious insult. Not really black, because they 'think' like a white person, also suggesting there is always something wrong with being white!<br />
<br />
The Left believe that if they can destabilise society, particularly through violence, then that society is ripe for them to step in and take over. Corbyn was indifferent to election results because he never envisaged achieving real power that way.<br />
<br />
So black people are told probably by the white, intolerant, illiberal liberals to take offence at every turn. Sticks and stones are for riots, but everyday words must be considered more harmful, causing injuries you cannot recover from. You must take to the streets, riot and loot. Only by this route can you find yourself governed by people who will show you what real and professional oppression is.<br />
<br />
To the Left of course, a successful black person is a problem, they have got above their station. You are not supposed to benefit from capitalism, as it lifts more people out of poverty than any other political system ever has, and you will be abused for it. A traitor, indeed.<br />
<br />
To me, I care nought for race, but support the idea that you measure a person by the content of their character, which is why<i> ipso facto</i> I detest Marxists for their nihilism. To me the biggest crime is to deny anyone, anyone at all, opportunity. The rest is up to you and the content of your character.EyeSeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11150100860405466750noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7067642397144334050.post-20408010105434948762020-05-11T09:31:00.000+01:002020-05-11T09:31:57.970+01:00Supportive Labour And Covid 19At the outset, the Labour opposition made it clear that the coronavirus emergency was no time for party politics and they would work constructively with the government. This of course, is what the nation would hope to be the case and is entirely sensible. It's what people wanted to hear.<br />
<br />
It didn't last long. Unpleasant people struggle to be something different and so it is with Labour. (I lose track. Are we now on New New Labour? That sounds awfully like it is run by a vacuum from the Tellytubbies). Whether there is an alliance between the Unions and not-Left-enough Keir Starmer is not clear, but they are meshing nicely.<br />
<br />
The Unions, suddenly possessed of medical and scientific knowledge as yet denied to everyone else, are refusing any measures to return life and the economy to normal as quickly as possible. Due to the 'risks' of going to work, the teaching Unions are demanding that a) the virus has to have been completely eradicated, b) they will need more money c) everyone should wear masks and d) the roads have to be cleared of traffic, so that they also don't get injured in a car accident.<br />
<br />
Teachers must not face any risk. Likewise Tube drivers. Locked away and physically separated from the diseased sardines they haul around, puts they at risk apparently and so, insists the ridiculous mayor and Unions, they shouldn't be 'forced' back either.<br />
<br />
Labour object to everything the Tories say (ably supported it has to be said by a completely out of control BBC and Sky, with the papers largely just as spooked). This, and nearly dying, affects Boris strongly and so he continues to ignore any science that might drift in from somewhere other than the useless PHE, NHS England or Imperial College of Hapless Modelling.<br />
<br />
The trumpets blare and Boris announces in a statement to the nation his steps to removing lockdown. We are clearer on many aspects of the coronavirus and countries without lockdown seem to have the same rate of infection as those in lockdown. Evidence is mounting that more people have already been infected than previously thought and that, whilst we carefully avoid finding out how many, herd immunity might be achieved at much lower levels than predicted with the Imperial modelling scenario.<br />
<br />
So what is announced to an expectant country? You can go to work, if you can't work from home. Which I think is only a slight nuance on what we already had.<br />
<br />
Having not offered anything, Labour were obviously stumped with their prepared objections, so they complained that the er, distinctly lacking advice wasn't clear. Apparently, we could 'meet' people in the park as long as social distancing is followed. Oops. When I have taken the dogs for a walk, if I met someone I knew, I spoke to them observing the separation rules.<br />
<br />
So, Starmer, who I am very confused to see described in glowing terms, has settled into the kind of policy that he likes and can cope with. Pretty much, Oh no you can't. Widow Twankey indeed.EyeSeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11150100860405466750noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7067642397144334050.post-17225636859252470052020-04-15T17:01:00.000+01:002020-04-15T17:01:35.585+01:00WHO?Well, I suppose if someone was going to tell the truth about the emperor and his unclothed state, it was going to be Trump<br />
<br />
The World Health Organisation is a United Nations body and like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the United Nations itself, it is simply a corrupt non-entity.<br />
<br />
In the current Covid 19 crisis they are merely talking and trying to tell you just how important they are. But actually, the boss owes his position to the backing of China, who insisted he be given the role and boy, is he happy to do whatever is necessary to repay the debt.<br />
<br />
This pompous carbuncle Ghebreyesus, has colluded with the Chinese authorities to hide and lie about the coronavirus, despite any worldwide consequences. Just as the UN is basically a talking shop of no importance for First World countries, but an excellent cover for despots and dictators.<br />
<br />
Again, the IPCC is another make-work project to energise anti-capitalist agendas. Interestingly, the whole Climate Change scam is based entirely on computer modelling (which to be on the safe side, is predicated to find climate change), just like the modelling that terrorised our government into closing down our economy.<br />
<br />
In this instance, with no substantive information about the virus being available, a model by Neil Ferguson at Imperial College, said 500,000 would die unless the government did what he said. He was also part of the team that decided in 2001, we should slaughter 6 million animals to end a foot and mouth outbreak, against the prevailing worldwide advice on dealing with outbreaks.<br />
<br />
This led to the British Prime Minister and those acting on his behalf, including the police to break the law of the time. (Tony Blair subsequently introduced a new law, making his actions legal and that was also retrospective!)<br />
<br />
The needless slaughter of healthy animals, not only showed no understanding of animal disease, but additionally led to huge financial loss and upheaval in UK farming. This kind of disruption seems to be a desired dramatic outcome of a Ferguson projection, as if it is a goal.<br />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: black; display: inline !important; float: none; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><br /></span>
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: black; display: inline !important; float: none; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">Tony Blair gave him an OBE.</span><br />
<br />
A lockdown, such as that which this strange individual insisted was the required action, does absolutely nothing in relation to the disease, except hide from it. This protects the NHS from being swamped of course, which makes sense to buy time to increase capacity. But what did Ferguson suggest from there? It seems, stay in lockdown forever. Pray. And, oh yeah, keep paying his salary.<br />
<br />
Naturally, the Western media has gone into overdrive about how ridiculous it is to turn your back on the leading international health organisation leading the way on coronavirus. There is no evidence to support this assertion, but it's what WHO is supposed to do so, well it must be doing it (big government never does anything wrong in the minds of the Left media - look at Soviet Russia and China, Venezuela and North Korea).<br />
<br />
But then PHE, a kind of mini-me WHO is supposed to protect the UK from things exactly like coronavirus, but working for a living doesn't seem to have occurred to them. Have you ever seen Yvonne Doyle actually answer a question?<br />
<br />
Wouldn't it be lovely if our leaders acted decisively and cut all funding to the WHO, sacked the leadership at PHE and told Neil Ferguson to go and clean toilets.<br />
<br />
<br />EyeSeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11150100860405466750noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7067642397144334050.post-12535621499643694602020-03-30T12:09:00.000+01:002020-03-30T12:09:33.722+01:00Give Me Hope, Help Me Cope, With This Heavy LoadApologies to the late George Harrison for stealing his lyrics, but they seem to fit the times.<br />
<br />
It is the essence of the absence we are faced with currently; a lack of hope. Hope is the prospect of things getting better, the light at the end of the tunnel.<br />
<br />
What hope is the government giving us? It's going to get worse? Nope, don't think that would cut it. Their strategy for dealing with the outbreak? Well, if they have a strategy it's a closely guarded secret, with less leaking than at any time in the history of government.<br />
