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.
Wednesday 29 August 2012
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.
Monday 20 August 2012
The Danger That Is The EU
All attention is focussed on the Euro, as it is primarily being blamed for the troubles in Europe. Whilst much of that is true, the Euro was always a destructive construct, but as a true Frankenstein's monster it is running out of control.
Rather than forcing a united Europe run by an unelected, undemocratic technocratic elite, on the nations of Europe, it is devouring itself. Sowing discord and destroying economies. Stupid people do stupid things. But the Euro was not the only part of this project founded on a lie.
The whole idea of a United States of Europe (as they love to call it, even though it is based on a soviet model), was that all the people's of Europe would come together as a single country and there would be no more war in Europe. This was the grand plan of the French and Germans, which is big of them, as the two countries who caused most of the wars were France and Germany.
But more than this was the fundamental lie that the people of Europe had some common identity. This has taken such root that British people buying property in Spain are genuinely surprised to find, that the law there is different. They had been told that we are of a 'shared experience'.
These individual nations, we were told were the cause of war and could be again, but this too was a lie. Britain is a nation that has every right to hold its head up with pride. It has never succumbed to revolution, even when it was very much the vogue (1848) and it has stepped in only to save Europe from Tyranny; against Spain (Elizabeth I), Napoleon's France and twice against Germany.
These were not national wars and the difference between Britain and the others shows why. Britain fought to end oppression and then went home. Spain, France and Germany all launched wars to acquire an Empire, to seize the property of others. They say little under the sun is new and so today we see France and Germany trying to build an Empire again, this time through political trickery.
Due to the hegemony of (so called) socialism over the last few decades, not much in the shape of intelligent political thought has been in evidence. Consequently, the totalitarian machinations of the EU have been allowed to succeed. But the crisis with the Euro has forced the Empire builders into the light and it has become apparent to the Irish, the Greeks, the Italians and others that they have become subject peoples.
No longer can the fiction be maintained and the nature of the EU as a Soviet Union is being laid bare, as they order proud nations to bend to their will, replace elected governments with their own placemen and demand compliance.
Britain has saved Europe many times before and we are being called again. By showing leadership and leaving the EU, immediately we will set a course for others to follow, to regain their liberty and a right to trade and grow to the benefit of their people. The day of the self important elite is over; we should never have allowed it in the first place.
Rather than forcing a united Europe run by an unelected, undemocratic technocratic elite, on the nations of Europe, it is devouring itself. Sowing discord and destroying economies. Stupid people do stupid things. But the Euro was not the only part of this project founded on a lie.
The whole idea of a United States of Europe (as they love to call it, even though it is based on a soviet model), was that all the people's of Europe would come together as a single country and there would be no more war in Europe. This was the grand plan of the French and Germans, which is big of them, as the two countries who caused most of the wars were France and Germany.
But more than this was the fundamental lie that the people of Europe had some common identity. This has taken such root that British people buying property in Spain are genuinely surprised to find, that the law there is different. They had been told that we are of a 'shared experience'.
These individual nations, we were told were the cause of war and could be again, but this too was a lie. Britain is a nation that has every right to hold its head up with pride. It has never succumbed to revolution, even when it was very much the vogue (1848) and it has stepped in only to save Europe from Tyranny; against Spain (Elizabeth I), Napoleon's France and twice against Germany.
These were not national wars and the difference between Britain and the others shows why. Britain fought to end oppression and then went home. Spain, France and Germany all launched wars to acquire an Empire, to seize the property of others. They say little under the sun is new and so today we see France and Germany trying to build an Empire again, this time through political trickery.
Due to the hegemony of (so called) socialism over the last few decades, not much in the shape of intelligent political thought has been in evidence. Consequently, the totalitarian machinations of the EU have been allowed to succeed. But the crisis with the Euro has forced the Empire builders into the light and it has become apparent to the Irish, the Greeks, the Italians and others that they have become subject peoples.
No longer can the fiction be maintained and the nature of the EU as a Soviet Union is being laid bare, as they order proud nations to bend to their will, replace elected governments with their own placemen and demand compliance.
Britain has saved Europe many times before and we are being called again. By showing leadership and leaving the EU, immediately we will set a course for others to follow, to regain their liberty and a right to trade and grow to the benefit of their people. The day of the self important elite is over; we should never have allowed it in the first place.
Thursday 16 August 2012
Police Advice
I get emails from the police telling me stuff that happens locally and offering advice. Today it is about keeping car keys away from letterboxes where thieves can 'fish' for them and locking doors etc. Timely reminders sometimes, so no problem with that.
I did notice though, a logo at the bottom for '101' which apparently 'connects you to your local police'. So it is nice to know that if you have some fairly trivial matter to discuss with a police officer, you can talk to someone who knows the area. But if you call 999 for an emergency matter, you are automatically routed to someone who will have no idea of your location.
My experience has been that people make a bit of an assumption that policing is an intrinsically local thing and if you desperately need help saying your house number and street for instance would do. Now, the response will be (from the ugly sounding 'call taker') 'and where is that? And the post code there?'
Slightly disconcerting I would imagine, even if it doesn't materially affect the arrival of officers. Naturally, the police code the urgency of your call and may, arbitrarily decide that you are unimportant and the man with the knife will probably go away of his own accord.
If however a social worker has made something up about you and can produce no evidence, or if you haven't paid your council tax due to some dispute, large numbers of police will arrive to arrest you. Please note, if you are a thoroughly unpleasant person who is actually abusive towards your kids, the social services (and police ) will stay away. Similarly if you just don't pay your council rates because you are a scumbag, it will be fine.
