Ha! What sport in the media today. The government, pushed by necessity and reality to open the way for gas extraction through fracking has unleashed a wailing from the piggies at the trough. The companies milking us all through subsidies are squealing like stuck pigs that fracking will probably end the world (rather than just be a big step in removing their cancer).
I saw, hugely amusing this, that the twits in the warmist scam are saying that fracking will despoil the countryside, which of course it actually has minimal impact on unlike wind turbines that actually do. The other strange thing they say is that it will also accelerate global warming and drive up energy bills. This is their claim, the reality is this. Wind turbines use up large amounts of natural resources and create enormous clouds of CO2 to build and erect them.
Then there is the fact that conventional power stations have to be running all the time, to keep the lights on when the wind suddenly drops, or picks up. And, basically, in relative terms the wind turbines will be providing no energy. (OK, maybe 1%).
So these propaganda experts are telling us that all the things wind turbines currently and provably do, will happen with fracking. The BBC radio news of course tried to hint at impartiality on the subject in their headlines, but then only allowed an anti-fracking comment in the piece.
Naturally the tiny, almost undetectable tremors caused by fracking continue to be played as 'earthquakes'. The actual tremors are similar in scale to those caused by coal mining. You hadn't heard coal mining had caused 'tremors'? Maybe that is because they were insignificant and the warmist propaganda didn't exist then. They hadn't created their own virtual reality then.
The sign of pure domination (and genius) with the warmist campaigning is not that they have been getting their way. It is that they suggested an absolutely unbelievable scenario that no mildly sentient being could possibly be taken in by and said it was real. This proved how powerful they were. Wind turbines will keep the UK's lights on, even though everyone can see for themselves that the wind isn't constant, or remotely so. And it became mainstream.
OK so politicians have been pushing it and they don't actually seem to have any brains of their own. But clearly, otherwise intelligent people have swallowed it whole.
But will we see cheaper energy? Well, firstly current energy costs have risen largely due to warmist taxes and subsidies to pay for the profits in wind turbines. Gas will stand on its own two feet. However, the government has also become strangely inept at controlling big business and I'm sure that the cheaper gas produced through fracking will just increase the energy companies profits. Even though, in the US it has halved gas prices and cut CO2 output to 1990 levels. Not that that is a particular concern. The whole global warming thing is a scam, not just wind turbines.
Thursday 13 December 2012
Friday 7 December 2012
Radio Shows
In Australia there is a radio station that employs at least two morons. They are quite old to still be juveniles, but all the evidence is there. Except today they have learnt actions have consequences. It must be hard on the poor luvs.
But morons they be. Why would it strike you as hysterically funny to dupe people in order to gain access to members of another country's Royals? And why particularly when one of those Royal's is ill in hospital, fearful about her first pregnancy. Definition of a moron, I'd say.
Now, one of those involved, a nurse who put through their idiot call, is dead. It is believed that she may have committed suicide, which would seem is, even in part, due to the mindless pair. Is all of Australia like this? It does seem to be slipping from a great country with a relaxed attitude to a bit of a laughing stock, comedy country.
Very much like the witless Ross and Brand here, these two Australians don't care much for other people, impressed no doubt with themselves to the exclusion of all others. Thing is, I don't get this 'edgy humour' as I think their defence refers to it. Does the nurse being dead make their joke funnier or not? I'm sure they are gagging to tell us.
But morons they be. Why would it strike you as hysterically funny to dupe people in order to gain access to members of another country's Royals? And why particularly when one of those Royal's is ill in hospital, fearful about her first pregnancy. Definition of a moron, I'd say.
Now, one of those involved, a nurse who put through their idiot call, is dead. It is believed that she may have committed suicide, which would seem is, even in part, due to the mindless pair. Is all of Australia like this? It does seem to be slipping from a great country with a relaxed attitude to a bit of a laughing stock, comedy country.
Very much like the witless Ross and Brand here, these two Australians don't care much for other people, impressed no doubt with themselves to the exclusion of all others. Thing is, I don't get this 'edgy humour' as I think their defence refers to it. Does the nurse being dead make their joke funnier or not? I'm sure they are gagging to tell us.
Monday 26 November 2012
Rotherham - What A Surprise!
It surely cannot come as a surprise to anyone these days the lengths the Left go to to impose their views on other people. A chilling example of the careless power these people wield was the Stalinist tone of the woman at the centre of the storm, Joyce Thacker. She was certain that she sets the standard by which children will handled.
What we have discovered is that she, in common with her kind, put ideology before all other considerations. No issue of child welfare outweighs her need to impose. Like the BBC, no matter what they do, they are in the right.
In Rotherham, the ideology was multiculturalism, one of the core methods being used to undermine and destroy Britain. This harridan says that to oppose multiculturalism is to put children at risk. To bring up children and believe that very dangerous people, like Thacker are deliberately conflating race with culture, is wrong, she feels.
No intelligent person believes that all cultures are equal, but the Left do. Similarly, only a poisonous creep insists, in the most truly racist way, that skin colour defines a person and characterises their 'culture'. Hence a black child, if by some slip in ideological control was placed with a white adopter, they would have to be made aware of their 'heritage'. This to the racist race industry run by the Left means a child with no knowledge but their foster family and Britain, must be told they are 'African'.
The one concern of Thacker is that she is in charge and the last thing she cares about is a child's welfare. The foster carers may have been keen on a party that wants to give freedom to ordinary people (and so the polar opposite of Thacker) and so harmless, but we hear, Thacker herself is a member of a very pernicious organisation. No surprise. The evil of the Left daily shows itself.
What we have discovered is that she, in common with her kind, put ideology before all other considerations. No issue of child welfare outweighs her need to impose. Like the BBC, no matter what they do, they are in the right.
In Rotherham, the ideology was multiculturalism, one of the core methods being used to undermine and destroy Britain. This harridan says that to oppose multiculturalism is to put children at risk. To bring up children and believe that very dangerous people, like Thacker are deliberately conflating race with culture, is wrong, she feels.
No intelligent person believes that all cultures are equal, but the Left do. Similarly, only a poisonous creep insists, in the most truly racist way, that skin colour defines a person and characterises their 'culture'. Hence a black child, if by some slip in ideological control was placed with a white adopter, they would have to be made aware of their 'heritage'. This to the racist race industry run by the Left means a child with no knowledge but their foster family and Britain, must be told they are 'African'.
The one concern of Thacker is that she is in charge and the last thing she cares about is a child's welfare. The foster carers may have been keen on a party that wants to give freedom to ordinary people (and so the polar opposite of Thacker) and so harmless, but we hear, Thacker herself is a member of a very pernicious organisation. No surprise. The evil of the Left daily shows itself.
Monday 19 November 2012
What's Left?
We have had decades of the Left attempting to undermine Western Civilisation; to destroy the traditional family, to impoverish our education system of its rigour, to cripple individual thought and to demonise capitalism.
But all of a sudden, the blows are coming one after another. The energy scam, that costs all of us a fortune through increased taxes and increased fuel costs, is now being seen for what it is. Political corruption, institutionalised under Blair is in the limelight, the BBC and all Left wing media is constantly being caught out for its arrogance, its lies and its bias.
The EU is falling apart just as they thought they were at the tipping point to truly gaining an irreversible Soviet republic, without any hint of democracy. And it is as frightening as it can get. France has hidden for a very long time that it is broke. Now one of the big contributors to the EU, the UK, is asking for cut backs and may even leave the EU. For France this would be a disaster. They rely for their survival on vast sums of EU funds diverted to them, as they designed from the outset they should, and cannot exist without them.
Greece may be economically corrupt and incapable of balancing a budget, but France has long been morally bankrupt, following Left influences, which to be fair have worked a treat for quite some time. But in times of stress weaknesses become apparent and today we have the double stress of a corrupt banking system falling apart (and who encouraged that?) and the corrupt system of the Euro.
At every turn you find the light shining on the Left, caught out like rats in a dark room. The attempt to exert their control over the Press has been exposed too, as the Leveson inquiry has been found to be almost exclusively advised by Left wing activists, intent on gagging a free press.
In many ways we are at a similar moment that the other great Left wing schemer, Hitler, found himself in when confronting Weimar. He was able to con a nation to his will, the Left since have had to work covertly over a longer period of time. But whilst he was able to keep hidden what a monster he was and what disasters he would bring on everyone, the Left today are exposed. We should break its back now, decisively and completely.
Have we ever acted so boldly outside war? There certainly is much talk of a need for a strong character, a Churchill, but all we have is Cameron and Miliband. Pipsqueaks when compared to mediocrity, let alone greatness.
But all of a sudden, the blows are coming one after another. The energy scam, that costs all of us a fortune through increased taxes and increased fuel costs, is now being seen for what it is. Political corruption, institutionalised under Blair is in the limelight, the BBC and all Left wing media is constantly being caught out for its arrogance, its lies and its bias.
The EU is falling apart just as they thought they were at the tipping point to truly gaining an irreversible Soviet republic, without any hint of democracy. And it is as frightening as it can get. France has hidden for a very long time that it is broke. Now one of the big contributors to the EU, the UK, is asking for cut backs and may even leave the EU. For France this would be a disaster. They rely for their survival on vast sums of EU funds diverted to them, as they designed from the outset they should, and cannot exist without them.
Greece may be economically corrupt and incapable of balancing a budget, but France has long been morally bankrupt, following Left influences, which to be fair have worked a treat for quite some time. But in times of stress weaknesses become apparent and today we have the double stress of a corrupt banking system falling apart (and who encouraged that?) and the corrupt system of the Euro.
At every turn you find the light shining on the Left, caught out like rats in a dark room. The attempt to exert their control over the Press has been exposed too, as the Leveson inquiry has been found to be almost exclusively advised by Left wing activists, intent on gagging a free press.
In many ways we are at a similar moment that the other great Left wing schemer, Hitler, found himself in when confronting Weimar. He was able to con a nation to his will, the Left since have had to work covertly over a longer period of time. But whilst he was able to keep hidden what a monster he was and what disasters he would bring on everyone, the Left today are exposed. We should break its back now, decisively and completely.
Have we ever acted so boldly outside war? There certainly is much talk of a need for a strong character, a Churchill, but all we have is Cameron and Miliband. Pipsqueaks when compared to mediocrity, let alone greatness.
Saturday 17 November 2012
Police Commissioners
The low turnout for the election of police commissioners is mainly because it was not publicised by the government. People didn't really know what they were for, so didn't know whether they agreed or not and they certainly didn't who the candidates were.
Despite the nonsense on the BBC (how strange!) that the Corby by election was a massive slap to the Tories - because it returned to Labour, it is clear that there is a trend towards the Conservatives on law and order. I'm not sure about the client state Labour voters. Clearly they want Labour as a government because they can be trusted to keep paying benefits and hiring public sector staff, despite the damage it does to the country.
But what about law and order? Obviously Labour have a poor track record on crime, because they are generally useless politicians who are only interested in feathering their own nests. But Labour voters don't care about that and quite a few of them (particularly politicians!) would want a weak and politically controlled police force.
But anyway, I suppose most people didn't bother so we don't learn much. A bit like when under 25% of the voting population voted for Tony Blair, giving him a landslide! Democracy in this country is undoubtedly being corrupted as much as any rotten borough or votes only for the rich ever did. Today we have a party, Labour, who have created a client state and a corruption of boundaries and political standards, all to ensure that they can rule unendingly.
And please, Labour voters with an iota of a brain; not only has every Labour government left the country in a mess, but the last spell, surely, was way beyond the Pale. We cannot allow such venal half-wits to hold power ever again surely? At least the other 'sociliast' party supporters, the Lib Dems, have had the good sense to desert them for not doing any of what they said. They just need to stop believing in Utopia too.
As an aside on the police commissioners story, I am absolutely delighted that the people around Hull had the good sense to dump the oaf Prescott. This waste of molecular biology would not have been a great joke, a piece of rabid irony as a police commissioner. He would have been an insult, again, to any decent person. I'm sure the local Chief Constable would have been happy that he would get no interference from the commissioner (as long as he toed the line as far as Prescott's personal world is concerned - no speeding tickets etc), but for Prescott the main attraction was undoubtedly the money.
He should have stayed out of our misery, accept that he is continuing to get vast sums from us that he has never deserved and that he should have been charged over the assault committed in full public view, for which a suitably compliant, politically Left leaning and controlled police force could find no evidence!
Despite the nonsense on the BBC (how strange!) that the Corby by election was a massive slap to the Tories - because it returned to Labour, it is clear that there is a trend towards the Conservatives on law and order. I'm not sure about the client state Labour voters. Clearly they want Labour as a government because they can be trusted to keep paying benefits and hiring public sector staff, despite the damage it does to the country.
But what about law and order? Obviously Labour have a poor track record on crime, because they are generally useless politicians who are only interested in feathering their own nests. But Labour voters don't care about that and quite a few of them (particularly politicians!) would want a weak and politically controlled police force.
But anyway, I suppose most people didn't bother so we don't learn much. A bit like when under 25% of the voting population voted for Tony Blair, giving him a landslide! Democracy in this country is undoubtedly being corrupted as much as any rotten borough or votes only for the rich ever did. Today we have a party, Labour, who have created a client state and a corruption of boundaries and political standards, all to ensure that they can rule unendingly.
And please, Labour voters with an iota of a brain; not only has every Labour government left the country in a mess, but the last spell, surely, was way beyond the Pale. We cannot allow such venal half-wits to hold power ever again surely? At least the other 'sociliast' party supporters, the Lib Dems, have had the good sense to desert them for not doing any of what they said. They just need to stop believing in Utopia too.
As an aside on the police commissioners story, I am absolutely delighted that the people around Hull had the good sense to dump the oaf Prescott. This waste of molecular biology would not have been a great joke, a piece of rabid irony as a police commissioner. He would have been an insult, again, to any decent person. I'm sure the local Chief Constable would have been happy that he would get no interference from the commissioner (as long as he toed the line as far as Prescott's personal world is concerned - no speeding tickets etc), but for Prescott the main attraction was undoubtedly the money.
He should have stayed out of our misery, accept that he is continuing to get vast sums from us that he has never deserved and that he should have been charged over the assault committed in full public view, for which a suitably compliant, politically Left leaning and controlled police force could find no evidence!
What Being A Leader Means
David Cameron is the leader of the Conservative Party, even though he doesn't seem to have any alignment himself with Conservative values. But his bigger problem appears to be how his leadership is going.
Cameron came to government with a number of key issues close to his heart. He thinks it is really important that we give lots of money to foreign countries and he declared he would increase the amount sprayed overseas. He declared his love of the EU and he showed his deep seated dedication to 'green' issues by installing a small turbine on his house.
Today we hear that a minister is proposing to cut aid to a second country, because it is either unnecessary or being stolen, just like everyone except Cameron thought it would be. The EU is massively opposed in Britain (on the grounds that it has no utility, nor a single reason for existing) and is destroying itself over the Euro and trade barriers. Added to which a party exists which easily steals votes by not just calling for an independent UK, but also having other policies that make it actually the Conservative Party. But it is called UKIP.
And now we have ministers starting to point out that wind turbines are completely and utterly useless. Except that they make landowners a bit richer and foreign energy companies a lot richer. Oh and rather a lot is added to your energy bill to pay these leeches.
I think the reason that they are saying this is that the political benefits of supporting 'renewables' is drying up and they are either checking the facts themselves, or just admitting what they already knew. Of course the breakthrough will come when they also admit that 'Climate Change' alarmism is a fantasy and is driven not by science, but by lobby groups such as Greenpeace and WWF, who are merely seeking influence and money.
Being lied to by politicians is what we pretty much expect, by the Global Warming scam has been particularly pernicious and is by far the most dangerous. It is so bad it almost transcends any hint of mendacity and becomes insanity. Can we hope that reason returns within our lifetimes? Can we leave the EU and stop believing junk science at the same time?
Cameron came to government with a number of key issues close to his heart. He thinks it is really important that we give lots of money to foreign countries and he declared he would increase the amount sprayed overseas. He declared his love of the EU and he showed his deep seated dedication to 'green' issues by installing a small turbine on his house.