<br />
The indicators to look for, as to when we can start returning to normal? No idea.<br />
<br />
Whilst the information from and indeed even the access to the senior medical figures to answer media questions (even if none of them seem to think any analysis of the issue, leading to proper and searching questions, should trouble their empty little heads), is laudable, when did they get to make policy?<br />
<br />
Surely anyone would realise that 'this thing will last six months at least, reviewed every two to three weeks' would be interpreted as 'lockdown for six months'. Because actually, that's what you said.<br />
<br />
The government urgently needs to get the message across that there is hope. And then explain why. Now if the reason they can't is because they don't have a plan then we probably are all doomed, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon.<br />
<br />
May I help?<br />
<br />
The challenges are - stopping too many people getting seriously ill at once<br />
<br />
limiting the disease transmission<br />
<br />
planning for future prevention<br />
<br />
increasing medical preparedness for higher levels of demand<br />
<br />
We can only deal with this virus with knowledge. In the long term a vaccine, but in the short term lethality and spread. We don't have this information. Also, we could do with dialling down the panic in the NHS. The theme is that this is apocalyptic and a tsunami is coming, so doctors and nurses live in fear of that.<br />
<br />
Then there is the fear of catching it. I'm not sure why we are hearing so much about how scared medical staff are, whilst the general public (well, the young) don't see what the problem is. Maybe it is because the media, with the goal of sensationalism constantly harp on about it and the BBC only interview union representatives, to get expert medical opinion (about what the [Tory] government is doing wrong).<br />
<br />
Politicians have said they don't like the term lockdown and so I offer an alternative that is at least more accurate - hiding. By locking ourselves away and avoiding associating with others (or avoiding non-essential travel, as the police have interpreted it), we are not catching Covid 19.<br />
<br />
We are also not building herd immunity. Why is this important? Well, flu could be just as troublesome, but it isn't because we have had long exposure to it's like and many of us are immune (I'm getting on and I have never had flu). That means the virus struggles to find people it can infect and kill.<br />
<br />
Don't get me wrong, it kills loads of people every year, but you don't hear much about it. Apparently, if you have a pre-existing condition and catch flu, which then finishes you off, it gets recorded as death from your pre-existing issue (cancer, for instance). Not flu.<br />
<br />
But with Covid 19, anyone dying who tests positive is a coronavirus death. It's illogical and doesn't help us understand the lethality of the disease. How many people does<i> it</i> kill? And it is part of the NHS panic. Another is the closure of hospitals to anything else and often, if you turn up with a temperature they want to send you away, rather than you bring this dangerous disease into their hospital (as happened to my one year old granddaughter).<br />
<br />
So, the strategy as I see it should be, test as widely as possible to discover the extent of the disease today. If we find a significant proportion of the population have already had it (and I gather something like 40% would confer herd immunity, or something like it), then bingo! Let's reopen the doors.<br />
<br />
If it is only partial then get the 'immune' who have had it back to work wherever possible. But we need to know and we need to stop mis-recording deaths and we need to get our strategy across to the public. <br />
<br />
If you go back to the early days, all the warnings fell on deaf ears because we have heard it all before; SARS was going to be the apocalypse, Avian flu would kill us all and the delight at the WHO that this time their claims of doom seemed to be getting wings, didn't help. People were getting it and soon got over it, barely noticing.<br />
<br />
The simple point that, as a new virus we could all get it at once and swamp the NHS was never clearly enunciated until Boris' broadcast about lockdown. Now, they are keeping from us how we get over the herd immunity issue, all hiding at home.<br />
<br />
This crisis has shown there are some truly great people in the NHS, that many things 'impossible' in our medical system can be in place in hours and that large numbers of the administration is entirely unnecessary. Actually creates problems.<br />
<br />
We have also seen the talent of politicians to talk to the wrong experts too often and take on what they are told rather than asking searching questions and making the decisions themselves. Boris originally wanted to get herd immunity as quickly as possible and so tried business as usual.<br />
<br />
Now this would risk swamping the NHS, but the reason he really did a U turn on this, was the loudness and shrillness of the 'experts', predicting 250,000 or even 500,000 deaths if he didn't do as they said. Something which, having got their way, their day in the sun, they are now backing away from.<br />
<br />
<br />EyeSeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11150100860405466750noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7067642397144334050.post-46149549173058495682020-03-17T11:24:00.001+00:002020-03-17T11:43:49.683+00:00Judge For YourselfThe Daily Mail is carrying a story about Dr Clare Gerada and her experience with Coronavirus. What she says is that she was in New York for a conference and just as she left, New York had declared a state of emergency due to coronavirus. On the Monday she worked as normal with a slight cough. Tuesday she felt very unwell and, unable to get through to 111 went to a coronavirus testing pod. Initially, they refused to test, we are told, because she hadn't been somewhere seen at that time as a threat.<br />
<br />
The ex Chairwoman of the Royal College of GP's knew she had coronavirus though, as she never gets ill. She then goes on to describe the horrendous experiences she had as the virus ran through her, including the very rare sore throat. As you can guess from the story being out there, this plucky 60 year old fought it off and is alive and well today.<br />
<br />
There are no dates given in the article, so let me fill in some detail. New York declared a state of emergency on 7th March when they had 89 confirmed cases. This means the onset of symptoms occurred on Tuesday 10th March. As today is the 17th, I will assume the story was compiled yesterday, the 16th.<br />
<br />
So, our good doctor, ex leader of the GP's union, caught coronavirus in a city of 8.5 million where 89 of them had been confirmed as infected. Let's ignore the going to work with a slight cough, physician first heal thyself, and concentrate on the experience. She caught, suffered immensely and completely recovered in six days.<br />
<br />
She went to a pod for testing. The article is very careful here. It says she was initially refused, but she knew she had coronavirus because she is never unwell. I wonder what she would say to a patient running with that line. It doesn't say she was ever tested and I don't know why they would relent. Plus Public Health England guidelines are that if she had the virus the whole pod needs decontaminating.<br />
<br />
Plus their first reaction would have been to give her a phone to speak to 111!<br />
<br />
So, as you can see none of this story hangs together very well. It seems likely that she is not amongst the 'confirmed' and probably had something else, despite never being ill before.<br />
<br />
As an interesting technical detail, which is pertinent when we are talking about the testimony of a doctor, there is also something very casual about her use of language. In a study of the Covid 19 outbreak in China, the analysis states that persons found to have coronavirus almost definitely<i> didn't</i> have Covid 19. Dr. Gerada repeatedly refers to having coronavirus and doesn't mention Covid 19.<br />
<br />
Perhaps she is unaware of the research, or doesn't think it matters when addressing the general public. Personally, I like my doctors to be precise and correct in their pronouncements. I figure it kinda goes with the territory.<br />
<br />
I leave it up to you as to what you think of this story of an ex union official.EyeSeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11150100860405466750noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7067642397144334050.post-42448832333502251482020-03-06T10:45:00.000+00:002020-03-06T10:45:42.686+00:00Noble BBC And CoronavirusHands up if you think the BBC has done what it sees as it's core responsibility, in a situation like Covid 19 is presenting and that is, to spread as much panic as humanly possible. I don't think they've missed any opportunity, failed to exaggerate and push the narrative.<br />
<br />
It is a fabulous organisation, with guaranteed funding, stuffed only with Left ideological staff and certain of it's righteousness and just how benign it's instructions to the population are.<br />
<br />
