We appear to be in a financial crisis, but can you be sure? Politicians are doing some bizarre things that seem quite political rather than useful. Printing money. I thought that money supply was a tiny bit crucial to how your country's economy ran, but there seems this idea that if we re short of money then we should print some. Does it really work like that? Blair and Brown kept the country drugged and so believing that this Laurel and Hardy duo were is some way competent or useful. The drug was borrowed money. Yes we all felt part of a wonderful, prosperous, successful country because we, and Gordon borrowed on a massive scale. Now the debt falls due and we really don't like or want the pain, well no, but what to do. Ed Balls, trying to keep the idea that stupidity might be a winner going, says we should carry on borrowing and feeling good (and probably print a load more dosh too).
I can't help thinking that our parents (and I'm no youngster) had a better understanding. They thought education was important and they revered wisdom, which came as is said, with winters. Now we don't need education as a benign class of left liberals has seized power and they will do everything for us. And here we are, in what the old Suffolk wits would call a rum do.
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
Murdoch Runs Britain
A facile comment, but one designed to serve a purpose. The Sun newspaper, of the Murdoch 'empire', has happily in the past taken credit for winning elections. So be it. If people are dim enough to follow the advice of a newspaper written to a reading age of 8, then that is the nature of democracy. I don't remember too much bleating from the Left when Murdoch was, for totally selfish business reasons supporting the snake-oil salesman Blair.
But how much influence does he have? A Channel 4 programme seemed to suggest he is an immense power in the land and not a good one either. I confess to not being able to watch much of such a programme, but the snippet I did see contained a typical, left liberal deceit. They said that the government (which was Blair at the time) wanted to amend a law to allow foreigners to own terrestrial broadcasters in the UK. The edit then cut to Murdoch and Sky TV and the recent attempt to gain 100% control. But Sky isn't a terrestrial broadcaster. The stunt Murdoch pulled was that the law on satellite broadcasting was written specifically to allow only one digital broadcaster, so the winning company could establish itself and recover costs before having to compete. But Murdoch skirted this by launching an analogue system. BSB, the proposed digital broadcaster was taking a leisurely, money no object approach to getting their service up and was eaten up by the efficient rival.
The power in this land clearly lies with a left liberal leaning media that will have no truck with any opposition. What it believes and says is right, no matter what, because they are inherently good people. Definitely the right people to tell others what to do and definitely right on everything. When their beliefs differ from reality, then reality has to be altered to fit (known to ordinary people as lies). This was the role of Alistair Campbell and others in the Blair government, though here the 'narrative' was more self-serving than to support an ideology, this being a concept that Blair did without. Most of the brain-washing in this country is done by the BBC, which believes in some very strange and unsupported things, with religious fervour (religion being something it is not keen on, ironically). They have been convinced by political activists, who are people very like them, that the world is subject to climate change caused by man. To avoid any embarrassment they have declared that the subject must not be debated and they will not give airtime to anything that disagrees. Particularly not science, scientists or facts. And they also assure us Murdoch is a menace.
But how much influence does he have? A Channel 4 programme seemed to suggest he is an immense power in the land and not a good one either. I confess to not being able to watch much of such a programme, but the snippet I did see contained a typical, left liberal deceit. They said that the government (which was Blair at the time) wanted to amend a law to allow foreigners to own terrestrial broadcasters in the UK. The edit then cut to Murdoch and Sky TV and the recent attempt to gain 100% control. But Sky isn't a terrestrial broadcaster. The stunt Murdoch pulled was that the law on satellite broadcasting was written specifically to allow only one digital broadcaster, so the winning company could establish itself and recover costs before having to compete. But Murdoch skirted this by launching an analogue system. BSB, the proposed digital broadcaster was taking a leisurely, money no object approach to getting their service up and was eaten up by the efficient rival.
The power in this land clearly lies with a left liberal leaning media that will have no truck with any opposition. What it believes and says is right, no matter what, because they are inherently good people. Definitely the right people to tell others what to do and definitely right on everything. When their beliefs differ from reality, then reality has to be altered to fit (known to ordinary people as lies). This was the role of Alistair Campbell and others in the Blair government, though here the 'narrative' was more self-serving than to support an ideology, this being a concept that Blair did without. Most of the brain-washing in this country is done by the BBC, which believes in some very strange and unsupported things, with religious fervour (religion being something it is not keen on, ironically). They have been convinced by political activists, who are people very like them, that the world is subject to climate change caused by man. To avoid any embarrassment they have declared that the subject must not be debated and they will not give airtime to anything that disagrees. Particularly not science, scientists or facts. And they also assure us Murdoch is a menace.