Today we hear that a minister is proposing to cut aid to a second country, because it is either unnecessary or being stolen, just like everyone except Cameron thought it would be. The EU is massively opposed in Britain (on the grounds that it has no utility, nor a single reason for existing) and is destroying itself over the Euro and trade barriers. Added to which a party exists which easily steals votes by not just calling for an independent UK, but also having other policies that make it actually the Conservative Party. But it is called UKIP.
And now we have ministers starting to point out that wind turbines are completely and utterly useless. Except that they make landowners a bit richer and foreign energy companies a lot richer. Oh and rather a lot is added to your energy bill to pay these leeches.
I think the reason that they are saying this is that the political benefits of supporting 'renewables' is drying up and they are either checking the facts themselves, or just admitting what they already knew. Of course the breakthrough will come when they also admit that 'Climate Change' alarmism is a fantasy and is driven not by science, but by lobby groups such as Greenpeace and WWF, who are merely seeking influence and money.
Being lied to by politicians is what we pretty much expect, by the Global Warming scam has been particularly pernicious and is by far the most dangerous. It is so bad it almost transcends any hint of mendacity and becomes insanity. Can we hope that reason returns within our lifetimes? Can we leave the EU and stop believing junk science at the same time?
Thursday 15 November 2012
Twitter Twits
I love it, I absolutely love it. The full on prats who try to demonise the Tories at every turn couldn't contain themselves and incontinently wet themselves in public on Twitter. They knew a Tory, a senior Tory who was a paedophile and they wanted in on the social networking action to mention it. That was their reward, they mentioned it.
But (as ever) they didn't know anything. And the target of their bile this time was the totally innocent Lord McAlpine who is not taking it lying down. I'm sure they think he should just drop it, no harm done really, because they are lefties and that makes everything they do OK. Look at the extremely unpleasant Mrs. Bercow. She has declared that she didn't do anything libellous.
Problem is you loose-mouthed ignoramus it isn't up to you. I wish that she could go to prison for a decent spell, to shut the obnoxious woman up. But failing that, Lord McAlpine could do us all a favour by suing her for the most money he can get. It would be so satisfying and clearly justice, if she was absolutely financially ruined by this. Her and that twerp she trails around to show she is more powerful than men, Speaker Bercow. Mind you, he would probably just claim it on expenses.
I like the settlement with the BBC too; £185,000. Of course, it is considerably less than they paid their failed DG when he 'resigned', above and beyond his entitlement, including pension contributions. ITV, who have decided to show they are at least as stupid as the 'national treasure', the BBC, have kept Schofield on air and have taken the 'appropriate' action regarding the outing of rumoured paedophiles on air. As Schofield still has a job, I'm guessing appropriate is not an appropriate word in this context. Sue the nuts off them too your Lordship.
And Monbiot! He has said of himself that his Tweets didn't reflect the rigour he usually applies to his output. Rigour? Presumably he doesn't understand the word. He spouts about Climate Change without any substance whatsoever, constantly. It is so bad he cannot possibly not know he is talking tripe. He is part of a deliberate propaganda campaign, based on ideology and activists.
The BBC let an outside organisation provide them with a package that was shoddy and unchecked beyond belief. Then the Guardian puts out a story (about anti-wind farm politicians and a blogger) that was entirely untrue and was written by Greenpeace.
Please understand, you may disagree with 'right' wing politics, and that is your right, but do realise that a lot of what you think has been conditioned by extreme and continuing leftist propaganda that is specifically designed to make you dislike the Tories and accept state control over your life.
Here is what I mean; on a recent TV debate about wind farms, James Delingpole explained why they were bad (including cost, destroying the countryside, killing birds and bats, requiring a fossil fuel power station to run all the time because you don't know when the wind will drop, and, as if it mattered, cause more CO2 output, plus enriching rich landowners and foreign energy companies) and Caroline Lucas said 'that's not true'.
That was it. It always is. When you don't have any substance you just decry the facts of your opponent. If you look at what passes for a debate on Climate Change you see those happy to talk science and encourage you to verify facts for yourself are not, ever, the alarmists. That is because like the stories mentioned above, the debate is fuelled, is written by activists like Greenpeace and they are supporting an ideology, not science.
But (as ever) they didn't know anything. And the target of their bile this time was the totally innocent Lord McAlpine who is not taking it lying down. I'm sure they think he should just drop it, no harm done really, because they are lefties and that makes everything they do OK. Look at the extremely unpleasant Mrs. Bercow. She has declared that she didn't do anything libellous.
Problem is you loose-mouthed ignoramus it isn't up to you. I wish that she could go to prison for a decent spell, to shut the obnoxious woman up. But failing that, Lord McAlpine could do us all a favour by suing her for the most money he can get. It would be so satisfying and clearly justice, if she was absolutely financially ruined by this. Her and that twerp she trails around to show she is more powerful than men, Speaker Bercow. Mind you, he would probably just claim it on expenses.
I like the settlement with the BBC too; £185,000. Of course, it is considerably less than they paid their failed DG when he 'resigned', above and beyond his entitlement, including pension contributions. ITV, who have decided to show they are at least as stupid as the 'national treasure', the BBC, have kept Schofield on air and have taken the 'appropriate' action regarding the outing of rumoured paedophiles on air. As Schofield still has a job, I'm guessing appropriate is not an appropriate word in this context. Sue the nuts off them too your Lordship.
And Monbiot! He has said of himself that his Tweets didn't reflect the rigour he usually applies to his output. Rigour? Presumably he doesn't understand the word. He spouts about Climate Change without any substance whatsoever, constantly. It is so bad he cannot possibly not know he is talking tripe. He is part of a deliberate propaganda campaign, based on ideology and activists.
The BBC let an outside organisation provide them with a package that was shoddy and unchecked beyond belief. Then the Guardian puts out a story (about anti-wind farm politicians and a blogger) that was entirely untrue and was written by Greenpeace.
Please understand, you may disagree with 'right' wing politics, and that is your right, but do realise that a lot of what you think has been conditioned by extreme and continuing leftist propaganda that is specifically designed to make you dislike the Tories and accept state control over your life.
Here is what I mean; on a recent TV debate about wind farms, James Delingpole explained why they were bad (including cost, destroying the countryside, killing birds and bats, requiring a fossil fuel power station to run all the time because you don't know when the wind will drop, and, as if it mattered, cause more CO2 output, plus enriching rich landowners and foreign energy companies) and Caroline Lucas said 'that's not true'.
That was it. It always is. When you don't have any substance you just decry the facts of your opponent. If you look at what passes for a debate on Climate Change you see those happy to talk science and encourage you to verify facts for yourself are not, ever, the alarmists. That is because like the stories mentioned above, the debate is fuelled, is written by activists like Greenpeace and they are supporting an ideology, not science.
Sunday 11 November 2012
British Broadcasting Corpse
Entwhistle seems to have blown the lid off what the BBC is about. It is a structure to supply very well paid jobs to left-liberals who do not like working. Clearly, despite years in the organisation and with adequate warning that it was under close observation, Entwhistle still didn't feel obliged to pay any attention to what was going on inside the BBC. Just as he showed no interest in the Jimmy Savile news.
Now it is apparent, no one else in management actually does anything. They are not just incompetent, they actually appear not to do anything. Previously, the BBC has admitted that it has an in-built left-liberal bias, contrary to its legal obligation for impartiality and it didn't care. It had no intention of changing and no one pursued it to do so.
Then it had a secret conference to decide to formally commit to being a propaganda spout for global warming alarmism, where a scientist present said that BBC executives clearly had no understanding of the subject, had done no research and didn't care to. They still decided that they would openly support the alarmist lobby and ridicule anyone with an opposing view. Again, this breaches their Charter requirements and they again don't care.
It is clear this organisation is self absorbed and feels it has a perfect right to exist. The ludicrous Lord Patten sits atop this with the same stunning ignorance seemingly required of all at the top of the BBC. The scruffy oik should take his free, expensive lunches and find someone else to offer him a work free sinecure.
A real scandal exists of course and the left are desperately hiding it whilst raging about child abuse and scrapping around for some connection to the Tories. The fact that something in the order of 30+ Labour party members, councillors and Mayors, have been arrested on child pornography and abuse charges, doesn't seem to get much mention. Then there is the keenness of the Left to push for laws to allow paedophilia, Harriet Harman of course, having been the legal representative of a key organisation with such an interest.
Are they actually against Savile and his like then, or is their outrage confected?
Now it is apparent, no one else in management actually does anything. They are not just incompetent, they actually appear not to do anything. Previously, the BBC has admitted that it has an in-built left-liberal bias, contrary to its legal obligation for impartiality and it didn't care. It had no intention of changing and no one pursued it to do so.
Then it had a secret conference to decide to formally commit to being a propaganda spout for global warming alarmism, where a scientist present said that BBC executives clearly had no understanding of the subject, had done no research and didn't care to. They still decided that they would openly support the alarmist lobby and ridicule anyone with an opposing view. Again, this breaches their Charter requirements and they again don't care.
It is clear this organisation is self absorbed and feels it has a perfect right to exist. The ludicrous Lord Patten sits atop this with the same stunning ignorance seemingly required of all at the top of the BBC. The scruffy oik should take his free, expensive lunches and find someone else to offer him a work free sinecure.
A real scandal exists of course and the left are desperately hiding it whilst raging about child abuse and scrapping around for some connection to the Tories. The fact that something in the order of 30+ Labour party members, councillors and Mayors, have been arrested on child pornography and abuse charges, doesn't seem to get much mention. Then there is the keenness of the Left to push for laws to allow paedophilia, Harriet Harman of course, having been the legal representative of a key organisation with such an interest.
Are they actually against Savile and his like then, or is their outrage confected?
Thursday 8 November 2012
Merkel On Britain
Merkel is telling Cameron to not listen to the Conservative Party, but to stick with the EU. That surely should either tell Cameron who is right or, if he sticks with his EU love-in all you need to know about Cameron. The lines are clear; you cannot be a Conservative and support the EU. Cameron hasn't ever really looked like a Conservative, though has he?
Merkel also said that during WW2 Britain joined Germany in ridding them of National Socialism, which is an interesting take on history, but guilt is a funny thing. What she clearly does believe is that the aims of National Socialism were fine, it was the methods she had a problem with, all that killing and buying expensive weapons. So much better to invite countries to subjugate themselves and spend the money on yourself. Can't have too many EU palaces, or too large an expense account!
As I have said earlier, the EU is the modern incarnation of Hitler, or Stalin or Napoleon. Merkel says we should be alone if we left the EU. How wretched America must feel at not being in the EU, or Australia, or Norway, Switzerland or so many other successful countries free of socialist oppression.
In the capitalist world some people take a risk and set up a company, it does well and they get rich. Having some rich and some poor may not seem right to some people but it is a sort of natural order of things, it's what people instinctively do. The crime is not having a society that offers opportunity to all. Welcome to 'socialism'. With socialism the idea is to kid people that you will take money from the rich to give to the poor.
In reality redistribution of wealth doesn't work like that. There are way more little people than big cheeses. You may not think Richard Branson pays enough tax, but why do you think income tax starts at such a low level? Why is tax on fuel so high? Because the little people have a large slice of the wealth (and generally cannot 'help' politicians with little problems, like where to holiday this year).
Socialism has you and an elite. Unlike businessmen in a capitalist society who may or may not work hard (but will have done at some point), the socialist elite don't do anything tangible. They are the modern equivalent of Louis XIV's entourage. Wealth is, on the whole redistributed to them. Merkel doesn't want that boat rocked.
Merkel also said that during WW2 Britain joined Germany in ridding them of National Socialism, which is an interesting take on history, but guilt is a funny thing. What she clearly does believe is that the aims of National Socialism were fine, it was the methods she had a problem with, all that killing and buying expensive weapons. So much better to invite countries to subjugate themselves and spend the money on yourself. Can't have too many EU palaces, or too large an expense account!
As I have said earlier, the EU is the modern incarnation of Hitler, or Stalin or Napoleon. Merkel says we should be alone if we left the EU. How wretched America must feel at not being in the EU, or Australia, or Norway, Switzerland or so many other successful countries free of socialist oppression.
In the capitalist world some people take a risk and set up a company, it does well and they get rich. Having some rich and some poor may not seem right to some people but it is a sort of natural order of things, it's what people instinctively do. The crime is not having a society that offers opportunity to all. Welcome to 'socialism'. With socialism the idea is to kid people that you will take money from the rich to give to the poor.
In reality redistribution of wealth doesn't work like that. There are way more little people than big cheeses. You may not think Richard Branson pays enough tax, but why do you think income tax starts at such a low level? Why is tax on fuel so high? Because the little people have a large slice of the wealth (and generally cannot 'help' politicians with little problems, like where to holiday this year).
Socialism has you and an elite. Unlike businessmen in a capitalist society who may or may not work hard (but will have done at some point), the socialist elite don't do anything tangible. They are the modern equivalent of Louis XIV's entourage. Wealth is, on the whole redistributed to them. Merkel doesn't want that boat rocked.
Vouchers
Deloitte, the administrators of collapsing Comet, are in a bit of a tiz over vouchers. First they said they wouldn't accept them, which kind of brings into question exactly what vouchers represent. Now they will accept personal ones but not corporate ones. The 'company' ones we are told are discounted, meaning the company buying them didn't pay full face value.
I'm not sure I can discern what that has got to do with anything, it was a commercial decision of a trading company. And it is at odds with their first idea that they should discount your vouchers completely! Also, I'm guessing that Deloitte will sell the stock off cheaply to get in what money they can quickly. No, I think what Deloitte are trying to say is that they have already had the money for the vouchers, if we renege on that deal we can sell the goods elsewhere we would otherwise have had to give to voucher holders. Which I think falls within the definition of theft.
If I have a voucher, relevant to a company stilling trading, under whatever conditions, in what way is it not an intention to permanently deprive, if I am denied the ability to trade the vouchers? So what are vouchers and why should we buy them? In short, they are a con and nobody should buy them.
And they have expiry dates. If you are a senior executive with a large retail company, please answer me this question; why do vouchers have use by dates? The cash I used to pay for them didn't have an expiry date. Again, I don't understand how anyone can sell you something which becomes worthless at a certain point.
Is this OK, for instance? Instead of buying vouchers, I actually buy a television. I take it home and put it in the spare room. But you know what, I don't use it for 12 months. Am I crazy or what? It doesn't matter though, I am entitled to do with it what I want. But, does the shop have the right to take it back after a year? Because that is what they effectively do, if I have the same value in vouchers and don't use them.
All I can say is don't buy vouchers, ever. But, if you do have Comet vouchers here is something to appraise Deloitte of; unless the terms of the contract are made clear at the point of sale, the Unfair Consumer Contract Act 1999 may well come into play. If you didn't know there was an expiry date, or if there was, when it expires, then the contract is voided. Deloitte should give you your money back - not goods to the value of, -your money.
See, usually when you go to a till in a shop and say 'can I have a £20 gift card' they ring it up, you pay and then you get the card/voucher, on which the terms are printed. Too late! The law requires you to be informed ahead of the sale.
On a related note, it is nice to see Dixons making a noise about their employing as many Comet staff as they can. Very generous of them. Except, with Christmas coming they wanted extra staff anyway and were going to employ pretty much anyone who showed a reasonable intention of turning up for work on at least most days. Now they can grab some people who are already working in an almost identical environment.
It doesn't change the fact that it is good for worried Comet staff, but it is self interest on Dixons' part and they could have been a little more honest about it and still got the kudos. Just a thought.
I'm not sure I can discern what that has got to do with anything, it was a commercial decision of a trading company. And it is at odds with their first idea that they should discount your vouchers completely! Also, I'm guessing that Deloitte will sell the stock off cheaply to get in what money they can quickly. No, I think what Deloitte are trying to say is that they have already had the money for the vouchers, if we renege on that deal we can sell the goods elsewhere we would otherwise have had to give to voucher holders. Which I think falls within the definition of theft.
If I have a voucher, relevant to a company stilling trading, under whatever conditions, in what way is it not an intention to permanently deprive, if I am denied the ability to trade the vouchers? So what are vouchers and why should we buy them? In short, they are a con and nobody should buy them.
And they have expiry dates. If you are a senior executive with a large retail company, please answer me this question; why do vouchers have use by dates? The cash I used to pay for them didn't have an expiry date. Again, I don't understand how anyone can sell you something which becomes worthless at a certain point.