They say they have to pay their senior management huge salaries, to attract the best talent. My question would be, when do you intend to start recruiting talent?EyeSeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11150100860405466750noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7067642397144334050.post-39750028475962667232020-01-22T10:22:00.000+00:002020-01-22T10:22:45.055+00:00Fear And LoathingDifficult times, with absolutely no reason to be. But when you fail to recognise an enemy, when you are faced with war and you either don't mobilise, or use insufficient forces, what do you suppose happens?<br />
<br />
This country (and the US with most other Western style democracies following along) have been faced with an implacable enemy engaging in an ideological war. Marx attempted to start that war, using 'conventional' forces. He came to the conclusion that 'the people' were oppressed. As with most things there was a kernel of truth to this assertion.<br />
<br />
But he then got carried away, coming to believe it was a fundamental truth that would cause this trampled mass of people to rise up and violently overthrow their 'masters'. The trampled didn't quite see it like that though. So unreliable (Corbyn would sympathise).<br />
<br />
So, after decades of trying and seeing sensible, grown up people turning their backs on nihilism the Marxists went for the long game. Join all the key institutions and stay resolutely against capitalism (common sense, best outcomes, friends, family, country...) and capitalism could be destroyed from within.<br />
<br />
Marxism of course, needs proles, uneducated idiots who don't question them, accept their hard lives and do all the real work, so the education system had to be destroyed. How would you say that was doing? Try asking a youngster today a fairly straightforward question about anything detailed (i.e. not TV, social media or celebrity related). They won't have a clue. Capital of Peru? No chance ("What's Paroo?")<br />
<br />
The Civil Service? Well, seemed very unhappy to be leaving a leftie dictatorship. The police? That would be the no longer crime focussed police. The courts? I don't need to go on do I?<br />
<br />
But Climate Change is their real push. This is the global anti-capitalist play, to get countries to destroy their own economies. They are the girlfriend who chips away and bullies the 'boyfriend' into killing himself.<br />
<br />
The climate is changing, it has been getting warmer. You would be pleased surely that the Thames doesn't freeze over any more? Crops grow more readily, we don't die of the cold so regularly. What would you rather have, the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age?<br />
<br />
But science tells us that increased concentrations of CO2 causes the temperature to go up and we are churning out loads of CO2. The Greenhouse Gas theory is sound, too much of certain gases and the planet absorbs heat from the sun, but won't let it escape. We're done for.<br />
<br />
But we have no idea what the concentration that is too much is. Fundamentally, we don't understand climate. But huge though it is, our output of CO2 etc is insignificant to the planet. It doesn't notice.<br />
<br />
You'll notice there is never a debate about Climate Change, just the propaganda from the likes of the BBC. Obviously, when you cannot possibly support your argument, you don't have a debate. Hence for the first time ever in human history, the science is settled. We have a pristine, perfect answer to a scientific conundrum.<br />
<br />
Except, we don't. We have a bunch of lies. There are fewer big storms hitting landfall, fewer areas of the planet burned, rain is as it has been for decades, you name it and it isn't what the eco loons claim, with no data (they do present cooked data, or just lies). The Met Office recently claimed that last year was the hottest evah. It wasn't and their own records prove this, but you only heard what they said. Who checks these days? Not dopey kids.<br />
<br />
Which brings us on to Greta Thunberg. The poster child. In the Telegraph today, Phillip Johnston has a headline, saying if he had to choose between Greta and Trump, he'd go with Greta. Well, I guess the choice between the President of the United States of America, who is a PR disaster, but has also reduced unemployment, reduced energy prices making US industry more competitive and child puppet of anti-capitalist extremists, I suppose it would be difficult.EyeSeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11150100860405466750noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7067642397144334050.post-5427300554370550652019-10-29T14:12:00.000+00:002019-10-29T14:12:19.557+00:00GrenfellThere are a lot of disingenuous hangers-on in the Grenfell story, who are trying to use the incident and the victims and their families to further their own political agenda. It's how the Left work, but doesn't make it any less disgusting.<br />
<br />
For me, the underlying issue that makes this a scandal, is that this is Britain. I don't care whether some of the victims were illegal sub-letters, or illegal immigrants, or straightforward Londoners, no-one should be let down by this country in that way.<br />
<br />
We should have proper rules, properly enforced to maximise the safety of buildings. Apparently, petty corruption is now a thing here and this is what it leads to. Also, when did we agree to neuter our fire brigades? I don't know if Danielle (Dany!) Cotton was just promoted because she is a female, or if other senior officers are just as stupid and unqualified for rank as her and so she fitted in well.<br />
<br />
But her decisions on the day and her comments since leave no doubt, she is well paid for a job she cannot do. It is also clear, that her main concern over the Grenfell tragedy is herself and her image. I found her statement to the inquiry simply unbelievable. She is clear and concerned with details about how she turned out for the incident, getting there, not wrenching control from the officer running the incident (magnanimous), but when it comes to the fire and decision making on actual fire brigade matters, she suffers a loss of memory (that she hopes "will come back someday").<br />
<br />
There have been complaints from senior fire officers and the Union that even at this distance from the event, the government haven't told them what to do about the 'stay put' policy. Presumably this is because the fire brigades no longer have any input into fire fighting? Cotton in fact, makes a deal of her concern and recognition of the dangers her officers faced.<br />
<br />
But she seems to have no concern for the tower's occupants or the safety of her officers as she sticks rigidly to protocols, regardless of what is happening in front of her.<br />
<br />
'Stay put' was evolved as a fire strategy as tower blocks were required to adhere to building regulations that each flat would be a fire secure unit. They were basically fire proofed boxes and generally only the flat where a fire starts and perhaps one other are affected. So those occupants get out, everyone else 'stays put' and the Brigade deal with the fire.<br />
<br />
At Grenfell, because alterations had been made (and presumably signed off by the council) these cells were no longer effective containment blocks. There is lots of bleating (driven by activists) about the cladding being responsible and with the speed the fire spread up the outside of the building it is clear it was partly to blame.<br />
<br />
But the fire also spread rapidly through the internal structure. Why was this? Serious questions exist over exactly what was done and being done to the building. And I agree that to report on the actions of the fire brigade ahead of investigations into the causes and thus the nature of the fire they were facing, is wrongheaded.<br />
<br />
But the whining of 'Dany' Cotton about how she wouldn't change anything if she had her time again, or not knowing the protocol needed changing is self-serving cant. She knows, because even I do, that a tower block should not burn like that, therefore something unusual was happening - get the people out and plan how best to fight a large building fire that is out of control.<br />
<br />
I don't mean to suggest this would have saved everyone, because the fire escape planning for the building was also predicated on the 'stay put' policy. Stairwells full of smoke and a single route, make it difficult for fire officers to get in passed those escaping, to help others.<br />
<br />
I'm sure that an audit of the actions of the fire brigade in accordance with political correctness would find little to fault, but this fact directly led to the inaction of idiot senior officers and the hopeless procedures in place to actually act as an emergency service.<br />
<br />
This is the outcome of Left ideology in action and such an ideology rests on a massive bureaucracy, which I'm sure, as I write this, is busily finding ways no part of the Establishment takes the blame for what happened.EyeSeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11150100860405466750noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7067642397144334050.post-13286697691287937812019-09-17T09:32:00.000+01:002019-09-17T09:32:22.638+01:00Making DecisionsFirst, I want to establish a ground rule (ironic, as you will see). Politics has come to be characterised as falling into two and a bit camps; Left, Right and Centre. This has been disrupted and corrupted, as it is supposed to represent polar opposites in ideas. But if we go to extremes, Stalin, a murderous authoritarian is seen as Left. Hitler, a murderous authoritarian is seen as Right. So that's not working.<br />
<br />