What self respecting public servant wants the stress of dealing with nasty people when a pool of compliant, peaceful middle class people are available, for the exercise of your power?
I did notice though, a logo at the bottom for '101' which apparently 'connects you to your local police'. So it is nice to know that if you have some fairly trivial matter to discuss with a police officer, you can talk to someone who knows the area. But if you call 999 for an emergency matter, you are automatically routed to someone who will have no idea of your location.
My experience has been that people make a bit of an assumption that policing is an intrinsically local thing and if you desperately need help saying your house number and street for instance would do. Now, the response will be (from the ugly sounding 'call taker') 'and where is that? And the post code there?'
Slightly disconcerting I would imagine, even if it doesn't materially affect the arrival of officers. Naturally, the police code the urgency of your call and may, arbitrarily decide that you are unimportant and the man with the knife will probably go away of his own accord.
If however a social worker has made something up about you and can produce no evidence, or if you haven't paid your council tax due to some dispute, large numbers of police will arrive to arrest you. Please note, if you are a thoroughly unpleasant person who is actually abusive towards your kids, the social services (and police ) will stay away. Similarly if you just don't pay your council rates because you are a scumbag, it will be fine.
What self respecting public servant wants the stress of dealing with nasty people when a pool of compliant, peaceful middle class people are available, for the exercise of your power?
Tax Cheats
I was amazed to not see Mr. Dave Hartnett amongst the photos of people who have cheated on their taxes. I mean surely, his work with Vodaphone probably cost more than the published crew put together. My understanding is that even Vodaphone didn't expect the level of generosity they received.
Maybe it was because of the advisor that HMRC provided for Vodaphone, or that Dave decided to not have an expert on his side, just went on an after dinner hunch. Maybe I'm wrong and Dave was completely right about what Vodaphone should pay, after all he did have several meetings with them, at expensive restaurants to get to know them.
Maybe it was because of the advisor that HMRC provided for Vodaphone, or that Dave decided to not have an expert on his side, just went on an after dinner hunch. Maybe I'm wrong and Dave was completely right about what Vodaphone should pay, after all he did have several meetings with them, at expensive restaurants to get to know them.
Monday 13 August 2012
Ed Miliband - Not Quite Real
I nearly forgot again, it keeps happening to me. It is Ed Miliband who leads Labour isn't it? I have to check, you know. Anyway I heard the other day that he says you shouldn't blame teachers for a lack of sporting achievement in schools. Putting ideology before facts or common sense, let alone principle, Ed supports teaching Unions quite blindly.
If they are not to blame, despite the extensive reach of the 'non-competitive sports' beloved of the Left and promulgated throughout the teaching profession by the assiduous work of the teacher training colleges and Universities, the refusal to 'work' outside school hours -meaning sports clubs, then they also cannot be praised when the success is there.
That can't be right. If through dedication, hard work and belief in the kids they teach, our PE teachers turn out stars they deserve the highest praise. If they think the children should be held back to meet some socialist target, then they need to consider their choice of career. They are like some 'anti-Samaritans', encouraging people to suicide, such is their care-less negativity.
Mo Farah is living proof that hard work and effort is rewarded in this country and he said as much. No wonder Ed (it is Ed isn't it?) and his ilk have kept pretty quiet during the exceedingly popular, competitive Olympic Games. We have seen the wonderful British attitude shine through of applauding the people who came last or befell some misfortune; we are a fair people without being told to be so.
We scream and shout about the winners though, for their effort is the greatest and attracts the greatest reward. Those who cannot run faster than Usain Bolt recognise his talent and feel no shame. Instead they praise him and try a bit harder. They do not leave the Games suicidal as the Left and their 'psychologists' would have it.
I don't know if Anthony Joshua was saved from a life of crime by boxing, as is so often claimed in these cases, but what I saw was a talented youngster who was not just proud of his country, but thought of others and was well spoken. He had I'm sure bettered himself through his own efforts and that included respect for others. He didn't talk in some ghetto patois to gain respect, he did it the way you actually earn respect.
Too much youth in Britain is of the Simon Cowell mode; talentless and convinced that 'celebrity' and wealth can be achieved without effort. They see footballers as role models, with their extensive wealth based on a natural ability and little else. These footballers play poorly in competitions, particularly for their country, showing that they cannot effectively pass a ball, read the game or run for 90 minutes. These would seem prerequisites of the game, of their 'profession', but training is just so much effort.
No wonder they were so surprised, coming into contact with Olympic athletes. And also, thick footballers almost always stay thick. Improving themselves just means gold taps to them. A pox on all their houses.
If they are not to blame, despite the extensive reach of the 'non-competitive sports' beloved of the Left and promulgated throughout the teaching profession by the assiduous work of the teacher training colleges and Universities, the refusal to 'work' outside school hours -meaning sports clubs, then they also cannot be praised when the success is there.
That can't be right. If through dedication, hard work and belief in the kids they teach, our PE teachers turn out stars they deserve the highest praise. If they think the children should be held back to meet some socialist target, then they need to consider their choice of career. They are like some 'anti-Samaritans', encouraging people to suicide, such is their care-less negativity.
Mo Farah is living proof that hard work and effort is rewarded in this country and he said as much. No wonder Ed (it is Ed isn't it?) and his ilk have kept pretty quiet during the exceedingly popular, competitive Olympic Games. We have seen the wonderful British attitude shine through of applauding the people who came last or befell some misfortune; we are a fair people without being told to be so.