Is this OK, for instance? Instead of buying vouchers, I actually buy a television. I take it home and put it in the spare room. But you know what, I don't use it for 12 months. Am I crazy or what? It doesn't matter though, I am entitled to do with it what I want. But, does the shop have the right to take it back after a year? Because that is what they effectively do, if I have the same value in vouchers and don't use them.
All I can say is don't buy vouchers, ever. But, if you do have Comet vouchers here is something to appraise Deloitte of; unless the terms of the contract are made clear at the point of sale, the Unfair Consumer Contract Act 1999 may well come into play. If you didn't know there was an expiry date, or if there was, when it expires, then the contract is voided. Deloitte should give you your money back - not goods to the value of, -your money.
See, usually when you go to a till in a shop and say 'can I have a £20 gift card' they ring it up, you pay and then you get the card/voucher, on which the terms are printed. Too late! The law requires you to be informed ahead of the sale.
On a related note, it is nice to see Dixons making a noise about their employing as many Comet staff as they can. Very generous of them. Except, with Christmas coming they wanted extra staff anyway and were going to employ pretty much anyone who showed a reasonable intention of turning up for work on at least most days. Now they can grab some people who are already working in an almost identical environment.
It doesn't change the fact that it is good for worried Comet staff, but it is self interest on Dixons' part and they could have been a little more honest about it and still got the kudos. Just a thought.
Wednesday 7 November 2012
Parallels To The Past
It is said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat history and yet some who study history use it to repeat it, deliberately. Though they learn to deal with previous mistakes.
The Left of the 1950's and 60's was having a pretty good time. Their strength was increasing and the West's reaction to the threat it posed was panicky bordering on paranoia. Due to the standoff caused by nuclear weapons and the awesome industrial power of the West, particularly America, the Left found itself checked. A slow demise began, culminating in the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The Left already knew it was fighting a multi-pronged war and merely accelerated the bit that wasn't being so challenged; the intellectual. At root what the Left offers the common man is this; we, the state will control everything you do, any money you make we will take away for 'redistribution'. You must always show loyalty to the state. You exist to serve the state. In return we will offer full employment in a debased society.
It doesn't sound too enticing and the leadership of the Left were not suggesting they change anything. So, to achieve their goals they would have to lie.
All of this must be seen in a modern context, in an age of machines and rapid movement, of communications and air travel. This is the environment that the Left must deal in, must dominate. The war Hitler fought was called a Total War. It knew no limitations and it required the dedication of the whole population and the commitment of the economy. Stalin, the other great authoritarian was planning for this too.
Why did they feel they needed to? Because they intended, as detailed above, to do unpopular things at home and abroad. If unpopular, how was power achieved, why was it not strangled at birth? Because it hid its real desires, hid its plans.
Here are the connections to the Left today. It continues in the same vein, but with different methods. Building tanks and planes attracts attention and would be even less likely to succeed against the US today than in the past. No, the war must be conducted from within and in secret.
We are aware of course, of the actions to infiltrate and dominate the institutions as suggested by Gramsci. We know about the work of 'political correctness' in cowing the people, stifling debate and allowing the Left to define and create the field of battle. In response, our culture has been unbelievably Chamberlain-esque.
There is a relentless propaganda war, with 'studies' by 'experts' who propose the break up of the traditional family unit, who promote welfare benefits that push the same result. We see children targeted by the lobby groups of the Left pushing 'environmental' agendas which are nothing of the sort. They are global campaigns against capitalism.
The Hitler Youth is now the Animal activist, the eco-warrior, the violent demonstrator against capitalism and the global conspiracy by rich men who pull the levers of power (probably Jews, as well!). These all use violence against imaginary and poorly defined enemies.
Linked to all this we find the larger scale push of the EU, the armoured thrust of this force. Consider; the EU promotes itself through school 'programmes' of no merit. It asks young people to form groups to push the benefits of the EU.
The EU itself is a bald statement for lebensraum requiring sovereign countries to give themselves up for the greater good of Europe. It is anschluss, it is collectivism. The peasants of Europe (not plebs, that would be a terrible thing to say) were told that in order to survive, they needed to bring together their economies into one vast state. This country, the EU, would nurture them and protect them, in exchange for their loyalty.
Naturally, the project would be hindered if all the differing regions of Europe could vote on this and that, on parochial issues so democracy would need to be deleted from the government of Europe. But this would be fine, because of the beneficence of those who ran the EU. You elect local MP's and then find that they do what the EU tells them as EU law has 'primacy'. You elect MEP's and then find that they don't actually do law making they just enact the laws devised by the bureaucrats of the EU, who are the real power and most certainly are not elected. The MEP's vote on the laws proposed, but if they turn something down, they will be invited to try again and again until they get it 'right'.
And, as Hitler and every other despot knows, symbols are important, so the 'ring of stars' must be displayed everywhere possible. All of these things are currently being enacted all around us by the Left, who smile in your face as the dagger is poised out of sight.
The longer we leave challenging these people the worse will be the casualties, the material damage of facing up to them, just as a war with Hitler before he was ready could have saved so many lives and so much destruction and treasure. This may not (yet) be a war of tanks and guns but it is every bit as dangerous and we must start to fight back. We must do what Chamberlain did not do and realise not just who the enemy is but just what level of evil they represent.
The Left of the 1950's and 60's was having a pretty good time. Their strength was increasing and the West's reaction to the threat it posed was panicky bordering on paranoia. Due to the standoff caused by nuclear weapons and the awesome industrial power of the West, particularly America, the Left found itself checked. A slow demise began, culminating in the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The Left already knew it was fighting a multi-pronged war and merely accelerated the bit that wasn't being so challenged; the intellectual. At root what the Left offers the common man is this; we, the state will control everything you do, any money you make we will take away for 'redistribution'. You must always show loyalty to the state. You exist to serve the state. In return we will offer full employment in a debased society.
It doesn't sound too enticing and the leadership of the Left were not suggesting they change anything. So, to achieve their goals they would have to lie.
All of this must be seen in a modern context, in an age of machines and rapid movement, of communications and air travel. This is the environment that the Left must deal in, must dominate. The war Hitler fought was called a Total War. It knew no limitations and it required the dedication of the whole population and the commitment of the economy. Stalin, the other great authoritarian was planning for this too.
Why did they feel they needed to? Because they intended, as detailed above, to do unpopular things at home and abroad. If unpopular, how was power achieved, why was it not strangled at birth? Because it hid its real desires, hid its plans.
Here are the connections to the Left today. It continues in the same vein, but with different methods. Building tanks and planes attracts attention and would be even less likely to succeed against the US today than in the past. No, the war must be conducted from within and in secret.
We are aware of course, of the actions to infiltrate and dominate the institutions as suggested by Gramsci. We know about the work of 'political correctness' in cowing the people, stifling debate and allowing the Left to define and create the field of battle. In response, our culture has been unbelievably Chamberlain-esque.
There is a relentless propaganda war, with 'studies' by 'experts' who propose the break up of the traditional family unit, who promote welfare benefits that push the same result. We see children targeted by the lobby groups of the Left pushing 'environmental' agendas which are nothing of the sort. They are global campaigns against capitalism.
The Hitler Youth is now the Animal activist, the eco-warrior, the violent demonstrator against capitalism and the global conspiracy by rich men who pull the levers of power (probably Jews, as well!). These all use violence against imaginary and poorly defined enemies.
Linked to all this we find the larger scale push of the EU, the armoured thrust of this force. Consider; the EU promotes itself through school 'programmes' of no merit. It asks young people to form groups to push the benefits of the EU.
The EU itself is a bald statement for lebensraum requiring sovereign countries to give themselves up for the greater good of Europe. It is anschluss, it is collectivism. The peasants of Europe (not plebs, that would be a terrible thing to say) were told that in order to survive, they needed to bring together their economies into one vast state. This country, the EU, would nurture them and protect them, in exchange for their loyalty.
Naturally, the project would be hindered if all the differing regions of Europe could vote on this and that, on parochial issues so democracy would need to be deleted from the government of Europe. But this would be fine, because of the beneficence of those who ran the EU. You elect local MP's and then find that they do what the EU tells them as EU law has 'primacy'. You elect MEP's and then find that they don't actually do law making they just enact the laws devised by the bureaucrats of the EU, who are the real power and most certainly are not elected. The MEP's vote on the laws proposed, but if they turn something down, they will be invited to try again and again until they get it 'right'.
And, as Hitler and every other despot knows, symbols are important, so the 'ring of stars' must be displayed everywhere possible. All of these things are currently being enacted all around us by the Left, who smile in your face as the dagger is poised out of sight.
The longer we leave challenging these people the worse will be the casualties, the material damage of facing up to them, just as a war with Hitler before he was ready could have saved so many lives and so much destruction and treasure. This may not (yet) be a war of tanks and guns but it is every bit as dangerous and we must start to fight back. We must do what Chamberlain did not do and realise not just who the enemy is but just what level of evil they represent.
Four More Years
What can you say? Politics in Western civilisation is really f****d up. Here we have the greatest economy in the world (if you forget the debt) electing a man who bases his political principles on self first. He had to get re-elected, it was really important to him. The White House is nice, people treat you nice when you go visit, the pay and perks are a hill of beans. And, when he looks in the mirror he can honestly say, without a quiver of doubt, that he is a good man; he likes what he sees.
Then he has to get dressed, go downstairs and get with the business of running the country. This bit is boring, tedious and not something that Barack Obama spends too much brain power on. Why should he? He did this President thing for what he gets out of it. Much like our own Tony Blair, BO is particularly good at posturing. He talks the walk.
The hurricane was due to Global Warming which he is going to deal with and he personally did all the clearing up, don't you know. And mends shoes overnight, with really tiny, perfect stitches. If you listen to Obama you hear a stream of that-can't-possibly-be-true statements, but the thing is, once said they can't be un-said so in a way they become true. Sound daft? Well it happens all the time with the Left.
Ex-Mayor of London Ken Livingstone was involved in a televised discussion the other day about wind turbines, the new industrial landscape, modern satanic mills. He said, to substantiate the importance of 'renewables' that we have just had hurricane Sandy and look at the devastation that caused and we have only had a temperature rise of less than 1 degree. Civilisation he said, would be destroyed by the end of this century unless we do something.
When asked if Sandy was due to global warming he smoothly said we cannot be sure of individual events, blah, blah, blah. But hold on. In that simple, short burst, he had given the distinct impression Sandy was due to our affect on climate and that things were going to get very much worse and wind turbines could help stop it. None of which is actually true, but it is now 'out there'. (Man's output of CO2 is insignificant when applied to planetary systems, it increases after temperature rises, not before, there has been no rise in global temperature since 1997 and wind turbines increase significantly the price of energy to consumers and even then cause more CO2 production, not less. But they do make subsidy farmers rich).
So Obama exists in a world where saying is doing. Just as Blair used to announce initiatives (that he then dropped, quietly) with much triumphant fanfare, as if it was an achievement itself. Are people really that thick? Surely they didn't vote for Obama to get more speeches about promises that remain and will be, unfulfilled? Not really no, they forget what he says in detail (as they are supposed to), what they actually voted for was money-tree politics, money-tree economics.
Obama based his 'success' over the last four years on borrowing. He piled debt on debt to keep the people feeling good. He operated the same economics that the insane Ed Balls promotes over here. It worked for Blair (well, as long as you forget the financial crash, obviously).
And people like 'no pain'. For them the fitness mantra 'no pain, no gain' is anathema. And boy are they under the anaesthetic! The most important thing Romney said in his campaign was the 47% thing. He said that 47% of the population would vote for Obama because he pays them, either as state workers or as benefit claimants. So here we have the conundrum of modern, Western politics.
The politicians themselves exist in a world removed from reality and indeed from politics itself. Their world consists of 'winning' arguments with their political opponents, showing up their political opponents and increasing their own wealth and standing amongst world wide peers. The work of government, such as it impacts on them, is done by policy wonks for whom they are nominally responsible. (And now with a second term those wonks, with a warm glow of comfort at 4 more years, will be really dangerous).
Romney was absolutely right about the client state that has been created. The divide between Democrats and Republicans goes something like this. Romney has to convince people to put the country first, that by creating a strong and workable framework, America will then be able to afford an affluent society with more employment and more to spend on social costs. And of course, that he can deliver that.
Obama on the other hand can say anything he likes, he has no intention, or possibly no ability to do any of it, but it is what the audience wants to hear and he just needs to get elected. His people will vote for him because he won't turn on them. He will keep the welfare taps open, he will continue to employ legions of non-productive and counter-productive public sector workers.
They are not concerned with the country, but with themselves, they just want what they want. If the economy goes to hell, so what, the state will always exist - borrow more, whatever! For them, money is not produced by successful businessmen and through making and selling things, no for them money grows on trees.
Similarly, Obama can play the race card, which I suppose we should take in good grace as it is the real slap down for what was done to them in the past, a new 'white man's burden'. You see, whilst it would be outrageous (and probably illegal) to vote for a white man because he is white, it is not only OK to vote for a black man because he is black, it is also OK to shout about doing it! It doesn't matter if he is a fool, he's our fool, kinda thing.
So there you have it, not so much a great socialist victory as a victory for self interest and greed. Not by bankers or millionaire businessmen (how dare they have big houses and yachts and aircraft, they are exploiting the 10,000 they give work to), but by bureaucrats and petty jobsworth's, by make-work non-jobbers in diversity and outreach progammes and by those do not want to work (those who can't have an excuse).
Unless the wealth-creators of America can manage a work-around, can succeed despite Obama in the White House then the US has some real problems ahead. Today, citizens of the United States, having been asked what they can do for their country, by a small margin replied, what can my country do for me.
Then he has to get dressed, go downstairs and get with the business of running the country. This bit is boring, tedious and not something that Barack Obama spends too much brain power on. Why should he? He did this President thing for what he gets out of it. Much like our own Tony Blair, BO is particularly good at posturing. He talks the walk.
The hurricane was due to Global Warming which he is going to deal with and he personally did all the clearing up, don't you know. And mends shoes overnight, with really tiny, perfect stitches. If you listen to Obama you hear a stream of that-can't-possibly-be-true statements, but the thing is, once said they can't be un-said so in a way they become true. Sound daft? Well it happens all the time with the Left.
Ex-Mayor of London Ken Livingstone was involved in a televised discussion the other day about wind turbines, the new industrial landscape, modern satanic mills. He said, to substantiate the importance of 'renewables' that we have just had hurricane Sandy and look at the devastation that caused and we have only had a temperature rise of less than 1 degree. Civilisation he said, would be destroyed by the end of this century unless we do something.
When asked if Sandy was due to global warming he smoothly said we cannot be sure of individual events, blah, blah, blah. But hold on. In that simple, short burst, he had given the distinct impression Sandy was due to our affect on climate and that things were going to get very much worse and wind turbines could help stop it. None of which is actually true, but it is now 'out there'. (Man's output of CO2 is insignificant when applied to planetary systems, it increases after temperature rises, not before, there has been no rise in global temperature since 1997 and wind turbines increase significantly the price of energy to consumers and even then cause more CO2 production, not less. But they do make subsidy farmers rich).
So Obama exists in a world where saying is doing. Just as Blair used to announce initiatives (that he then dropped, quietly) with much triumphant fanfare, as if it was an achievement itself. Are people really that thick? Surely they didn't vote for Obama to get more speeches about promises that remain and will be, unfulfilled? Not really no, they forget what he says in detail (as they are supposed to), what they actually voted for was money-tree politics, money-tree economics.
Obama based his 'success' over the last four years on borrowing. He piled debt on debt to keep the people feeling good. He operated the same economics that the insane Ed Balls promotes over here. It worked for Blair (well, as long as you forget the financial crash, obviously).
And people like 'no pain'. For them the fitness mantra 'no pain, no gain' is anathema. And boy are they under the anaesthetic! The most important thing Romney said in his campaign was the 47% thing. He said that 47% of the population would vote for Obama because he pays them, either as state workers or as benefit claimants. So here we have the conundrum of modern, Western politics.
The politicians themselves exist in a world removed from reality and indeed from politics itself. Their world consists of 'winning' arguments with their political opponents, showing up their political opponents and increasing their own wealth and standing amongst world wide peers. The work of government, such as it impacts on them, is done by policy wonks for whom they are nominally responsible. (And now with a second term those wonks, with a warm glow of comfort at 4 more years, will be really dangerous).
