Wednesday, 25 September 2013

Another Cox Up

I like Professor Brian Cox. Clever bloke with great passion. But his recent TV show isn't really that riveting. Worse, today we got the inevitable.

After quite a lead up, confirming how wonderful peer-review of scientific publications is, he gets someone else's point of view and then uses, surprise surprise, Global Warming as an example. Having said earlier that the scientific method was pretty much invented here and it is the fundamental of proper science, he then happily abandons it completely.

He told us the 'overwhelming consensus' of scientists support the idea, which is stunningly irrelevant even if it were true. Firstly, how many people believe a wrong idea has no bearing on making it right. Earth isn't the centre of the universe and the Sun doesn't go round the Earth, though once the overwhelming consensus believed otherwise. Cox knows this, so he is being deliberately disingenuous.

Unfortunately for Cox, most of his 'consensus' in this scientific age, are nothing more than political activists.

The other minor inconvenience for Cox is that, if the scientific method is applied to Global Warming theory it is disproved, so he doesn't bother. Sometimes it seems, ideology is way more important than truth or facts. To who, is never explained.

CO2 and Methane are doubtless greenhouse gases, but we do not understand the mechanism on a global scale, nor the concentrations that matter, nor how the Earth reacts to rising levels. But a group of anti-capitalists have convinced far too many people that they understand it all.

Do you doubt this assertion? Consider this; Methane is way, way worse as a greenhouse gas than CO2, but they cannot come up with a way of destroying Western civilisation and capitalism by demonising Methane.

These very dangerous people are free to move amongst us, because the harm they intend and do is not with a gun or a bomb, so we don't identify them for what they are. And as ever with the Left, the ability to hold two contrary positions simultaneously is in evidence with Brian Cox. He glories in the power of the scientific method and yet begs us not to apply it to a Left wing construct that means to harm us.

Monday, 23 September 2013

Climate Comedy

Here is what has happened. It is a story of real science and junk science. Ignoring earlier conclusive scientific studies, a cult formed based on the idea that certain gasses stay in the atmosphere and trap heat. This leads to a 'greenhouse' effect and raises world temperatures.

Not a wild theory and it seems to be what has happened on Venus (although no-one in the nutter factory has suggested, yet, that we did that as well). What science had to do now was observe and prove the theory. To understand the mechanism at work and refine their views accordingly. Unfortunately this wasn't what happened.

A bunch of well meaning scientists found themselves to be very attractive to a certain group. These were basically people who had never grown up, the type you see in their last years of school and at university, believers in Utopia. Basically, despite their exam results, as bright in their outlook as the beauty queen's desire for World peace.

This group soon became political and appealed to the anti-capitalists. It was seen as a way to fatally undermine Western civilisation by getting the societies to devour themselves in an angst ridden orgy of self destruction, brought about by catastrophically high taxes and subsidies for crackpot schemes (like wind turbines).

The method they used was modern, empathetic to social standards and simple. They developed computer models designed to produce the results they desired. Global Warming. As stated science observes, proves and decides. They didn't have time for that and anyway it wasn't the point; what was really happening with the climate was irrelevant, it was now about Marxist politics.

Conveniently, we were at the time going through one of the periodic rises in temperature that we see throughout history and that we have no explanation for. This became, conclusively due to Man Made Global Warming and it was so bad it was going to destroy the world. The bunch of idiots we rather carelessly elected as politicians swallowed it hook, line and sinker. They so love grand projects.

But now of course we have had 17 years of no warming, which was not predicted by these flawless and super accurate computer models. Observation, a scientific method, was disproving a badly constructed scam. To give a parallel; it does look as if the Sun goes around the Earth - we talk of it crossing the sky- and yet it doesn't. When this was proven it was accepted and has remained a known fact ever since, on the basis it can be proven any time you like.

The Global Warming scammers though would just say, 'no, you are wrong because our models say otherwise. Observation and proof have no place here'. And that is the dilemma facing the IPCC as its report, its latest weighty, densely worded yet full of comedy content will say two diametrically opposed things. On the one hand they will assert that the 'science' says that the cause of Global Warming is Man with a 95% certainty, but that they also are not sure what is causing Global Warming. Whilst additionally mentioning that there isn't any Global Warming.

And that polar ice isn't disappearing. Or the glaciers on the Himalayas. Or there is increased hurricane activity. Or the sea level is rising. Even though the models say all these things are happening and catastrophes are all around us, right now, today. The Emperor really has never had any clothes.

So there it is. A simple yet effective (for a while) scam of immense proportions, only matched in scale by the stupidity and vanity of politicians. A kid writes a computer programme that predicts disaster, only he claims it is based on real science. But he has built in an assumption; that more Man made gasses like CO2 inevitably heat up the atmosphere, something he has no scientific support for, whatsoever. It can do, but you have to understand all the interactions, not just one.

All the claims that the science is settled and that there is a consensus of scientists is ridiculous and beside the point. It was never based of empirical observation and proof of theory, it was only ever a computer model. Like saying Grand Theft Auto 5 is an accurate reproduction of real life in every way. Whereas in fact it is designed for game play, with built in attributes of violence but making the figures look as lifelike as the current state of the art computing can manage. But even a little kid knows it isn't real (though maybe we should ask a politician their view)..

Tuesday, 17 September 2013

Daniel Pelka And Social Work

A child is dead. Again. And as if to ram home that the authorities involved really don't care all their attention and that of the excuse-machine investigation is centred on avoiding responsibility.

We have wittering half-wits on the TV saying, in that special calm, half whisper beloved of the 'caring', that the agencies involved should be bolder in 'challenging' what they are told by parents under suspicion. That the agencies should have a mechanism for talking to each other about concerns.

All this is meant to sound reasonable, all of it addressing 'issues', but what really underlies this kind of empty cant is 'will you please go away'. But it isn't reasonable, is it? If a teacher saw a child in such distress as Daniel was clearly showing (or 'presenting' in social work case-conference speak), then he/she could approach the parents for an explanation.

But no. In today's caring, multi-agency child-protection world the teacher must cross check to see if anyone else has spotted anything. Like a policeman coming across a fight and rather than breaking it up, calls some other 'agency' to see what they think. A doctor with a patient presenting with a knife in his head, wonders if anyone else thinks this might be important.

What these people who do say anything about their failures say, and as many as possible don't pass comment, is that this should have happened and that should have happened and he slipped through the net, but mostly the nasty, lying, manipulating parent was to blame because they lied to the social workers and doctors and police.

I can't believe that people nowadays are genetically less caring as individuals, as human beings, so it must be cultural. And that culture will be provided by ideology and management. The ideology provides all the style of speech and emphasis on the importance of self and the management live in that bubble, carefully avoiding actually doing anything. It is of course, the socialist way. Marxism is the over riding concern of social workers and all their efforts must be made in the light of the ideology.

Pretty soon it becomes apparent this is poor practice, so the multi-agency network is set up to spread responsibility and more importantly, blame. No one is ever to blame it is the system. And the people at the top have the strongest motivation to make sure that system does not change.

This was put into stark daylight by the shrieking of Sharon Shoesmith who was aghast to find herself being held personally accountable. No one, herself included could possibly be responsible as all the boxes had been ticked, she said. It appeared to have slipped her attention that a child was dead. Or that the 'paperwork' referred to a real person.

In her world, passing paper around, signing this off and getting that box ticked, is their life. It is what they draw their salary for. Shoesmith's responsibility as far as she was concerned was to make sure everyone was filling in the boxes. No wonder the intrusion of teh subject of the forms and tick-boxes came as such a shock to her.

Do we need change? Yes we do. Marxism as a malign influence is infecting everything from hospitals that now kill on an epic scale, to hapless police officers stumbling from excuse for this accidental shooting to explaining expenses, to careless social workers and HR departments wrecking companies by their tick box mentality.

Some years ago a judge said that he would never find against a social worker as the presumption has to be that their intentions were good. When was that last true?

Friday, 30 August 2013

Dinosaurs And Duff Scientists

As if there wasn't enough evidence that the decades old reverence of 'scientists' is due at least a reassessment, we saw interesting proof on a BBC Horizon programme.

A very nice lady, working in the 'unglamorous' branch of her science as she put it, was looking for dinosaur DNA. Well, she wasn't looking for it, she just became aware that it might actually be possible to find it, against the prevailing wisdom that said it was too fragile to last 65 million years, or more.

Describing herself as a 'housewife' from pretty much nowhere her expectations on publication of her results in finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones were fairly low. However, one of the peer reviewers wrote that he didn't care what the data said, he didn't believe it.

And that ladies and gentlemen is what passes for science today. So yes, the global warming zealots are making it up and lying to you, because they are asserting what they believe, not what the data shows.

Thursday, 29 August 2013

Syria, Oh Syria

Well here we are again, on the horns of a dilemma. Whilst being sure that we have said before that Assad is a thoroughly unpleasant man, we haven't gone any further than that because we don't interfere when dictators torture and kill their own people. It's not up to us. Just look at Zimbabwe.

But when chemical weapons are used we become outraged at the inhumanity of it. Why we don't just admit the truth of it and say that what actually troubles us is that the nutcase might use them against us, I can't guess. But of course, that is what it is about.