Clearly, we can agree that people who want to tell you what to do (and possibly engage in a bit of murdering) are Left. The opposite then, would be people who want you to be free and don't go around killing other people.<br />
<br />
State control, nationalised industry, high taxes, lots of rules and regulations, conformity. This is the Left. Small government, low tax, light regulation, liberty and personal freedom, that would be the other end.<br />
<br />
Clearly, we have a solid candidate for the Left today in Corbyn and his cronies (no suggestion of murdering, but very keen on people who do), but we don't have anyone brave enough to stand up for the Right. Oh, we get a bit of it, but then they run scared and apologise for saying something sensible. Terrified of what the Left might say.<br />
<br />
The Left have created a 'narrative', which is their version of the truth. They opted for a narrative as it doesn't actually have to be the truth. They explained this away by saying that there is no such thing as absolute truth, just your truth and my truth. To which someone said, 'kick a rock and you'll see what's true'.<br />
<br />
Consequently, a child born a boy, doesn't have to be a boy, if he chooses not to be (although the activists of the Left will help him choose). Rape victims must be believed, regardless of evidence and a hate crime is a crime if the victim says it is.<br />
<br />
George Orwell's book 1984 was lampooning Left ideology, pointing out its dangerous stupidities. It wasn't supposed to be considered a manual of how things should be.<br />
<br />
'Woke' is supposed to define people in the know, but in fact describes the opposite; sheep, repeating the most obvious falsehoods. Very Orwellian.<br />
<br />
'Safe spaces' are no such things, they are hideaways for people who are so lacking in understanding and social skills, that they cannot contemplate a contrary opinion. Common in universities, you have to wonder just how people, supposedly there to learn and debate, have such narrow views and are unable to accept other views exist. Perhaps it's something to do with the input of their Left ideologue lecturers.<br />
<br />
And of course, the greatest demonstration of the dangers presented by Left ideology currently, is Brexit. For some, maybe we can call them traditionalists, it is the result of a democratic vote that has decided we should leave the international organisation that, for some reason we asked to run our country. Pretty much the ultimate outsourcing.<br />
<br />
But for others, the losers, it is not that simple. So a litany of reasons as to why the democratic result has to be ignored have been unleased, including, that it isn't democratic. The whole reason that parliament is in a mess is because the losers won't shut up and act like adults, but are a majority in parliament. Plus the little twerp Speaker breaking the oath of his office.<br />
<br />
410 constituencies voted Leave, 240 Remain. 148 Labour constituencies voted Leave, 84 Remain. 247 Conservative for Leave, 80 Remain. But in parliament, only 160 MP's are for Leave, out of 650. An outrage of course, but why should they care? Are they not better than us? Certainly seems to be their opinion.<br />
<br />
Then there is Political Correctness. Invented to stop anything being debated, as Left ideology doesn't stand up well to scrutiny.<br />
<br />
Or Climate Change. There is absolutely no science at all to support the assertion that we, through emissions are affecting the climate. The theory is sound, but we understand so little of the way climate works, that it is impossible to predict. But our emissions, seemingly huge, are inconsequential compared to the size of the 'system'. All the alarmists have is their crooked computer models, which have already been proven to be hopelessly wrong.<br />
<br />
But 'the science is settled' and must not be debated, or further investigated. Why would that be!? Why, for the first time in history, should we not apply the scientific method to a problem of science?<br />
<br />
Because Left ideology doesn't stand scrutiny.<br />
<br />
The next time someone tells you something, think about it. Is it true? Because, if it has some benefit to the Left, it's probably a lie.EyeSeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11150100860405466750noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7067642397144334050.post-78965727887396201482019-09-03T11:41:00.000+01:002019-09-03T11:48:38.074+01:00NewsWe know that the BBC is not a useful or reliable source of information on world events and hasn't been for a long time now. We have always known that Channel 4 is beyond a joke on every level, which leaves Sky. I find myself wondering, during the ridiculous and fraught times we are currently living through, whether someone at Sky News would actually die if they even attempted to address a political subject in an unbiased and objective way. Personally, I see no value in the personal view of lard bucket Boulton, who has never hidden his deep love of Left ideologies.<br />
<br />
Similarly, the Political Editor seems completely unable to deliver a coherent sentence, when all she is reporting on is a wholly positive piece of information about the Tory government, or its leadership.<br />
<br />
So, let us look at what is happening; the government of the day voted to have a simple in/out referendum on our continued membership of the EU. The MP's voted to honour the result. MP's voted to trigger Article 50 and MP's voted that if we could not get a decent deal from the EU, we leave on the terms laid out under international WTO rules. Already having all the EU regulations in place in this country of course, there is absolutely nothing to fear in this route (unless the EU act viciously, which would be confirmation of just how right we are to be leaving).<br />
<br />
MP's were elected (85% of them), on manifesto's that promised to deliver 'Brexit'. However, a childish group of MP's, doing their best Violet Elizabeth Bott impersonation, are attempting to overthrow the will of the people. They say any other move is un-democratic. Let's examine that. Parliament is a structure devised to contain a group of representatives of the people to enact laws that represent the desires and will of the people. Parliament handles the 'big stuff', projects and relationships at the national level.<br />
<br />
If they annoy the people, they are removed at a General Election. The MP's however, think that the only democracy in this country is what they vote for in the Commons, the people are irrelevant. If they didn't think that, their current shenanigans wouldn't be possible. They would just do what the sensible British people want and act reasonably. Fat chance; our current MP's, or many of them, think that they are back in the old days of rich landowner MP's being the only people with a say.<br />
<br />
Even then, many of those old MP's weren't as stunningly thick and grabbing as the current crop.<br />
<br />
Parliament never had the legal authority to join the European Union, which is why Heath lied about it so comprehensively. But having handed control of this country to a foreign power, our MP's somehow refer to their local council as a sovereign parliament! The common sense of the British people, once they realised what the EU is about and how our politicians have been misleading us, ordered the government to get us out.<br />
<br />
Why would anyone want to stay part of a declining economic area, that is corrupt to the core, a political answer to a question that passed into history decades ago and that has been holding back the otherwise dynamic British nation with its cramping regulations and protectionist tariffs? Well, vested interest is the answer. Money and advantage for many and naturally, as a bureaucrats paradise, all of the Civil Service is delighted by its inertia and corruption.<br />
<br />
The actions of the Remainer MP's are disgusting, anti-democratic and damaging to the country. Countries around the world must be shocked that such stupidity exists in the country they always thought a paragon of sense and fair play. Plus, the despots around the world must be in hysterics seeing us become ever more like them.<br />
<br />
Notice that Remainers have never made a case for staying in the EU, nor do they offer a solution to the impasse in the form of an acceptable deal (they constantly say they are against all kinds of things, but are not trying to stop Brexit. I wonder if anyone in the country believes them?)<br />
<br />
Iceland pulled out of joining the EU (they, like everyone else thought that joining whilst their country was broke, would save them - it's why we joined) and went on to rapidly turn their economy around, by acting in self interest. Greece suffered a catastrophic decline in their economy and it has stayed that way, because it cannot act in self interest, because it is part of the EU. Staying in shows their politicians firmly believe that Greeks are incapable of running their own country.<br />
<br />
Britain needs to ignore people like Grieve and Hammond who believe Britain is a hopeless, useless country unable to stand on its own two feet. Britain is not only a very capable country, but once free of the shackles of the EU corpse, would become ever more so. EyeSeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11150100860405466750noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7067642397144334050.post-20642925206861830362019-03-18T10:46:00.000+00:002019-03-18T10:46:04.949+00:00What Is May Up To?It seems puzzling, doesn't it? Theresa May has made some pretty unequivocal statements about Brexit, Leave means Leave, we will leave on March 29th (108 times in parliament), carry out the democratic will of the people etc. But here we are, on the cusp of handing actual and real control of the UK to the EU. In, but with no say - which is what her 'deal' supplied for her by the EU, is actually about.<br />
