No matter what else went on, Mrs. May has managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Corbyn pulled a masterstroke it has to be said, by offering endless giveaways, none actually possible, to empty-headed, lazy, well-off hipsters and students, too dim to realise they are being played.
In some ways, you wanted Corbyn to win so these Wuckfits would reap what they sowed (and refuse to take responsibility as they watch the country and their own futures go down the plughole). But that would be an act of self-harm to prove a point. After the arrogant, ignorant layabouts blamed "unintelligent old people" for ruining their lives by leaving the EU.
No really, we are at that level of simple stupidity.
We don't do extreme politics in Britain, we don't have revolutions, we have proper law, half decent democracy and a good standard of living. But the uneducated, useful idiots bred for the task are changing all that. And even being asked to vote for a party led by a man who actively supports and works to further the aims of terrorists, doesn't alarm them.
So we know Corbyn co-opted the vote-Labour-forever tribe and conned not very bright youngsters with its schoolroom politics, but what did May do?
To start with, she made the campaign about her; strong, stable leadership. But she hadn't really established herself and normal, thinking people were slightly offended in a "who does this woman think she is" kind of way.
Then, to make herself appealing to Labour voters, to destroy Labour as a party, she launched some un-thought-out policies which quickly rebounded. She never pushed the real Corbyn hiding behind the soft voice and the cabal of, frankly, evil henchmen and women hovering around him, like flies on a turd.
She didn't talk about the things Tories are doing and will do and about the communist threat to the Labour Party and the country from the nasty party Marxists. And myriad other things, that should have made winning the election a stroll.
As you can see from the Conservative swings in safe Labour seats and the success in Scotland, people who struggle, in more depressed areas have no time for communism and posturing by a bunch of incompetents trying to takeover, not just the Labour Party but the country.
Thanks Theresa, for the mess you have left us in and for not being a proper Conservative. One who said that she thought we should stay in the EU at the start of the referendum campaigning and then vanished.
Showing posts with label Terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Terrorism. Show all posts
Friday, 9 June 2017
Wednesday, 24 May 2017
Hmm, Troops On The Streets.
In what can only be described as an open and obvious display of panic, the UK government has agreed to deploy troops on the streets. There are all kinds of issues here; on what basis? Aiding the civil power, martial law, or has control been handed to the military?
Are they to guard locations considered targets in a tactical or visible manner? Are they for go or show? Will they have body armour (the police do)? What are their rules of engagement?
Let's look at the decision. It is believed that the Manchester suicide bomber had a device that was sophisticated enough to make it likely others were involved (design, supply?) Plus of course, who made it and who convinced this imbecile to do what he did?
This suggests a wider 'cell' and a still extant ability to strike again. But would they? Well, if we accord them the status of dedicated fighters (soldiers, as the media insist on calling them), then yes. But if, as they undoubtedly are, they are cowards who don't quite make it as human, then they will go to ground, vanish.
The bomb maker is a valuable asset and the 'brains' will have no intention of getting caught, or killed. So my prediction is, that there will be no incident in the coming days, no follow up. Sure some other loner smack-head, psychotic cannabis freak might drive a car at people, but that will just be copying what they see on telly. Certainly no part of a plot.
So again, why the troops? Well, our senior police officers, who have repeatedly shown they are complete and utter failures, will have seen the political opportunity the murder of children presents. Whilst the rank and file want to keep a mainly unarmed force, the senior officers want an armed force (sorry, service).
What kind of ambitious, self-regarding officer of rank would not want to have high profile police, dripping with bags and equipment openly displaying guns? The bigger the better. And helicopters and maybe armoured cars.
But they have had to ask for the unusual and (in Britain) hugely political deployment of soldiers, because that will release the, clearly small number, of available trained firearms officers to face this 'imminent' threat. Of course, if they had the right numbers and the right weapons.....
These 'trained' police, don't forget, managed to shoot and wound the killer of Lee Rigby (despite us being told police can't 'shoot to wound'), shot dead a man with a chair leg in a bag, shot dead a criminal who was naked in his bedroom. They also fell down the stairs trying to deal with an unarmed drunk man who they fired at several times, mainly missing - in a house.