A wise man, concerned with issues of humanity (so not a politician chasing power or anyone on the Left) would long ago have engaged in strong and unequivocal language with Assad, not to depose him, but to show him that, in the long run being a nicer guy would work for him. And make his country more successful.

It wouldn't have been easy but would not have entailed shipping tanks half way around the world, or lying to the electorate about a personal desire for war. But because we do only have venal politicians at present, nothing constructive has been done about Syria and amazingly it has all gone pear shaped. Who would have guessed?

What can we do in Syria? Only one thing. Insert a very large armoured force between Assad and the rest of the country, neutralising any restive military bases as well. This is very much not what the politicians want to do for reasons of cost and image, but it is the only thing we can do.Then we discuss with Assad what we should have been saying years ago.

We could destroy selected military and governmental targets to show how strong we are. And he will kill some civilians or destroy a town to show how little impact it has actually had. We could assassinate Assad which would leave a power vacuum and cause unpredictable polarisation. Though it also asks the key question, by doing so, who are we supporting?

Because the original rebels, fighting for a better and more just Syria, have been subsumed by Iranian and Russian supported nutters from overseas. Muslim Brotherhood and others of an international Islamic bent wishing to impose their own version of theocracy (political religion) in place of the current secular dictatorship. And then start killing the Christians and the 'wrong' Muslims.

Brilliant. It is not a case of we are damned if we do and damned if we don't, we are in a situation caused by our own lack of a clear moral stance at the international level.

Wednesday, 21 August 2013

Playing With Our Money

The things politicians here have forgotten are legion. They have forgotten that they serve the people. They have forgotten that they are not above the law, they have forgotten that they are to protect the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. They have forgotten that they are to provide services and infrastructures desired by the people. They have forgotten that they are to debate and come to conclusions based on understanding and purpose.

What they think, it seems, is their job is to seek sinecures based around the influence they can peddle whilst in positions of power, to construct ideologies and to spend our money on themselves and their pet projects. Oh and seek ways to stay in power for ever.

Let us not beat around the bush and worry about pedantic points. This country is now in thrall to the bureaucrats in Brussels. We have to comply with the rules they issue and none of them are elected. We have no power over Brussels and it was always intended to be so. (MEP's are not part of the process, they are trinkets to give an impression of respectability).

A huge amount of business activity now buzzes around government like flies on a turd. Companies like Capita, PriceWaterhouse, G4S and many, many others. Their business is hugely reliant on taxpayer money and often they act as advisers telling government what a great idea it is to spend money on consultants. No quality of outcome or productivity is ever attached to these consultations, just huge and disproportionate invoices.

One of the many scams that New Labour committed to was the Private Finance Initiative where, to keep debt off the books, private industry would pay to build infrastructure projects and then charge fees way above the cost of building and running the things. Which is a major reason for hospitals being unable now to balance their books. They are having to pay most of their budget to New Labour's friends.

Mostly 'cost overruns', which are actually just theft in most cases are tolerated by the incompetents government pays large salaries to, to write the contracts. Even when a clear cut deal allows for no overrun the company with its hand out still seems to get paid. And the only time it hasn't, when the Health service IT system really, really wasn't working and money was disappearing like a politicians morality, the companies who had created the failure pulled out.

Yep, after years of promises and non-delivery of anything other than regular and very large bills, companies like CSC suddenly realised that if they were going to held to account and not paid more than agreed but have to carry on working until it was delivered, they decided to call it a day. What does that tell you? It suggests to me that a)the bureaucrats are beyond useless and b) the companies involved (and not just CSC) knew they would never deliver.

Then we have not just foreign aid but a whole nexus of Left wing bodies, think tanks, foundation, policy units and such like that all sponge off the taxpayer to spit anti-capitalist bile at the levers of power. The EU, you will be surprised to hear doesn't just waste money helping Spain build pointless roads and airports, or fill the pockets of gangsters in Italy and Greece (though it does work hard and closely with these), but also funds an enormous range of EU propaganda projects and even more Marxist bodies.

These then harangue and lecture on Left wing ideology and plant stories in the compliant and unthinking media. This is why the global warming scam get such publicity and support and why anti-fracking groups are so well funded.

So no, there is no money for your pension, a care home, hospitals, schools or repairing the roads, even though your energy bills carry hidden taxes and direct taxes keep rising. You have to pay for the politicians vanity projects and a vast array of anti-capitalists before anything useful can be done for you. Remember, without big government you would be freer, have more money and more say in what happens in your country. But why would you want any of that?

Tuesday, 20 August 2013

Wind Turbine Report

A report that it seems tells the truth about at least some aspects of the undesirability of wind turbines is causing some friction. Despite being bleedin' obvious and well known to those blighted by the things, Ed Davey thinks it should be a state secret that they damage lives, the environment, wildlife and property prices. They also don't really produce electricity, mainly being absent when needed most.

Everything Ed Davey believes, is wrong so naturally he doesn't want an official report backing up what everyone already knows. Gracious, we will be applying scientific method to global warming soon! That would never do! It is a faith, a religion which you must believe without proof. If we are to effectively destroy the West and its really annoying capitalism, we must spend all our money on a chimera. Or shoes.

In the old Soviet Union and today's North Korea you would be locked up, or worse, for opposing the prevailing ideology. Unfortunately for the idle souls 'protesting' in West Sussex, they have not achieved this glorious state of being here, so the violent revolution must go on. And despite what their fellow travellers will have drummed into you at school (instead of an education, or training you to think for yourself), the whole global warming thing is a story. A fairytale.

Like much else in society today, what is being pushed on you is not what they want. Homosexuals may feel supported by the cavalcade of ridiculous new laws, but the Left don't give a fig for them or their 'cause'. If they can use them to destabilise society here and destroy its bedrock, the family, then use them they shall.

Why would the Left want to dominate teaching in this country? To indoctrinate? Yes, to some degree, but mainly to ensure a nation of proles, a manufactured, ignorant 'working class' to use for the purposes of 'class struggle'. A group who are kept quiet with baubles, who do not want to and actually cannot think for themselves, a class who clamour for the protection of a 'big state'.

And so the plans of Ed Davey, in the farmhouse and walking upright, are secret and not our concern. He knows best.

Monday, 19 August 2013

Balcombe Non Fracking

Just seen the latest disgraceful behaviour of violent, Marxist anti-capitalists on the news, where the enemy is a fuel that will help make heating affordable for the poor. It is amazing that in a compassionate country we do not have enough mental care homes for them and enough prisons for a good number of them. They are here, seeking to recreate North Korea to meet their ideological goals in Britain. Successful economies terrify them as people don't tend to tolerate totalitarian regimes when they have access to opportunity.

So cheap fuel is an absolute horror for them. With the global warming scam they thought they had the perfect weapon to destroy Western civilisation, democracy and capitalism. But people quite like choice, wealth and being able to make better lives for themselves. These Marxists though want a state where you only do what you are told. By them of course.

They can't work of course, because they have to bring about Utopia and have to spend their time thinking up rules. You have to work to pay taxes to support them, naturally. And they will need cars and special lanes to drive in due to the urgent nature of their business, on your behalf. And we must build a defence against the end of the World.

Heard this somewhere before? Yep, the Global Warming scam is just the Marxists having a laugh but actually using a version of Animal Farm for real. And sops like Cameron don't even realise, that is the biggest joke. The Red/Greens have conned you with the most obvious scam they could think of and you still fell for it!

Or maybe it was inspired by the slightly less profound, Chicken Little. Same story, same substance.

Next time an eco loon tells you what to think ask them to prove it. Not quote how many people they claim support their view, real provable, observable facts. Let me give you a prediction. At that point they will call you a fascist and move on.

Monday, 10 June 2013


We supposedly live in a Constitutional democracy here in Britain, with representative government. But who do the government represent? We are used to people accusing Cameron of only caring about the rich, or Miliband, the Unions, but that is not really true is it.

These unpleasant people, for that is a true description is it not, only represent themselves and their own narrow interests for power and personal wealth. I think that the feeling in Britain and the disdain for and contempt in which the general public is held by politicians, is very similar to the situation in America before Independence.

We may not signify disgust by tipping tea into the Thames, it may be something a little closer to 'the body politic'. If our politicians continue to regard themselves as above the law, in league with the sovereign power in Brussels, then this will come to pass.

Wednesday, 5 June 2013

Middle Lane Madness

The tax collectors, known as the police here in Britain have hit on a new wheeze. People who 'hog' the middle lane are to be subjected to an instant fine, when in the personal opinion of a police officer, targeted to raise a certain amount of revenue (or issue tickets as they call it), you have stayed too long in the centre lane of a motorway.

Lots of people can be found to agree with this policy, often describing themselves as people who drive regularly, long distances on motorways. But what exactly are they complaining about? Well, in my 25 years plus of using motorways, I'll tell you how often I have seen someone driving slowly for no reason, in lane 2; never.

Helpfully Sky News have shown a police patrol pulling someone over 'hogging' lane 2. He clearly was guilty as accused because there was only one other car, in lane 1, for miles. He had gone past this car and stayed in lane 2. Outrageous. He was pulled over for a chat. The police you see can only give advice because to do anything else would take too long, so an instant bit of paperwork is, as ever to a bureaucracy, a god send.

