Urgent Need For Government Action

I have come to the conclusion that the people of the United Kingdom are in very grave danger (is there any other kind?). My research has thrown up disturbing suggestions that the population is exposed to the possibility of lion attack.

You may be comfortable at present with your commute and nice holidays and trips to the cinema, but what if one of your children was eaten by a lion? You would be devastated and maybe worse, you left it late to have a child and now are too old to organise a replacement.

Now I'm aware you may say that in your daily travels you have yet to see a lion, or hear of anyone being attacked by one. However, if you study the literature it is clear they have been here, some still are and may become more numerous and more bold.

Clearly, we cannot take any risks with the safety of our children and our children's children, so we must act now and act decisively. It is obvious that the government must provide every household (at least) with a firearm to protect themselves from lions and palisade railings around every property.

This will be expensive but is there any alternative? I don't think so. Some people will say lions aren't a danger and there is no evidence to suggest they will become so, but we cannot afford to listen to them, we must invoke the precautionary principle and act now.

In fact people who do not believe in the imminent danger from lions want your babies to be eaten and in fact probably kill babies themselves already. I, on the other hand am an expert.

As an aside, it is possible that the level of expenditure necessary will be beyond the means of a free market capitalist system to provide. Obviously an elite of experts such as myself could take over and run a command economy from the centre, where important projects will be funded and each person will be given some of their money back, according to our interpretation of their needs.

Dissenters will not then be the problem they are now. People will be free from the fear of lions. We don't want it to go this way of course, but too many objections may interfere with the proper running of the project, for the people, so a strong force will be needed to enable us to ignore those objections.

La , La, Not Listening

Over on EU Referendum, Christopher Booker is pointing out that Mrs. Thatcher was never above admitting and rectifying her mistakes, hence her change of view on man made global warming. Her modified view was as a result of finding out about the issue rather than asking a biased advisor, as had been her previous choice.

He also points out that one of the ridiculous Tories of her latter time in office, William Waldegrave has recently commented about how global warming is man made because some scientists loudly shout that it is. They don't have any specialism in the subject, Booker points out merely the 'prestige' of holding lofty positions in the Royal Society.

Of course, the Royal Society has changed its stance too. It was once a bastion of scientific enquiry and is now a Left wing political lobby group. Booker suggests that Waldegrave would do well to emulate Margaret Thatcher and read up on the subject a sort of 'get out more' for an intellectual.

But that is the crux of the problem. The believers in the cult of Warmism are not looking for debate, they do not want to study the science, they just want more to believe as they do; they are missionaries. We on the so called sceptical side make the mistake, constantly of thinking that we should prove our case, that we must show our 'workings out'.

This is why we are sceptics, because we look to see, we are not big on blind obedience. Religion held back science before and a new one is trying to capture it wholesale. But it is a religion in support of the godless. The useful idiots like Sir Paul Nurse are being manipulated by the people behind the scam, the Left, anti-capitalist ideologues.

So, when you see the trolls getting super excited at the latest bit of climate change that they cannot explain, another activist is caught lying, or plausible explanations contrary to their beliefs crop up, don't be surprised. In their minds they are Dirty Harry with no bullets, but they will still bluff with the 'do you feel lucky?' line.

Sir Paul Nurse should use his eminence to spout off on something closer to his heart and tell the believers that Man never set foot on the moon. It wouldn't be true, but then nor is man made global warming, but at least he might be expected to know as opposed to a science he isn't involved in. And whilst you might say, so what a scientific mind, an intelligent man doesn't need to be a climate scientist to understand, I would agree.

I would agree all the way and then ask, so why does a 'scientific mind', an intelligent man of status say that there should be no further investigation, that the science is settled? If he doesn't hold to scientific first principles, why should I trust what he says?

The Left Partying

With the death of Thatcher we are being treated to two types from the Left, the useful idiots repeating tosh they have been fed about the nasty Tories and the clever ones rewriting history. Ken Livingstone said that Thatcher was responsible for the banking crisis and wrecked the mining industry. Quite spectacular inversion of the truth. In fact the Left using Bill Clinton, a politician every bit as dim as Tony Blair, brought about the banking crisis by insisting mortgages were given to people who couldn't afford them.

In Britain, Brown ensured that his friends (and big taxpayers) in banking were not troubled by the regulator, which was in effect, switched off. It's like the Hacked Off campaign for state control (or better still for them to run it) of the Press. What is being said up front is not what they are actually up to. They want to be able to use the media to spout Leftist propaganda and delete any criticism or investigation. (Look at how they are squealing having been caught lying themselves).

The Left claim that the Seventies and Eighties were disastrous because of Thatcher's policies. But the reason the Cortina Man supported her was because he prospered under her. (Benefits claimants didn't and it is they who are complaining now). But it was clearly the Unions who destroyed the country. The mining industry was wrecked by the strikes Scargill called and then dumped the loss of their industry in Thatcher's lap. In Suffolk, the Port of Felixstowe stayed resolutely at work and threatened at one point to throw a Union official into the river when he insisted they strike.

The Port went from strength to strength and it wasn't due to Left wing politics, it was due to hard work. That is what the Left don't want. For them, it is important that the Right doesn't succeed or that they can hide it through lies, because it means their assertion that only Left wing policies work, only the Left can help the poor and disadvantaged can be pushed. What they actually do of course, is create more poverty and disadvantage. If ever you feel that you would really like to destroy your country then vote Labour of Lib Dem, support the Socialist Workers Party. When you feel that other people owe you a living, you are Left wing.