The 'experts' who numbered an instructor in their ranks who shot and wounded a student on a firearms course, in a classroom. And as an interesting aside, the police never get criticised or legally pursued over these events, unlike our hounded soldiers.
Consequently, I see it that the politicking of certain key, yet pathetic figures, has forced the Prime Minister to move to panic measures. And panicking, as Cressida Dick could tell you, if she is about and not under a desk somewhere, doesn't lead to good outcomes.
It was once said that the sign of an effective police force is the absence of crime, not their visibility, rushing around after a crime has been committed. But the fashion today is very much the opposite, that lots of blue lights and guns and robocops shows the police mean business.
This lazy, easy resort to deploying troops is a dangerous precedent, deeply un-British and in the circumstance pertaining, wholly unnecessary anyway. The separation of our volunteer army from the people has always been clear and carefully controlled. Thatcher unleashed the SAS for a particular operation, where their skills were essential at the Princes Gate siege of the Eighties.
Control was, briefly handed over from the civil power (the police) to the military. Once over, so control was handed back. It is that controlled, when done right.
The Army, with high velocity weapons are not the right defence in this situation on urban streets and our police have repeatedly shown themselves too often not fit for purpose. And their leadership, the root of the problem, is of very poor quality.
Dealing with this terrorism is the opposite of what we are doing. The people of Manchester have instinctively got it right, go out and show that we stand together against their plots, brave in the face of danger. What they are doing is standing up for the British values that has and does make our society great.
Thus by inference we reject their value system based on violence and coercion. But the politicians become more martial, they puff and bluster, whilst maintaining all the safeguards to keep terrorism amongst us. The Trojan Horse schools? They are not just not educating children properly, they are the start point for radicalisation, creating division.
The hate preachers - why are they still operating and often true, why are they still here? The potential terrorists returning from fighting for ISIS in Syria. Returning? Don't let them in! Even if, heaven forfend it should cause Corbyn sleepless nights to take such action.
And finally, please can I never be told again, after a terrorist atrocity that the perpetrator was 'known to police'. Or how many plots were prevented (that strangely saw no one arrested, no one is aware they happened and no one goes to prison as a result).
Are they to guard locations considered targets in a tactical or visible manner? Are they for go or show? Will they have body armour (the police do)? What are their rules of engagement?
Let's look at the decision. It is believed that the Manchester suicide bomber had a device that was sophisticated enough to make it likely others were involved (design, supply?) Plus of course, who made it and who convinced this imbecile to do what he did?
This suggests a wider 'cell' and a still extant ability to strike again. But would they? Well, if we accord them the status of dedicated fighters (soldiers, as the media insist on calling them), then yes. But if, as they undoubtedly are, they are cowards who don't quite make it as human, then they will go to ground, vanish.
The bomb maker is a valuable asset and the 'brains' will have no intention of getting caught, or killed. So my prediction is, that there will be no incident in the coming days, no follow up. Sure some other loner smack-head, psychotic cannabis freak might drive a car at people, but that will just be copying what they see on telly. Certainly no part of a plot.
So again, why the troops? Well, our senior police officers, who have repeatedly shown they are complete and utter failures, will have seen the political opportunity the murder of children presents. Whilst the rank and file want to keep a mainly unarmed force, the senior officers want an armed force (sorry, service).
What kind of ambitious, self-regarding officer of rank would not want to have high profile police, dripping with bags and equipment openly displaying guns? The bigger the better. And helicopters and maybe armoured cars.
But they have had to ask for the unusual and (in Britain) hugely political deployment of soldiers, because that will release the, clearly small number, of available trained firearms officers to face this 'imminent' threat. Of course, if they had the right numbers and the right weapons.....
These 'trained' police, don't forget, managed to shoot and wound the killer of Lee Rigby (despite us being told police can't 'shoot to wound'), shot dead a man with a chair leg in a bag, shot dead a criminal who was naked in his bedroom. They also fell down the stairs trying to deal with an unarmed drunk man who they fired at several times, mainly missing - in a house.
The 'experts' who numbered an instructor in their ranks who shot and wounded a student on a firearms course, in a classroom. And as an interesting aside, the police never get criticised or legally pursued over these events, unlike our hounded soldiers.