We scream and shout about the winners though, for their effort is the greatest and attracts the greatest reward. Those who cannot run faster than Usain Bolt recognise his talent and feel no shame. Instead they praise him and try a bit harder. They do not leave the Games suicidal as the Left and their 'psychologists' would have it.
I don't know if Anthony Joshua was saved from a life of crime by boxing, as is so often claimed in these cases, but what I saw was a talented youngster who was not just proud of his country, but thought of others and was well spoken. He had I'm sure bettered himself through his own efforts and that included respect for others. He didn't talk in some ghetto patois to gain respect, he did it the way you actually earn respect.
Too much youth in Britain is of the Simon Cowell mode; talentless and convinced that 'celebrity' and wealth can be achieved without effort. They see footballers as role models, with their extensive wealth based on a natural ability and little else. These footballers play poorly in competitions, particularly for their country, showing that they cannot effectively pass a ball, read the game or run for 90 minutes. These would seem prerequisites of the game, of their 'profession', but training is just so much effort.
No wonder they were so surprised, coming into contact with Olympic athletes. And also, thick footballers almost always stay thick. Improving themselves just means gold taps to them. A pox on all their houses.
Britain Mess Up? Wrong!
Well, time for an apology of sorts. The lack of belief that Britain could lay on a spectacular Olympics, let alone achieve in them was clearly wrong. The only embarrassments were the unfilled seats, due of course to corporate greed and politicians love of it, but was resolved to a reasonable degree. And the loss of Wembley's keys by the police and the arrest of a man for not smiling. I think their profiling might need some attention, plus methods.
But other than that, mere bobbies seemed to prove that they can still act like humans (and work as if they were citizens in uniform, as opposed to state enforcers), despite the best efforts I'm sure of the trembling senior officers, waiting for the 'inevitable' terrorist incident.
What we got was world class facilities, brilliant stadia and proof positive that the British are a nation of sports who love sports. The athletes must have been surprised by just how interested the British are in all the events and how we applaud endeavour, not just our own athletes.
So I was wrong to figure that we would cock something up big style and why was that? Because I confused Left influences for genuine Britishness. The British are very good at getting things right, it is just the Left has so infected so much of our society that it is difficult to remember what British people, cleansed of the malign influence of the Left can achieve; they just get on with it.
Our athletes did well despite the incessant and shrill injunctions of the Left that 'all must have prizes'. The nobility of those defeated is indeed humbling and the British public applauded the plucky loser all the more loudly. Little by little, whether it is the corruption of politics, the police, striking Unions, the destruction of education or the justice system, the British people are coming to realise that it is the Left who are responsible for destroying our country.
Perhaps they don't realise just yet that it is quite deliberate, but as with the EU, the penny will drop. There is inequality in the world, but it is juvenile not to accept it. There will never be a society when everyone loves everybody else and no one has more than another. Trying to impose such a society is like telling everyone they must be the same height. The thing to remember about the Left's chant of 'wealth redistribution' is that for them the important part in it is, that they do the redistribution, they tell you what to do.
So yes, the United Kingdom did well in these games and in future we should remind the IOC that the badges should be 'UK', not the inaccurate GBR.
But other than that, mere bobbies seemed to prove that they can still act like humans (and work as if they were citizens in uniform, as opposed to state enforcers), despite the best efforts I'm sure of the trembling senior officers, waiting for the 'inevitable' terrorist incident.
What we got was world class facilities, brilliant stadia and proof positive that the British are a nation of sports who love sports. The athletes must have been surprised by just how interested the British are in all the events and how we applaud endeavour, not just our own athletes.
So I was wrong to figure that we would cock something up big style and why was that? Because I confused Left influences for genuine Britishness. The British are very good at getting things right, it is just the Left has so infected so much of our society that it is difficult to remember what British people, cleansed of the malign influence of the Left can achieve; they just get on with it.
Our athletes did well despite the incessant and shrill injunctions of the Left that 'all must have prizes'. The nobility of those defeated is indeed humbling and the British public applauded the plucky loser all the more loudly. Little by little, whether it is the corruption of politics, the police, striking Unions, the destruction of education or the justice system, the British people are coming to realise that it is the Left who are responsible for destroying our country.
Perhaps they don't realise just yet that it is quite deliberate, but as with the EU, the penny will drop. There is inequality in the world, but it is juvenile not to accept it. There will never be a society when everyone loves everybody else and no one has more than another. Trying to impose such a society is like telling everyone they must be the same height. The thing to remember about the Left's chant of 'wealth redistribution' is that for them the important part in it is, that they do the redistribution, they tell you what to do.
So yes, the United Kingdom did well in these games and in future we should remind the IOC that the badges should be 'UK', not the inaccurate GBR.
Saturday 11 August 2012
Sport In Schools
Obviously the Olympics is causing people to think about sport in general in Britain, not least at school. The news comes out that Cameron is to remove the compulsory element from PE in schools, which cues outrage. But if the schools are also removed from other forms of state interference, e.g not under local authority control, then parents will ensure that schools provide proper sports education.
This is the important point; Cameron didn't tell schools not to do sports, he was not telling them anything. Failure would be entirely their fault, success would reflect their talent. Parents would judge. It is so long since the people of Britain have been required to think and act like adults, that the initial reaction was that Cameron was cancelling sport. We have denuded ourselves of talent at every level.
And it is all due to the left undermining every aspect of the successful, resourceful Britain that existed after WW2. The educational establishment in the Sixties was only related to 'education' by this being its target. The actual education of anyone was of no interest to them at all. The left wanted the state, under their control, to run everything and nobody should have the ability to challenge.