Romney was absolutely right about the client state that has been created. The divide between Democrats and Republicans goes something like this. Romney has to convince people to put the country first, that by creating a strong and workable framework, America will then be able to afford an affluent society with more employment and more to spend on social costs. And of course, that he can deliver that.
Obama on the other hand can say anything he likes, he has no intention, or possibly no ability to do any of it, but it is what the audience wants to hear and he just needs to get elected. His people will vote for him because he won't turn on them. He will keep the welfare taps open, he will continue to employ legions of non-productive and counter-productive public sector workers.
They are not concerned with the country, but with themselves, they just want what they want. If the economy goes to hell, so what, the state will always exist - borrow more, whatever! For them, money is not produced by successful businessmen and through making and selling things, no for them money grows on trees.
Similarly, Obama can play the race card, which I suppose we should take in good grace as it is the real slap down for what was done to them in the past, a new 'white man's burden'. You see, whilst it would be outrageous (and probably illegal) to vote for a white man because he is white, it is not only OK to vote for a black man because he is black, it is also OK to shout about doing it! It doesn't matter if he is a fool, he's our fool, kinda thing.
So there you have it, not so much a great socialist victory as a victory for self interest and greed. Not by bankers or millionaire businessmen (how dare they have big houses and yachts and aircraft, they are exploiting the 10,000 they give work to), but by bureaucrats and petty jobsworth's, by make-work non-jobbers in diversity and outreach progammes and by those do not want to work (those who can't have an excuse).
Unless the wealth-creators of America can manage a work-around, can succeed despite Obama in the White House then the US has some real problems ahead. Today, citizens of the United States, having been asked what they can do for their country, by a small margin replied, what can my country do for me.
Tuesday 6 November 2012
Is There Any Hope?
On BBC Breakfast, discussing the US Presidential elections they said that surely Romney represents all that went wrong recently, deregulation, capitalism? It is this kind of loaded, when did you stop beating your wife, statements that makes the BBC the ridiculous rump it is, that makes listening to them on any subject entirely pointless. If that was true then so would be that Obama, representing the socialist approach is harking back to Stalin and mass murder by the State.
This story that has been planted in people's minds is very dangerous. Capitalism is what has enriched the world, has led to major advancements on every front. Marxism, socialism has at the very least introduced systems to hold people down and at the extreme, tyranny. Allowing a person or a group of people absolute power, taking away earnings so that the State in the form of these people will decide how your money should be spent, is so obviously a bad idea that it is incredible that, through the spread of a story, it has become the norm.
Look at how it invades without substance. Jeffrey Archer isn't well liked and was guilty, but why did he get the longest sentence for perjury ever? Because he was a Conservative. Why, when MacShane has been found to have defrauded Parliament and the taxpayer through expenses fiddles is the law so slow in pursuing him? Because he isn't a Tory. Why was Tony Blair not impeached, why was he not arrested over the lies leading to the invasion of Iraq, why not for the illegal slaughter of farmers animals? Because he isn't a Tory.
The Conservative Party have done nothing to earn this reputation, it is a story put about, constantly by the Left and like all propaganda, with repeated telling it comes to be believed. Thatcher did many extremely good things for Britain, including a rebate from the EU, which we are told by the Left is impossible. But she is demonised without real substance and yet 13 years of a corrupt Labour administration passes with scant mention (because the 'Right' don't do slurs, generally).
Whilst a few individual Tories were corrupt and were imprisoned for it, Blair and Brown institutionalised sleaze and were open for business of a very corrupt kind, but who was prosecuted? Mandelson for lying on a mortgage application? No, that is only wrong if you do it.
One thing is certain though, no matter what the narrative of the Left says, if Obama gets in again, to spend another 4 years posturing with no substance, America is doomed.
This story that has been planted in people's minds is very dangerous. Capitalism is what has enriched the world, has led to major advancements on every front. Marxism, socialism has at the very least introduced systems to hold people down and at the extreme, tyranny. Allowing a person or a group of people absolute power, taking away earnings so that the State in the form of these people will decide how your money should be spent, is so obviously a bad idea that it is incredible that, through the spread of a story, it has become the norm.
Look at how it invades without substance. Jeffrey Archer isn't well liked and was guilty, but why did he get the longest sentence for perjury ever? Because he was a Conservative. Why, when MacShane has been found to have defrauded Parliament and the taxpayer through expenses fiddles is the law so slow in pursuing him? Because he isn't a Tory. Why was Tony Blair not impeached, why was he not arrested over the lies leading to the invasion of Iraq, why not for the illegal slaughter of farmers animals? Because he isn't a Tory.
The Conservative Party have done nothing to earn this reputation, it is a story put about, constantly by the Left and like all propaganda, with repeated telling it comes to be believed. Thatcher did many extremely good things for Britain, including a rebate from the EU, which we are told by the Left is impossible. But she is demonised without real substance and yet 13 years of a corrupt Labour administration passes with scant mention (because the 'Right' don't do slurs, generally).
Whilst a few individual Tories were corrupt and were imprisoned for it, Blair and Brown institutionalised sleaze and were open for business of a very corrupt kind, but who was prosecuted? Mandelson for lying on a mortgage application? No, that is only wrong if you do it.
One thing is certain though, no matter what the narrative of the Left says, if Obama gets in again, to spend another 4 years posturing with no substance, America is doomed.
Thursday 1 November 2012
Comet
It looks as if the day dawns for Comet. The company is very likely to enter administration very soon. This is unsurprising. The company is clearly in trouble so what manufacturer is going to sell their products to Comet and hope they don't collapse before the bill is paid. They are demanding payment up front.
But for customers too, why buy from a company that might not be there tomorrow? Such are the problems facing a company in such dire straits and it helps accelerate the end.
So, is Comet a viable company? If you have the readies to buy it and keep it going, could you lead it back to profits, even greatness? Well, the first question to ask is, what niche does it fill? And the answer is none. What does it do that is unique? Nothing. Over the years the electrical retailer as been vanishing. Shops that sell TV's to vacuums, fridges to toasters, stereo's and light bulbs are just not viable, there were too many.
To address this trend Comet did nothing. To be fair, Curry's didn't do much either, but they had a broader skill set if you like, with the PC World brand. Even their choice of colour scheme was wrong, orange for goodness sake. The one near me is next to a Halfords and I kinda subconsciously link the two.
Is there anything they could do? Well, the only way they could change in reality is if they went for an ultra cheap approach. If there is any way they could form partnerships and deals with suppliers to produce very much cheaper kit, washing machines, fridges and Hoovers then maybe, just maybe. The problem would be, the squeeze would have to be on production costs and margins, the quality still has to be there to some degree. Otherwise the death knell would be a new Ratner reputation and crippling warranty claims.
Comet it seems will go and rivals will hope it frees up some market for them. A little more help for Curry's but who would replace shopping at Comet for Argos?
But for customers too, why buy from a company that might not be there tomorrow? Such are the problems facing a company in such dire straits and it helps accelerate the end.
So, is Comet a viable company? If you have the readies to buy it and keep it going, could you lead it back to profits, even greatness? Well, the first question to ask is, what niche does it fill? And the answer is none. What does it do that is unique? Nothing. Over the years the electrical retailer as been vanishing. Shops that sell TV's to vacuums, fridges to toasters, stereo's and light bulbs are just not viable, there were too many.
To address this trend Comet did nothing. To be fair, Curry's didn't do much either, but they had a broader skill set if you like, with the PC World brand. Even their choice of colour scheme was wrong, orange for goodness sake. The one near me is next to a Halfords and I kinda subconsciously link the two.
Is there anything they could do? Well, the only way they could change in reality is if they went for an ultra cheap approach. If there is any way they could form partnerships and deals with suppliers to produce very much cheaper kit, washing machines, fridges and Hoovers then maybe, just maybe. The problem would be, the squeeze would have to be on production costs and margins, the quality still has to be there to some degree. Otherwise the death knell would be a new Ratner reputation and crippling warranty claims.
Comet it seems will go and rivals will hope it frees up some market for them. A little more help for Curry's but who would replace shopping at Comet for Argos?
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.
Wednesday 31 October 2012
John Browett, Apple
Well, it is very much less of a surprise that John Browett has gone from Apple than when he got the job in the first place. The whole operation at Apple is a million miles away from what Browett stands for, I have no idea what they saw in the guy. At the time, Apple were banging on about the unbelievable customer service focus that he apparently had. From what I saw, I probably could do better and my experience is way short of his!
I don't know if Browett is a complete numpty and just rose on the wave of success Tesco has experienced in the past, or if he genuinely was a part of it. But he brought that mindset to Dixons and it was entirely inappropriate to their business. What followed was a period of confusion and inertia, as Browett led the company into blind alleys with no clear strategy at a time when it needed strong leadership. The recession merely highlighted the flaws in his policies.
It was sheer genius though, to land the job at Apple, not just because it got him out of the failing company he was responsible for, but also because of the target. I mean, Apple! But it hasn't taken long for a company that makes massive profits on the desirability of its brand (which means huge sales even with huge margins), to discover a man steeped in the tradition of cheap, minimal staffing (both in numbers and talent), 'sale', '50% off'', 'must end soon' wasn't right for them.
Browett might be a lovely man and he may have genuine talent, but his target should have been Poundstretcher or Wal Mart or Costco. There he might have stood a chance.
It is interesting though, that the man has gone from Apple and the only things we know about his time there is that on being offered the role, we heard he was some kind of customer service guru and on leaving that he was cutting staff. In what way do those two things sit together well?
Interestingly, it seems things are very much better at Dixons these days. If they could just get a proper grip on their place in the market and shift away from the 'sale' mentality they will be fine.
I don't know if Browett is a complete numpty and just rose on the wave of success Tesco has experienced in the past, or if he genuinely was a part of it. But he brought that mindset to Dixons and it was entirely inappropriate to their business. What followed was a period of confusion and inertia, as Browett led the company into blind alleys with no clear strategy at a time when it needed strong leadership. The recession merely highlighted the flaws in his policies.
It was sheer genius though, to land the job at Apple, not just because it got him out of the failing company he was responsible for, but also because of the target. I mean, Apple! But it hasn't taken long for a company that makes massive profits on the desirability of its brand (which means huge sales even with huge margins), to discover a man steeped in the tradition of cheap, minimal staffing (both in numbers and talent), 'sale', '50% off'', 'must end soon' wasn't right for them.
Browett might be a lovely man and he may have genuine talent, but his target should have been Poundstretcher or Wal Mart or Costco. There he might have stood a chance.
It is interesting though, that the man has gone from Apple and the only things we know about his time there is that on being offered the role, we heard he was some kind of customer service guru and on leaving that he was cutting staff. In what way do those two things sit together well?
Interestingly, it seems things are very much better at Dixons these days. If they could just get a proper grip on their place in the market and shift away from the 'sale' mentality they will be fine.
Thursday 25 October 2012
Chris Patten
The ridiculous figure that is Chris Patten has launched himself barking into the public gaze, just after comments suggesting he might have to 'fall on his sword' emerged, during the Saville affair. Obviously the thing that is most important to this member of the BBC Trust is his own comfort. Up until now, he didn't seem to have a view, nor from his previous lack of interest any care. That's the Patten we know.
He thinks George Entwistle was fine at the CMS grilling because anyone would have felt the pressure, he was only 11 days into the job when this all blew up and he is entitled to blame the editor. What we know though is that Entwistle worked, in a senior capacity for the BBC, before he became DG, that he was tipped off about the Newsnight programme and now claims to have been aware but not that interested and that Rippon, the Editor didn't 'step aside' as was repeatedly reported, but was told to by Entwistle.
We also know that Rippon's boss, Helen Boaden has taken a vow of silence and that the BBC, which Patten fiercely claims to be independent, has hired lawyers to look into the Saville scandal who have done a significant amount of work for the Corporation previously and presumably, would be keen to get more in the future.
It may be difficult to discern exactly what did go on at the BBC, but some of the actions of the senior management would suggest that they don't ever want us to know, for whatever reason.
He thinks George Entwistle was fine at the CMS grilling because anyone would have felt the pressure, he was only 11 days into the job when this all blew up and he is entitled to blame the editor. What we know though is that Entwistle worked, in a senior capacity for the BBC, before he became DG, that he was tipped off about the Newsnight programme and now claims to have been aware but not that interested and that Rippon, the Editor didn't 'step aside' as was repeatedly reported, but was told to by Entwistle.
We also know that Rippon's boss, Helen Boaden has taken a vow of silence and that the BBC, which Patten fiercely claims to be independent, has hired lawyers to look into the Saville scandal who have done a significant amount of work for the Corporation previously and presumably, would be keen to get more in the future.
It may be difficult to discern exactly what did go on at the BBC, but some of the actions of the senior management would suggest that they don't ever want us to know, for whatever reason.
Tax
I get confused by tax fairly regularly. Head in the sand approach I think. Anyway, we have heard a lot recently about the tax big companies don't pay in the UK, which seemed to rise during the Blair years. One of the things we keep hearing (apart from the head of HMRC going out of his way to help Vodafone pay a fraction of their tax bill), is that tax avoidance is OK but tax evasion isn't.
The problem is that it seems this is actually a clever way of manipulating words (beloved of the Left) to make us believe one of these is something it isn't. See, to the ordinary Joe Public tax avoidance is when you use allowances that are within the rules to reduce your tax bill, but to those who have really large amount of cash it means so much more. Companies and people like Jimmy Carr use 'vehicles' and overseas companies to hide from their UK tax liabilities.
I gather Starbucks buy from other Starbucks entities to move cash around to tax friendly countries and avoid tax on healthy UK trading. Clearly this is not avoidance, it is evasion. You have created a route to hide your earnings, which whilst within 'the rules' is obviously only designed to evade taxation.
Now taxation in the UK may well be too high (in the same way that the Sun may come up tomorrow), but if you want to be here you pay your way and agitate to get the burden reduced. Remember, we do have a lot of hare-brained schemes, waste and expenses to pay for before you include the politicians club, the EU. Hence the tax.
So let us be clear here. It seems HMRC are deliberately not going after the big companies and celebrities leaving a very large tab for the rest of us to pick up, by the misuse of language. It's time for them to stop their evasions and address the issue of evasion rather than avoidance; they can't avoid evasion any more.
The problem is that it seems this is actually a clever way of manipulating words (beloved of the Left) to make us believe one of these is something it isn't. See, to the ordinary Joe Public tax avoidance is when you use allowances that are within the rules to reduce your tax bill, but to those who have really large amount of cash it means so much more. Companies and people like Jimmy Carr use 'vehicles' and overseas companies to hide from their UK tax liabilities.
I gather Starbucks buy from other Starbucks entities to move cash around to tax friendly countries and avoid tax on healthy UK trading. Clearly this is not avoidance, it is evasion. You have created a route to hide your earnings, which whilst within 'the rules' is obviously only designed to evade taxation.
Now taxation in the UK may well be too high (in the same way that the Sun may come up tomorrow), but if you want to be here you pay your way and agitate to get the burden reduced. Remember, we do have a lot of hare-brained schemes, waste and expenses to pay for before you include the politicians club, the EU. Hence the tax.
So let us be clear here. It seems HMRC are deliberately not going after the big companies and celebrities leaving a very large tab for the rest of us to pick up, by the misuse of language. It's time for them to stop their evasions and address the issue of evasion rather than avoidance; they can't avoid evasion any more.
Wednesday 24 October 2012
Crazy Argos
I've mentioned before how blindingly obvious some of the mistakes that Argos are making are, but the last comment was something along the lines of 'we checked our navel and we aren't doing anything wrong'. Now that can be true and the best thing to do is batten down the hatches and ride out the storm, but things clearly weren't right.
So in the time honoured tradition, outsiders in the form of costly Consultants were brought in and here are the results of the Spanish jury. Argos will close some 75 stores (that's money saving) and concentrate on internet sales. There is some merit in this, but I'm guessing what Terry 'Dud' Duddy means is shifting the brand onto a more online led outlet basis.
This will be another nail in the coffin. The problem if you are a shop is that online is a pain in the backside, except when it isn't. What Argos don't seem to understand (and they are not alone) is how to discern the difference; when is the internet useful to a shop.
The first thing I would do is get rid of computers and photography. These are fast moving technologies that have an intense market, unsuited to the Argos model. Keeping cheaper compact cameras is OK as is tablets and such, cheaper devices.