Consequently, I see it that the politicking of certain key, yet pathetic figures, has forced the Prime Minister to move to panic measures. And panicking, as Cressida Dick could tell you, if she is about and not under a desk somewhere, doesn't lead to good outcomes.
It was once said that the sign of an effective police force is the absence of crime, not their visibility, rushing around after a crime has been committed. But the fashion today is very much the opposite, that lots of blue lights and guns and robocops shows the police mean business.
This lazy, easy resort to deploying troops is a dangerous precedent, deeply un-British and in the circumstance pertaining, wholly unnecessary anyway. The separation of our volunteer army from the people has always been clear and carefully controlled. Thatcher unleashed the SAS for a particular operation, where their skills were essential at the Princes Gate siege of the Eighties.
Control was, briefly handed over from the civil power (the police) to the military. Once over, so control was handed back. It is that controlled, when done right.
The Army, with high velocity weapons are not the right defence in this situation on urban streets and our police have repeatedly shown themselves too often not fit for purpose. And their leadership, the root of the problem, is of very poor quality.
Dealing with this terrorism is the opposite of what we are doing. The people of Manchester have instinctively got it right, go out and show that we stand together against their plots, brave in the face of danger. What they are doing is standing up for the British values that has and does make our society great.
Thus by inference we reject their value system based on violence and coercion. But the politicians become more martial, they puff and bluster, whilst maintaining all the safeguards to keep terrorism amongst us. The Trojan Horse schools? They are not just not educating children properly, they are the start point for radicalisation, creating division.
The hate preachers - why are they still operating and often true, why are they still here? The potential terrorists returning from fighting for ISIS in Syria. Returning? Don't let them in! Even if, heaven forfend it should cause Corbyn sleepless nights to take such action.
And finally, please can I never be told again, after a terrorist atrocity that the perpetrator was 'known to police'. Or how many plots were prevented (that strangely saw no one arrested, no one is aware they happened and no one goes to prison as a result).
Tuesday, 28 May 2013
Protecting Britain
Recent events have shown up that Britain is pretty much defended along the hope and trust basis. Planning, resource provision and competence are in question.
Ten minutes out from landing at Manchester airport a Pakistani airliner has two men try to break into the cockpit, possibly muttering threats, according to reports. The pilot needs to take that seriously and what is anyone supposed to do? You have to get the plane down and deal with the men in as a remote a location as possible. Such a facility is available at Stansted.
But why would these man just allow themselves to be arrested because they couldn't hijack the plane if they were terrorists? But what else can you do when the plane lands than go on board? So trapped by the special circumstances of an aeroplane, you have limited options across the whole scenario. Of course the assault team has to be trained in storming an aircraft.
Are Essex police so trained? How many police in the UK are? When de Menedes was killed, grabbed in a bear hug to prevent any bomb activation moves and shot repeatedly in the head it seemed more likely to be the work of special forces, rather than police. But the claim is they were police officers.
What then are the measures we are aware of, to protect the UK from terrorism (we know the Royal Navy is not designed or equipped to protect our shores)?
Well, as we saw, when a 300 ton plus aircraft is considered a danger a quick reaction jet is sent to intercept and escort it. If a real danger becomes apparent our only option is to shoot the airliner down, hopefully over open countryside. After that it is our para military police. If something develops of an on-going nature then the military can be deployed and the SAS have trained for certain eventualities.
Should we not have a more advanced and integrated response prepared though? Military helicopters could be useful and the extra fire power and dedication to killing their targets of soldiers, more appropriate in certain situations. Whilst an Apache might be scary, it is probably too powerful for any domestic problem, but if area containment was important, circling Lynx with pintle mounted machine guns would be a definite deterrent.
It is unfortunate, but any incident which is 'terror' related (eg the assailant is likely to not behave rationally, nor be concerned for his own life) then overwhelming lethal force needs to be available as quickly as possible, to reduce or eliminate the threat and to form a containment. None of this seems to be understood nor in place currently. The government and the police can only brag about operations where they have had time to plan and organise.