Friday, 22 July 2011
MP Tom Watson And Parliamentary Rigour
Bravo for Tom Watson, a Labour member of the committee that grilled the Murdoch's recently (and who's party also supplied the person who attacked Rupert Murdoch), who has become aware of a possible mendacious statement by James. It seems the younger of the clan claimed not to know something that apparently others say he did. If he has misled the committee, Watson wants the police to investigate.
Now let us be clear, this is a nasty affair and whoever has been up to no good should be discovered and dealt with under the laws of the land. But the thing is, this is still really a minor matter and yet Mr Watson wants to pursue the miscreants at all costs. The same rigour seemed absent though when his ex-leader, Mr Blair, lied to Parliament in order to attack another country, Iraq. This cost the country a not inconsiderable sum and, much, much worse the lives of a lot of completely innocent and uninvolved people, not least our forces who did not need to be there. But why did we invade? Was it just for Blair's vanity? His fame and the impact it could have on his 'saleability' later? There were no WMD's and we knew that, so just what was he up to?
Then of course, we have the related death of a civil servant who was involved in stating that there were no WMD's before the lies that took us to war, Dr David Kelly. There is not only an absence of rigour over investigating his death, there is official interference to ensure there is no proper investigation. These are real issues of national importance that should be investigated at all costs, with no stone left unturned. Then we might see more than mock outrage from a Director of Communications who really was a danger in No 10. But Mr Watson doesn't seem to see any need for rigour here. The Murdoch's may not be the most pleasant people, but the Left represent the extreme in that respect.
Now let us be clear, this is a nasty affair and whoever has been up to no good should be discovered and dealt with under the laws of the land. But the thing is, this is still really a minor matter and yet Mr Watson wants to pursue the miscreants at all costs. The same rigour seemed absent though when his ex-leader, Mr Blair, lied to Parliament in order to attack another country, Iraq. This cost the country a not inconsiderable sum and, much, much worse the lives of a lot of completely innocent and uninvolved people, not least our forces who did not need to be there. But why did we invade? Was it just for Blair's vanity? His fame and the impact it could have on his 'saleability' later? There were no WMD's and we knew that, so just what was he up to?
Then of course, we have the related death of a civil servant who was involved in stating that there were no WMD's before the lies that took us to war, Dr David Kelly. There is not only an absence of rigour over investigating his death, there is official interference to ensure there is no proper investigation. These are real issues of national importance that should be investigated at all costs, with no stone left unturned. Then we might see more than mock outrage from a Director of Communications who really was a danger in No 10. But Mr Watson doesn't seem to see any need for rigour here. The Murdoch's may not be the most pleasant people, but the Left represent the extreme in that respect.
Monday, 18 July 2011
Met Police In A Mess
Well, the Metropolitan Police are currently putting up a serious challenge to the Keystone Cops. Imbued with the novel idea that the police, in addition to being social workers in uniform are also a branch of government, we see some decisions of gargantuan stupidity being enacted. Sir Paul Stephenson, another titled for time-served non-entity, resigns but skweams like a child that it is not his fault. Why, he wonders, does it seem wrong to the man in the street that a senior police officer should dine repeatedly with people whom his force is investigating? And why is it inappropriate to hire someone who is also from that organisation? I mean how did he get to hear of Mr Wallis? And how is it that Mr Wallis has 2 days a week free to be a PR consultant to the Met, if he is the busy editor of a large circulation newspaper?
Now Yates too has gone. He seemed someone on whom to rely initially, but after becoming top anti-terrorist dog, he did seem a little shifty in interviews, nothing you could put your finger on but a little shifty. Maybe his mind was on other things. This is all getting very odd and is not helped by the BBC and the Guardian constantly attempting to bring Cameron's name into every item on the phone hacking scandal. Could Coulsen not really know what was going on when he was editor, not least when you consider the scale of the thing? And is it possible that others were not up to the same thing? Most unbelievable of all is that so far Blair and Campbell have managed to stay out of it.
Now Yates too has gone. He seemed someone on whom to rely initially, but after becoming top anti-terrorist dog, he did seem a little shifty in interviews, nothing you could put your finger on but a little shifty. Maybe his mind was on other things. This is all getting very odd and is not helped by the BBC and the Guardian constantly attempting to bring Cameron's name into every item on the phone hacking scandal. Could Coulsen not really know what was going on when he was editor, not least when you consider the scale of the thing? And is it possible that others were not up to the same thing? Most unbelievable of all is that so far Blair and Campbell have managed to stay out of it.
Friday, 15 July 2011
Abbott on Brown
Unbelievable. Diane Abbott may be most famous for saying that other people should not be allowed to send their children to 'elite' schools, whilst she should be, but last night on 'This Week' she excelled even this.