Typically in left dominated nations, people of intelligence and the teaching establishment is regarded with suspicion or got rid off, one way or another. So in Britain, the left worked assiduously to ensure that the education of children was oriented towards the left and of as poor quality as possible. An intelligent populace thinks for itself, spots what the 'leaders' are up to and all to often stops them. So they tread carefully (or use force).
Think about it (no pun intended), how often do you think, or hear others say the government should 'do something'? It is a reflection of how completely we have handed even our thoughts to the left. I wonder if David Cameron even realises he isn't a Conservative, having been brought up so far into the left's project of domination.
We have freedom of speech you might say, so how can the left dominate? Well think about it. How do the left trolls react when their religion of Global Warming is challenged? Do they produce impeccable research and proof? No, they attack the person commenting. They threaten and vilify. So people, scientists don't speak out. Fear is always the weapon of the left.
You can find any number of books from the left bending the shelves in bookshops, but who do you think struggle to even find a publisher? Peter Hitchens (even though his 'A Brief History Of Crime' is an important and well observed view of Britain), James Delingpole, Melanie Phillips (whose 'All Must Have Prizes' is particularly apposite today), Christopher Booker and Richard North. And what do these people all have in common? They oppose the left and believe in freedom and liberty.
This is the important point; Cameron didn't tell schools not to do sports, he was not telling them anything. Failure would be entirely their fault, success would reflect their talent. Parents would judge. It is so long since the people of Britain have been required to think and act like adults, that the initial reaction was that Cameron was cancelling sport. We have denuded ourselves of talent at every level.
And it is all due to the left undermining every aspect of the successful, resourceful Britain that existed after WW2. The educational establishment in the Sixties was only related to 'education' by this being its target. The actual education of anyone was of no interest to them at all. The left wanted the state, under their control, to run everything and nobody should have the ability to challenge.
Typically in left dominated nations, people of intelligence and the teaching establishment is regarded with suspicion or got rid off, one way or another. So in Britain, the left worked assiduously to ensure that the education of children was oriented towards the left and of as poor quality as possible. An intelligent populace thinks for itself, spots what the 'leaders' are up to and all to often stops them. So they tread carefully (or use force).
Think about it (no pun intended), how often do you think, or hear others say the government should 'do something'? It is a reflection of how completely we have handed even our thoughts to the left. I wonder if David Cameron even realises he isn't a Conservative, having been brought up so far into the left's project of domination.
We have freedom of speech you might say, so how can the left dominate? Well think about it. How do the left trolls react when their religion of Global Warming is challenged? Do they produce impeccable research and proof? No, they attack the person commenting. They threaten and vilify. So people, scientists don't speak out. Fear is always the weapon of the left.
You can find any number of books from the left bending the shelves in bookshops, but who do you think struggle to even find a publisher? Peter Hitchens (even though his 'A Brief History Of Crime' is an important and well observed view of Britain), James Delingpole, Melanie Phillips (whose 'All Must Have Prizes' is particularly apposite today), Christopher Booker and Richard North. And what do these people all have in common? They oppose the left and believe in freedom and liberty.
Friday 10 August 2012
Simple Things
Mark Thompson, Director General of the BBC continues to display a dazzling ability to have no clue whatsoever about what the BBC is. He seems dimly aware that it broadcasts stuff, but as soon as he realised it also made programmes and that the cost of these was diverting money away from his expense account, diversity training and management team building days out, he scaled them back.
He has led the Corporation towards rerunning programmes as often as possible, to fill the airtime without costing too much. His care for his staff is shown though, in making sure they pay as little tax as possible (and save him money by so doing too).
Today we learn of his concern about the Olympics. Apparently the British presenters, reporting on the success of British athletes to the British public are too excited. Er, Mark, you head the British Broadcasting Corporation, there is a clue in the title.
Other countries are confused by this show of patriotism it is claimed, which just goes to show that being thick and broadcasting isn't just confined to the UK. He says that the coverage should be unbiased. Well, the Corp is showing all the events, so I'm a bit lost as to what more could be done. But as for Britain talking to Britain, thank goodness the presenters have some sense.
It would be nice if, when being unbiased is absolutely required of the BBC it could manage it, but in politics Thompson ensures that a left liberal bias is enforced through all the BBC's output.
I don't know if Mark Thompson empties bins at the BBC, because it would be unpleasant to think he had no utility at all.
He has led the Corporation towards rerunning programmes as often as possible, to fill the airtime without costing too much. His care for his staff is shown though, in making sure they pay as little tax as possible (and save him money by so doing too).
Today we learn of his concern about the Olympics. Apparently the British presenters, reporting on the success of British athletes to the British public are too excited. Er, Mark, you head the British Broadcasting Corporation, there is a clue in the title.
Other countries are confused by this show of patriotism it is claimed, which just goes to show that being thick and broadcasting isn't just confined to the UK. He says that the coverage should be unbiased. Well, the Corp is showing all the events, so I'm a bit lost as to what more could be done. But as for Britain talking to Britain, thank goodness the presenters have some sense.
It would be nice if, when being unbiased is absolutely required of the BBC it could manage it, but in politics Thompson ensures that a left liberal bias is enforced through all the BBC's output.
I don't know if Mark Thompson empties bins at the BBC, because it would be unpleasant to think he had no utility at all.
Wednesday 8 August 2012
Too Much Protest
The old phrase 'methinks he doth protest too much' is frequently an insight that something is genuinely amiss. And so I find myself thinking of MMR.