Concentrate instead on house wares, gadgets, toys and a better range of jewellery and watches, not necessarily more expensive, just buy better. and stop selling stupid, specially commissioned stuff, unless you do it right. I bought a branded, 'made specially for Argos' lawnmower which had a ridiculously short mains lead on it. OK, so it forces you to buy an extension which is not, perhaps the end of the world. Except you can't, because it has a unique connector on it that not even Argos sell anything to match. This annoys people, guys. Seriously.
But the danger with the internet led approach I think they are proposing is that they will go to war with themselves internally. I think I have a talent for systems, particularly how people interact with systems and processes. Online will try to reflect the cheaper prices available with internet-only companies and undercut their own stores. If you have expensive stores to support, don't create a competing model internally, don't incentivise staff through targets to do harm to the business by dropping prices without regard to the bigger picture.
Online is supposed to help your business, not hinder it, so look for ways it can help. Give better product descriptions online, put some effort into it, no-one else does so that is a game-changer straight away and whether someone orders online or picks up in a store, they will have made a more informed choice. They will feel more confident buying it from Argos. What about order online and pick up (or the excellent idea of rapid local delivery)? That is what I did with the lawnmower. I researched online, found Argos had what I wanted at a good price, ordered online and picked it up.
There is a very good reason for the stores and they should be worked hard to get the money out of them; the staff need to be better and more responsive. And the whole point is to get the stock out to the delivery desk ASAP, so put more people on as soon as it gets busy and that includes all the standing around chatting supervisors.
Oooh some retailers make my blood boil and Argos is one of them.
So in the time honoured tradition, outsiders in the form of costly Consultants were brought in and here are the results of the Spanish jury. Argos will close some 75 stores (that's money saving) and concentrate on internet sales. There is some merit in this, but I'm guessing what Terry 'Dud' Duddy means is shifting the brand onto a more online led outlet basis.
This will be another nail in the coffin. The problem if you are a shop is that online is a pain in the backside, except when it isn't. What Argos don't seem to understand (and they are not alone) is how to discern the difference; when is the internet useful to a shop.
The first thing I would do is get rid of computers and photography. These are fast moving technologies that have an intense market, unsuited to the Argos model. Keeping cheaper compact cameras is OK as is tablets and such, cheaper devices.
Concentrate instead on house wares, gadgets, toys and a better range of jewellery and watches, not necessarily more expensive, just buy better. and stop selling stupid, specially commissioned stuff, unless you do it right. I bought a branded, 'made specially for Argos' lawnmower which had a ridiculously short mains lead on it. OK, so it forces you to buy an extension which is not, perhaps the end of the world. Except you can't, because it has a unique connector on it that not even Argos sell anything to match. This annoys people, guys. Seriously.
But the danger with the internet led approach I think they are proposing is that they will go to war with themselves internally. I think I have a talent for systems, particularly how people interact with systems and processes. Online will try to reflect the cheaper prices available with internet-only companies and undercut their own stores. If you have expensive stores to support, don't create a competing model internally, don't incentivise staff through targets to do harm to the business by dropping prices without regard to the bigger picture.
Online is supposed to help your business, not hinder it, so look for ways it can help. Give better product descriptions online, put some effort into it, no-one else does so that is a game-changer straight away and whether someone orders online or picks up in a store, they will have made a more informed choice. They will feel more confident buying it from Argos. What about order online and pick up (or the excellent idea of rapid local delivery)? That is what I did with the lawnmower. I researched online, found Argos had what I wanted at a good price, ordered online and picked it up.
There is a very good reason for the stores and they should be worked hard to get the money out of them; the staff need to be better and more responsive. And the whole point is to get the stock out to the delivery desk ASAP, so put more people on as soon as it gets busy and that includes all the standing around chatting supervisors.
Oooh some retailers make my blood boil and Argos is one of them.
Tuesday 23 October 2012
George Entwistle
What on Earth is George Entwistle? From the bits I've seen of his appearance before the CMS Select Committee he has done the usual senior executive thing of denying his role involves knowing anything about what goes on in the organisation he runs. In this case though, it seemed like it might be true. He may be the Manager we believe the BBC to be stuffed with; someone with no actual job.
Anyway, the bit I was particularly struck by was when Entwistle emerged from his citadel and paused to speak to the waiting journalists, saying "I am pleased the MP's have found the time to see me" or words to that effect. Does he really believe he is the important bit in all this? The MP's were not grilling him, they had found a slot in their busy schedule to allow him to help them with their enquiries.
Except of course he didn't know anything. He had a remarkable lack of curiosity and he definitely had no knowledge of anything the MP's might not have thought proper.
Anyway, the bit I was particularly struck by was when Entwistle emerged from his citadel and paused to speak to the waiting journalists, saying "I am pleased the MP's have found the time to see me" or words to that effect. Does he really believe he is the important bit in all this? The MP's were not grilling him, they had found a slot in their busy schedule to allow him to help them with their enquiries.
Except of course he didn't know anything. He had a remarkable lack of curiosity and he definitely had no knowledge of anything the MP's might not have thought proper.
The BBC And The Left
Was the amazing lack of interest in exposing Jimmy Saville's paedophilia down to the Left leaning nature of the BBC? Did these people, who widely support paedophilia as a way of breaking down our society, think that they were doing the ideology's work by keeping quiet? Perhaps they didn't care.
If you vote for whoever seems to have the best ideas when an election comes around, or if you feel socialism is a fair option, then you need to think again about the Left in this country. Compare the complete and utter lack of hysterical screaming by the Left about Jimmy Saville (and others) abusing children, with the reaction to Murdoch and the phone hacking scandal.
It is a terrible thing to think you are entitled to listen in to other people's personal messages, to then publish those details. But it was tittle tattle about celebrities and whilst illegal, of little import otherwise. Prosecute and punish as the law requires. Warn papers about their conduct and move on.
But here we have a national broadcaster of immense power and influence, funded through tax, that is not being particularly criticised by the Left, despite the fact that they decided to ignore children being abused. I know which I think is more important and more damaging.
Another background squeal emanating from the Left is a claim that a cabal of secretive characters run the world. Obviously they don't want a debate about it and they don't pretend to have any evidence, but then, as ever, they just claim to be right and you are not allowed to doubt it. The Left like not allowing things, like not debating climate change, not being allowed to have an opinion about homosexuality unless it is their opinion.
But there most definitely is a Left conspiracy and it is not and never really was, the Soviet Union. The EU is a replacement USSR of course and positions like university lecturers and senior police officers, social workers and judges have all been taken by people carefully indoctrinated in the Sixties and later. So today, there is a rotten core at the heart of Britain, that we perhaps don't even realise is there.
Political Correctness is one of their major weapons, being used to shut down debates that they couldn't possibly win in a free and open society. You know what i mean; how often do you now hear 'oh, you can't say that'. Can't? When did that happen? Who decided for us?
Time to wake up and send these ne'er do well's and communist fellow travellers packing. If they want a North Korean state here they can forget it, but the land of their dreams does exist so they can pop off over there. Except they won't, because they wouldn't be in charge and that is a key aspect it their 'revolution'. They must never suffer what they inflict on others.
If you vote for whoever seems to have the best ideas when an election comes around, or if you feel socialism is a fair option, then you need to think again about the Left in this country. Compare the complete and utter lack of hysterical screaming by the Left about Jimmy Saville (and others) abusing children, with the reaction to Murdoch and the phone hacking scandal.
It is a terrible thing to think you are entitled to listen in to other people's personal messages, to then publish those details. But it was tittle tattle about celebrities and whilst illegal, of little import otherwise. Prosecute and punish as the law requires. Warn papers about their conduct and move on.
But here we have a national broadcaster of immense power and influence, funded through tax, that is not being particularly criticised by the Left, despite the fact that they decided to ignore children being abused. I know which I think is more important and more damaging.
Another background squeal emanating from the Left is a claim that a cabal of secretive characters run the world. Obviously they don't want a debate about it and they don't pretend to have any evidence, but then, as ever, they just claim to be right and you are not allowed to doubt it. The Left like not allowing things, like not debating climate change, not being allowed to have an opinion about homosexuality unless it is their opinion.
But there most definitely is a Left conspiracy and it is not and never really was, the Soviet Union. The EU is a replacement USSR of course and positions like university lecturers and senior police officers, social workers and judges have all been taken by people carefully indoctrinated in the Sixties and later. So today, there is a rotten core at the heart of Britain, that we perhaps don't even realise is there.
Political Correctness is one of their major weapons, being used to shut down debates that they couldn't possibly win in a free and open society. You know what i mean; how often do you now hear 'oh, you can't say that'. Can't? When did that happen? Who decided for us?
Time to wake up and send these ne'er do well's and communist fellow travellers packing. If they want a North Korean state here they can forget it, but the land of their dreams does exist so they can pop off over there. Except they won't, because they wouldn't be in charge and that is a key aspect it their 'revolution'. They must never suffer what they inflict on others.
Harriet 'Interesting' Harman
Harriet Harman, whom most people would just see as an unpleasant human being, is now turning out to be interesting. By interesting I mean in the same way as suspects become of interest to the police, I mean in a way that most civilised people would 'take an interest'. Interestingly, it has fallen to her to deplore the allegations of sexual abuse now coming out about Jimmy Saville.
You see, Harriet would seem to be a little conflicted here. In the past she has worked for and openly stated that children having sexual relations with adults should only be of concern where it can be proven that the child was harmed. So I guess at best she feels that Saville probably hasn't done anything wrong, herself, personally.
What the Labour Party thinks is another thing; it does seem to attract a lot of paedophiles to its ranks. Perhaps overall they don;t agree with paedophilia, but then, perhaps their definition isn't the same as yours. The Left generally has been pushing for the age of 'consent' to be lowered to 14, though of course they don't believe in consent anyway, just an absence of 'harm'.
Personally, I doubt even that. The Left sees abused children as a price they are willing to pay to help undermine Western, capitalist civilisation. The destruction of the family unit has been key and it was why they supported and cajoled homosexuals to 'demand their rights'. Really, the Left just saw them as useful idiots who could be manipulated to help pervert the structure of our society.
It was the least worst, most acceptable 'adjustment' they could push. The Left have also spoken out that bestiality is just a lifestyle choice too, alongside paedophilia.
I hope the Coalition don't try to soft pedal on this issue. It must expose Harman for what she is, talk openly about her views and see if the Labour party decide to defend her or run and hide its true character.
You see, Harriet would seem to be a little conflicted here. In the past she has worked for and openly stated that children having sexual relations with adults should only be of concern where it can be proven that the child was harmed. So I guess at best she feels that Saville probably hasn't done anything wrong, herself, personally.
What the Labour Party thinks is another thing; it does seem to attract a lot of paedophiles to its ranks. Perhaps overall they don;t agree with paedophilia, but then, perhaps their definition isn't the same as yours. The Left generally has been pushing for the age of 'consent' to be lowered to 14, though of course they don't believe in consent anyway, just an absence of 'harm'.
Personally, I doubt even that. The Left sees abused children as a price they are willing to pay to help undermine Western, capitalist civilisation. The destruction of the family unit has been key and it was why they supported and cajoled homosexuals to 'demand their rights'. Really, the Left just saw them as useful idiots who could be manipulated to help pervert the structure of our society.
It was the least worst, most acceptable 'adjustment' they could push. The Left have also spoken out that bestiality is just a lifestyle choice too, alongside paedophilia.
I hope the Coalition don't try to soft pedal on this issue. It must expose Harman for what she is, talk openly about her views and see if the Labour party decide to defend her or run and hide its true character.
Thursday 18 October 2012
If I Ruled The World - Merkel
Merkel, echoing her Finance Minister, thinks that member states in the EU should have control of their national budgets taken away from them and given to Brussels. This suits the Germans of course and will mean that they can more effectively prune the nations budgets they currently don't like.
The reason for handing power to Brussels, to make it one of its 'competences' is because of the competent way it allowed countries into the EU and Euro that were basket cases and lied about their finances. Also, for introducing the Euro at all, a construct that had no ability whatsoever of working, it was always going to lead to a financial crisis.
But, we should not forget, for also not being able to get its own accounts signed off, ever. Giving control to Brussels would be the same as asking the BBC to form a policy for dealing with paedophiles. On that subject, what did the BBC report as being the problem in Europe at the moment? People in countries like Greece turning increasing it seems, to 'Right wing' parties. Honestly, this is what they hit on as being the issue, not the fact that an attempt to Sovietise Europe through EU power grabs was actually the cause of all the problems.
They didn't highlight the way that Merkel was demanding that power be taken without consent. German leaders have form regarding such statements of course.
The reason for handing power to Brussels, to make it one of its 'competences' is because of the competent way it allowed countries into the EU and Euro that were basket cases and lied about their finances. Also, for introducing the Euro at all, a construct that had no ability whatsoever of working, it was always going to lead to a financial crisis.
But, we should not forget, for also not being able to get its own accounts signed off, ever. Giving control to Brussels would be the same as asking the BBC to form a policy for dealing with paedophiles. On that subject, what did the BBC report as being the problem in Europe at the moment? People in countries like Greece turning increasing it seems, to 'Right wing' parties. Honestly, this is what they hit on as being the issue, not the fact that an attempt to Sovietise Europe through EU power grabs was actually the cause of all the problems.
They didn't highlight the way that Merkel was demanding that power be taken without consent. German leaders have form regarding such statements of course.
Energy Prices
Just after having increased their prices, the energy companies say they are surprised that the government wants them to always give customers the lowest tariff as a default, rather than offer a bewildering array of tariffs for some strange reason (surely not designed to deliberately confuse?). Here is my take on their 'surprise';
'I didn't see it coming. no can't say I did. Surprised me it did. See, I'm a professional burglar. I've taken the time to learn my trade, perfect it so to speak. When I breaks into a house I do it with minimum fuss or damage. I take what delights my eye and will make a quid and I leaves. I don't turn the place over or smash things up unnecessarily, that's just vandalism that, ain't no need for it.
I break in when no-one is at home; poor dears don't need to find someone rummaging, do they? Tell you the truth I could do without the fright too. Anyways, I think I do a good job, I'm local and responsive to the needs of my customers. As I say, I'm a professional.
Now I find that the police are interested in arresting me, like some common criminal. Didn't see that coming.'
Now I'm not suggesting that energy companies are burglars, because you invite them into your home, though the theft element is clearly there. I think their surprise is genuine in that they have been able to ignore government, good practice and the fact that there is, apparently, a regulator, because they have been given carte blanche previously to operate pretty much as a monopoly and where this runs into hints of competition, as a cartel, without so much as a tweet from government.
Now the Conservatives are suggesting they should behave responsibly. Shocking. Such consideration for the public suggests Cameron might actually offer a referendum on the EU. But then, both are just talk at present.
'I didn't see it coming. no can't say I did. Surprised me it did. See, I'm a professional burglar. I've taken the time to learn my trade, perfect it so to speak. When I breaks into a house I do it with minimum fuss or damage. I take what delights my eye and will make a quid and I leaves. I don't turn the place over or smash things up unnecessarily, that's just vandalism that, ain't no need for it.
I break in when no-one is at home; poor dears don't need to find someone rummaging, do they? Tell you the truth I could do without the fright too. Anyways, I think I do a good job, I'm local and responsive to the needs of my customers. As I say, I'm a professional.
Now I find that the police are interested in arresting me, like some common criminal. Didn't see that coming.'
Now I'm not suggesting that energy companies are burglars, because you invite them into your home, though the theft element is clearly there. I think their surprise is genuine in that they have been able to ignore government, good practice and the fact that there is, apparently, a regulator, because they have been given carte blanche previously to operate pretty much as a monopoly and where this runs into hints of competition, as a cartel, without so much as a tweet from government.
Now the Conservatives are suggesting they should behave responsibly. Shocking. Such consideration for the public suggests Cameron might actually offer a referendum on the EU. But then, both are just talk at present.
Tuesday 16 October 2012
October
County folk
would talk of the turning year, knowing what happens around them with wildlife,
trees and plants. What to eat and what to store. I know the horse-chestnuts
(conkers) are falling right now and that you can’t eat them. After that, not
much. We don’t need to know these things any more, don’t need to be connected
to the land, the country around us. Most people have enough trouble coping with
driving in the changed conditions, dark when you leave for work and wet quite
often.