Like 'safety cameras' at 'accident blackspots' they are not intended just to raise funds. No one is supposed to ask why an accident blackspot isn't improved to alleviate the danger.

For the police and the government of course, you making a decision about how best to safely drive in any given circumstance is an abomination. You are out of control.

So back to our chap on Sky News, now having a chat in the extremely dangerous environment of the hard shoulder. The police I guess were saying there was absolutely no other traffic around so he had no reason to stay in lane 2. This is true, but begs the question, what harm was he doing? There was, after all, no other traffic around.

The other people who face a difficult question that they do not want to be asked is, these people doing 70mph in lane 2 are 'in your way' how? Presumably these righteous, much safer drivers are outraged that they should be forced to move to lane 3, a dangerous manoeuvre as any lane change is, to maintain their 95mph plus progress.

What of course the police are accidentally going to promote is a fear of being caught even momentarily in lane 2 when, perhaps it could be claimed you shouldn't be. So overtaking the speed limited, slowly accelerating traffic, lorries and such in lane 1 will require frequent lane changes, pulling in behind a vehicle doing 60mph, then trying to seek a gap in lane 2 to pull out and accelerate back up to 70.

Timid people who, given the responsibility for their driving usually do OK, will be cowed by into understanding that they are not allowed to make decisions and that any straying into lane 2 may attract a fine. Will they for instance be even more reluctant to move over to let traffic join from slip roads? And our important frequent drivers will still assume that, as they have indicated their intention to join from a slip, they will continue the manoeuvre, cause an accident and blame 'lane 1 hoggers'.

The police are cynically using the views, all be it of a large number, of bad drivers to support a ridiculous grab at power and government pleasing money. I presume they consult criminals about prison reform.

Tuesday, 28 May 2013

Oh Go On David, Tell The Truth

David Cameron has found himself painted into a corner. First he didn't want any discussion of the EU whatsoever. It is a non-democratic institution along Marxist lines, who is going to vote for that (while we are allowed)?

Then he had to give a 'cast iron' guarantee that he would give us a referendum, which turned out to be anything but cast iron and failed to materialise. Then, with the eurozone going breasts uppermost, he had to actually promise one, far in the future and only if we elect him again and then finally to have a law requiring it. He could do without this you know.

David Cameron loves the EU. He couldn't explain why to you, as it only causes harm to little people, like you. He wants to be a good EU apparatchik and ignore the people, but we still have some semblance of democracy, so he has to appear to care what you think. Consequently, he tells you he is going to renegotiate our terms of membership with that nasty EU Commission.

And if they won't play ball, we will have an in/out referendum. But they will give in, he assures us. Funny that. There is only one mechanism by which he can possibly negotiate with his EU masters and that is by invoking Article 50. But he hasn't mentioned that, ever.

He hasn't told you about it, he hasn't explained what it is, or threatened 'Europe' with it. He just hasn't brought it up at all. Yet it is the negotiating tool. Why hasn't he mentioned it? Do you think he might be lying again? That he has no intention of negotiating anything, nor leaving the EU under any circumstances? Shirley Knot.

Protecting Britain

Recent events have shown up that Britain is pretty much defended along the hope and trust basis. Planning, resource provision and competence are in question.

Ten minutes out from landing at Manchester airport a Pakistani airliner has two men try to break into the cockpit, possibly muttering threats, according to reports. The pilot needs to take that seriously and what is anyone supposed to do? You have to get the plane down and deal with the men in as a remote a location as possible. Such a facility is available at Stansted.

But why would these man just allow themselves to be arrested because they couldn't hijack the plane if they were terrorists? But what else can you do when the plane lands than go on board? So trapped by the special circumstances of an aeroplane, you have limited options across the whole scenario. Of course the assault team has to be trained in storming an aircraft.

Are Essex police so trained? How many police in the UK are? When de Menedes was killed, grabbed in a bear hug to prevent any bomb activation moves and shot repeatedly in the head it seemed more likely to be the work of special forces, rather than police. But the claim is they were police officers.

What then are the measures we are aware of, to protect the UK from terrorism (we know the Royal Navy is not designed or equipped to protect our shores)?

Well, as we saw, when a 300 ton plus aircraft is considered a danger a quick reaction jet is sent to intercept and escort it. If a real danger becomes apparent our only option is to shoot the airliner down, hopefully over open countryside. After that it is our para military police. If something develops of an on-going nature then the military can be deployed and the SAS have trained for certain eventualities.

Should we not have a more advanced and integrated response prepared though? Military helicopters could be useful and the extra fire power and dedication to killing their targets of soldiers, more appropriate in certain situations. Whilst an Apache might be scary, it is probably too powerful for any domestic problem, but if area containment was important, circling Lynx with pintle mounted machine guns would be a definite deterrent.

It is unfortunate, but any incident which is 'terror' related (eg the assailant is likely to not behave rationally, nor be concerned for his own life) then overwhelming lethal force needs to be available as quickly as possible, to reduce or eliminate the threat and to form a containment. None of this seems to be understood nor in place currently. The government and the police can only brag about operations where they have had time to plan and organise.

Whenever they have to react to fast moving circumstances they are found wanting in some way. They either shoot first and ask questions later (while they cook their stories) or they absent themselves. We have a right to know why training of police firearms officers, which allegedly says that shots are aimed at the bulk of the mass, the torso, leads to the fatal shooting of an innocent man with a chair leg in a bag (hit in the hand and head) when two dangerous, armed murderers were shot in the legs, as at Woolwich. The police say eight rounds were fired and the audio of the shots was very interesting, particularly the gaps.

We wait to hear more, but one thing is plain. The government have no intention of being deviated from its course of supporting terrorism through the ring-fenced foreign aid budget, nor taking any effective action at home. To do so would be contrary to the Left ethos of undermining Western society, to which our political class cleave.

Friday, 24 May 2013


Peter Tatchell was playing his games last night on QT and talking crap, but the Left educated audience lapped it up. Ah, for the days when thinking for yourself was valued. First let us establish that the audience was programmed in its responses. To the violent, barbaric murder of an innocent they asked the question, what do we expect people to do when we have the foreign policies we have?

Well, our foreign policy is a mess and is today an echo of the empty headed government of Blair and his monkeys. But it was intended to oppose the barbarians such as we saw on our streets, in their homelands. We just didn't do it too well. That is what happens when you give a serious job to someone who likes the idea of a job, but not its content.

Interestingly, we are less resolute about dealing with the barbarians here. Anyway, it is clear that the question from the audience member was idiotic and could only really been seen as a support for the murderers. I'm sure that is not what was meant, but when you chant Left mantras that are very much the vogue these days, that is what you end up saying.

So, their keenness to applaud Tatchell was partly due to his artfulness, partly not paying attention and partly indoctrination - going with fashion. It was stated by Ian Paisley that he thinks marriage is for families and so irrelevant to same sex couples who have civil partnerships, which covers the issue of legal relationship. Marriage is for children and their upbringing.

Dimmo of course needed to undermine this entirely sensible and clear view, so quoted comments of Paisley's where he had said that sex between people of the same gender disgusted him and needled him to explain how this fits with what he just said. Well, it fits exactly. I'm sure if you are a man and you 'fancy' women, the idea of sex with a man would 'disgust' you, indeed offend you. This is OK though. Whilst 'causing offence' is currently one of the greatest crimes you can commit, it is OK if you are offending heterosexuals or the Christian faith.

This is a view apparently that is not allowed. You are not allowed to think such thoughts. Tatchell then pulled his master-stroke  he said that by supporting marriage for just heterosexual couples he was living in the past, that was not traditional, it was old fashioned. The audience loved it and applauded so hard their iphones nearly fell out of their pockets. Tatchell of course, was conflating not liking the idea of men having sex with opposing the right for homosexuals to exist. Dimmo helped this view along, but it was not even nearly what Paisley had said. Truth and the Left however, are not frequent bedfellows.

Tatchell had not produced a killer political point, undermined an argument, proved a falsehood in his opponents argument. No he had done something much more important, he had appealed to fashion and who will not pay any price to be seen as 'in fashion'. It is dreary to have to point out that marriage is itself something of an old fashioned idea. Indeed has not the Left used homosexuals to promote the destruction of marriage and families? So Tatchell supports one old fashioned idea but not another. Oh dear, the inconsistency, the hypocrisy. Never mind, its not important, its Left wing political manoeuvring.

Tatchell then went on to talk more self evident crap, when he offered to level the playing field he had himself disturbed by suggesting heterosexuals should not be denied the option of civil partnerships! Clearly, it is not what you say, but the way you say it.

I reserve my greatest outrage with homosexuals though, for the deliberate harm they do to children. They do it solely for the most selfish of reasons. This demand that they should be able to buy the children they cannot naturally procure. I say buy, because they are viewed by the state as eligible not just for political reasons, but through being able to afford to raise them.

Consider the boy given to two men. We will say the adoption was enacted when he was a baby, so he knows nothing else and we will assume that the couple fall in the statistically unlikely group of homosexuals who stay together. (And we will certainly assume that the adults find adults attractive and leave the boy alone, just as heterosexuals can adopt without interfering with the child).