Let's be clear from the off, whilst the vaccination programme is to protect children the multiple jabs are to save money. It then became political. I don't know if the claims by Dr Andrew Wakefield that there is a link between the MMR injection and autism were correct. But what I did see was the full force of government and its authority lackeys being deployed to discredit and get rid of him.
Proving him wrong didn't seem to be a strategy. He was in the pay of drug companies who stood to profit, was unprofessional, his work not rigorous, anything but actual evidence. It caused consternation and people became fearful of the multiple vaccination. Some wanted to have single injections, spaced out but the government refused to allow doctors to provide this service, even if the parents volunteered to pay.
Why was that? All they could offer was a weak 'people will forget and not get their children vaccinated'. But of course, if a groundswell grew wanting single injections the battle would be lost. MMR had to stay.
Now an advert has appeared on a website claiming the link to autism again and it has immediately been banned. Such prompt action rarely signifies something good when the government is involved. Too much protesting, I think.
A bit like the silence over the deaths of farmers after compulsory sheep dipping, using government approved chemicals was introduced. The government don't want to investigate that at all, yet it is accepted fact that Organophosphates act on the nervous system and build up with repeated exposure. Some things are less important than others and a Minister being embarrassed is best avoided, even at the expense of people's lives.
Let's be clear from the off, whilst the vaccination programme is to protect children the multiple jabs are to save money. It then became political. I don't know if the claims by Dr Andrew Wakefield that there is a link between the MMR injection and autism were correct. But what I did see was the full force of government and its authority lackeys being deployed to discredit and get rid of him.
Proving him wrong didn't seem to be a strategy. He was in the pay of drug companies who stood to profit, was unprofessional, his work not rigorous, anything but actual evidence. It caused consternation and people became fearful of the multiple vaccination. Some wanted to have single injections, spaced out but the government refused to allow doctors to provide this service, even if the parents volunteered to pay.
Why was that? All they could offer was a weak 'people will forget and not get their children vaccinated'. But of course, if a groundswell grew wanting single injections the battle would be lost. MMR had to stay.
Now an advert has appeared on a website claiming the link to autism again and it has immediately been banned. Such prompt action rarely signifies something good when the government is involved. Too much protesting, I think.
A bit like the silence over the deaths of farmers after compulsory sheep dipping, using government approved chemicals was introduced. The government don't want to investigate that at all, yet it is accepted fact that Organophosphates act on the nervous system and build up with repeated exposure. Some things are less important than others and a Minister being embarrassed is best avoided, even at the expense of people's lives.
Home Advantage
It is certainly the case that the noisy home crowd cheering on British athletes is having a positive effect on performances, perhaps even giving the edge sometimes. But otherwise it is just hard work that is turning up our medals.
It hasn't stopped the whingers though, like France and Spain complaining about bias (or cheating). What we have seen though is the opposite. In pommel horse, a clearly unfinished routine that was terminated by the Japanese athlete falling off, was upgraded in marks when the Japanese ludicrously claimed the fall was a 'dismount;. This knocked the British lads to Bronze.
Victoria Pendleton is nudged by the ever professional Australian Meares and in an effort to stay upright crosses a line she should stay inside. Guess who gets penalised? Cycling had of course, already changed some rules in an effort to dent British success at Olympics, but similar US dominance of swimming was fine.
Before the Triathlon the Brownlee brothers are warned that if they cross the line together they will be disqualified. That is assuming they are going to win and that they have such a plan. In the event a penalty was dreamed up to separate them. and the penalty is served by stopping the athlete for 15 seconds, which in such a tough race must be physically damaging if not dangerous. Was it in some way to blame for Jonathan Brownlee's subsequent collapse?
Other countries seem to get enormous latitude. Like a runner banned from the Games for not trying in the 800m, who then produces a doctor's note to say he was injured, but goes on to win the 1500m the next day.
It hasn't stopped the whingers though, like France and Spain complaining about bias (or cheating). What we have seen though is the opposite. In pommel horse, a clearly unfinished routine that was terminated by the Japanese athlete falling off, was upgraded in marks when the Japanese ludicrously claimed the fall was a 'dismount;. This knocked the British lads to Bronze.
Victoria Pendleton is nudged by the ever professional Australian Meares and in an effort to stay upright crosses a line she should stay inside. Guess who gets penalised? Cycling had of course, already changed some rules in an effort to dent British success at Olympics, but similar US dominance of swimming was fine.
Before the Triathlon the Brownlee brothers are warned that if they cross the line together they will be disqualified. That is assuming they are going to win and that they have such a plan. In the event a penalty was dreamed up to separate them. and the penalty is served by stopping the athlete for 15 seconds, which in such a tough race must be physically damaging if not dangerous. Was it in some way to blame for Jonathan Brownlee's subsequent collapse?
Other countries seem to get enormous latitude. Like a runner banned from the Games for not trying in the 800m, who then produces a doctor's note to say he was injured, but goes on to win the 1500m the next day.
Magic Wheels
Well the Velodrome has certainly seen some excitement these Olympics. And Britain has a particular skill it seems in cycling. Or not, according to the French. They feel that to be beaten something underhand must be going on and the object of their suspicion is our wheels.
Yes, the wheels on the British bikes, made in France are apparently 'magic wheels'. In what way they haven't said, but maybe as they arrive in England we sprinkle Pixie dust on them. Maybe the French officials need dope testing. Maybe they are just dopes!
Yes, the wheels on the British bikes, made in France are apparently 'magic wheels'. In what way they haven't said, but maybe as they arrive in England we sprinkle Pixie dust on them. Maybe the French officials need dope testing. Maybe they are just dopes!