<br />
So what is May, clumsy, incompetent, weak? Let's look at what happens through the process and not what she says. Article 50 is triggered with no deal as a the legal option. She appoints a Brexit minister, who turns out to have no say or role at all in the process. May threatens her cabinet and surprises them with the EU's stich up deal. It is binned.<br />
<br />
May sticks with it. May says it is the best deal possible, which is probably true from her perspective, but not if you are supporting the UK side. She sacks any Brexiteer for any reason; four of her cabinet ignore the whip and it has no consequence whatsoever, because they are Remainers. One even resigns from his Conservative Association, but is treated as a faithful soldier.<br />
<br />
May allows stupid little (bleating) votes of no consequence and then agrees to be bound by them, which she was not obliged to do. Because they disrupt leaving?<br />
<br />
So what does all this point to? Only one thing. From the outset May has had no intention of delivering Brexit, doesn't care a fig for parliamentary protocol, the good of the country, business, the economy or democracy. She cares about the EU. Why would you be moved by the aforementioned list, when the EU, being a dictatorship, doesn't give a hoot for these things and being an acolyte of this institution, nor does she. Political power trumps all.<br />
<br />
If her constituency party was run by people of character, courage and decency, they would recall her and have a by-election with the stated aim of getting rid of the embarrassment she represents to party and country. But I don't suppose they are Conservatives, either.<br />
<br />
I suspect she called a General Election because she hoped that it would see more Brexit backing MP's lose their seats, more than she worried about her majority. She finally put the lid on any kind of real victory when she lurched to the Left, copying Corbyn's 'ideas'. Yep, she is a serial loser.EyeSeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11150100860405466750noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7067642397144334050.post-23845730070266870482019-03-14T11:19:00.000+00:002019-03-14T11:19:16.427+00:00Disgraceful; A Laughing StockWell, many parliaments around the world are based on the British model, but it showed just how bad it can be when stocked almost exclusively by self-impressed morons. Last night was a disgrace and will have made Britain and British politics the laughing stock of the world. Trump hasn't even come close to the haughty, hubristic tantrums on display here.<br />
<br />
Here is the background. In the early Seventies, a Conservative(!) Prime Minister, Edward Heath, lied to the electorate about joining something called the Common Market. He told us it was a trading bloc and would make Britain a stronger country (we were, as all EU members are when joining, broke).<br />
<br />
He knew though, as recently released government documents show, that the (then) EEC was a political project to unite all the individual countries of Europe into a single superstate, with a central government, and all the attendant structures such as tax, policing, military, laws, currency etc.<br />
<br />
The EU has had as its abiding principle since its inception between the World Wars, that it should operate in secret and not reveal its objectives. Have you ever heard a debate about 'Europe'? Has its way of working ever been explained to you, at school, university, on TV? No. And that is very important to its success.<br />
<br />
The EU is run by unelected bureaucrats, often referred to as technocrats, and has a pretend parliament to confuse the people of the various countries as to its operation. The MEPs can and do vote on laws proposed by the bureaucrats and can put forward amendments, but they will get the same law come back endlessly until they approve it. You can only imagine that when the single government is finally achieved this little farce will be deleted.<br />
<br />
There is no common culture across Europe, no common language. We have different traditions and laws. Only the French and German traditions of attempting to subjugate Europe are permitted going forward though, with for instance, the (German) currency crushing the economies of the Southern European countries. There is no demos, but some politicians want an empire, so Europe will be balkanised.<br />
<br />
Can you think of any example of a country, taking over several other countries and running them from a central government, which controls everything through laws and regulations? Yes, the USSR. How did that go?<br />
<br />
Something even as fundamental as the law divides us. In Britain, a traditionally strong, inventive and industrious nation, we evolved laws that constrained absolute monarchs and placed the law in the hands of the people. We vote for people to represent us in parliament and if they don't do what we want, they are chucked out at the next election.<br />
<br />
In the EU, where the law is dominated by the French, the State owns the law and the people do what they are told. A short summary of this would be, in Britain everything is legal unless we decide to make it illegal, in the EU everything is illegal unless the State allows it.<br />
<br />
This comes from the militaristic, empire building tradition of not just France, but Germany also. The French see themselves as the finest administrators in the world and so should run the EU, but need German money so tolerate them as a 'partner'. Germany think they should run it, because they pay for it and tolerate French input because there would be another war if they didn't.<br />
<br />
So, with some inkling that the EU was too different, too bureaucratic and not functioning very well and with a suspicion as to what they were up, what came next, the British voted to leave the EU. The largest turnout ever saw 17.4 million people issue this instruction.<br />
<br />
Parliament had pledged almost unanimously to action the result. Both Labour and Conservative candidates ran on a manifesto to honour that pledge. Parliament voted overwhelmingly to trigger Article 50, the mechanism by which a member informs the EU that they are leaving.<br />
<br />
However, ignoring 17.4 million people, their own election manifesto pledges and in many cases actually defying the majority of their constituents, MP's decided that no one tells them what to do. Most MP's are 'Remainers' and want to stay in the bureaucrats paradise, the EUSSR. So they started wrecking the process.<br />
<br />
The analogy that the Remain MP's are acting like children having a tantrum at not getting their way, is in fact so accurate it is beyond parody. Using a typical Marxist trick (all of them, even the 'Conservatives') the Remainers try to create a false narrative. They say that the Leavers have lied incessantly, blocked progress and want a 'hard Brexit'. That the referendum only voted Leave because of the campaign of lies by vote Leave.<br />
<br />
Let's examine that. Leave MP's have consistently insisted and voted to support the will of the people, being the proper role of parliament, and have only blocked attempts to thwart that, which cannot be characterised as 'blocking progress'. The Leave campaign was not massively funded, but may have made some technical mistakes in using the funds, on occasion, that didn't amount to a hill of beans.<br />
<br />
Remain however, had enormous resources; the UK government pumped money into it, as did foreign individuals of high net wealth and of course, the EU. Massive collusion and misuse of funds took place, which the Electoral Commission have no problem with, because they choose only to investigate Leave.<br />
<br />
As to lies, currently Britain should be in a recession, at least 600,000 people should have lost their jobs in 2016 and the pound should be on the floor. This is what Remain<i><b> promised</b> </i>would happen if we dared to vote to leave. In fact, there are at least 700,000 more in work, the economy is growing (faster than the EU) and the world is knocking on our door looking for trade deals.<br />
<b></b><i></i><b></b><br />
The media is almost all on the side of Remain, so there is no proper analysis (phew, says the EU) and the BBC fanatically so.<br />
<br />
Consequently the world is treated to the spectacle of a bunch of immature, entitled bigots acting as if they alone possess the knowledge and wherewithal to understand the blindingly simple concept of leave means leave. (Ask if they would like some money, they know the answer to that!). <br />
<br />
Here is another question for you; Remain also tell us that we trade so much with the EU that we will be destroyed if we leave (they never go any further by way of explanation, you will notice). This presupposes that the EU will not buy anything from us after we leave. But how about this; the EU is possibly the most over-regulated, risk-averse structures in the world. How much stronger and bigger would the UK economy be now, if we had never joined, never been held back by the EU?<br />
<br />
