Thursday, 28 February 2013

Here's An Idea

Global Warming as caused by Man is a crock. We shouldn't use a recession to back away from the idiot measures being introduced to fight it. I'm not sure if we are supposed to see ourselves as Cnut or Icarus, but either way the Sun is having a laugh at our expense.

So, we can get rid of the subsidy towers, which I think are referred to as wind turbines and all the green taxes. That will help the economy quite a bit (and do no harm). We should then ignore all the demands to shut down power stations and do what we need to. That keeps the lights on and industry working.

The carbon levy, by which they tax the entirely different substance carbon dioxide, can be binned helping the economy even more. This is going well. But.....

We really should, as intelligent, inventive animals be doing something about our pollution. Not for the empty headed reasons that Lib Dems espouse and all other stuck-in-adolescence lefties, but because we should be able to do better. The emissions do have some effect, but even if it isn't significant at all, it isn't beneficial either. Wouldn't it be better to design things with a goal from the outset of 'first, do no harm'.

The sole reason a wind turbine gets erected is because there is an incentive. The incentive is money, but somehow the turbine doesn't actually have to be any use to get the money. I think the wind farm companies are probably trying to refine their pitch to government so that they don't have to actually build anything, but still get the money. No one is disturbed by a wind turbine, no birds or bats get murdered and it produces exactly as much utility as if it was physically there.

Let us hope our politicians don't go that far, though  the evidence to date isn't encouraging. No, what I think we should do is actually incentivise people to come up with technologies that don't pollute. For no other reason than pollution isn't nice and we should be able to invent something better.

Everything we do comes down to energy. An apple contains a static energy equivalent to a million tons of TNT. Energy isn't the problem, it is our ability to make use of it that is. And the real problem is, government isn't pushing this as an agenda. Think how rich the UK could be if we took the lead in advances in this area, just because we set off down the road first!

But we are saddled with navel-gazing politicians of no ability whatsoever. Scoring points off other politicians is their entire goal. Big new technological leaps, now! Let's start with the internal combustion engine. (And that doesn't mean stupid battery cars).

Mary And Martha

Richard Curtis, the playwright and unprincipled bigot, has written a film about malaria. This disease has been a scourge of mankind for millennia, killing untold millions. One of the actors, Brenda Blethyn appeared on a BBC breakfast show to talk about the film and her experiences. She passionately told how the disease is a horror and blights the lives of many. Treatment that is cheap to us, is hideously expensive in many of the countries plagued with it.

Brenda talked money; she said £5 would buy a net. This is probably a summary of where she gets her information. The money seeking NGO's talk of the horrible disease and the medicines they can administer and nets they could give out, as long as they are there.

What I wait to see (and Brenda not mentioning it might give us a clue) is whether dear old 'kill global warming sceptics' Curtis can bring himself to mention why malaria is so prolific. Despite no study showing it causes any harm to humans, DDT was banned. This pesticide was very effective; its use in Sri Lanka led to a reduction in cases of malaria, from 3 million in 1946 to just 29 in 1964. Within 5 years of the ban, the number of malaria infections was up to half a million.

Why the ban? Because an early eco-campaigner wrote a book claiming it was dangerous based on loopy visions of Mother Earth, floating around in her head. So well done Rachel Carson for Silent Spring, another fairy story that caught the imagination and led to millions of deaths and unimaginable misery. That is, in the real world. I wonder that she hasn't been given a Nobel Prize; crass stupidity and the promotion of crackpot ideas seems to warrant one these days (eh, Obama?).

Tuesday, 19 February 2013

The Dangers In Modern Politics

A number of problems with modern politics and politicians are plain to see; they only talk among themselves creating a bubble within which they exist, they all cleave to the centre ground and they lack dynamism. But for me, the underlying issues that drive them are the real problem.

Why do they all want to be centre oriented? Because being conservative, middle of the road is the least offensive position, gets the least objection. And modern politicians are looking for a magic formula to get elected and stay in power forever. There, already we have two dangerous problems coming together.

This means dynamic politicians need to be stifled and not allowed to 'rock the boat'. Now, some would point out that surely Blair was not of the staid mould, surely he was dynamic? But that is to confuse his personal greed and ambition for political machinations with political dynamism.

What in policy terms would you say Blair achieved? He banned hunting with dogs. And er, nothing else. Sure, he started a war with Iraq but that wasn't policy or for any other reason than he thought it would bring glory for his statesmanship. In fact of course, the Americans, on whom he was relying to do all the actual fighting and dying, had also entered the fray without any real clue.

Our politicians are quite keen to avoid any investigation into what they actually do, now that the EU pretty much runs everything (see the food safety scare currently running). The base level corruption of our politicians, evidenced by their expenses claims and much else, is due to the lack of oversight, lack of any real role and lack of effective leadership. Which is linked to that dynamism thing.

For me though there is a bigger problem with what is already a scandalous waste in politics and that is what this indolence allows to happen. Quietly, whilst no one in power can be bothered to do a job, certainly not properly, the Left are creeping through their agenda.