The boy however is not biologically prone to homosexuality. He will be subjected nevertheless, to images at home of homosexual behaviour. How will he relate to other boys at school who are heterosexual? Where does his sense of relationship build from? When he meets a girl, how will she react to being taken home, to an environment she cannot understand? Will the boy attempt to be homosexual to please his 'dads'? Will he feel he has let them down if he dates a girl? Will they project feelings of dejection if he isn't homosexual?

This is also to ignore the simple way kids address blatant, rank stupidity by laughing at it. A family of homosexuals is not like a man and a woman who cannot have children for medical reasons. It is a state of being that they have created intentionally, knowing that children are not possible (though perhaps there should be a law banning only heterosexuals from being able to procreate). Yet the demand to 'have' children to 'normalise' their 'marriage' is paramount. Or political to an outside observer.

Marriage was devised to build a family unit for raising children, love didn't really enter into it, so this modern argument is nice, but if you use it to undermine a working system, you are just stupid. And as for homosexuals who want it all, marriage, kids the whole thing - grow up.

As for the QT audience? Well, the Left have ensured that they are as uneducated as possible and promote issues of fashion instead. A nation that worries about its hair and nails, reads Hello and follows drippy 'love everybody' political notions. So while you pay no attention things are done to destroy the capitalist society that has served you so well, to be replaced by an elite in power for ever. And a key part of that is to destroy marriage and the family unit, the basis of our society.

Thursday, 23 May 2013

Woolwich - The Response

Politicians rush to the airwaves not just to show sympathy but to anxiously call for calm. What they fear you see is that the general public might one day become tired of such attacks as these and demand protection. This the politicians are unwilling to provide as it contradicts the ideology they cleave to.

And the politicians also are quick to say that these people did not represent Islam or the contribution it makes to this country. There of course is the most obvious aspect of their lies. Islam contributes nothing to this country but harm

Fraser Nelson at The Spectator has reproduced tweets from 'Muslims' who say that this is not done in their name and it is not a part of Islam to murder like this. But these are successful, integrated people, decent upstanding and sometimes not even Left wing, so they are Muslims in the same way I am Christian. I kind of hold to the values but in no way am actively involved.

I don't go to church, but for family events. No religious leaders from Islam, no heads of Madrassa's have appeared and said it is against Islam. The reason why is because they collude.The murderers yesterday did it in support of their agenda and objectives. Those objectives are echoed by the theocracy of Islam.

What we in the West don't understand is how different it is. Because we see Islam as a 'religion' and thus in the light of the religion we know, Christianity we completely misunderstand what is going on. Islam is not a religion in reality, it is a political construct and uses a branching of much of the Judeo-Christian beliefs. Muslims have the same God and acknowledge Jesus as a Prophet but try to promote their own in the hierarchy by claiming that the Koran was the literal word of God.

Islam relies on the tribal society of the medieval arabs to survive as a totalitarian government, using 'the literal word of God' to keep the people in thrall. Any true modernisation threatens their grip.

If we claim to have invaded countries to support the ordinary people, we were at the same time opposing the political side of Islam. Clearly the politicians don't understand this as helping the little people abroad fits with allowing multiculturalism here, allowing Islam to thrive, whilst it is opposing the state that it sits in.

This is why I say we must act, not against everyone who says they are a Muslim, but those who support the theocracy of Islam. Enormously dangerous people like Yvette Cooper say that we shouldn't let this attack divide us, but what she means is that she will continue to support the right of those who attack us to do so. She says to react to their violence is to give in to their plan. What like fighting Hitler was the wrong thing to do?

As for Cameron, he was talking these sorts of words about 'us' and 'we' but what I actually heard was 'I can assure everyone that No10 is quite well protected with gates and everything. I travel in armoured cars with armed guards. You have nothing to fear if nothing is done'.

Islam Is A Failure

When people were blown up on Tube trains and a bus, it seemed a terrible thing and we were shocked, but there is something fundamentally different about yesterday's attack in Woolwich. The barbarity was beyond belief. For people who, generally live a 'live and let live' existence it is incomprehensible. That human beings feel able to do such things, deliberately and calmly to a complete stranger is outside human experience. Only the insane and animals are capable of such acts, surely? And yet here they are, amongst us.

To confront this, to deal with it we have decided on weakness. We have given in to the mad demands of a foreign cult and asked them not to hurt us. This cowardice is exactly what the enemy despise about Western society and confirms, in their madness their actions.

Our weakness is not only to surrender to violence in the same way Tony Blair did with the IRA, but also to the Left as it uses any and all means to destroy our capitalist society. Multiculturalism was designed specifically to allow this kind of attack. The Left were aware that it would cause great upset and ghettoisation of groups. This was exacerbated by the racial 'equality' laws which were always anti-white and highlighted difference, in case you forgot.

As social workers are trained to only see child protection as a way to use children as a tool against capitalism, so the Left uses every means to destroy the Britain of note, the remarkable country that we love. Now they see that the violence that so often accompanies a tyranny with no popular support, is likely to come from extreme Muslims. This is why civilised Muslims need to stand up to them.

Whilst Christianity has done precisely the same thing in the form of the Crusades, that was in a very different time and over 900 years ago, and even then as a reaction against Muslim invasions that got as far as France and Spain. That Islam has got stuck in that age is ridiculous and holds back those countries in its thrall. Moderate Christian thought has subsequently led to great advances in the West and a peaceable attitude. The objection of the nutters like yesterday is that the West have attacked their 'brothers' in Iraq and Afghanistan.

By our own standards these were very poor decisions by some very disreputable people, like Blair and Campbell. However, at root the action was to support the ordinary people against violent bullies; in Afghanistan these are the Taliban. Of course, these bullies are Muslims and so blameless, apparently!

This strange religion, attached as it is to the Christian faith, claims that the Koran is the literal word of God (as the Bible doesn't claim to be), spoken to Mohammed and written down many years after his death. Certainly Mohammed was struggling to get his ideas of religion accepted by any real community and had to go into hiding from his enemies, who wanted to kill him.

When he emerged from the desert he was suddenly able to gain converts and his following swelled. Once powerful enough he used this force to do the religious thing and attacked and killed his enemies. His followers believed that they lived special lives and that life should be frozen in the Middle Ages. Except for anything they want. Like TV, porn, drugs, alcohol, guns, bombs, cars, everything really except that men are in charge, women do what they are told and criticism means death.

More a theological version of communism really.So, we need to treat this seriously at last and require the Muslims and the Left to shape up or ship out. And not let up until it is done.

On a separate note, it was disappointing that the armed police (who took a strangely long time to get to the incident) shot and wounded these men, rather than being able to kill them. A man with a chair leg in a bag is shot dead, but real criminals get wounded. Ending these animals lives would have been so much better too, than the ridiculous trial our Left wing judges will 'subject' them to with prison sentences at the end of it. Or a caution if the Met Commissioner had his way perhaps.

Monday, 20 May 2013

How To Get Out Of The EU

Richard North on his EU Referendum blog says that we need to be careful and stop talking about leaving the EU now and illegal treaties, as this will damage the image with swing voters. This in turn leaves them vulnerable to being influenced by the likes of Peter Mandelson.

Much of this is true of course; if you don't think so, ask yourself how people came to vote for Tony Blair? There is a very well funded (that would be our money) machine that will continue to spout lies and propaganda about the anti-EU people and so influence people to vote for the Marxist gravy train for politicians.

However, it doesn't change the fact that all of the leave now and illegal treaty stuff is true and relevant. If we did leave the EU now, which North says would leave us in a mess, we would still have all the EU laws on our books. We could take our time to sort through what we want and what we don't want and act accordingly.

We could do this without interference from a foreign power, without fines and without paying EU-geld.   The only thing is we need to be clear with the people what is going on and for that we need an honest media (ie not the BBC) and some well thought through policies. Here North is absolutely spot on. Leaving the EU is like giving up drugs, not easy but much better for your health. It cannot be done overnight and Left liberal 'advisor's' will tell you not to.

Thursday, 16 May 2013

Classic QT!

Question Time is really storming along tonight and it has only been on 20 minutes! The first question brought up the EU and off we went. Naturally all the talk was as careful as possible not to say anything of substance. There is a woman who you would love to call a dozy bint from the Financial Times, but she is an intelligent person, though her view is to talk about economic matters in the EU and avoid the fact that it is a political question.

Chris Bryant is there too and he is an idiot. He has no ability to say anything pertinent, he only ever spouts ideological codswallop. A woman from the audience pointed out that UKIP are merely offering what the Conservatives should be and the original questioner pointed out that we don't even know what Cameron is going to renegotiate and so how would we know what success looked like.

Then we moved on to Google not paying enough tax. Well, I'm a little conflicted over what happened today. I think Google should be paying more tax, but I think the chap from Google should have just said to Hodge the Dodge, that he is only doing what she does. And there is something distasteful about a group of politicians talking about how reprehensible companies like Google are and then go back to their offices to see how much they can fiddle on their expenses.

Just one last point. It has now been on half an hour and I haven't heard a single Suffolk accent yet, is it really coming from Ipswich or is the audience shipped in?

Royal Society Own Goal

Oh how deliciously ironic. Prince Andrew, the notorious loafer and user of other people's money has been elected to the Royal Society and scientists are up in arms. They feel that this deeply unserious man should not, can not be associated with such an august body.