And to the final point. Remainers, like all children assert ridiculous things to confirm their position. May lost a vote yesterday (by 4 votes) and so now she is 'morally' obliged to take No Deal off the table. No mention of how the moral authority of 17.4 million people stacks up with those 4 MP's (or even the maybe 500 Loser, sorry Remainer MPs).<br />
<br />
But here is the thing. There are common laws and there are Constitutional laws. When Tony Blair decided in his supreme arrogance to abolish the position of Lord Chancellor he was informed that it was a Constitutional position and not within his gift to have any say on. (And there was Tony thinking he was either an absolute ruler of perhaps a god).<br />
<br />
This throws up a slight flaw in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland joining the European Union (and they do call it joining, even though they mean the UK to be subsumed) By handing the power to make laws in the UK and indeed to change the very nature of our law-making, the government was handing authority to a foreign power - a Constitutional act and something that is not within their power.<br />
<br />
Edward Heath wasn't just lying to make you think wrongly of the EU, he had to hide that we were signing away sovereignty, because to admit that would be to admit its illegality.<br />
<br />
Technically, we have never been in the EU because it was impossible to 'join' such an organisation. (And the EU is an organisation just like the UN, or NATO or any other international body -except they don't get to run our country!)EyeSeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11150100860405466750noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7067642397144334050.post-42289004109871209822019-02-22T10:16:00.000+00:002019-02-22T10:16:20.934+00:00The Arrogance Of PowerFancy that, the people of a democratic country giving a clear and unequivocal message to their representatives and expecting that to mean something! We are very much in a post democracy democracy, and elections are just an old fashioned way of selecting MP's. These MP's then join the club in Westminster and, with no reference to their constituencies, do what their party tells them.<br />
<br />
In this way they stand the best chance of progressing their career, which is to talk and make contacts for their own enrichment. They call this Centrist politics and convince themselves this gets them the most votes. What they mean though is business as usual, no one rock the boat - a cosy cabal to, again make the most of the career ambitions of MP's.<br />
<br />
Naturally, being a form of corruption (and after seeing with Tony Blair, just how ineffective British law is at dealing with political corruption), it attracts devious and very low quality individuals. It doesn't have to be like this, it just allows it to happen.<br />
<br />
Covering the lightweights like a security blanket is the actual government of the UK, in Brussels. They make the laws, Westminster nods them through, concentrating mainly on pursuing power and money. The lack of attention allows the EU leadership to progress, or even accelerate the political goal of the EU project; to convert the whole of Europe into a dictatorship under their control.<br />
<br />
And then along comes Brexit. Of course the MP's at first try to ignore it, but it turns out the British people have awoken from the torpor that allowed such abuse of their trust. Apparently, they still believe that MP's should do what the people tell them!<br />
<br />
It threatens to open up so many of their little secrets, this terrifying rebirth of interest in what politicians do. They nearly managed to smother the expenses scandal (or entitlement as they see it) by threatening the media, but it broke. The outrage didn't last and they renamed their (lack of) oversight as a sign that things had (not) changed. The return to political apathy was expected and manna from heaven.<br />
<br />
But the other underground political project was also starting to annoy people and coming into sharper focus. This is the quiet push by Marxists to destroy capitalism, working through the institutions to undermine the way our country is run. This thrust by the Left ensures racism is always to the fore and they promote racial tension. They do the same with sexuality, homosexuals and the more recent modish trends are the direct result of promotion by Marxists, who care not a jot for these people.<br />
<br />
The most talked about and apparent tool used by Marxism of course, is Political Correctness. This is a construct to stifle debate. In short it can be summed up by its supporting phrase "you can't say that". The other really important aspect was the destruction of education. If you look at North Korea, North Vietnam during the war there and all other communist regimes, they hate educated people to the extent that they are prepared to kill them.<br />
<br />
The reason is that people taught and indeed expected to think for themselves will forever stop Marxism, because it is such an empty and elitist creed. This is why our schools now turn out children who, after in excess of 11 years of schooling are often functionally innumerate and illiterate. I know of a youngster who thinks that Ireland (her heritage) is part of the UK and she is from a good family and should be highly intelligent.<br />
<br />
Back to Brexit. This simple matter, to leave an organisation to which Britain is uniquely unable to fit, has exposed many of the politicians for what they truly are. The Remainers, who agreed to abide by the referendum result, who campaigned in a general election to honour the will of the people have never had any such intention. They try to hide it, but they have nothing but contempt for people who disagree with them. Hence the endless, childish tantrums from the likes of the detestable Anna Soubry.<br />
<br />
The Remainers have claimed, without any supporting evidence that the pro-Brexit campaigners have lied, that they had massive mystery donors, that the Russians interfered with the vote and that they broke the law by different campaign groups colluding. The truth of course is that the Remainers had enormous resources, with funds from the UK government and the EU (talk about interference!) and from big business that always profits from the EU. The Russians did some spoofing internet stuff, that almost no one saw.<br />
<br />
As far as colluding campaign groups is concerned, Leave have proven this to be false, but the evidence has been ignored by the pro-Remain Electoral Commission who have also ignored clear and present evidence that Remain did and on a much larger scale than was even alleged, about Leave.<br />
<br />
Project Fear in its many incarnations is the biggest lie factory of the whole affair. Before the referendum we had government telling us we faced an immediate recession and massive job losses if we dared go against them and vote to Leave. Being less stupid than most politicians the public went ahead and voted for the best outcome for the UK.<br />
<br />
Having offended the elite with our opinion, they continue to spout the most ridiculous nonsense about isolation and huge price rises, shortages and companies unable to sell to the EU countries. All this happening without having any affect on the EU, who will continue to be as rich and successful as they currently are. (This is undoubtedly true, if by the EU you are exclusively referring to the likes of Juncker, Barnier and all the other bureaucrats).<br />
<br />
Lets do what Soubry and the cabal of Losers don't do; be clear. There is no Demos in Europe, we are not all alike. The arrogant French and Germans, for their own benefit have crushed the southern European economies and then, to maintain their power, interfered in these countries internal politics. And why not? Surely, soon Brussels will not interfere, they will dictate.<br />
<br />
We have different laws; in Britain everything is legal unless we agree to make something illegal. The Continental system demands that everything is illegal, unless the State makes it otherwise. This fundamental, democratic political fact is what is most annoying the Losers right now. That the people here, still get to tell them what to do.<br />
<br />
Why do you think, after whining that there should be a second referendum (that they intended to corrupt), those who have deserted their parties recently, are not keen (at all) to go back to their voters - as the situation<i> really</i> has changed in their case - and ask if they still want them as their MP?<br />
<br />
No, if we wanted a trading bloc to ensure our future prosperity, we wouldn't have joined the Common Market we would have formed an Anglosphere alliance. This would be a trading bloc that spoke the same language, had similar laws and traditions. Usefully, it also happens to be spread right across the world. Ted Heath though, wasn't thinking like that. He fully knew and understood he was joining a political project that was secretly working on a bureaucrats wet dream - a dictatorship they run.<br />
<br />
He lied to the British people and our country, weak from weak leadership ran into the embrace of the EU and its apparent largesse. Look at every other country (except France and Germany) and when they joined the EU; when they were on their knees. France and Germany of course, were going to run it, so had locked in their power and profitability from the start.<br />
<br />