Tuesday 7 August 2012
Who Are These People
Someone called Morrisey, who came to light mistaking wailing for a musical enterprise, has availed us of his insight into the Olympics and Britain. He feels that the nation supporting the hard work and endeavours of its athletes against those of other countries, makes us Nazis. It is 'foul patriotism' he feels. I presume, as he is spouting at the host nation, that the support for other nations is different, otherwise the whole World would be Nazis (except him, I guess - he may want to look paranoia up in the dictionary).
I think he mistakes hatred of other nations and races for supporting your own kin. To follow Morrisey logic, I would guess he dislikes his family as to do otherwise might be the first glimmering of Nazi tendencies, surely. Certainly they would be justified in finding the whining git a drain.
Honestly, I think taking any notice of what Morrisey has to say on the subject is pointless. He should concentrate more on his chosen industry at which he is poor enough already. Giving credence to his political views, would be like putting Boris Johnson in for the 100 metre final.
I think he mistakes hatred of other nations and races for supporting your own kin. To follow Morrisey logic, I would guess he dislikes his family as to do otherwise might be the first glimmering of Nazi tendencies, surely. Certainly they would be justified in finding the whining git a drain.
Honestly, I think taking any notice of what Morrisey has to say on the subject is pointless. He should concentrate more on his chosen industry at which he is poor enough already. Giving credence to his political views, would be like putting Boris Johnson in for the 100 metre final.
Clegg The Clown
Nick Clegg and his band of misfits continue to demonstrate their unsuitability for high office. Having lied to their supporters and abandoned principle to get into power (I struggle to write this, as if Lib Dems ever have principles!), these bunch of half wits now are having childish tantrums.
Claiming some agreement has been broken over reform of the House of Lords (I prefer, 'change' to 'reform', as reform suggests better), the untrustworthy Lib Dems have decided to strike back at the Tories by opposing boundary changes. These changes are actually required for the proper running of democracy, as strangely after 13 years of Labour, the constituency framework aids Labour victories.
The Lib Dems have broken their side of the bargain more often and deeper than the Tories, and even let their supporters down, when it suits them. At least it shows Cameron as still being the least worst of the three otherwise identikit 'leaders;.
Claiming some agreement has been broken over reform of the House of Lords (I prefer, 'change' to 'reform', as reform suggests better), the untrustworthy Lib Dems have decided to strike back at the Tories by opposing boundary changes. These changes are actually required for the proper running of democracy, as strangely after 13 years of Labour, the constituency framework aids Labour victories.
The Lib Dems have broken their side of the bargain more often and deeper than the Tories, and even let their supporters down, when it suits them. At least it shows Cameron as still being the least worst of the three otherwise identikit 'leaders;.
Friday 3 August 2012
Recruitment - The Waste
The economy is in a mess and it seems it is mainly the politicians who are struggling to cope, industry just gets on with it's job. Clearly the issue is between the pillocks in parliament and the hordes of useless and costly bureaucrats 13 years of Labour has saddled us with. Generally a Conservative government comes in to clear it up, but today we don't have that, we have a coalition and the Conservative bit is run by David Cameron! Disastrous.
But that is not quite the end of it, something has infected of workplace, in the private sector. Ultimately it's roots can be traced back to Left ideology but it has taken on something of a disguise and pretends to some respectability. It is a branch of Political Correctness I suppose and is an adjunct of the red tape that is strangling business.
What I speak of is the poor state of recruitment in this country. Recruitment agencies are a raw barometer of the way recruitment is carried out as it just reacts to circumstance. So, whilst not without blame it, as an industry is just doing what it has to, to survive.
The real problem lies in the power of Human Resources. This powerful political group in any company can be a friend or foe both to the economy and it's own employer. Originally the 'Personnel' department looked after the employee side of a business, making sure relations were handled within the law and maintaining records of disciplinary matters etc. The department was important but served the company and the hiring Managers.
But as legislation affecting employment increased, whether as a result of bored politicians looking for something to do or the meddling of the EU, so the nature of the beast changed. Personnel became Human Resources, the better to reflect their new found power within a company. No executive dared go against HR, nor seek to make changes without their approval. HR pushed a number of agendas, all legally based but ultimately damaging.
No HR person concerns themselves with the utility of any measure they insist upon, nor its impact. Instead it reflects their importance. And blunt the company they certainly do. I remember a chap who had been a HR Director with a large IT outsourcing company saying his view was that HR was the 'contraceptive on the prick of progress'. A little colourful perhaps, but true nonetheless. Recruiters called them 'recruitment prevention officers'.
This was in the Nineties when the rise of HR was only just starting. As this Left wing based industry undermined its paymasters, so it decided to further extol its importance. Clearly the hiring of staff was a job beneath their dignity, it was little more than a paper exercise, time consuming and of little interest. Worse it seemed to maintain the 'servant' status of their department; it was hived off. HR set up a separate recruitment arm to handle this mundane activity, hiring ex-agency staff.
The recruitment process for HR (whether they handle it themselves or instruct a recruitment section) became ever more bureaucratic. Either the person seeking a job had to fill out a fairly pointless and usually carelessly designed Application Form or a CV would be accepted on its own. These would be received against a published Job Specification that was either written by HR, to conform to their ideas of whom the company should employ, with a nod to any technical qualifications the role may require or they would instruct a hiring manager how to do his own.
The Spec usually contains some 'must haves' which aren't often essential but would be a good pointer. HR give a cursory glance to incoming CV's against these and any lack means it gets no further. The Application Form is worse as it rarely allows the candidate to explain how they are suitable for the job at all. For HR it is just an exercise in getting the paper from one side of the desk to the other.
