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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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?

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

Thursday, 1 November 2012


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?


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.