Whenever they have to react to fast moving circumstances they are found wanting in some way. They either shoot first and ask questions later (while they cook their stories) or they absent themselves. We have a right to know why training of police firearms officers, which allegedly says that shots are aimed at the bulk of the mass, the torso, leads to the fatal shooting of an innocent man with a chair leg in a bag (hit in the hand and head) when two dangerous, armed murderers were shot in the legs, as at Woolwich. The police say eight rounds were fired and the audio of the shots was very interesting, particularly the gaps.
We wait to hear more, but one thing is plain. The government have no intention of being deviated from its course of supporting terrorism through the ring-fenced foreign aid budget, nor taking any effective action at home. To do so would be contrary to the Left ethos of undermining Western society, to which our political class cleave.
Ten minutes out from landing at Manchester airport a Pakistani airliner has two men try to break into the cockpit, possibly muttering threats, according to reports. The pilot needs to take that seriously and what is anyone supposed to do? You have to get the plane down and deal with the men in as a remote a location as possible. Such a facility is available at Stansted.
But why would these man just allow themselves to be arrested because they couldn't hijack the plane if they were terrorists? But what else can you do when the plane lands than go on board? So trapped by the special circumstances of an aeroplane, you have limited options across the whole scenario. Of course the assault team has to be trained in storming an aircraft.
Are Essex police so trained? How many police in the UK are? When de Menedes was killed, grabbed in a bear hug to prevent any bomb activation moves and shot repeatedly in the head it seemed more likely to be the work of special forces, rather than police. But the claim is they were police officers.
What then are the measures we are aware of, to protect the UK from terrorism (we know the Royal Navy is not designed or equipped to protect our shores)?
Well, as we saw, when a 300 ton plus aircraft is considered a danger a quick reaction jet is sent to intercept and escort it. If a real danger becomes apparent our only option is to shoot the airliner down, hopefully over open countryside. After that it is our para military police. If something develops of an on-going nature then the military can be deployed and the SAS have trained for certain eventualities.
Should we not have a more advanced and integrated response prepared though? Military helicopters could be useful and the extra fire power and dedication to killing their targets of soldiers, more appropriate in certain situations. Whilst an Apache might be scary, it is probably too powerful for any domestic problem, but if area containment was important, circling Lynx with pintle mounted machine guns would be a definite deterrent.
It is unfortunate, but any incident which is 'terror' related (eg the assailant is likely to not behave rationally, nor be concerned for his own life) then overwhelming lethal force needs to be available as quickly as possible, to reduce or eliminate the threat and to form a containment. None of this seems to be understood nor in place currently. The government and the police can only brag about operations where they have had time to plan and organise.
Whenever they have to react to fast moving circumstances they are found wanting in some way. They either shoot first and ask questions later (while they cook their stories) or they absent themselves. We have a right to know why training of police firearms officers, which allegedly says that shots are aimed at the bulk of the mass, the torso, leads to the fatal shooting of an innocent man with a chair leg in a bag (hit in the hand and head) when two dangerous, armed murderers were shot in the legs, as at Woolwich. The police say eight rounds were fired and the audio of the shots was very interesting, particularly the gaps.
We wait to hear more, but one thing is plain. The government have no intention of being deviated from its course of supporting terrorism through the ring-fenced foreign aid budget, nor taking any effective action at home. To do so would be contrary to the Left ethos of undermining Western society, to which our political class cleave.
Thursday, 1 November 2012
Palestine
The Daily Telegraph have a comment piece by a member of an organisation long known for supporting violence above all other means of making its point, the PLO. Dr Nabeel Shaath represents the PLO and Fatah, another group keen on terror as a weapon and apparently was a 'Palestinian' foreign minister. The piece she has written is an extremely poorly constructed example of propaganda.
In it, she claims that in 1917 Britain, an imperial, colonial power, to use as many 'pejoratives' as she can, forced a settlement on an area owned by the Palestinians. What isn't clear is that she invented these people. They could be the fairies in your garden. Throughout history, no country has existed called Palestine. Sure, it was a name for an area, but not a people.
It must annoy her, as she insists that her people should be allowed, by UN mandate I guess, to murder Jews as and when they see fit, that a land of Israel did and does once again exist. It must be truly sad to find yourself 'led' by psychopaths for whom killing is entertainment and whose long suffering people come to see it as an inevitable part of their lives, as the IRA did to generations in Northern Ireland. Those now saddled with the title Palestinian are so accursed.