This is the society of course who, despite a motto that says 'Nullius in Verba', meaning take nobody's word, have decided that no further research should be permitted into climate change. The science is settled. Which is about the least serious and most unscientific thing anyone could say, let alone repeated Presidents of the Royal Society.

If I was Prince Andrew I would have turned it down as lacking the rigour that I required from clubs I join. And his Mum really ought to insist that the Royal bit be dropped since their standards have sunk so low. It is more a non-working man's club these days, so being called The Society and having a bar installed would be most appropriate (with a barman called Dave).

Isn't life strange, in that for so many years used car salesmen could be rightly considered dodgy characters, whose word was not to be trusted and now it is members of the Royal Society. Oh well, all things must pass.

Who Invented Global Warming?

I know that science often works on a number of issues simultaneously, then finds they are related in some bigger picture, but still. Berners-Lee is credited with inventing the World Wide Web so surely someone must be able to claim they invented Global Warming.

I'm guessing that it must have occurred after science had established that CO2 output by Man was insignificant in regard to affecting global temperatures (which was known in the mid-Sixties) and was probably from a group of political agitators.

But was it from Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth or a similar political organisation using charity status as a front? It may have come, I suppose, quite innocently from a real environmental group with honest intentions, but they seem to only last a very short while (boson time?) as they get subsumed by politics.

Where did it come from? Was it really attached to the subject whilst it was still being investigated by scientists (as opposed to promoted by them, which is all they can achieve these days)?

Monday, 13 May 2013

Cameron Angry

The news is claiming that David Cameron is angry because some of his senior Conservative colleagues have publicly said they would vote to leave the EU. I hope he is angry. That would mean he is now sharing an emotion with Tory voters. Except their anger is not at a political construct that a politician quite likes, but at an idiot who has made Conservatives seem unreliable and Left wing.

Leaving the EU is a 'Right wing' idea apparently. I'm not sure when the Left first decided that supporting Britain and British citizens was a Right wing idea. By extension of course, it means that the Left are anti Britain and British law.

Cameron, accepting orders from another part of the communist 'Europe' he loves, enacted laws for homosexual marriage, ignoring the rights and views of the people of the country. He wants, for no discernible reason, to build a high speed rail line, at great cost, to benefit a relatively small number of people. The line he says, will 'open up' the Midlands and make working there easier for many people. How? To be fast the train must not stop very often, so it can only serve a few destinations.

Current railways are no different from any other large commercial concern these days. It runs entirely for the benefit of the company and often uses its contact with government to maximise its benefits. No competitive pressures or proper regulation for them, any more than for renewables scamming companies, energy suppliers, pharmaceutical and construction industries.

There is plenty for Cameron to be angry about, but so far he seems to be a supporter of all of the scams which are destroying the spending power of UK citizens, not forgetting all the tax, naturally.

Tuesday, 7 May 2013

Sceptics - The Lies

People who investigate the science surrounding the earth's temperature have found that man made CO2 cannot possibly be affecting the global temperature. They are called sceptics. Another group, mainly with vested interests of one kind or another from companies taking massive subsidies to 'energy efficiency' certificate peddlers to scientists who cannot admit they said something stupid, say that the world is warming up due to the exact same thing.

People who do not see that a Marxist superstate run by an unelected elite who by way of warning came up with the Euro, is a good idea, are again called sceptics. Naturally, it is the conman who decides on the labels.

It's a bit like saying someone who won't put their hand in the fire is a sceptic.

Leave The EU?

Nigel Lawson is being heavily quoted on a recent article of his saying that Britain should leave the EU as the economic case for doing so was now clear. Indeed it is, as it has been since before we joined.

But of course the biggest problem with the EU is a moral one. It is a construct designed to serve an elite against the people, but as ever using their money and labours to ensure their own wealth and status.

In a sane country, powers are given to a government that are essential to the good running of the nation for the good of everyone in that nation. There may not be equality but there should be equality of opportunity. Some checks and balances need to exist to keep the 'executive' on the straight and narrow and to ensure they remember their role.

Our ancestors did a remarkably good job at coming up with some very good balances; Common Law, habeus corpus, Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights. Today it is en vogue to say these have been forgotten. They most certainly have not, at least not by the people whom they hold to account. Those people have worked hard to negate the previous good works, to convince you they don't exist or were never a good idea, or even that they needed 'modernising'.

The reason is that they are good government, they serve the people in a society where the people own the law and the state exists to serve them and their law. This does not describe the EU, which is based on the despotic regimes that have caused wars across Europe for centuries. In the situation now taking precedent even here, the state exists as a perfect entity and the people are to serve the state. Everything is illegal unless the state permits it.

For such a system to truly work, the people must have no power and no say, which again is the lines along which the EU is constructed. You may 'elect' MEP's but they don't write the laws and they must keep voting on new laws until they do what the unelected elite wants. At best they only slow things down, they may as well not exist.

In the UK party politics has further eroded any hint of democracy that might have existed. You vote for an MP and when he/she arrives at Westminster they do what the Party leadership tells them. Indeed they could only stand for election because the Party selected them to do so.

Hence Cameron, despite knowing that Wind Farms are a scam, the homosexual marriage laws and his fervour for the corrupt EU are deeply unpopular with most people, he can ignore them to a large extent.  Party based politics is why all the parties have converged in their 'ideas', as getting elected (or conning the public on one particular day, as it should be more correctly called) is all that they are actually interested in.

There is an economic case for leaving the EU, but there is a moral one, a political one, a democratic one, a common sense one, a national sovereignty one and a legal one; it was never in the gift of parliament to join. Under British law, it was illegal for any government to sign the original treaty and it shows how poorly served we have been, over a very long time that no-one has corrected this. This is how long politicians have considered themselves above the law.

When was the last time Cameron told you about some EU law that was coming and there was a public debate about it? No, all we ever hear is that the Daily Mail has 'gone off on one' again, rattling on about some myth about a new EU law. Hoping you won't actually check, as you will find out that, no matter how stupid it might have sounded it will be at least as bad as stated.

Stephen Fry, who has a reputation for being able to understand things, chuckled during a blatant EU supporting QI, that the 'sceptics' even claim there is a law requiring cucumbers to be straight. "No there isn't", he confidently told us. And you know what? There isn't. The law doesn't say they must be straight, it says they mustn't curve much, which presumably on the intellectual plane Stephen inhabits that is entirely different from being straight.

Some of our politicians manage the neat trick of claiming that we are wise in Britain because we didn't join the Euro, but are OK about us being in the EU. So, let me get this straight. The Euro is a crock of shit, as can clearly be seen, but the state controlled political entity of a single European superstate, anti-democratic and Marxist in nature, is a good idea - even though that isn't working either? Did no-one learn anything from the examples of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia?

Friday, 3 May 2013


What to say about the former 'mainstream' parties? Where to start? Calling them names seems to have worked a treat, as did trying to smear UKIP candidates. It merely showed that a win over UKIP on policies was not considered likely.

I think the most obvious problem was highlighted on QT last night. Whilst the politicians on the panel were very careful indeed to sound moderate in their views of UKIP and the predicted swing of votes to them in local elections, they were still missing the point.

All of these politicians spoke of a protest vote and that they must listen to the people more and their concerns. The old 'reconnect' cant. Essentially people inside the bubble think that voters are pretty thick. But I feel that if the general public use local elections, where the voting is less important, to warn national politicians, that it shows the general public to be quite bright.

Anyway, the real problem is, that the panel didn't mean they wanted to address people's concerns, they meant they needed to find a way to gather their votes. There was and is no interest in doing the right thing, just getting into power.

No longer a single policy party, UKIP have latched onto the things that actually matter in this country; immigration, crime, the EU and the climate change scam. Labour and the Conservatives are either supporters of all the preceding list or don't care either way. As ever the Lib Dems are just the slightly batty relation sitting in the corner muttering incredible things.

Actually, the reason the Lib Dems have done so badly is not just they let their supporters down, but that their ideas of what constitutes a policy, long ridiculed have now been thrust into the spotlight as they share power. Something they never envisaged as they thought up strange things to say.

What the politicians need to realise is that it is they, not us who have disengaged from politics. When you let the technocrats of the EU run the country and you just talk amongst yourselves within a bubble,   it should come as no surprise that you lose all credibility.

Refusing to talk about the EU does not make you a world class statesman. Saying that you are a true believer in an obvious scam, to form the 'greenest government ever', just makes you stupid.

UKIP shouldn't ever have presented a threat to anyone. That it does shows how totally useless our 'main' politicians are, how corrupt the party system and how careless politics has become. The 'stupid' man in the street realises what has happened, but will the 'clever' politicians catch up any time soon?

Wednesday, 1 May 2013

Prostrate England

It strikes me that a great many things are coming together just now. It is almost as if a whole nation is waking from a long sleep. A sleep during which much evil has been done. That our nation has been much reduced, not by loss of empire, or markets or influence, but by indolence. As we know, for evil to flourish, all that is required is for a good man to do nothing.

We have heard much of the lack of interest in politics of the general public, that there is voter apathy. This is true and it is due to people thinking that things are good enough, life is OK that nothing needs to concern them in the world of politics. But politics is a world of plots and if you are not watching then the worst plots can succeed.