A hiring Manager chooses his candidates to interview from a pile decided on by HR, who neither understand the job role nor the candidate. They have no interest in acquiring the best candidate, they just want to clear their desk (or Inbox these days).
If a hiring Manager gets to speak to the outside world an entirely different process takes place. Rarely does the actual needs of that Manager match what is published in a Job Spec (indeed good recruitment consultants get a better feel for what the company wants than even the Manager realises, because they talk to other companies with similar needs).
The recruitment of a new employee takes on a whole new dimension and often completely different people get interviewed. This is rare however. And it is the stranglehold that HR have insisted upon on the way people are recruited that has undermined the stength of many UK companies.
Recruitment agencies now rarely bother with the quality of a candidate or suitability, they just box tick (to the delight of HR, who supply the boxes to tick) and send off volumes; something should stick. Needless to say, HR feel this lack of 'targeted' quality in incoming CV's is due to the low quality of recruiters (fast becoming true, due to their actions) and improves their facetious opinion of their own superiority.
It doesn't need to be like this and it is damaging Britain. When you come across a dedicated HR professional, who sees the job very much as supporting the company, it is an absolute delight.
But that is not quite the end of it, something has infected of workplace, in the private sector. Ultimately it's roots can be traced back to Left ideology but it has taken on something of a disguise and pretends to some respectability. It is a branch of Political Correctness I suppose and is an adjunct of the red tape that is strangling business.
What I speak of is the poor state of recruitment in this country. Recruitment agencies are a raw barometer of the way recruitment is carried out as it just reacts to circumstance. So, whilst not without blame it, as an industry is just doing what it has to, to survive.
The real problem lies in the power of Human Resources. This powerful political group in any company can be a friend or foe both to the economy and it's own employer. Originally the 'Personnel' department looked after the employee side of a business, making sure relations were handled within the law and maintaining records of disciplinary matters etc. The department was important but served the company and the hiring Managers.
But as legislation affecting employment increased, whether as a result of bored politicians looking for something to do or the meddling of the EU, so the nature of the beast changed. Personnel became Human Resources, the better to reflect their new found power within a company. No executive dared go against HR, nor seek to make changes without their approval. HR pushed a number of agendas, all legally based but ultimately damaging.
No HR person concerns themselves with the utility of any measure they insist upon, nor its impact. Instead it reflects their importance. And blunt the company they certainly do. I remember a chap who had been a HR Director with a large IT outsourcing company saying his view was that HR was the 'contraceptive on the prick of progress'. A little colourful perhaps, but true nonetheless. Recruiters called them 'recruitment prevention officers'.
This was in the Nineties when the rise of HR was only just starting. As this Left wing based industry undermined its paymasters, so it decided to further extol its importance. Clearly the hiring of staff was a job beneath their dignity, it was little more than a paper exercise, time consuming and of little interest. Worse it seemed to maintain the 'servant' status of their department; it was hived off. HR set up a separate recruitment arm to handle this mundane activity, hiring ex-agency staff.
The recruitment process for HR (whether they handle it themselves or instruct a recruitment section) became ever more bureaucratic. Either the person seeking a job had to fill out a fairly pointless and usually carelessly designed Application Form or a CV would be accepted on its own. These would be received against a published Job Specification that was either written by HR, to conform to their ideas of whom the company should employ, with a nod to any technical qualifications the role may require or they would instruct a hiring manager how to do his own.
The Spec usually contains some 'must haves' which aren't often essential but would be a good pointer. HR give a cursory glance to incoming CV's against these and any lack means it gets no further. The Application Form is worse as it rarely allows the candidate to explain how they are suitable for the job at all. For HR it is just an exercise in getting the paper from one side of the desk to the other.
A hiring Manager chooses his candidates to interview from a pile decided on by HR, who neither understand the job role nor the candidate. They have no interest in acquiring the best candidate, they just want to clear their desk (or Inbox these days).
If a hiring Manager gets to speak to the outside world an entirely different process takes place. Rarely does the actual needs of that Manager match what is published in a Job Spec (indeed good recruitment consultants get a better feel for what the company wants than even the Manager realises, because they talk to other companies with similar needs).
The recruitment of a new employee takes on a whole new dimension and often completely different people get interviewed. This is rare however. And it is the stranglehold that HR have insisted upon on the way people are recruited that has undermined the stength of many UK companies.
Recruitment agencies now rarely bother with the quality of a candidate or suitability, they just box tick (to the delight of HR, who supply the boxes to tick) and send off volumes; something should stick. Needless to say, HR feel this lack of 'targeted' quality in incoming CV's is due to the low quality of recruiters (fast becoming true, due to their actions) and improves their facetious opinion of their own superiority.
It doesn't need to be like this and it is damaging Britain. When you come across a dedicated HR professional, who sees the job very much as supporting the company, it is an absolute delight.
Thursday 2 August 2012
It's The Stupid Economy
The economy has slowed due in part to the Olympics. I'm not surprised, so many people seem to be watching it, either by taking time off work or downing tools at key moments to follow the sport. But we also hear the problems are due to the Eurozone, which is less forgiveable.
No intelligent person would have considered ramming countries together against their will to be a good idea, as if the USSR hadn't already shown us. But politicians and anything outside narrow self interest don't usually go together, so they stormed ahead with stupid idea after stupid idea, to support their 'dream'.
Of course the single currency was merely a ploy to cause a crisis by which the technocrats could say the only solution, is to create a single superstate, under their completely non-democratic rule. It hasn't quite happened that way. And the people of the European nations, far from agreeing to unending subjugation, have realised the strength of shared experience and cultural similarity (something Blair's unlimited immigration was designed to undermine).