The girls
(and increasingly the boys) shop for winter coats en vogue, representing the latest season to avoid embarrassment
with those ‘in the know’, the cognoscenti.
The scarf, the draft excluder of the neck comes into its own as an item of
utility, rather than just a fashion accessory.
Do you, can
you remember twenty five years ago, when Mr. Fish singled out a lady
correspondent, to reassure her through a television broadcast that a hurricane
was not on its way. Unfortunately a great storm sprang shortly after on the
night of 15-16 th October
1987, causing all kinds of mayhem. I lived and worked on the East coast at the
time and it was quite some wild night.
But October
is a great month for history too. Many, many celebrities have birthday’s this
month , look them up at famousbirthdays.com. Some are shocking though. Well, to
me.
Then there
are the battles. Naturally everyone remembers the Battle of Hastings but few
know that it was the 14th October , beginning at 9.15 on Senlac
Hill. OK that was a bit obsessive, but the Victorians actually referred to it
as the Battle of Senlac Hill. Although the home team lost, Britain would have
been a very different place if William had not carried the field.
On the 21st
October 1805 Nelson ruined Napoleon’s day by experimenting with a new naval
tactic that absolutely decimated the French fleet. I’m sure the opposition took
solace from the fact that they managed to kill their tormentor , but he had
rather made himself an obvious target with a range of sparkling baubles across
his coat.
The 25th
October has two remarkable battles; Balaclava and Agincourt. The former was
fought in 1854 during the Crimean war and is more popularly known for the
Charge of the Light Brigade, of which Tennyson said ‘Into the valley of Death rode the 600’. Agincourt was fought after
appalling overnight rain in 1415. Shakespeare was inspired by the achievements
of the English of Henry V cutting down as they did, the flower of French
knighthood, falling due to mud, poor tactics and hubris.
‘This note
doth tell me of ten thousand French
That in the
field lie slain: of princes, in this number,
And nobles
bearing banners, there lie dead
One hundred
twenty six’
October is a
mellow month.
Fit And Proper BBC
Oh dear, oh dear it is all unravelling for the BBC. What is a Left wing biased, haughty (naturally) and arrogant organisation supposed to do? When a journalist reported a story truthfully about lies told by one of the Prime Minister's closest aides, so the Prime Minister could start a war by further lying himself, not only did the BBC make sure it didn't investigate the government, it even got rid of senior people.
No-one can say it didn't do its best to help and support fellow travellers. I mean they showed all the level of unconcern about the most serious corruption in places of power, they bent over backwards to align with all the nonsense of the Blair and Brown mania.
And they were just as in thrall to money and celebrity as any other good leftie, hence the lack of interest in the 'personal' life of Jimmy Saville. If you are tempted to think that this is an outrageous claim by a right winger it isn't and I'll explain why. (First though, 'right wing' itself is incorrect, that is just another form of socialism, one of the two extremes. I believe in moderation).
When Peter Mandelson (for whom the character Kaa in Disney's version of Jungle Book is sooo fitting) said that he was comfortable with the filthy rich it was taken that he was explaining how different New Labour was from the old. He hoped you would think that what he meant was he and the government of which he intermittently formed a part, supported those who were or became wealthy.
His actions however betrayed what he really intended. Mandelson meant he was comfortable with the wealthy, that he would allow them to enrich him in return for a co-operative government. He and all the other creeps around Tony Blair. The rich had nothing to fear from New Labour as long as they played ball with the key players, the elite surrounding the Cromwellian monarch, Blair.
Today we learn that an MP, Philip Davies (strangely, not a Labour MP) has written asking the regulator Ofcom, whether the BBC is fit and proper to hold a broadcasting licence. The answer to that currently of course is clearly 'no' and will remain so until it stops treating left liberal propaganda as its reason for existing.
If Hillsborough and Jimmy Saville don't tell you that we have to remove, root and branch the left based corruption that has become endemic in this country under the Blair regime, then I cannot imagine what would convince you.
No-one can say it didn't do its best to help and support fellow travellers. I mean they showed all the level of unconcern about the most serious corruption in places of power, they bent over backwards to align with all the nonsense of the Blair and Brown mania.
And they were just as in thrall to money and celebrity as any other good leftie, hence the lack of interest in the 'personal' life of Jimmy Saville. If you are tempted to think that this is an outrageous claim by a right winger it isn't and I'll explain why. (First though, 'right wing' itself is incorrect, that is just another form of socialism, one of the two extremes. I believe in moderation).
When Peter Mandelson (for whom the character Kaa in Disney's version of Jungle Book is sooo fitting) said that he was comfortable with the filthy rich it was taken that he was explaining how different New Labour was from the old. He hoped you would think that what he meant was he and the government of which he intermittently formed a part, supported those who were or became wealthy.
His actions however betrayed what he really intended. Mandelson meant he was comfortable with the wealthy, that he would allow them to enrich him in return for a co-operative government. He and all the other creeps around Tony Blair. The rich had nothing to fear from New Labour as long as they played ball with the key players, the elite surrounding the Cromwellian monarch, Blair.
Today we learn that an MP, Philip Davies (strangely, not a Labour MP) has written asking the regulator Ofcom, whether the BBC is fit and proper to hold a broadcasting licence. The answer to that currently of course is clearly 'no' and will remain so until it stops treating left liberal propaganda as its reason for existing.
If Hillsborough and Jimmy Saville don't tell you that we have to remove, root and branch the left based corruption that has become endemic in this country under the Blair regime, then I cannot imagine what would convince you.
Monday 15 October 2012
Scottish Independence
Scotland could be a successful, independent country I'm sure. But a large number of things would have to change. At present, it requires subsidies from the rest of the UK (OK, to be honest, England) to run its affairs. It doesn't have any oil. It is where the pipelines for the import of UK oil comes ashore, but not being a net contributor to the UK economy, none of the investment can be said to have come from Scotland, so none of it is 'theirs'.
They could of course charge a tariff to use their facilities, which would then throw up the quandary for the companies involved, to stay and pay, move the lines further South or stop production. Scotland could develop shale gas and sell it to the prats in England who are frightening themselves about using this abundant resource under our sea. But Salmond is I believe one of those too.
Beyond that it is difficult of course, because the EU (and Salmond will immediately hand the keys to an independent Scotland to Brussels) will not allow them much room to manoeuvre; no state subsidies for industry, no flotation of the new currency, the Euro (which will also cause asset problems converting from Sterling) and lots of new rules. But, there might at least initially be something that Scotland is very comfortable with and Salmond absolutely relies on, subsidies.
But most of all, a strong, successful independent Scotland would require one massive change that I just cannot imagine them achieving. They would have to become an optimistic nation.
But such is the belief of Alex Salmond, that he has to bring schoolchildren into the voting and you can be sure he will spend the interval between now and the referendum, in a propaganda campaign to inculcate the correct views into these impressionable minds. But then it is important to remember, this is not about the Union, or even Scotland, it is about Alex Salmond and his ego. Now that is a big place.
They could of course charge a tariff to use their facilities, which would then throw up the quandary for the companies involved, to stay and pay, move the lines further South or stop production. Scotland could develop shale gas and sell it to the prats in England who are frightening themselves about using this abundant resource under our sea. But Salmond is I believe one of those too.
Beyond that it is difficult of course, because the EU (and Salmond will immediately hand the keys to an independent Scotland to Brussels) will not allow them much room to manoeuvre; no state subsidies for industry, no flotation of the new currency, the Euro (which will also cause asset problems converting from Sterling) and lots of new rules. But, there might at least initially be something that Scotland is very comfortable with and Salmond absolutely relies on, subsidies.
But most of all, a strong, successful independent Scotland would require one massive change that I just cannot imagine them achieving. They would have to become an optimistic nation.
But such is the belief of Alex Salmond, that he has to bring schoolchildren into the voting and you can be sure he will spend the interval between now and the referendum, in a propaganda campaign to inculcate the correct views into these impressionable minds. But then it is important to remember, this is not about the Union, or even Scotland, it is about Alex Salmond and his ego. Now that is a big place.
The Nobel Peace Prize
It has been apparent for some time now that the Nobel Peace Prize is a joke and not worth considering. The pathetic nonsense continues though, as it has now been handed to the institution of the EU. This has been met with howls of derision from every living thing more advanced than an amoeba.
But, should we try to find something positive about the EU and peace? Is there something positive about the EU? Well, you have to admit that, from the very outset the countries who have caused war in Europe for centuries, France and Germany have dome things differently recently.
Having, at last, realised that wars cost them an awful lot of money and even then they generally lost them, these two empire builders decided to stop with all the weapons stuff. In future they decided, they would take over Europe by more subtle means. They would convince us all that we wanted to join a nefarious club, that no-one could quite pin down what it stood for, nor what use it was. If we were not in their gang, we would be laughed at, our clothes would not be trendy and no-one would talk to us.
So as populations, bored of politics allowed complete idiots become politicians, a breed of never-worked-a-day career bureaucrats came to dominate and they loved the idea of a superstate run by them, for them. An endlessly rich talking shop of considerable substance.
And so the Franco-German empire was built. But who was in charge, the French or the Germans? Both considered the question laughable as each considered the other a junior partner at best. But Germany had the money that supported the empire building, they said. Money is of secondary importance, insisted the French. We breed and train bureaucrats, we have universities for them, we are the natural leaders of such an empire,they aver.
Which is why, both have threatened war with the other if their hegemony is not recognised. And we think the Euro is a crisis!
So has the EU kept the peace in Europe? No. If anyone has, it is NATO underwritten by the US. But by constructing the EU, the French and Germans have at least delayed the war they desire so much. Ultimately, the EU bureaucrats think Hitler and Napoleon were essentially right; Europe should be a single superstate, run without democracy by the Germans, or er, the French. C'est le guerre.
But, should we try to find something positive about the EU and peace? Is there something positive about the EU? Well, you have to admit that, from the very outset the countries who have caused war in Europe for centuries, France and Germany have dome things differently recently.
Having, at last, realised that wars cost them an awful lot of money and even then they generally lost them, these two empire builders decided to stop with all the weapons stuff. In future they decided, they would take over Europe by more subtle means. They would convince us all that we wanted to join a nefarious club, that no-one could quite pin down what it stood for, nor what use it was. If we were not in their gang, we would be laughed at, our clothes would not be trendy and no-one would talk to us.
So as populations, bored of politics allowed complete idiots become politicians, a breed of never-worked-a-day career bureaucrats came to dominate and they loved the idea of a superstate run by them, for them. An endlessly rich talking shop of considerable substance.
And so the Franco-German empire was built. But who was in charge, the French or the Germans? Both considered the question laughable as each considered the other a junior partner at best. But Germany had the money that supported the empire building, they said. Money is of secondary importance, insisted the French. We breed and train bureaucrats, we have universities for them, we are the natural leaders of such an empire,they aver.
Which is why, both have threatened war with the other if their hegemony is not recognised. And we think the Euro is a crisis!
So has the EU kept the peace in Europe? No. If anyone has, it is NATO underwritten by the US. But by constructing the EU, the French and Germans have at least delayed the war they desire so much. Ultimately, the EU bureaucrats think Hitler and Napoleon were essentially right; Europe should be a single superstate, run without democracy by the Germans, or er, the French. C'est le guerre.
The BBC And Science
A little while ago, after spending some time pointing out that neither the theory of evolution or climate change could be wrong, the BBC overtly stated that it was giving up on science. 'It would be wrong', they declared, 'to support views that oppose our own'.
Had people as intellectually conflicted as those running the BBC today, existed and wielded the same influence throughout history, imagine how backward we would be today. Imagine the damage they would have done.
Climate change is right, because lots of 'scientists' say so, is the BBC line. So, when the lone nutcase Galileo popped up, the BBC would have had him ridiculed for disagreeing with 'everyone' else. You may say that the Catholic church served the role of the BBC, but that wasn't quite the case. The opposition to Galileo was not because they thought his proof irrelevant, as would the BBC, as they understood and knew he was right. What the Church wanted, was to control the release of the information so their position of authority was not undermined.
It comes across that generally, throughout history people have striven to find answers and accept new ideas that made sense and carried proof. Now, we have an 'Establishment' remarkable for its obsessive closed mind stance.
We know Man Made Global Warming is a crock, because it stopped well over a decade ago and the inputs from Man are too small. But mainly we know that the people claiming with such certainty to know the future of climate don't, because they do not even understand how it works, so couldn't possibly create an accurate computer model. It is like claiming to know every word spoken by Julius Caesar throughout his life.
The BBC is formed of the same people behind the global warming scam; Left wing activists seeking to destroy democratic capitalism. It is politics, not science or journalism that drives both.
Had people as intellectually conflicted as those running the BBC today, existed and wielded the same influence throughout history, imagine how backward we would be today. Imagine the damage they would have done.
Climate change is right, because lots of 'scientists' say so, is the BBC line. So, when the lone nutcase Galileo popped up, the BBC would have had him ridiculed for disagreeing with 'everyone' else. You may say that the Catholic church served the role of the BBC, but that wasn't quite the case. The opposition to Galileo was not because they thought his proof irrelevant, as would the BBC, as they understood and knew he was right. What the Church wanted, was to control the release of the information so their position of authority was not undermined.
It comes across that generally, throughout history people have striven to find answers and accept new ideas that made sense and carried proof. Now, we have an 'Establishment' remarkable for its obsessive closed mind stance.
We know Man Made Global Warming is a crock, because it stopped well over a decade ago and the inputs from Man are too small. But mainly we know that the people claiming with such certainty to know the future of climate don't, because they do not even understand how it works, so couldn't possibly create an accurate computer model. It is like claiming to know every word spoken by Julius Caesar throughout his life.
The BBC is formed of the same people behind the global warming scam; Left wing activists seeking to destroy democratic capitalism. It is politics, not science or journalism that drives both.
How Thick Are 'Journalists'?
If you are like me, then you often find yourself dissatisfied by the level of reporting in the press. After reading a story, or watching a TV news item, you have a vague feeling that you need to know more. Then, when you think about it, you realise that the report didn't really tell you anything. It is why the British public have absolutely no idea what is going on in Afghanistan, yet our soldiers are being killed and maimed there.
But, you might say that is a complicated subject and would require risk taking to get the real details out. Yes, I would reply and that is what journalism was once about. The war reporting during the Crimean campaign is said to have had a devastating effect on the British public, who demanded change. In today's world of instant communication and 24 hour 'news' we are lucky I suppose, to even know we have troops in Afghanistan.
But on more local, straightforward ground, the press still insist on guessing their way through a story. Santander pulling out of buying 316 RBS branches was not because they didn't like what they saw, no it was 'probably' something to do with the problems in the Spanish economy. The BBC in particular, confused issues with their made up reports before with Santander, asking as Spain sought bailouts, if your money was safe here.
Well, Santander UK is a stand alone entity, owned ultimately by the Spanish parent, but operating independently and doing quite nicely. Possibly because they had greater reserves and didn't get involved with stupid, get rich quick schemes that so easily beguiled the monumentally ignorant, but highly paid, bank CEO's at other, more 'established' firms.
So no, unless Britney buys a new handbag, there will be no news from the 9 to 9.30 'journalists.
But, you might say that is a complicated subject and would require risk taking to get the real details out. Yes, I would reply and that is what journalism was once about. The war reporting during the Crimean campaign is said to have had a devastating effect on the British public, who demanded change. In today's world of instant communication and 24 hour 'news' we are lucky I suppose, to even know we have troops in Afghanistan.
But on more local, straightforward ground, the press still insist on guessing their way through a story. Santander pulling out of buying 316 RBS branches was not because they didn't like what they saw, no it was 'probably' something to do with the problems in the Spanish economy. The BBC in particular, confused issues with their made up reports before with Santander, asking as Spain sought bailouts, if your money was safe here.
Well, Santander UK is a stand alone entity, owned ultimately by the Spanish parent, but operating independently and doing quite nicely. Possibly because they had greater reserves and didn't get involved with stupid, get rich quick schemes that so easily beguiled the monumentally ignorant, but highly paid, bank CEO's at other, more 'established' firms.
So no, unless Britney buys a new handbag, there will be no news from the 9 to 9.30 'journalists.