In the seventies people still had something of an education and a sense of personal responsibility. So, having given Labour a chance, as we do from time to time, the country had descended into chaos and financial ruin. It focusses the mind and fed up voters elected Margaret Thatcher, who turned things around and provided that success and stability that let voters doze off.

(Obviously I am talking about the democratic process here, not the communist subversion constantly at work in the background. No-one votes for communists and they have no interest in democracy).

Enter The Chancer. When voter apathy has long set in, a number of possible candidates spring forward to seize power whilst the Watch sleeps, but the key political parties still have an upper hand. Labour were in a wilderness of their own creation and were desperate to find a way back to power. This gave The Chancer his opportunity. That he wasn't a Labour man by conviction is a pointless remark to make as a) traditional Labour policies would get him nowhere and b) The Chancer is not a man of conviction.

Thus, the Labour Party became something completely different; it became a chameleon. Whatever the voter wanted to hear was, coincidently exactly what New Labour were offering. And it wasn't just that Tony Blair, for it was he who was The Chancer, had no intention of fulfilling these promises, he had no interest in politics or implementing policies whatsoever. This can be seen from the enormous number of ridiculous statements he made about new initiatives that never happened.

Blair of course wanted the trappings of power to feed his ego and the opportunities it creates to accrue wealth. He liked ordering people about and being obeyed, he didn't like spending time thinking about things. This lazy, useless group of grasping empty headed vagabonds spent their days selling snake oil, while a now denuded Conservative Party looked for someone to lead them who had the same qualities.

And so came about the final corruption of British politics, under the most venal of men. If ever a soul had been sold to the Devil it was here, then.

All this time of course, unchecked the communists were beavering away in the institutions, undermining the basic fabric of society, whilst rather handily a cabal of cretins, for whom the epithet 'if brains were made of elastic they wouldn't be able to keep their knickers up' was never more apt, was destroying the fabric of democracy.

Now though, as recession brings politics back into focus and people, rather rudely show annoyance at what was done while they decided to pay no attention, many of things are coming to light.

We have fairly regular shootings by the police of people who are either entirely innocent, or where there was no need to shoot, outrage at last, that hospitals are carelessly killing thousands of people, the open discovery of the thieving and corruption of politicians, the extent of paedophile activity within institutions. We see the courts and the police routinely ignoring serious crime and letting off offenders, whilst taking draconian and vindictive measures against the innocent or minor offenders.

Why has all of this, that has been going on for so long, suddenly been brought to light all at once? I think it is because we no longer will allow the 'Establishment' to get away with their cover-ups and lies. Today there must be a reckoning. And not before time. The scale though is shocking. Everywhere a stone is turned we find evil. It seems we may now not let it go. It seems that the communists and their desire to ensure children are as badly educated as possible will not continue.

That the attempts to divide the nation along racial lines will no longer be accepted, as multiculturalism is seen for what it is. The welfare trap to create a class of proles; all of it is coming into bright sunlight. But where do we turn? UKIP may be a funny bunch, but they terrify all the other politicians because they not only have policies that chime with the wants and desires of the population but also that they signal the end of many of the gravy trains on which our current crop ride.

Imagine there is no EU, it's easy if you try. No Global Warming too, above us only sky. All of it, all of it is lies. Lies have little lies upon their backs that bite 'em. And little lies have lesser lies and so on ad infinitum.

The tide is turning.

Thursday, 25 April 2013

Seems an enormously inappropriate juxtaposition of words doesn't it, NHS and Trust? We are continually getting headlines about some scandal or other within its ridiculously hallowed walls, usually involving unnecessary deaths, but a couple of things remain a constant.

Firstly there is the mystifying protection for those who are quite clearly responsible and secondly the absence of investigation into root causes. On the first point, we do have to ask why Health professionals are so protected? A nurse who highlights failings in a hospital is sacked and struck off the nursing register with a speed that is breathtaking. (Naturally, the failings are then quietly covered up and forgotten).

But if a hospital is adhering to standards of care that would have made the Scutari wards in the Crimea seem paragons of care and cleanliness, then no action is taken, no one cares and the only scramble is to find a way to make you forget or distract your attention.

Secondly, it is all too apparent that our hospitals are not just badly run by the legions of bureaucrats New Labour felt was what was needed in a modern health service, but that clinical decisions and standards have also vanished. It is as if all the doctors we used to be able to rely on were kidnapped one night and replaced by useless idiots.

Now New Labour couldn't be trusted to watch your pint while you went for a wee, but even I don't think they did the above. Introduced lower standards very probably and undermined good practice, but were not actually responsible for the high levels of ineptitude now apparent in the NHS.

Why, when my mother presented with strange symptoms, involving restricted movement, did the system decide it must be cancer and no other specialist should see her? So, having wasted 9 months in fruitless investigations she was passed to neurology who immediately correctly diagnosed her. The window for treatment had been missed, but worse than that she had spent 9 months in the NHS system, in their 'care'.

What this means in reality is the local hospital/care home allowed her to come to further harm and were negligent in regard to her welfare to the extent that she eventually had to be admitted to a general hospital due to dehydration. Of course, whilst there she acquired an infection which killed her. And naturally the death certificate didn't call it MRSA as that would have affected the statistics - that most important aspect of NHS operation.

So, the hospital would not admit to causing her death or even the real cause, meaning that she just died. Nothing untoward and not likely to appear as one of the unnecessary deaths. On a chart of statistics.

The system  is falling apart and I don't know why. It would seem that a series of unintended consequences may have brought us to a situation where doctors no longer seem to understand the basic remit of their role. This will extend to allowing poor students to progress into the ranks and nurses to walk away from their everyday role, without criticism.

The squalor in wards went on for months if not longer. How come no one noticed apparently, no one thought it wrong? The way it is reported it is as if a patient left in their own mess, or without food and water was a complete shock to the nurses who 'worked' on the ward. It also shows how completely disconnected the management was from the very job they were employed to fulfil. And how will it ever get cleared up, as the politicians seem very reluctant to act.

In a hospital that killed thousands how come no one is held responsible, let alone charged? This is the place to start. As with secret courts, when the medical profession is never held to account no matter how outrageous their behaviour, standards will fall to the floor. The same is true of our armed police, who operate to poor standards and are never blamed for stupid actions.

Maybe the reluctance of politicians to act is a recognition of truth; that they in all conscience cannot act against bad management and criminal behaviour in the NHS and other state institutions, because they themselves are no better. Perhaps that is where we need to start.

Remember, Remember

I do say at the top of the blog that these are thoughts as they drift through my head and this one does, every so often so I'm going to mention it. I really liked the film V for Vendetta. What I can't understand though is the setting. The writer would have been able to see out of the window and hear on the radio that very much of what he was writing was happening, at that moment in Britain.

Freedom was being deliberately eroded, the meaning of words changed, the state was seeking and acquiring more powers and often doing so by manufacturing 'crises'. But this was under a Labour government, which is what we would expect and the film decided that Britain would become a Stalinist state under a Conservative regime.

It is not that it chose a party I would side with (at present it isn't), but that it had no basis on which to rest. Britain has never had such leanings and even when the extremes of communism were becoming popular, Mosley didn't gain any traction.

Had the film chosen a snake oil salesman character as leader, who relied almost entirely on lies and was the leader of the Labour party it would have almost been a historical document.

Still entertaining though.

Thursday, 18 April 2013

Obvious Enough Yet?

Watching the funeral of Baroness Thatcher yesterday one thing was blindingly obvious; the Left just isn't right. Despite the best efforts of the BBC and Adam Boulton who wondered if anyone at all would turn up, the streets were crowded. And the multitudes who wanted to boo at a funeral were not present in the massive numbers they predicted.

They still sought them out to give airtime to their views though. Thatcher was 'divisive' after all. So we heard she 'destroyed the country' and much else from people who will have gained this insight no doubt, from the Left indoctrinated teachers at their schools and colleges.

Whether you agreed with her politics or not, there is no basis to say she destroyed the country, there simply is no evidence to support it. The previous Labour administration had had a good go mind, but even then it was only partly their policies and mainly the Unions, driven by communist leaders. Yes there was bad management in British Leyland, but that was because it was a nationalised industry as much as anything and the real damage was done by the strikes and the shoddy workmanship.

Do we still build cars in Britain? Yes. And are they rubbish and the factories frequently closed by strikes/ No. Are they state owned? No. Surely even a drama teacher can reach the correct conclusion? She destroyed mining communities by closing the pits, they squeal. But so did Wilson, would they like to comment? No? So just a communist inspired objection not a real one then.

She tried to help regenerate the areas but what did far too many of the miners do? Wallow in self pity and prove their stupidity by requiring someone else to look after them, like they were children. This recourse to childish behaviour of course, the adoption of victim-hood  was much praised and encouraged by Scargill, who cared not a jot for one of them. His was a political crusade, the miners merely his weapon.

The miners followed and supported the wrong man, even if it seemed a good idea at the beginning. It happens. Germany did it with the Nazis of course, though they do less whinging that it was someone else's fault that things went badly as a result. They then pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, accepted help where offered and didn't just wail and burn effigies of Churchill and Roosevelt, as if it was actually all their fault.