But such is the fate of a Left supported drive to create violence in the Middle East. By allowing miscreants to push guilt afflicted politicians of weak morals, to support the establishment of Palestine, they merely created institutionalised violence, guaranteed to be unending.
Let's be in no doubt; the establishment of Israel in 1948 was also a guilt-ridden result of Nazi barbarism in WW2. It solved one problem and salved consciences, but it created more problems as well. The Muslims in the area don't get a good deal, but this is mainly the fault of Dr. Shaath and her friends. No Palestinian could offer an olive branch to Israel and seek peace solutions to their differences; Hamas and Fatah exist to kill their own dissenters as much as Jews.
You might want to ask Dr. Shaath why 'her people' so frequently fire missiles into Israel and then, why they site the missiles in residential areas. The answers are simple and cruel. They want to keep the violence going and they want Israel to strike back and kill civilians. The more the better; it allows their Left liberal friends in the West to wail and whine incessantly. It isn't balance to allow people like her to spout propaganda, it is wrong and it is always wrong.
In it, she claims that in 1917 Britain, an imperial, colonial power, to use as many 'pejoratives' as she can, forced a settlement on an area owned by the Palestinians. What isn't clear is that she invented these people. They could be the fairies in your garden. Throughout history, no country has existed called Palestine. Sure, it was a name for an area, but not a people.
It must annoy her, as she insists that her people should be allowed, by UN mandate I guess, to murder Jews as and when they see fit, that a land of Israel did and does once again exist. It must be truly sad to find yourself 'led' by psychopaths for whom killing is entertainment and whose long suffering people come to see it as an inevitable part of their lives, as the IRA did to generations in Northern Ireland. Those now saddled with the title Palestinian are so accursed.
But such is the fate of a Left supported drive to create violence in the Middle East. By allowing miscreants to push guilt afflicted politicians of weak morals, to support the establishment of Palestine, they merely created institutionalised violence, guaranteed to be unending.
Let's be in no doubt; the establishment of Israel in 1948 was also a guilt-ridden result of Nazi barbarism in WW2. It solved one problem and salved consciences, but it created more problems as well. The Muslims in the area don't get a good deal, but this is mainly the fault of Dr. Shaath and her friends. No Palestinian could offer an olive branch to Israel and seek peace solutions to their differences; Hamas and Fatah exist to kill their own dissenters as much as Jews.
You might want to ask Dr. Shaath why 'her people' so frequently fire missiles into Israel and then, why they site the missiles in residential areas. The answers are simple and cruel. They want to keep the violence going and they want Israel to strike back and kill civilians. The more the better; it allows their Left liberal friends in the West to wail and whine incessantly. It isn't balance to allow people like her to spout propaganda, it is wrong and it is always wrong.
Friday, 6 July 2012
High Noon On The M6
You heard about the police response to someone having an electronic 'cigarette' on a coach on the M6 I suppose? The care-in-the-community senior officers that run policing in Britain today have very quickly pointed out that the response was 'proportionate'. They are quick to say it to hopefully plant that thought in your mind, before you think about it for yourself.
Because if that was proportionate to a no-credible-threat scenario, we must presume that if a bomb was actually known to have been on the coach, the police would have used a nuclear strike to 'neutralise the threat'. Proportionate I'm sure you'll agree.
I said above that there was no credible threat and I used this phrase because the police have said the exact opposite.To them 'some vapour' on a coach is clear evidence of a terrorist plot. Probably with the caveat that it is 'better to be safe than sorry'. Of course, bearing in mind the reckless way the police handle firearms, I don't think allowing a group of them to point guns at a coach-load of innocent people is a 'safe' option.
What the police are saying is, that Britain is a country so constantly threatened by terrorists, that anything like this has to be assumed to be a real and plausible threat. Whereas, back on this planet, the balance of probability sits firmly on the side of no likely threat. Generally, the population isn't a seething mass of bombers (evidenced by the almost complete lack of bombings) and proof of such intent needs to be firmly established.