Friday 21 September 2012
Modern Morality
Whilst it is clear that a decline in personal standards of morality and decency has been in effect since the Left started to take control in the Sixties, it was greatly accelerated during the Blair years. When a government is led by people who openly espouse selfishness and are obviously committed to personal gain through abuse of power and corruption, then society will follow that lead.
Too many people just want the OK, direct or subtle, to do the easy thing not the hard thing. Standards maintained by peer pressure and a 'do unto others' culture will always have higher levels of decency and society than the Left ideal of personal aggrandisement at a cost to others.
But even in this reduced state of common courtesy, I still find announcements from 'authority' figures confusing. Take Keir Starmer, the DPP. This communist wants things done that are downright dangerous to a democracy, but he nevertheless has been given a position of authority. Recently he said Tweets about Tom Daley were just personal opinion, even if the personal opinion was, to most people, idiotic.
That was a fair and correct assessment that you get the impression Starmer must have got from someone else. There is far too much concern these days on people calling you names. The Tweets about the murdered policewomen are, when mocking, grossly offensive to public decency and the mindless cretins that write them should be dealt with severely. Again Starmer seems to get it (or is helped to).
But then we have the big real problems, the murders. Here, the organisation of 'justice' in this country loses the plot. A man murders someone and is arrested. He is released on bail as the case is 'complex' and they wouldn't be able to detain him until they have a full case against him. Eh? Which means the pensioner, refusing to pay council tax because the council don't provide the service paid for, goes to jail and stays there, because the case 'isn't complex'.
Whilst 'quite properly' out on bail, Dale Cregan goes on to commit at least three more murders, two of whom are the policewomen. Now, presumably because there is instant evidence or an admission he can be charged and detained.
However, the confusing bit is, when Cregan was on bail and went missing, the police started looking for him and offered a £50,000 reward. If they found him presumably they could lock him up as he breached his bail conditions, but not because he murdered someone. I think that is how the police see it.
Then, there is some outrage amongst the police that Cregan was living openly on a council estate and yet no-one informed them. That would be no-one informed the police who a) let him out when they had him, b) couldn't find him whilst he was 'openly' living on the estate and c) the police who give every impression that they are not there to protect the public. Yet the expectation is that an ordinary member of the public should turn in a violent, vindictive murderer.
It is this fundamental and supremely dense attitude among senior police officers that puts so much of society at risk, not just the poor foot soldiers who do their ignorant bidding. And if the guidelines say that Cregan had to be let out on bail, then Starmer and his organisation are also culpable in the abandonment of the public to the criminals.
Why is it that these over-paid, stuffed shirts who run the 'authorities' seem able to make good decisions about Tweeting, but struggle with the really important issues? If we actually had any real, effective and caring leadership in this country, these people would be sacked immediately. Instead, as we saw with the officers involved with the shooting of Jean Charles de Menedes and Raul Moat, they are invariably promoted.
And Hillsborough not only shows up their incompetence, but what they do when they are found wanting. Not the investigation and sacking they insist on for the ordinary officers, but cover-up, lies and smears of other, innocent people. Lions led by donkeys? That isn't the half of it.
Too many people just want the OK, direct or subtle, to do the easy thing not the hard thing. Standards maintained by peer pressure and a 'do unto others' culture will always have higher levels of decency and society than the Left ideal of personal aggrandisement at a cost to others.
But even in this reduced state of common courtesy, I still find announcements from 'authority' figures confusing. Take Keir Starmer, the DPP. This communist wants things done that are downright dangerous to a democracy, but he nevertheless has been given a position of authority. Recently he said Tweets about Tom Daley were just personal opinion, even if the personal opinion was, to most people, idiotic.
That was a fair and correct assessment that you get the impression Starmer must have got from someone else. There is far too much concern these days on people calling you names. The Tweets about the murdered policewomen are, when mocking, grossly offensive to public decency and the mindless cretins that write them should be dealt with severely. Again Starmer seems to get it (or is helped to).
But then we have the big real problems, the murders. Here, the organisation of 'justice' in this country loses the plot. A man murders someone and is arrested. He is released on bail as the case is 'complex' and they wouldn't be able to detain him until they have a full case against him. Eh? Which means the pensioner, refusing to pay council tax because the council don't provide the service paid for, goes to jail and stays there, because the case 'isn't complex'.
Whilst 'quite properly' out on bail, Dale Cregan goes on to commit at least three more murders, two of whom are the policewomen. Now, presumably because there is instant evidence or an admission he can be charged and detained.
However, the confusing bit is, when Cregan was on bail and went missing, the police started looking for him and offered a £50,000 reward. If they found him presumably they could lock him up as he breached his bail conditions, but not because he murdered someone. I think that is how the police see it.
Then, there is some outrage amongst the police that Cregan was living openly on a council estate and yet no-one informed them. That would be no-one informed the police who a) let him out when they had him, b) couldn't find him whilst he was 'openly' living on the estate and c) the police who give every impression that they are not there to protect the public. Yet the expectation is that an ordinary member of the public should turn in a violent, vindictive murderer.
It is this fundamental and supremely dense attitude among senior police officers that puts so much of society at risk, not just the poor foot soldiers who do their ignorant bidding. And if the guidelines say that Cregan had to be let out on bail, then Starmer and his organisation are also culpable in the abandonment of the public to the criminals.
Why is it that these over-paid, stuffed shirts who run the 'authorities' seem able to make good decisions about Tweeting, but struggle with the really important issues? If we actually had any real, effective and caring leadership in this country, these people would be sacked immediately. Instead, as we saw with the officers involved with the shooting of Jean Charles de Menedes and Raul Moat, they are invariably promoted.
And Hillsborough not only shows up their incompetence, but what they do when they are found wanting. Not the investigation and sacking they insist on for the ordinary officers, but cover-up, lies and smears of other, innocent people. Lions led by donkeys? That isn't the half of it.
Tuesday 18 September 2012
Been Busy
I've been busy, so no ramblings for a while. But looking at the news I still get quite confused. Like, in politics, is anything actually happening? We are, apparently in a major financial crisis currently (certainly if someone has a quality job they need doing, I'm up for it! My 'busyness' isn't that fulfilling), yet there doesn't seem anything concrete or dynamic coming out of government at present.
Labour seem less able to come up with competing ideas than the Lib Dems (coalition partners though they be), who are relentlessly suggesting ways to accelerate disaster in a variety of areas. It is clear each party, without regard to national emergency or well being, are instead searching for some magic formula, perhaps one that has worked before to win an election.
Not anything of substance, or a policy they actually intend to follow up, just some story, or 'narrative' that wins votes. A bit J K Rowling, with 1984 potential.
The same confusion reigns with education. Firstly, kids and teachers were wailing about exams being marked in a way that required the child to have done well. It did seem strange at first, but then we found it was only English exams and that some had benefited by some work getting soft marks back in December. So a tiny issue.
Then we hear that Gove wants to introduce formal, more difficult exams with no coursework and the teachers (unions) are up in arms. And what is the complaint? Er, that it comes from a Tory government it seems and that's it. Otherwise the objection is to educating children properly, or teachers to do their job properly, or just raising standards.
I appreciate these are all things that were safe under the union's pet, Labour, where teachers were excluded from criticism, exams were relentlessly made easier so teachers could crow about 'achievement' without actually doing anything and overall standards dropped like a stone. At no point then or now, you should notice, do the teachers unions mention the children.
They want to meddle in the formation of education policy and delivery and yet are only an organisation to represent the working conditions of their members. While they refuse to stick to their remit they should be ignored as a noisy rabble of no substance.
In the East, we continue to lose soldiers in Afghanistan, not just to violent murderers posing as religious people, but also Afghan forces. And yet we still haven't heard why we went there or what we are there to achieve. But Blair continues to accrue wealth apparently, from despots and tyrants around the world, immune to the consequences of his misrule, the financial chaos or the deaths attributable to him.
The 'convenient' Catholic might find that the man with no morals has no soul. If he does in fact have an ounce of belief in his body, then he will be more than aware that the master that awaits him has brimstone aplenty.
Labour seem less able to come up with competing ideas than the Lib Dems (coalition partners though they be), who are relentlessly suggesting ways to accelerate disaster in a variety of areas. It is clear each party, without regard to national emergency or well being, are instead searching for some magic formula, perhaps one that has worked before to win an election.
Not anything of substance, or a policy they actually intend to follow up, just some story, or 'narrative' that wins votes. A bit J K Rowling, with 1984 potential.
The same confusion reigns with education. Firstly, kids and teachers were wailing about exams being marked in a way that required the child to have done well. It did seem strange at first, but then we found it was only English exams and that some had benefited by some work getting soft marks back in December. So a tiny issue.
Then we hear that Gove wants to introduce formal, more difficult exams with no coursework and the teachers (unions) are up in arms. And what is the complaint? Er, that it comes from a Tory government it seems and that's it. Otherwise the objection is to educating children properly, or teachers to do their job properly, or just raising standards.
I appreciate these are all things that were safe under the union's pet, Labour, where teachers were excluded from criticism, exams were relentlessly made easier so teachers could crow about 'achievement' without actually doing anything and overall standards dropped like a stone. At no point then or now, you should notice, do the teachers unions mention the children.
They want to meddle in the formation of education policy and delivery and yet are only an organisation to represent the working conditions of their members. While they refuse to stick to their remit they should be ignored as a noisy rabble of no substance.
In the East, we continue to lose soldiers in Afghanistan, not just to violent murderers posing as religious people, but also Afghan forces. And yet we still haven't heard why we went there or what we are there to achieve. But Blair continues to accrue wealth apparently, from despots and tyrants around the world, immune to the consequences of his misrule, the financial chaos or the deaths attributable to him.
The 'convenient' Catholic might find that the man with no morals has no soul. If he does in fact have an ounce of belief in his body, then he will be more than aware that the master that awaits him has brimstone aplenty.
Thursday 6 September 2012
Shooting In Annecy
We have heard before of the incompetent approach of the French authorities to crime detection and investigation, but the eight hour delay in rescuing a four year old girl from a scene of carnage is despicable. The press conference clearly shows up the ridiculous nature of the way the French police proceed with their investigations. It seems that to them, the most important thing was the preservation of the scene, so I guess we have to accept that the people were actually dead, because the suggestion would appear to be that they didn't check the occupants of the car too closely.
A self excusing twerp in uniform explained that they 'couldn't' open the doors of the car as they would 'lose forensic details if they did so'. They did at least have the decency to stumble over the rambling explanation of why the little girl wasn't found. Apparently they used a heat camera, but didn't see her, she was 'hidden'.
Where the girl was and her not crying or making herself known to police is unusual, but it was still a combination of misguided policy and a lackadaisical approach to policing that allowed her discovery to be delayed. As we have seen, British police are striving for this level of incompetence and are encouraged by the EU, of course.
A self excusing twerp in uniform explained that they 'couldn't' open the doors of the car as they would 'lose forensic details if they did so'. They did at least have the decency to stumble over the rambling explanation of why the little girl wasn't found. Apparently they used a heat camera, but didn't see her, she was 'hidden'.
Where the girl was and her not crying or making herself known to police is unusual, but it was still a combination of misguided policy and a lackadaisical approach to policing that allowed her discovery to be delayed. As we have seen, British police are striving for this level of incompetence and are encouraged by the EU, of course.
Nasty Tories
Recently senior Tories have been booed at the Paralympics and the Chancellor is much hated polls suggest. Now, whilst I'm sure a good part of this is due to a public that isn't grown up enough to realise they have to pay for past follies, a greater part is the success of the Left in demonising, well anyone that isn't them.
During every sojourn of dalliance with socialist government, the country has suffered. The British sense of fair play eventually says, 'let Labour have a go'. After a couple of years it becomes apparent that Labour can't deliver. They are a confused mish-mash of socialist ideas, corrupt, wealth seeking politicians and communists within and pushing from the Unions.
It makes it difficult for them to achieve anything useful. The country begins to decline (remember the strikes of the Seventies, the piles of rubbish in the streets?) and the incoming administration (obviously Conservative, as the only other major party is formed of hopeless dreamers) has the difficult job of putting things right, which can be painful and creating a properly functioning country again.
This was what Maggie did from 1979 and even Major continued, once his determination to get us into the Euro had been sunk by reality. This was when people still took their personal responsibilities seriously and felt, instinctively that the country was theirs, run by politicians of their choosing. But then a snake-oil salesman came along, under the guise of Labour, just as the country became ready to give them a try, again.
Blair was a very different politician. He wanted power in the same way a North Korean leader does and he wanted a spin off from that power, in the form of personal wealth. His government quickly established it was open for business, accepting bribes from the very outset. His cabal of incompetent, but like-minded charlatans, heading the government had absolutely no interest in policy, or law making, they just wanted the power and the money.
Hence the most ridiculous and un-British laws crept in as vested interests sought advantage. Foreign companies were allowed free rein to create near monopolies all the better to extort the British people. All manner of scams (renewable energy) were permitted, because the government and its carefully politicised civil servants were careless and conflicted, often gaining financially from decisions they made.
Blair installed a madman in the Treasury who talked about his achievements before he could have created any and proceeded to evolve policies of the most lunatic variety. He was covered from exposure by the sophisticated lying machine in No10 run by Alistair Campbell and the complicity of bankers, to whom he turned his blind eye.
The result, as we now know was the moral and economic collapse of this country. And yet, somehow it is the fault of the Tories and they are now vilified for even mentioning ways to put things right. People are still listening to Labour mouthpieces even when they are as stupid, politically as Ed Miliband and proven destroyers such as Ed Balls. It is true Cameron is an extremely weak leader, who knows what needs to be done and sometimes actually announces it, only to come away from the microphone saying 'was that a bit much?' He constantly claims his dithering is because he is being held back by the Lib Dems and whilst there is some truth in this (look at how boundary changes were denied by the bunch of petulant children that makes up the Lib Dems, for personal reasons to the detriment of the country), it is not the whole story.
The traditional British resolve has been undermined both by immigration bringing in weaker cultural influences quite often and by the emasculation of the population by the nanny state of the Left. People no longer think for themselves, they wait for the state to 'do something' and are unwilling or incapable of taking responsibility for their own situation.
Cameron is claiming to have strengthened the traditional part of conservatism with recent personnel changes, but he still needs to realise how deep the problem is. Green energy is a scam. To prove it, take away the subsidies and see how many companies stay on track, with a proper, functioning product. The answer is none.
It is a form of communism that seeks to order the world and must be stopped. Instead, why not incentivise companies to develop real and new technologies to replace the poison emitting internal combustion engines of our cars? Because currently no-one is seriously attempting to do so. The manufacturers are too aware of constant changes of policy by government and more concerned with earnings today, subsidies and grants.
And the EU, another communist project also delights our 'Conservative' Prime Minister. These are the real challenges, the things we need to put right, not go along with because the children's books, called Labour policy documents hold sway with a childish, ill-educated (and how did that happen?) population.
During every sojourn of dalliance with socialist government, the country has suffered. The British sense of fair play eventually says, 'let Labour have a go'. After a couple of years it becomes apparent that Labour can't deliver. They are a confused mish-mash of socialist ideas, corrupt, wealth seeking politicians and communists within and pushing from the Unions.
It makes it difficult for them to achieve anything useful. The country begins to decline (remember the strikes of the Seventies, the piles of rubbish in the streets?) and the incoming administration (obviously Conservative, as the only other major party is formed of hopeless dreamers) has the difficult job of putting things right, which can be painful and creating a properly functioning country again.
This was what Maggie did from 1979 and even Major continued, once his determination to get us into the Euro had been sunk by reality. This was when people still took their personal responsibilities seriously and felt, instinctively that the country was theirs, run by politicians of their choosing. But then a snake-oil salesman came along, under the guise of Labour, just as the country became ready to give them a try, again.
Blair was a very different politician. He wanted power in the same way a North Korean leader does and he wanted a spin off from that power, in the form of personal wealth. His government quickly established it was open for business, accepting bribes from the very outset. His cabal of incompetent, but like-minded charlatans, heading the government had absolutely no interest in policy, or law making, they just wanted the power and the money.
Hence the most ridiculous and un-British laws crept in as vested interests sought advantage. Foreign companies were allowed free rein to create near monopolies all the better to extort the British people. All manner of scams (renewable energy) were permitted, because the government and its carefully politicised civil servants were careless and conflicted, often gaining financially from decisions they made.