Seriously, March 29th can't come soon enough. Oh, and don't fall for the latest 'can't leave on No Deal' meme. What they actually are doing is engineering that outcome and telling you it will be a catastrophe (like the one after the referendum?), so we don't actually leave. Two things; many, many deals are already in place to cover such an eventuality (the Losers are in partnership with the EU on hiding this, naturally) and EU businesses will not roll over if there is no specific, over-arching deal.<br />
<br />
Is being out of the EU a promise of wealth and greatness? No, us rational types don't go in for that sort of thing. But we will no longer be shackled to a corrupt corpse of a dictatorship.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i></i><i></i><br />
<br />EyeSeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11150100860405466750noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7067642397144334050.post-32445895294514128622019-01-25T09:05:00.000+00:002019-01-25T09:05:12.764+00:00Question TimeFiona Bruce seems to be settling in to her role and acting as a proper referee, rather than Dimbleby and his attempts to show he was the cleverest person in the room. Bruce certainly appears to have quickly learned that the Left bias she showed in her first programme doesn't protect her from that Wings' hate mob.<br />
<br />
Last night was interesting though. Nick Ferrari was OK and made useful and verifiable points as did Suella Braverman and the audience generally responded well to their points. But then there was Labour's Healy. Oh good grief. Proof that neither Cambridge nor a BA (politics though) signifies intelligence any more. Party line doctrinaire crap.<br />
<br />
Then the mad looking and sounding marketing guy, who in typical Leftie fashion shouted over people he disagreed with as soon as they started talking. He was pretty sure Dyson is a hypocrite (and had to be shut up by Fiona before he uttered clearly made up, libellous stuff), going on to say that his company was set up in Ireland specifically to be in the EU. Or maybe it was more because of the tax incentives they offer companies?<br />
<br />
But best of all, was ranty Sonia Sodha, who writes for The Observer. Repeating the tired, cliched tripe we and she have heard before as if it represented useful input. After Suella had given a fairly comprehensive overview as to why there won't be any problems with traffic through Dover, all sourced, Sonia had one of her fits.<br />
<br />
Of course the boss of Calais would say there won't be any delays, she averred. Don't know what particular bias she was attributing to him. Maybe she thought that he thought that any suggestion of delays at Calais would lead to traffic going to another port. Where they wouldn't face EU mandated delays?<br />
<br />
Being French and as part of an organisation that has received EU funding, I would have considered him unlikely to be keen to stick his head above the parapet.<br />
<br />
Sonia also had a couple of stabs at convincing us that Dyson building an HQ in Singapore and moving 2 of his 4000 UK workforce there, made him a hypocrite for backing Brexit. Luckily there was a child in the audience who absolutely skewered her (it is usual to feel that a child knows more about life and the real world than a Marxist, but nice to see it in action!).<br />
<br />
He queried whether what she was saying was that Dyson should make business decisions based on sentimentality, rather that moving into and developing new and expanding markets for his products in the Far East. Queue Sonia doing an impression of a fish. She also got agitated by people with different views from hers, being allowed to talk.<br />
<br />
The audience, apart from the well-fed woman at the front who was clearly a plant, could not understand why politicians are engineering so many problems.<br />
<br />
To end with Dyson though. How can it be hypocritical to believe the UK should break free of the shackles of the backward, stifling political project of the EU and start trading with the whole world and so build infrastructure elsewhere that Europe?EyeSeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11150100860405466750noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7067642397144334050.post-29745092632450280202018-11-20T08:30:00.001+00:002018-11-20T08:30:26.440+00:00Brexit BluesWell the Conservative party continue to display how unbelievably hapless they are in ever more inventive ways. We now know that they no longer think they should base their policies on sound economic principles, that law and order are not hugely important, small government is a ridiculous idea for a politician to believe in and democracy should be ignored when inconvenient.<br />
<br />
Along with all the members of other parties, they also hold dear that they should be able to act and operate in any way they see fit, basically feeling they are above the law. That lying is not of any consequence either, particularly when it fits their own, personal, narrow agenda. It's about me, stupid.<br />
<br />
And then at the head of the pus filled hill is Theresa May. What a piece of work she is; tough, bombastic, resolute, not afraid to offend, able to lie incessantly for tactical reasons and generally not for turning. When talking to the people who elected her and when denying a binding instruction from the country.<br />
<br />
In front of the EU bureaucrats (her kind of people) she is a doormat. The only question about her Draft Agreement is, did the EU give it to the Tories before or after the referendum? It is written in a way that gives precedence to the EU throughout, deferring to the EU as the senior partner always.<br />
<br />
Now, unless someone like Rees-Mogg led the Conservative party (and with a good majority would be an immense benefit for the country), I would now find myself in a position I have never even had to contemplate before, voting for the socialists. But in a perfect storm kind of way, we have simultaneously lost any last vestige of socialism in this country, replaced by the (currently) led extreme Marxists of Jeremy Corbyn.<br />
<br />
So, Theresa May and a grossly under-performing, shackled UK buried in a Franco-German version of the USSR, or Venezuela style communism? Which do you want, because nothing else is on offer?EyeSeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11150100860405466750noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7067642397144334050.post-46417192033214976742018-11-08T09:47:00.000+00:002018-11-08T09:47:23.540+00:00We Are In A MessHow did it come to this? In 1972, in a fit of hubris bizarrely based on weakness, the Prime Minister Ted Heath, masquerading as a Conservative lied to the country and slid the UK into the slime pit of the EU. In those days Heath was known as a 'wet' Tory - one from the Left of the party. He was of course, much worse than that. A self-important socialist, out of his depth.<br />
<br />
Now, with that innate common sense with which the country has been traditionally blessed, we have seized the opportunity to extricate ourselves from the Franco-German empire. (It is constantly said that the idea of the EU was to end European war and it has achieved that inasmuch that France and Germany have not had to start another war, as they got their empire without one).<br />
<br />
However, with dreadful irony the UK now finds itself saddled with a Prime Minister every bit as disingenuous, careless of the needs of the country and duplicitous as Heath. Despite the efforts of Project Fear, business doesn't care about leaving the EU, what they care about is knowing what is going to happen and so be able to plan. For her own selfish reasons, May is keeping them in the dark. She cannot tell us what she is up to, because it isn't what she has pledged or promised and it is not what the people required her to do.<br />
<br />
She should have no choice; the people gave her an instruction that parliament overwhelmingly accepted, yet still she thinks her personal opinion carries more weight. And in her ramblings as party leader she threw away an undoubted majority, when she started copying Labour's Marxist ideas and continues to attempt to out Left the Left.<br />
<br />
Our police are now little more than virtue-signalling social workers, running around after crimes have been committed. Yet never embarrassed by their manifest failures. Graduates wonder to older colleagues in the workplace if Africa is a country (I didn't do geography at school!), yet have a range of opinions about correct social behaviours and an identikit believe that the Tories are the devil incarnate and are deeply uncurious.<br />
<br />
Step forward with pride the education establishment that successfully created this and much beyond. Churning out kids infused with Left ideology and little actual knowledge has been very effective. They are easier to manipulate and cannot see the glaring faults in Left logic. They never learned how to think for themselves, to research but were imbued with a sense of their own self-importance.<br />
<br />
Left educated police graduates were fast tracked into senior positions, there to destroy proper policing with their tree-hugger mentality and lack of any real experience of policing. And so on, right across all sectors. A country being wrecked internally by Left ideology serving only to bring about a Marxist government that will end democracy.<br />
<br />