Someone had phoned from the coach. Was it a bomb expert? No. So, you get a load of back up ready, but you stop the coach with one marked car. Previously, you have gone back to your source on the phone and told him that an officer will enter the coach and ask for 'Dave Biggar' to make himself known. The informant raises his hand and the single officer (the other waiting by the coach door) makes his way down the coach. As 'Dave' perhaps walks with the officer past the suspect he indicates and the officer grabs the man's hands, the other officer is summoned and more cars move up.
Because the suspect thinks the police are there for someone else he is not alert and should be easy to contain. This is just one idea, another might be to stop the coach because 'smoke is coming out of the wheels' as the brakes might be stuck. Whilst evacuating the coach 'for safety' the police grab the suspect.
But no, the great idea our proportionate minded police have is to deploy fire engines, erect decontamination tunnels, ambulances, armed police by the squadron and bomb disposal. Just to find out what is actually going on. It is similar to having police burst through windows and doors of a suburban semi, shouting with a helicopter hovering overhead and police dogs barking, because raised voices had been heard.
'Everything alright?' the officers would say. And once it is discovered that in fact all is in order they would troop out, without a hint of shame, merely pausing to add, 'you might want to turn your telly down a bit'.
It is clear from incident after incident that the police don't have a plan (apart from how to get to work in the morning and that is taxing enough), for any eventuality and they are supremely poor at making one up as they go. It is also quite clear that they are very, very keen on weapons and having them, want to deploy them whenever possible.
It used to be that you had to try to keep police officers from getting too excited by the blue lights and sirens, now it is the most senior officers who have a fetishistic love of drama and display. A dangerous place to be, when we also have such dilettantish politicians.
Because if that was proportionate to a no-credible-threat scenario, we must presume that if a bomb was actually known to have been on the coach, the police would have used a nuclear strike to 'neutralise the threat'. Proportionate I'm sure you'll agree.
I said above that there was no credible threat and I used this phrase because the police have said the exact opposite.To them 'some vapour' on a coach is clear evidence of a terrorist plot. Probably with the caveat that it is 'better to be safe than sorry'. Of course, bearing in mind the reckless way the police handle firearms, I don't think allowing a group of them to point guns at a coach-load of innocent people is a 'safe' option.
What the police are saying is, that Britain is a country so constantly threatened by terrorists, that anything like this has to be assumed to be a real and plausible threat. Whereas, back on this planet, the balance of probability sits firmly on the side of no likely threat. Generally, the population isn't a seething mass of bombers (evidenced by the almost complete lack of bombings) and proof of such intent needs to be firmly established.
Someone had phoned from the coach. Was it a bomb expert? No. So, you get a load of back up ready, but you stop the coach with one marked car. Previously, you have gone back to your source on the phone and told him that an officer will enter the coach and ask for 'Dave Biggar' to make himself known. The informant raises his hand and the single officer (the other waiting by the coach door) makes his way down the coach. As 'Dave' perhaps walks with the officer past the suspect he indicates and the officer grabs the man's hands, the other officer is summoned and more cars move up.
Because the suspect thinks the police are there for someone else he is not alert and should be easy to contain. This is just one idea, another might be to stop the coach because 'smoke is coming out of the wheels' as the brakes might be stuck. Whilst evacuating the coach 'for safety' the police grab the suspect.
But no, the great idea our proportionate minded police have is to deploy fire engines, erect decontamination tunnels, ambulances, armed police by the squadron and bomb disposal. Just to find out what is actually going on. It is similar to having police burst through windows and doors of a suburban semi, shouting with a helicopter hovering overhead and police dogs barking, because raised voices had been heard.
'Everything alright?' the officers would say. And once it is discovered that in fact all is in order they would troop out, without a hint of shame, merely pausing to add, 'you might want to turn your telly down a bit'.
It is clear from incident after incident that the police don't have a plan (apart from how to get to work in the morning and that is taxing enough), for any eventuality and they are supremely poor at making one up as they go. It is also quite clear that they are very, very keen on weapons and having them, want to deploy them whenever possible.
It used to be that you had to try to keep police officers from getting too excited by the blue lights and sirens, now it is the most senior officers who have a fetishistic love of drama and display. A dangerous place to be, when we also have such dilettantish politicians.