'Divisive' by the way means 'intending to make people angry with each other' which is not what Thatcher did by any stretch of the imagination, but is very possibly the aim of the BBC and Adam Boulton, who have agendas, of course.

La , La, Not Listening

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, 17 April 2013

Sky News - The Funeral

Just watching Sky News coverage of the Thatcher funeral. They have Left wing journalist Adam Boulton (married to Blair's former gatekeeper) who is still quick to get in the 'divisive' comment. I find this deliberate use of an abusive remark quite repellent. You may feel that, as Margaret Thatcher offered opportunity and a future to ordinary people and allowed companies to thrive and take on more staff, she would be feared by the Left. To counter her real success they had to create an alternative reality and thus there would be two sides to the Thatcher years.

This is disagreement, (not even clear who is responsible for the divide either), but only if Mrs Thatcher did the things the Left say and did them on purpose to cause harm, could she be described as 'divisive'.  It requires her to have deliberately set out to create a divide.

Now, the Unions would say she did and in some ways they would be correct. As the avowed aim of the Unions was the overthrow of government (as opposed to helping their members), then the government was very likely to take a different view. So the divide would be the same as a criminal would claim of the actions of the police, or a child screaming for sweets.

It is at the very least the politics of a spoilt adolescent rather than anything serious and yet, groups of very shallow people accept indoctrination and feel that a dead person deserves no respect. These people no doubt would be horrified if their own mean, malicious lives were in any way derided, particularly in death.

Tuesday, 16 April 2013

Observe, Debate

I know I'm banging on a bit about the Left at the moment, but it has become uppermost in my mind that we are in significant danger financially and as a society from communism. There is a panoply of lies surrounding every aspect of our lives, created by the Left and making proper political debate impossible.

There is undoubtedly a socialist angle that awaits discovery by brave souls. Areas of human existence that could be bettered by some clear thinking and definition. We need to accept that the human condition will always seek advantage, wants to strive for better. Even the current icon of evil, Mick Philpott worked at getting as much out of the system as he could, though by underhand means and by harming others.

More constructively, people can gain the very best education they are capable of and use it to get the best job and a career. So politicians should always have this in mind when considering how best to facilitate a society that fosters achievement but does no harm along the way.

All of this, conservatism, socialism and individual desires to do better are anathema to the Marxist. For them, control is the only goal. Marxism may mention the poor lot of the proletariat but only as the mechanism by which a revolution, a violent revolution can be achieved. You get the overwhelming impression that the real interest was to attack a certain group of people, a class they would insist on calling them, to destroy them. A kind of personal hatred by the author, Marx.

Has a movement really been formed based solely on the pathological ranting of a mentally disturbed man? Almost in the mould of that other authoritarian Leftie, Adolf Hitler. (You may have been instructed that he is far Right but what does that mean? In what way was Hitler at the other end of a scale from Stalin? They were almost identical).

The answer is yes, because it serves the motives of a group of people who seek violence as a leisure interest and the overthrow of an existing society merely to make themselves important. So much of what they do is secretive and also in no way constructive. They do not offer solutions just anarchy. They do not suggest an alternative society, just vague mentions of a society run from the centre. And they would be the centre of course.

There is no debate in this country among our politicians due to their being corralled by communist ideology, using such devices as Political Correctness and the indoctrination of teachers and thence the children. Why does a story exist that Thatcher was uniquely bad in British politics, when 'the sick man of Europe', Britain was turned around by her? Why does the story of her wrecking the coal industry and stealing milk from children paint her as a monster, yet she closed fewer pits the Labour's Harold Wilson, a Premier who also stopped school milk for secondary children?

It is because the Left incessantly create and retell lies and have access to do so. Which is why, morons like the 'drama teacher' don't understand history, just repeat an invention that turns her into a harpy, filled with hatred. Who knows, without the indoctrination she may be a very nice person. But as it is, pathetic drama is definitely her remit.

Of course, my fear and why I keep on about it, is that the Marxists are aiming for violent confrontation. The poll tax riots were organised for violence sake, a government policy just gave it a cover to hide behind. Violence at G8 summits is conducted by people who would love a world government, but rail against global corporates. What they hate is not the global bit, but that even though 'fat cats' do exist and are very wealthy, along the way they spread that wealth, creating jobs.

It may be unintentional, they may be no more altruistic than a Marxist, but happen it does. As we have seen with Gordon Brown, big government, state control and little choice ends up with a broken society and bankrupt treasury. Yet that is what the Marxists, be they the people behind Hacked Off, who want only their version of a story told, the EU or the mad mullahs like Galloway, want.

So, we need to recover our education system, which Gove is currently doing well with, challenge Marxism everywhere it raises its head and bring it firmly into public focus. Ed Miliband is not a socialist, planning the best for the people of Britain, he is a communist as was his father. So forget Labour or their other branch, the Lib Dems (and other nilhistic nutcases like the BNP and EDL) and refuse to accept an invented history designed to promote division and undermine proper governance, freedom and justice.

Reject the Left's attempts to promote racism with the 'black' organisations and multiculturalism. The Commission for Racial Equality is a cover for ensuring you don't think of people of a different colour as just other people, rather than any attempt at equality. You achieve that by not noticing colour, not by intentionally highlighting differences.

It is a vast and complex area, but centres around communist lies, so that is what our real politicians should confront, openly and noisily.  Don't forget, the model of Far Right and Far Left is a misnomer too. Both are extremes all right, but two sides of the same, authoritarian coin. Only the conservative, middle of the road approach works for the people, not the elites. So don't let them tell you their lies, their 'narrative' but think for yourself, observe and debate. You won't be right on everything, but Marxists will be wrong all the time.

Monday, 15 April 2013

Boston Bombing

Well, madmen who think that killing innocent people achieves something have struck again. Watching the scenes are shocking and perhaps too much is being shown. But in all the detail and with constant reruns it gives you a chance to see the whole event, looking at different aspects. What struck me was the reaction of the police.

You see ordinary people ripping off T shirts to staunch wounds, pulling at fencing that is impeding access and generally focused on the injured. Stewards, medical people, some military all are seen active in dealing with the aftermath.

The police are, pretty much just wandering around. It is seriously surprising. Here in the UK we see police officers go towards the issue, instinctively. But in the Boston video we see police officers wince, look, hand goes to gun and then they start to move away! Even when it is apparent what has happened they seem amazingly uninvolved. Am I seeing this right?

I appreciate that this kind of thing is very rare in America, but it does appear that the training of police officers in the US must be very different and hugely based on self defence.

However, I trust that the US will be as robust as they have ever been and whether a home grown nutter or some moron who claims to have some religious conviction stuck in the Middle Ages, they can be deprived of their liberty without end. People who do these kind of things are valueless.

Glenda Jackson

Glenda Jackson may be many great things, but she is not a fair minded person. For her, lead and a feather weigh the same if she says so. Ideology is all. Her recent witless (in every sense) rant in the House of Commons shows what a narrow minded and intrinsically unpleasant human being she is.

Margaret Thatcher may not 'be a woman' in her book, but a) what the hell does her gender matter? and b) only in Jackson's own mind has she been elected decider of all things. To view Margaret Thatcher as a politician and to debate the effects of her policies would be to enter the realm of politics. To decide to make ad hominem attacks and to invent a past that didn't exist are the necessary adjuncts of the ideologically led savant.

Because things demonstrably improved under Thatcher and that she was clearing up the mess of the Left meant that people like Jackson had to constantly demonise her. Otherwise it might go against them and people may understand how damaging her ideology is, how the Left are the enemy of the people.

Jackson doesn't strike me as one of the clever, duplicitous Lefties, out to destroy Western civilisation and usher in their Utopia of state control. No, I think she is an idiot.

Leftist Influence

The biggest threat to freedom, Western democracy and the continued success that capitalism brings, is the pernicious propaganda of the Left. Knowing they cannot win any debate they have decided to use the general apathy of the public to insinuate Left ideas into their heads, by repeated exposure and flat lies.

A key aspect of course has been education, where teachers can be relied upon to spout any nonsense, even where the children can see through it, to support the Left indoctrination they received whilst training. The media, long the home of insubstantial and grossly over paid types, has always been a hot bed of idiot ideology. The luvvies love to love. They live in a cloud cuckoo land only slightly adrift of the Miss World contestants who constantly held fervent hopes for world peace.

They of course are key to the daily dissemination of ideology. A BBC sofa girl hounding a government official asking what should a family cut back on, heating, food or school trips; the communist angle. She seems to imply that any money the claimant requires should be made available, so is completely without any kind of thought process to back it up. But I bet she loved sounding tough and it was only a Conservative anyway.

A reporter in a new shopping centre in Leeds (where obviously there is no money because Thatcher destroyed and impoverished the North) has opened and the discussion was about struggling retailers, not least due to the bad weather. The reporter casually drops in that weather is now 'more variable', part of the climate change cant.

It is in these small yet persistent and indeed insistent ways that the Left brings a population to believe some amazing things. Almost everything that is said about Margaret Thatcher for instance is wrong, often a deliberately constructed lie. And yet many people believe the lies and many others think there must be some substance to them. Once again the Left pulls its favourite stunt, they lie and the normal people have to try to re-establish the truth.