We see the headlines asking why the police cannot stop the rise in knife crimes, in murders, but this is the wrong question. We should be asking why are they not trying to.EyeSeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11150100860405466750noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7067642397144334050.post-40202711064745036502018-09-06T10:11:00.000+01:002018-09-06T10:11:12.483+01:00BBC Puff PiecesObviously, the |BBC has been trying to overlook the anti-Semitism in the Labour party, taking an inordinate amount of time to even mention it, let alone anything like the full range of terrorist associations of the beloved Leader Corbyn.<br />
<br />
Today they took an initiative of their own. Acting at the behest of lobby groups, they did a lovely puff piece for the wind power industry. A kind of Ponzi scheme, but most people would understand it as a scam.<br />
<br />
Basically, the main highlight was the chat with three people. A University professor, a representative of the company installing the huge offshore turbines and someone from RenewableUK, the trade body. Now, the sound of them all singing from the same hymn sheet is to be expected, but rarely if ever have I seen one comment being enthusiastically nodded at by another. <br />
<br />
We were told that offshore wind turbines are really easy to erect (done in one day - after the foundations are in place), that wind now generates 15% of our electricity and is the cheapest form of electricity generation in the UK.<br />
<br />
BBC man accepted all of this with saying a thing, either because he knows nothing about the subject he is 'reporting' on, or because he is happy to comply with nonsense.<br />
<br />
Offshore wind generation is <em>the </em>most expensive way to provide electricity. I have just checked and wind is currently supplying 1.03GW or 2.91% of our electricity and gas 48.47%. Gas of course will provide that power whenever you want it, wind farms only when the wind is in the Goldilocks zone, not too fast and not too slow. Oh, and the offshore turbines don't last anywhere near as long as predicted and no one has costed the bill for removing any wind turbines.<br />
<br />
In fact, if we started insisting that the 'Green' industry told the truth, by using correct labels then traditional power generation would be called reliable and 'renewables', unreliable.<br />
<br />
It is indeed an interesting blend, the Greens with their Marxist anti-capitalist agenda to get us to spend our wealth on a chimera and the greedy crony capitalists building the largely pointless wind and solar farms (that only 'farm' subsidies).<br />
<br />EyeSeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11150100860405466750noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7067642397144334050.post-86368186274905510442018-08-10T09:44:00.000+01:002018-08-10T09:44:41.496+01:00Big Beast Boris's BurqaYou measure a man by what he does rather than what he says. Being completely gender non-specific (rather than fluid, a non-existent type), Theresa May has rather proved that point. Boris has his heart in the right place, but is a bit inept when trying to play political games. Now, whilst that might suggest he is ill suited to politics, this would only be correct if you believe the sole purpose of politics is to corrupt the meaning of words, rather than sometimes manipulating.<br />
<br />
As such he has an appeal to the ordinary voter, precisely because he doesn't seem like the machine politician with which our parliament is very much plagued. In that regard, we emulate the US, but perhaps without quite the flamboyance. But isn't it ever this way between us and the USA?<br />
<br />
In the extraordinarily closed world of the Westminster bubble this is something that is understood, even if the general workings of the world outside the bubble is magnificently beyond their recognition.<br />
<br />
When I was being obliged to sit still, face the front and listen, I was given history as it was instinctively taught within the British culture. When the story of the peasants revolt was told to me, what actually sank into my consciousness was, that the people had become fed up with the way those in charge ran things. Sure there was detail, but it was the overview, the impact at a subconscious level amongst those peasants that was what I understood.<br />
<br />
We have the same today with the decision to leave the European Union, a vanity project of shining hubris, too bright for anyone to see. Except the we-own-the-law, different old British. When Ted Heath lied with great passion about how happy he and a bunch of other blithering idiots would be, if only he could be allowed to join and be a part of this lovely edifice, we obliged his whim. A bureaucrats wet dream.<br />
<br />
As loving, obliging parents we let him have his way and in an almost patronising way ignored the politicians playing with their tea set, dolls house, train set and cars for decades, in the firm belief that 'Europe' was over there and of no consequence, really, to us. It didn't matter. Nobody knew or cared who 'their' MEP was, what they did or even bothered to vote in Common Market, EEC, EC, EU elections.<br />
<br />
And in this way the British were the ideal dupes dreamt of by the founders of the Project; the people had to be kept in the dark, the mission of the Project had to be kept from them. After all, like full blown Communism, who in their right mind ever voted for that? And European history is full enough of revolutions (or in Britain petitions), to suggest care and secrecy were needed.<br />
<br />
If you are old enough to have lived some decades under the EU, ask yourself a question; can you remember ever hearing a debate about the EU? You can't, because (as with Man Made Global Warming) you got lots of instructions about how important it was (that was actually propaganda), but no unbiased information and certainly no debate.<br />
<br />
The truth is dangerous to any organisation that is really, at root a bunch of international gangsters.Empire builders by the back door. Consider, why are we so afraid of the consequences of leaving the EU? Sure the detail would be messy, like any cancer, it seeks to spread throughout your system, but really it is because we know, we have seen that the EU cannot be trusted. It is not a machine based on logic and it certainly has no intention of allowing International Law to interfere in its malice (Sudetenland, anyone?)<br />
<br />
So, the actual objection, the reason why Britain still managed, despite a long time under incessant propaganda, to vote down the EU membership, was because at a visceral level we just knew it was a wrong 'un. Maybe in these deliberately uneducated times, you need to look to the American Constitution to understand the true British character, the way we do government, because it was based on British constructs. Magna Carta means more to them than us, because we have been told that freedom doesn't matter any more.<br />
<br />
But the reason we left the burgeoning empire of the EU, was the same as for the Americans. They did not seek to break with Britain and initially the broad feeling was that injustice must be dealt with as a detail, no greater change was required. But, imperial and impervious the upstarts had to be ignored. And so they proved that another course was open to them.<br />
<br />
But they still continued to base their lives and laws on what they knew and what worked; British law and custom. 'We the people' is a great start to any sweeping document of state and it cannot be said too often that Britain evolved (through some trial and error) the best system of government in an imperfect world. We own the law and our politicians fear the people. In the EU, the State owns the law and the people need to fear their government.<br />
<br />
The biggest mistake? Drawing attention to the EU. Once we started looking at what they were up to, what they stood for, what they did and intended to do it became inevitable that we would revolt (or, send in a petition). And we did. 52 to 48% is a decent difference and remember, for once a lot of people voted. That it was not wider is entirely due to the success of the weakening of our education system, but enough traditional British grit remained.<br />
<br />
But then, in all the agonised ranting about how damaging leaving a bureaucrats paradise will be, we forget that the very act of being subsumed by the EU was illegal. Sure we talked of 'joining', but when you are handing political and economic power to a foreign government, it mirrors the way Poland 'joined' Germany in 1939.<br />
<br />
No British government has that power, that authority and yet Ted Heath did it. The Conservative Prime Minister Ted Heath. And what mocking irony it is that, at the denouement of our dalliance with corruption, we should be under the 'guidance' of such a similar creature, the British Prime Minister Theresa May. Ted Heath lied shamelessly to get us in and Theresa May is lying just the same, to keep us in.<br />
<br />
There used to be a fire safety advert that ran 'Get out, stay out and get the Brigade out', which is excellent advice regarding the EU (though here it would be the Brigade of Guards).<br />
<br />
So, all the confected outrage about Boris and some misquotes about what he said and intended, is actually about how scared a bunch of ne'er do well politicians are of Boris Johnson and the likelihood that he would do a proper job of Brexiting. The Burqa is peculiar, it's like a bag and it is a symbol of the beginnings of extremist attitudes. We would do well to heed wise words.<br />
<br />
<br />EyeSeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11150100860405466750noreply@blogger.com0