Monday, 31 October 2011
War And Peace
The Italian press are reporting that a return of terrorism is likely if the labour reforms demanded by the EU are enacted. Now, whilst it might be Italy that is wrong in this scenario, it is nevertheless a fact. But just as the Euro assumes all countries have identical financial and economic situations, so the EU itself assumes ever country has the same systems of justice and social standards.
Nick Clegg believes this too and David Cameron has been swept up thinking the EU is actually a functioning Utopia. In Britain, I can go to Scotland and leaving aside some local traditions and customs, feel no different than at home. This is patently not true if I were to go to Italy. There is only the slimmest of shared experience. This has been covered up by the EU technocrats as of no consequence, because as they get their way, national traits will be steamrollered out of existence. Except they aren't.
The fault lies with the short-termism of politicians. They do not act for the long term good of their country, but for the short term, gains that reflect on them immediately (because we are too stupid to understand the long game). So they do not examine a system and see how best to achieve an end result, they just pile in and expect things to turn out OK. If an effort had been made to create a European standard, to show up the nature of our shared civilization, it may still have not been instantaneous, but we would be well on the way.
Instead, the nearest we get is forced solutions; a Europe wide police force, employment laws, health and safety edicts, Human Rights and the Code Napoleon. The usual big government solution, top down instruction. They didn't even consider best practice here, otherwise much would emulate the UK systems, rather than imposing French ones that don't even work well there. No, the EU had at its core the kernel of a decent idea, but instead of cleverly working out a system to suit a diverse citizenry, they designed a system to suit French politicians and technocrats. It was bound to fail. Arrogance always does.
Nick Clegg believes this too and David Cameron has been swept up thinking the EU is actually a functioning Utopia. In Britain, I can go to Scotland and leaving aside some local traditions and customs, feel no different than at home. This is patently not true if I were to go to Italy. There is only the slimmest of shared experience. This has been covered up by the EU technocrats as of no consequence, because as they get their way, national traits will be steamrollered out of existence. Except they aren't.
The fault lies with the short-termism of politicians. They do not act for the long term good of their country, but for the short term, gains that reflect on them immediately (because we are too stupid to understand the long game). So they do not examine a system and see how best to achieve an end result, they just pile in and expect things to turn out OK. If an effort had been made to create a European standard, to show up the nature of our shared civilization, it may still have not been instantaneous, but we would be well on the way.
Instead, the nearest we get is forced solutions; a Europe wide police force, employment laws, health and safety edicts, Human Rights and the Code Napoleon. The usual big government solution, top down instruction. They didn't even consider best practice here, otherwise much would emulate the UK systems, rather than imposing French ones that don't even work well there. No, the EU had at its core the kernel of a decent idea, but instead of cleverly working out a system to suit a diverse citizenry, they designed a system to suit French politicians and technocrats. It was bound to fail. Arrogance always does.
Wednesday, 29 September 2010
Oh No! Terrorism
And here again are the dramatic headlines -Mumbai style terrorist attacks foiled. Now when I first heard this I assumed that they had been foiled in the same way Brown was lauded for foiling two attacks previously i.e. the plots didn't work. But no, these planned attacks on the UK, France and Germany were thwarted because a big cheese was taken out by an unmanned drone in Waziristan. I fear even now, with this piece of information that I am still cynical. So, all the other people who would clearly be involved in a fairly detailed and large scale operation, to simultaneously attack three countries, couldn't carry on without him?
We have to be watchful certainly but I get fed up and weary of repeatedly hearing of plots foiled with no evidence whatsoever. No arrests, no news stories about armed police swooping on an address etc etc. Let's be clear on this; there is a real fear of terrorism in this country and it has largely been placed in people's minds by government. Horrible though the murders of 7/7 were we should keep a sense of proportion. It is the only credible attack there has been and the deaths from terrorism in Northern Ireland between 1969 and today amount to 3568. Over 20 people a year, on average, die in police chases. 2008/9 was a year of reduced murders in England and Wales, but there were still 648.
Against this you have government stories of ricin plots that turn out to have been entirely untrue and unfounded. Or high profile raids with multiple arrests in a blaze of publicity, followed a little later by a much quieter release of all 'suspects' with payment of compensation. Most of what we are told is untrue and the police are wrapped up with imminent threats and a paramilitary culture that is unhelpful and contributes to their well-earned reputation as bumbling Keystone Cops.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)