Straight-faced the champagne socialist spoke of the speech by Gordon Brown in the House of Commons. She started by saying she was actually there, which is nice as the dim witted general public thought parliamentary debate etc was rather what the £65,000+ that MP's receive from them, was for. Still, this allowed the Abbott to say categorically that it was an amazing sight, that the passion that Gordon felt clearly came through. What is the woman on? Brown was passionate about something that completely passed him by previously. It was the mock outrage of the cynical politician, but in this case one with no talent to deceive; he certainly is no Blair. Brown was merely setting up a political position that presumably he plans to come back to later, to attack News International/Corp. in some way. He is unhinged and Abbott supporting such feckless abandonment of principle should be seen as what it is, shameless politicking. It does make you wonder if, despite their protestations of effort, politicians can climb up to the level of respect the phone hacking journalists currently possess.
Straight-faced the champagne socialist spoke of the speech by Gordon Brown in the House of Commons. She started by saying she was actually there, which is nice as the dim witted general public thought parliamentary debate etc was rather what the £65,000+ that MP's receive from them, was for. Still, this allowed the Abbott to say categorically that it was an amazing sight, that the passion that Gordon felt clearly came through. What is the woman on? Brown was passionate about something that completely passed him by previously. It was the mock outrage of the cynical politician, but in this case one with no talent to deceive; he certainly is no Blair. Brown was merely setting up a political position that presumably he plans to come back to later, to attack News International/Corp. in some way. He is unhinged and Abbott supporting such feckless abandonment of principle should be seen as what it is, shameless politicking. It does make you wonder if, despite their protestations of effort, politicians can climb up to the level of respect the phone hacking journalists currently possess.
Thursday, 14 July 2011
Dr. David Kelly
I have referred to this a couple of times in other posts as quite clearly unsatisfactory and unfinished business, as it really does bug me, so I thought I would explain my concerns (or some of them).
David Kelly had made plans, not least regarding his daughters wedding, but suddenly decided to kill himself. Why? The police operation to find him 'started' before he had even left for his walk, let alone had been reported missing. The house was searched by officers who insisted his wife stayed outside. The time of death was inaccurate because the pathologist left it many hours before taking a temperature reading. Very odd. Why were the police not pushing for an 'estimated time of death'? Why the insistence that only two police officers were the first to turn up, when the civilians present reported three? Why no inquest, which is highly unusual? Why did Hutton ignore glaring inconsistencies? Why has the evidence and opinion been ignored of the two paramedics attending that there was too little blood for a death by suicide, caused by slashing the wrist? Why are eminent doctors, including those with relevant expertise, being ignored when they say that it cannot have been suicide? If David Kelly was murdered, as the evidence seems to suggest, who stood to gain from his silence?
Who is being protected? (And it certainly isn't the Iraqi's as Norman Baker bizarrely speculates in his otherwise excellent book).
David Kelly had made plans, not least regarding his daughters wedding, but suddenly decided to kill himself. Why? The police operation to find him 'started' before he had even left for his walk, let alone had been reported missing. The house was searched by officers who insisted his wife stayed outside. The time of death was inaccurate because the pathologist left it many hours before taking a temperature reading. Very odd. Why were the police not pushing for an 'estimated time of death'? Why the insistence that only two police officers were the first to turn up, when the civilians present reported three? Why no inquest, which is highly unusual? Why did Hutton ignore glaring inconsistencies? Why has the evidence and opinion been ignored of the two paramedics attending that there was too little blood for a death by suicide, caused by slashing the wrist? Why are eminent doctors, including those with relevant expertise, being ignored when they say that it cannot have been suicide? If David Kelly was murdered, as the evidence seems to suggest, who stood to gain from his silence?
Who is being protected? (And it certainly isn't the Iraqi's as Norman Baker bizarrely speculates in his otherwise excellent book).
Unbalanced Britain
I don't know about you, but I don't feel any better about Britain after the newspapers revealed the scale of thievery within our political class and now the inquiries promised into the newspapers. Horrible though the phone hacking scandal is, it is not life or death. The politicians pretty much dodged the scandal on expenses, except that people hate them that bit more, as they have rejigged the rules and carry on as before. Even where criminality has been proven (such as with Ed Balls' tax declarations) nothing happens.
Now the political class are in a frenzy on our behalf to leave no stone unturned over phone hacking. Not, you understand about how we went to war in Iraq, not so that a very strange death of a public servant is properly investigated, not on anything of real substance, but just phone hacking. Investigate, properly (should there be another way?) and use the laws that already exist to deal with the perpetrators. And stop all the loud politicking.
Now the political class are in a frenzy on our behalf to leave no stone unturned over phone hacking. Not, you understand about how we went to war in Iraq, not so that a very strange death of a public servant is properly investigated, not on anything of real substance, but just phone hacking. Investigate, properly (should there be another way?) and use the laws that already exist to deal with the perpetrators. And stop all the loud politicking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)