Underlying all of this and coming ever closer by the day, is the desire by very dangerous people to destroy the way of life you enjoy. The Left don't have an overwhelming desire to bring immigrants to Britain, but if it destabilises society they will support unchecked immigration. Homosexual issues are not a fundamental Right (or wrong), but they can be used to destroy the family as a social norm and a social unit. They need to do this because families are the bedrock of a functioning society.

The education system is being debased because an intelligent 'working class' would be aspirant, would know it can achieve better, which undermines communism. And we need to be clear, we are talking about communism, not socialism. The Labour party is no longer socialist, for they do not seek to help the poor and disadvantaged, they seek to maintain those groups to consolidate their power and to always have someone to do the menial tasks that the elite still need doing, to maintain their wealth and lifestyle. Communism is for the masses, not them.

The reason Hacked Off have pushed themselves into the decisions on how the Press operate is because they claim it is overwhelmingly Right wing and lacks a social conscience. The truth of course is that it is overwhelmingly Left wing (which is why so much of it is so bad) and the social conscience will be provided by a Left wing state who will tell you what to do.

Are the communists really up to no good? It is apparent in everything around us, when you look. But also it is in the way they operate. The Left are secretive, because they must be; generally the public don't like them. What communist state was ever voted in? Even the EU, their greatest and largest scale project wouldn't try to rely on democracy!

But the Left is also a Hydra, so that, should one head be cut off, all the others carry on. Go on, start looking into bodies, organisations, charities, think tanks and Quango's. See how many there are, related to climate change, renewable energy, Press regulation and any other area where taxpayers money can be soaked up to pay for more Left oriented propaganda.

This is where we must stand and fight, where the next great battle must take place. Who will be the next Thatcher, to slay this dragon? Someone a million miles from the dilettantish  uncomprehending, small thinker - Cameron. A real champion of the people, to not only oppose the Left, to tell things as they really are, but to also wield the sword and put it right..

Thursday, 11 April 2013

Science, Scientists And Method.

Should we not be applying scientific method to scientists? I ask because the Global Warming scam rolls on and more and more nonsense spews out, often from people who you think cannot just be doing and saying what they do to further the aims of Marxism. Clearly they are intellectual morons. But the man in the street is shielded from the fact because the legacy media, the traditional 'newspapers' no longer investigate stories and often are Left oriented anyway.

In a recent Horizon programme on BBC it was stated that the Apollo missions to the Moon cost £100 billion in today's money. From that we made the important step of setting foot on another body in space and along the way discovered a number of new techniques and products. Today though, even little old Britain is planning to take many times that amount and urinate it up against the wall, whilst pursuing the chimera of stopping the climate changing.

Politicians have committed this phenomenal sums of other people's money purely on the say so of a few scientists and a very large number of politically motivated activists. So shouldn't we at least apply some measure to the claims? The nearest we get are people like Al Gore who gets very close to the 'science', decides to support it and pushes remedies that, strangely, he has also set up companies to profit from it. Or Baron Deben, better known as John Selwyn Gummer, who is up to similar shenanigans here in the UK.

So, if we look for instance at the Met Office who not only number crunch to bring our daily weather reports, but also are at the forefront of the Climate Change 'science' output. I put the word science in commas because there is a doubt that science is what we are getting. We don't really check what we are getting for our money with the Met Office, but some of their output we can check.

Certainly the Met Office doesn't seem shy in boasting about its' abilities but when they actually make forecasts beyond what we have been able to do for decades, they get it spectacularly wrong. Yet we trust their computer models (there is nothing more to it, just computer programmes predicated on someone's idea of what happens in weather systems) to tell us to spend billions of pounds fighting a monster.

Basically it is their version of the old maps that had the legend 'here be dragons' on them, because they didn't know but they thought it likely. Of course, the passage of time and discovery proved different and now history is repeating itself but with much more damage attached and some very malicious people in tow.

If we treat the predictions of the Met Office as a scientific experiment and examine the results, we cannot but come to the conclusion that it is a very unreliable source. In short, not a science at all. The idea is fine but the level of understanding is not high enough and the computer modelling the weakest link; it is clearly of a woeful standard. Not least because it would appear that the result had been decided before the experiment was set. Rising CO2 will cause rising temperatures, now model how bad it will get.

Another test would be to run the models over weather we have had. It doesn't work, which is why climate scare 'experts' from Mann and his hockey stick to the University of East Anglia's emails stating that 'we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period' have sought to obscure the facts. It quite simply showed that their theory just wasn't right, so nor could any of their predictions be.

So, do politicians pay any attention to stuff like this, do they have any checks and balances on such an extreme and costly suggestion that, as the sandwich board man had said before the Met Office got there, the end is nigh? Do they hell as like, they are far too used to wasting your money without thinking let alone blinking. Perhaps they should be embarrassed into doing so. It seems the only thing that works with them (unless you come up with a lunatic and very costly scam, of course). Suggestions welcome!

Should Loud Succeed?

I'm sure most people are familiar with the kid, walking up and down the touchline behind the coach, constantly asking, 'can I go on yet, can I go on yet?' Eventually the coach gives in and puts the kid on. He is useless (which is why he wasn't playing before) and flails about pointlessly, taking up a position on the pitch and very possibly allowing the other team through to score.

But the embarrassment for him is limited to those present. To everyone who wasn't there he is known as a star. His footballing talents they understand are prodigious and his team mates hold him in awe. His view of the game is spectacular, he is talented in spacial awareness. His ball control and spot kicking are legendary. Because he has told them so.

Welcome to the way the Left operate. I caught a little bit of a Radio 2 programme where a woman was ranting wildly about things Margaret Thatcher was apparently responsible for. It came, evident from the slight check in her outbursts, as a surprise that the coal mines were in decline before Thatcher came to power. (She was outraged at the suggestion that the Unions were mainly responsible, feeling this palpable fact was a  slur on Unions that 'help the working man'). She didn't seem to need to scream about Wilson, during whose tenure more pits were closed than under Thatcher.

This woman and so many like her think the way they do because the Left 'kid' shouts about how bad those he opposes are, knowing that the majority of people won't know enough to disagree or bother to check. Of course, she may have been one of the shouters, but usually it is someone who has no idea what they are talking about, but feel the nicer option would be what the Marxist says. If they viewed him more like the chap with a bag of sweets trying to tempt a child into a car, they would be approaching the Marxist more accurately.

An Expert

Here is an expert for you. An expert who is involved in organisations that produce reports about rising sea levels and droughts and disasters, caused by Climate Change. Yes, I picked this one because it is an excellent (though not outstanding, there are others like it) example of what I don't think many people realise. Do what climate activists don't want you to do by all means, investigate, do your own research. But this is priceless I feel.

The following is about someone who is a member of the US National Climate Assessment panel. Of interest is the sheer number of associated bodies (and there are countless numbers of them, all sucking up taxpayers money), the things she evidently has impact on and that clearly the financial institutions, ever quick to spot opportunities to profit by misleading, are fully on board for reasons of self interest.

Finally, having all this say, we see on what grounding, what basis she holds these positions and has this input. Then ask yourself, if your CV was such a mismatch would you get the job? Ah, Mr Smith I see you are a carpenter, well as we need someone to teach biochemistry, I think you should fit in well.

Lindene Patton is Chief Climate Product Officer for Zurich Financial Services (Zurich). She is responsible for product development and risk management related to climate change.She is a project Board Member for the World Economic Forum Low Carbon Finance Initiative and the Forest Carbon Finance Initiative. She is an advisory board member for the University of California at Santa Barbara's Bren School of Environmental Science and Management. She is a member of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) for Sustainable Governments Adaptation Experts Advisory Committee.

Ms. Patton serves as the Vice-Chair of the Climate Change and Tort Liability Sub-Committee of the Geneva Association. Ms. Patton also serves on numerous government and non-governmental advisory boards, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmental Financial Advisory Board, the Bureau of National Affairs' monthly publication, the Environmental Due Diligence Guide, and the US EPA Environmental Technology Verification Program.

Ms. Patton is an attorney licensed in California and the District of Columbia and an American Board of Industrial Hygiene Certified Industrial Hygienist. She holds a Bachelor of Science in biochemistry from the University of California, Davis, a Master of Public Health from the University of California, Berkeley, and a Juris Doctor from Santa Clara University School of Law.

So we learn that Ms. Patton is working on climate related 'products' for Zurich Financial Services and serving on several US Federal panels to advise on climate issues. She studies risks and opportunities for her employer, in relation to the activities of government as it is effected by 'climate change'. An area in which she has input and at the very least being inside the loop, as it were, in government circles is well placed to 'help' her employer make 'rational' decisions.

And all this is based on her being an attorney with a qualification in Industrial Hygiene. So, if you aren't convinced we are all gonna die, it is not for the want of trying by a very large number of people with backgrounds unrelated to their jobs. I'm sure Ms. Patton is good at her job, which doesn't make Global Warming any more real, but does mean if your company is stupid enough to go along with the scam (and the government will be pushing you to), then the likes of Zurich Financial Services will have a product for you.

*Please note, I do not wish to infer that ZFS have a monopoly in this respect