Blair installed a madman in the Treasury who talked about his achievements before he could have created any and proceeded to evolve policies of the most lunatic variety. He was covered from exposure by the sophisticated lying machine in No10 run by Alistair Campbell and the complicity of bankers, to whom he turned his blind eye.
The result, as we now know was the moral and economic collapse of this country. And yet, somehow it is the fault of the Tories and they are now vilified for even mentioning ways to put things right. People are still listening to Labour mouthpieces even when they are as stupid, politically as Ed Miliband and proven destroyers such as Ed Balls. It is true Cameron is an extremely weak leader, who knows what needs to be done and sometimes actually announces it, only to come away from the microphone saying 'was that a bit much?' He constantly claims his dithering is because he is being held back by the Lib Dems and whilst there is some truth in this (look at how boundary changes were denied by the bunch of petulant children that makes up the Lib Dems, for personal reasons to the detriment of the country), it is not the whole story.
The traditional British resolve has been undermined both by immigration bringing in weaker cultural influences quite often and by the emasculation of the population by the nanny state of the Left. People no longer think for themselves, they wait for the state to 'do something' and are unwilling or incapable of taking responsibility for their own situation.
Cameron is claiming to have strengthened the traditional part of conservatism with recent personnel changes, but he still needs to realise how deep the problem is. Green energy is a scam. To prove it, take away the subsidies and see how many companies stay on track, with a proper, functioning product. The answer is none.
It is a form of communism that seeks to order the world and must be stopped. Instead, why not incentivise companies to develop real and new technologies to replace the poison emitting internal combustion engines of our cars? Because currently no-one is seriously attempting to do so. The manufacturers are too aware of constant changes of policy by government and more concerned with earnings today, subsidies and grants.
And the EU, another communist project also delights our 'Conservative' Prime Minister. These are the real challenges, the things we need to put right, not go along with because the children's books, called Labour policy documents hold sway with a childish, ill-educated (and how did that happen?) population.
Sunday 2 September 2012
Creationists - Stupid Or What?
I have a bit of a problem with the Theory of Evolution as it currently stands; it doesn't seem very credible. It might just need a bit of polishing up or it might be a bit of a blind alley and something more sophisticated is responsible. The latter represents my view, that evolution is not blind and random, but the result of responses to powerful stimuli.
We are, as I write being subjected to a politically correct pile of dross on BBC 4, that cannot, as is the way of the BBC stick to a point but must stick a knife in what it sees as the enemy. Here, under the guise of the collision of Darwin's scientific views and his wife's faith, the BBC are attempting to show how ridiculous the alternative is; Creationism.
For the zealots there can only be one alternative to their proven case and that is a stupid one. That theirs is proven and the other wrong is entirely their view of course. As is the vogue today, science is right on everything. We require no investigation on anything, scientists understand it all.
Strangely, the hysterical rantings of the Evolutionists is similar to their espousal of Man Made Global Warming. This theory also cannot be wrong and no further investigation is needed, or indeed should be allowed. The lack of scientific foundation for MMGW is very similar to the faith based beliefs of the Creationists.
When you don't know something it is noble to attempt to discover the truth. But stopping when you find a theory that fits your politics is about as unscientific as it gets. Trying to stop any discussion shouts loud that even you don't believe your own output.
We are, as I write being subjected to a politically correct pile of dross on BBC 4, that cannot, as is the way of the BBC stick to a point but must stick a knife in what it sees as the enemy. Here, under the guise of the collision of Darwin's scientific views and his wife's faith, the BBC are attempting to show how ridiculous the alternative is; Creationism.
For the zealots there can only be one alternative to their proven case and that is a stupid one. That theirs is proven and the other wrong is entirely their view of course. As is the vogue today, science is right on everything. We require no investigation on anything, scientists understand it all.
Strangely, the hysterical rantings of the Evolutionists is similar to their espousal of Man Made Global Warming. This theory also cannot be wrong and no further investigation is needed, or indeed should be allowed. The lack of scientific foundation for MMGW is very similar to the faith based beliefs of the Creationists.
When you don't know something it is noble to attempt to discover the truth. But stopping when you find a theory that fits your politics is about as unscientific as it gets. Trying to stop any discussion shouts loud that even you don't believe your own output.
Wednesday 29 August 2012
Gove And Clegg
Teachers are incensed that the scheme to dumb down exams, resulting in ever better grades for the children they 'taught', is being challenged. The first upset has been the 'harsh' marking of exam papers, though it is highly likely that it was just the result of marking, as opposed to teacher oriented marking.
There appears to be some truth though that the edict arrived recently and didn't allow the teachers to get their story straight and their grade predictions accurate. In other words trivial stuff. But the teachers are incensed and on the streets protesting.
Except they aren't are they? Sure a rally organised by the NUT is loudly shouting down the Gove changes that threaten their stranglehold on the education system. A rally of North Korean standards, based not on anything real, but the wild imaginings of the party leaders.
The NUT are against private schools, Grammers or anything that looks like them because they claim, these systems are elitist. Certainly they achieve high standards. But the reason education in this country is so poor is not because some pupils are encouraged to do well, but that the people who want everyone reduced to a kind of lowest common denominator standard, currently run the comprehensive system.
The NUT and all Left organisations like them, want schooling to be of a very low level to turn out factory proles who will do the state's bidding unquestioningly. It is the aim of all communists.
Education should provide opportunity and children should be encouraged to take advantage of it. Not everyone will be a genius, but their potential should only be hamstrung by their own ability and level of desire, not by Christine Blower.
Clegg seems to have caught a Labour disease in that he opposes everything the Conservatives propose. It seems to have escaped his notice that he is part of a coalition, or maybe the nature of such politics is beyond him. Whatever, he is currently less popular than the EU, which is some achievement.
He doesn't want a third runway at Heathrow. He hasn't any proposals, just objections. Britain needs increased air travel capacity somewhere in the South without a doubt, but he isn't addressing that, just opposing something. He would have gained some respect if he had pointed out that the fairly aggressive attack on Cameron over a new runway came from Tim Yeo, simply because one of the many companies he makes money from has just signed a deal in China,
Hence his dismay at the paucity of flights between London and Chinese cities. Had Clegg attacked Yeo he would have been on solid ground; Yeo is a corrupt embarrassment to the Conservative party, a shameless advantage seeker at taxpayers expense. He wouldn't set off any alarms on a scanner looking for morals.
But Clegg, being a true Lib Dem is drifting around in a cloud of confusion and spouting contrary things from time to time. Both he and Yeo should be put out of our misery.
There appears to be some truth though that the edict arrived recently and didn't allow the teachers to get their story straight and their grade predictions accurate. In other words trivial stuff. But the teachers are incensed and on the streets protesting.
Except they aren't are they? Sure a rally organised by the NUT is loudly shouting down the Gove changes that threaten their stranglehold on the education system. A rally of North Korean standards, based not on anything real, but the wild imaginings of the party leaders.
The NUT are against private schools, Grammers or anything that looks like them because they claim, these systems are elitist. Certainly they achieve high standards. But the reason education in this country is so poor is not because some pupils are encouraged to do well, but that the people who want everyone reduced to a kind of lowest common denominator standard, currently run the comprehensive system.
The NUT and all Left organisations like them, want schooling to be of a very low level to turn out factory proles who will do the state's bidding unquestioningly. It is the aim of all communists.
Education should provide opportunity and children should be encouraged to take advantage of it. Not everyone will be a genius, but their potential should only be hamstrung by their own ability and level of desire, not by Christine Blower.
Clegg seems to have caught a Labour disease in that he opposes everything the Conservatives propose. It seems to have escaped his notice that he is part of a coalition, or maybe the nature of such politics is beyond him. Whatever, he is currently less popular than the EU, which is some achievement.
He doesn't want a third runway at Heathrow. He hasn't any proposals, just objections. Britain needs increased air travel capacity somewhere in the South without a doubt, but he isn't addressing that, just opposing something. He would have gained some respect if he had pointed out that the fairly aggressive attack on Cameron over a new runway came from Tim Yeo, simply because one of the many companies he makes money from has just signed a deal in China,
Hence his dismay at the paucity of flights between London and Chinese cities. Had Clegg attacked Yeo he would have been on solid ground; Yeo is a corrupt embarrassment to the Conservative party, a shameless advantage seeker at taxpayers expense. He wouldn't set off any alarms on a scanner looking for morals.
But Clegg, being a true Lib Dem is drifting around in a cloud of confusion and spouting contrary things from time to time. Both he and Yeo should be put out of our misery.
Wednesday 22 August 2012
Just How Bad Is Tony Blair?
I was thinking the other day about how people would see Tony Blair in future times. It seemed to me he was akin to Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Hitler and Stalin in the way he thinks. But I quickly corrected myself that he was not that extreme. But isn't he? Or was he just not quite so successful as some, in his destructive mania? He gets on so well with so many tyrants around the world and actively seeks their company (and money).
Of course, what separates the above from Blair you may think is their attitude to killing and this is where I came up against a hard wall. Blair sent our forces to war on a whim of his own, lying to parliament and the country to gain a chance of international glory. He wanted the fame that could be bought with their lives.
His total indifference to the deaths caused by his games, was demonstrated quite clearly by his refusal to meet any of the returning bodies of soldiers who died doing his bidding. The pointlessness was shown by the complete lack of a strategy in Iraq, his personal carelessness by the constant promises of 'whatever the troops need' that were then reneged on.
But it wasn't just this gambit that showed how different he is. Many think that he is directly responsible for the murder of Dr David Kelly, the man who could have seriously embarrassed him over Iraq (though nothing more than embarrassment). When you ask 'who benefits' from his murder, then the list is quite small, probably just one or two names.
But there is no proof, no matter what circumstances might suggest. What we do know is the supreme efforts made to ensure that a whitewash of an enquiry ensued. Indeed a blatantly obvious whitewash, such was the arrogance of the regime at the time. Except for one moment. When the murder occurred (it has been established beyond doubt that it couldn't have been the suicide suggested by Hutton), Blair was flying back from Japan. I have never seen him looking so shocked and drawn as when he was leaving that aircraft on his return.
I am sure it took quite a bit of reassurance from those around him, that their loud protestations to distract attention, as they had done from the outset when the Gilligan accusations broke, would be successful. Why would a Prime Minister take such a risk with a cover up, unless it was of great importance? In his otherwise excellent book, 'The Strange Death of David Kelly', the Lib Dem MP Norman Baker, cops out at the end, veering away from his own evidence and suggests Iraqi's killed him. Had they done so, surely Blair would have pursued them relentlessly, supporting as it would, his war.
I think we are probably lucky that Blair didn't try to turn Britain totally into a totalitarian state, his personal fiefdom, though he set many of the structures in place to achieve it. Maybe he did lack the resolve, the absolute killer instinct to carry it through or maybe his wife's love of money demanded he move in other directions. Who can know. But he represents a truly low point for Britain, for which we are still, literally paying.
Of course, what separates the above from Blair you may think is their attitude to killing and this is where I came up against a hard wall. Blair sent our forces to war on a whim of his own, lying to parliament and the country to gain a chance of international glory. He wanted the fame that could be bought with their lives.
His total indifference to the deaths caused by his games, was demonstrated quite clearly by his refusal to meet any of the returning bodies of soldiers who died doing his bidding. The pointlessness was shown by the complete lack of a strategy in Iraq, his personal carelessness by the constant promises of 'whatever the troops need' that were then reneged on.
But it wasn't just this gambit that showed how different he is. Many think that he is directly responsible for the murder of Dr David Kelly, the man who could have seriously embarrassed him over Iraq (though nothing more than embarrassment). When you ask 'who benefits' from his murder, then the list is quite small, probably just one or two names.
But there is no proof, no matter what circumstances might suggest. What we do know is the supreme efforts made to ensure that a whitewash of an enquiry ensued. Indeed a blatantly obvious whitewash, such was the arrogance of the regime at the time. Except for one moment. When the murder occurred (it has been established beyond doubt that it couldn't have been the suicide suggested by Hutton), Blair was flying back from Japan. I have never seen him looking so shocked and drawn as when he was leaving that aircraft on his return.
I am sure it took quite a bit of reassurance from those around him, that their loud protestations to distract attention, as they had done from the outset when the Gilligan accusations broke, would be successful. Why would a Prime Minister take such a risk with a cover up, unless it was of great importance? In his otherwise excellent book, 'The Strange Death of David Kelly', the Lib Dem MP Norman Baker, cops out at the end, veering away from his own evidence and suggests Iraqi's killed him. Had they done so, surely Blair would have pursued them relentlessly, supporting as it would, his war.
I think we are probably lucky that Blair didn't try to turn Britain totally into a totalitarian state, his personal fiefdom, though he set many of the structures in place to achieve it. Maybe he did lack the resolve, the absolute killer instinct to carry it through or maybe his wife's love of money demanded he move in other directions. Who can know. But he represents a truly low point for Britain, for which we are still, literally paying.
Confused By The Euro Crisis?
I bet you are. Go on, admit it, you don't really have a grip on what is going on, do you? A big part of the reason for that is undoubtedly the shockingly poor quality of the reporting in the British media. I remember in my last years at school, my Dad trying to contact an executive at a paper that he was in the armed services with and receiving a stock reply about qualifications.
My Dad was more keen on my getting a job than qualifications so that was a dead end. Today one can only surmise that to write for national media, you have to be the thickest person you know and have no ability to understand anything more complex than a ready meal.
So day after day, the papers have stories, totally at odds with each other, but without any recognition of that fact, about the ups and downs of the markets and the likely success of the Euro/bailouts. Today the Greeks agree and the markets are up, tomorrow they disagree and markets are down. No-one points out that the markets make money on anything, as long as they predict it.
But here is the bottom line. The Germans are the only ones who can bail out the Greeks and they are not going to and never were. The delays and protestations otherwise, are just to keep the Euro stumbling along. The Euro is a political construct, not really a proper currency and saving it is mere politics too. The cost to the little people is entirely inconsequential.
The markets should be considered an irrelevance as they merely bark at cars. Certainly they can do a lot of damage and politicians need to pay them heed, but to us, the poor bloody infantry, they might as well be Martians. The markets will do what they will do. What we need to worry about, what we need to address (and urgently) is the bureaucrats of the EU. They are creating very dangerous paths for Europeans to follow that suit only them.
The Euro is going to fail. It always was and the inevitability of this outcome has been long predicted. Whether they will take it as far as war, only the politicians, driven by the bureaucrats can know. Greece may leave, Germany may leave it is all of a muchness; the Euro cannot exist - it is an abomination to nature.
If you do not believe that Britain should never have joined the EU and that we must leave it immediately, then you also wish for the Sun not to rise tomorrow. Ted Heath should have the same respect in Britain as Vidkun Quisling in Norway, their faults are so similar.
My Dad was more keen on my getting a job than qualifications so that was a dead end. Today one can only surmise that to write for national media, you have to be the thickest person you know and have no ability to understand anything more complex than a ready meal.
So day after day, the papers have stories, totally at odds with each other, but without any recognition of that fact, about the ups and downs of the markets and the likely success of the Euro/bailouts. Today the Greeks agree and the markets are up, tomorrow they disagree and markets are down. No-one points out that the markets make money on anything, as long as they predict it.
But here is the bottom line. The Germans are the only ones who can bail out the Greeks and they are not going to and never were. The delays and protestations otherwise, are just to keep the Euro stumbling along. The Euro is a political construct, not really a proper currency and saving it is mere politics too. The cost to the little people is entirely inconsequential.
The markets should be considered an irrelevance as they merely bark at cars. Certainly they can do a lot of damage and politicians need to pay them heed, but to us, the poor bloody infantry, they might as well be Martians. The markets will do what they will do. What we need to worry about, what we need to address (and urgently) is the bureaucrats of the EU. They are creating very dangerous paths for Europeans to follow that suit only them.
The Euro is going to fail. It always was and the inevitability of this outcome has been long predicted. Whether they will take it as far as war, only the politicians, driven by the bureaucrats can know. Greece may leave, Germany may leave it is all of a muchness; the Euro cannot exist - it is an abomination to nature.
If you do not believe that Britain should never have joined the EU and that we must leave it immediately, then you also wish for the Sun not to rise tomorrow. Ted Heath should have the same respect in Britain as Vidkun Quisling in Norway, their faults are so similar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)