One very real and damaging aspect is the concentration of trading with our European 'partners'. This has been trumpeted as a reason to be 'in Europe', by which they mean the political EU, but in fact is incestuous and a poor strategy. Britain used to trade with the World, but the EU insisted we stopped. Now the folly of that is being thrown into the light, as the whole of the European economy is thrown into chaos by, er, the financial policies of the EU.
If Britain continued to act independently, as sovereign nation our problems would be so much less (and we would have at least £53 million a day more to spend for ourselves). The technocrats of the EU are bringing the continent to the brink of war. It would say that it is the nationalism of individual countries that is causing the tension, with the Germans hating the 'lazy' Greeks and their demands for German money and the Greeks hating German 'arrogance' and demands that Greece does as Germany bids.
But this is not so. It is the fact that these people are culturally different and the EU refuses to recognise the fact that is causing the problems. In essence what Germany and Greece say about each other is true, it only matters, only has impact because the EU forces them together.
Everyone thinks of Spain as 'just like Britain', only sunnier. But Spain has been a democracy for only 35 years. Everything in France is illegal unless the State decides to allow it. The same has slowly become true in Britain since 1973, but no-one has told you of this massive break with traditional British law. It has not been explained that it used to be that everything was legal unless the government made it illegal. And the government could be replaced.
During the recent Olympics there has been some whining (I'll let you guess where from), about the 'National Anthem'. Why, they ask is it played when a Scotch person wins a Gold? The answer is because, since 1707 this nation has been known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain (and Northern Ireland, since 1927). That country has a National Anthem. The confusion arises because it has become popular to play songs before sporting events in the regions of the Kingdom. 'Flower of Scotland' is a song, not a national anthem.
Part of the problem of course is the Scottish 'parliament' and its suggestion that Scotland is, or could be in some way independent. Scotland was given a local council, as was Wales, with slightly different names, because they are listed in the EU bible as 'Regions'. When the superstate comes they will be like counties are now, within the pan-European remit of the government in Brussels. The English haven't allowed this to happen and have forced the abandonment of the 'regional authorities', (except for 'London').
It is an example though of how successful the schemes of the politicians and technocrats are at sowing the seeds of division, when intending to break apart existing bonds. Whilst we remain in the EU the lies will keep rolling in and the money keep rolling out. If you stopped doing the stupid things the politicians love and dismantled the bureaucracy built to support it, we could rapidly get ourselves out of debt. In about a fortnight.
No intelligent person would have considered ramming countries together against their will to be a good idea, as if the USSR hadn't already shown us. But politicians and anything outside narrow self interest don't usually go together, so they stormed ahead with stupid idea after stupid idea, to support their 'dream'.
Of course the single currency was merely a ploy to cause a crisis by which the technocrats could say the only solution, is to create a single superstate, under their completely non-democratic rule. It hasn't quite happened that way. And the people of the European nations, far from agreeing to unending subjugation, have realised the strength of shared experience and cultural similarity (something Blair's unlimited immigration was designed to undermine).
One very real and damaging aspect is the concentration of trading with our European 'partners'. This has been trumpeted as a reason to be 'in Europe', by which they mean the political EU, but in fact is incestuous and a poor strategy. Britain used to trade with the World, but the EU insisted we stopped. Now the folly of that is being thrown into the light, as the whole of the European economy is thrown into chaos by, er, the financial policies of the EU.
If Britain continued to act independently, as sovereign nation our problems would be so much less (and we would have at least £53 million a day more to spend for ourselves). The technocrats of the EU are bringing the continent to the brink of war. It would say that it is the nationalism of individual countries that is causing the tension, with the Germans hating the 'lazy' Greeks and their demands for German money and the Greeks hating German 'arrogance' and demands that Greece does as Germany bids.
But this is not so. It is the fact that these people are culturally different and the EU refuses to recognise the fact that is causing the problems. In essence what Germany and Greece say about each other is true, it only matters, only has impact because the EU forces them together.
Everyone thinks of Spain as 'just like Britain', only sunnier. But Spain has been a democracy for only 35 years. Everything in France is illegal unless the State decides to allow it. The same has slowly become true in Britain since 1973, but no-one has told you of this massive break with traditional British law. It has not been explained that it used to be that everything was legal unless the government made it illegal. And the government could be replaced.
During the recent Olympics there has been some whining (I'll let you guess where from), about the 'National Anthem'. Why, they ask is it played when a Scotch person wins a Gold? The answer is because, since 1707 this nation has been known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain (and Northern Ireland, since 1927). That country has a National Anthem. The confusion arises because it has become popular to play songs before sporting events in the regions of the Kingdom. 'Flower of Scotland' is a song, not a national anthem.
Part of the problem of course is the Scottish 'parliament' and its suggestion that Scotland is, or could be in some way independent. Scotland was given a local council, as was Wales, with slightly different names, because they are listed in the EU bible as 'Regions'. When the superstate comes they will be like counties are now, within the pan-European remit of the government in Brussels. The English haven't allowed this to happen and have forced the abandonment of the 'regional authorities', (except for 'London').
It is an example though of how successful the schemes of the politicians and technocrats are at sowing the seeds of division, when intending to break apart existing bonds. Whilst we remain in the EU the lies will keep rolling in and the money keep rolling out. If you stopped doing the stupid things the politicians love and dismantled the bureaucracy built to support it, we could rapidly get ourselves out of debt. In about a fortnight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)