Morons who claim at various times to hold high office, put the weight of government and taxpayers money behind things solely designed to undermine the country; homosexual issues, racial, welfare and criminal issues, all of which result from a loss of moral certainty. And as a prize to show how powerful they are, to show the immense stupidity of politicians and to set their lust for corruption in train, the Left have promulgated the climate change scam.

Utterly unbelievable and easily proven wrong headed, the Left use it as a cipher for their power over politics. If they can get everyone to say that a clearly naked man is wearing a fine set of clothes then they truly have a grasp on power.

When our courts are prepared to put feral, serial thugs in to prison for taking another life and rate that life as worth two years loss of liberty, then the Left are surely succeeding. One day these very violent people will realise that the police do not see their job as protecting the public any more and will range at will across the country. The recent riots give a small foretaste of what we can expect.

At this point the Left will act decisively. They will seize power in the name of saving the country. They will use armed force to suppress the mayhem and martial law will be declared. Once they have achieved this, they will never let go. We will have a communist, totalitarian regime that essentially we invited by our indolence.

The curse of it is that all we need to break the chain leading to this outcome is a dynamic leader. Someone who will just say the things we need to do and then do them. A man (or woman) who will support the NHS whistleblowers and imprison those who did harm. More than that, someone who thinks the mass killing that has taken place is actually important, because it isn't being treated as such currently.

Someone who will say the EU and 'renewables' are both just costly scams and end our subservience to both. Someone who says that the country is broke and cut back government spending, which can easily be done by deleting the bits that don't actually do anything; Quango's, equality and diversity wallahs and great swathes of bureaucracy that merely gets in each others way (like the monolithic MoD that only serves to make costly mistakes and let the front line troops down).

It isn't difficult, but it isn't the work of a moment, though by God it would fundamentally transform the UK into a world leader again, not least in ideas. And saving us from the anarchy and destructiion long dreamed of by the Left would be a blessing itself. It is always difficult however to understand what you have saved yourself from. When we really do lock up a dangerous murderer, we can never know who remains alive as a result, who would otherwise have been killed.

Can you imagine a Britain where the police are polite and helpful, where they take the side of the law abiding against criminals and where they don't talk of 'preferable outcomes' and 'moral equality'?

Friday, 15 February 2013

See What I Mean?

Question Time last night was a special, boring edition (unless it perked up after I had to leave it). It proved quite nicely though my earlier point about Left malign influence.

But, the most obvious intellectual trick was the horsemeat 'debate'. It was amazing to watch as even the Tory failed to properly defend her government by refusing to answer the (ridiculous) accusations of the Labour woman. The defence of course was that the EU changed the way food safety was ensured, moving away from physical observation, to purely paper based, self-declaration.

The Labour twit even said they introduced the Food Standards Agency. Certainly it appeared during a Labour term, but it is an EU agency, in place to ensure EU rules are followed, not really to worry about food safety.But nobody would point this out.Labour continued to spout by saying that the crisis was caused by labelling. What?

Fraser nelson, of whom we might expect more quietly said food labelling was an EU competence, but didn't take it any further. No one in the audience appeared to have the faintest idea how our food safety is assured (or not as the case seems).

The thing is, I refuse to believe the politicians don't know either. I mean, I know they are thick as mince (horse or otherwise), but really? The need to hide the effects of the EU is clearly of supreme importance. And the effects of the EU always seem to be negative.

Thursday, 14 February 2013

Useful Idiots

It strikes me that, whilst much of what the Left does is destructive but hidden behind a plausible gloss, that this is not what the Left is about. You might consider revolution (in the real sense, not the pathetic, adolescent meaning the Left have) the ultimate expression of democracy. The will of the people and all that.

But, although the Left don't want any truck with the tenets of democracy, I believe they are well aware of the power of the people and manipulate it to avoid any 'revolution'. This requires lying and extreme actions to mislead. An example of course is the EU. Its goal is to create a non-democratic single superstate. This has always been its goal and it has always worked towards it, constantly seeking 'ever closer union' by tying together political and financial systems under central control.

That very few people seem to realise this is the goal of the EU is because the EU knew, from the outset that they had to hide their ambitions. Clearly they knew that what they wanted was not what the people wanted.

The Left relies to a very great extent on 'useful idiots'. These are people who go along with all kinds of dangerous notions because they fail to understand what is really going on.

Let me give you an example. Homosexual marriage. This is necessary to cure a terrible evil in society, right? Hardly. It is like a child not getting the sweets it likes. But the sense of victimisation, risen to outrage wherever possible is driven by Left activists. Their goal is to destabilise Western democracy and ultimately overthrow capitalism to be replaced by their pure communist rule.

The homosexual community is being used as useful idiots. Much as also are those who support the racism industry and political correctness. Racism of course, doesn't exist in anything like the manner or scope that you are continually assured it does. It is kept alive by people such as the race relations and equality bodies in government and charities. These organisations endlessly promote 'difference' and insist people remember their 'roots'.

By being divisive in this way they ensure friction. Multiculturalism as a creed is again merely designed to undermine a society; it could hardly do otherwise. It is not about tolerance, that is achieved in completely different ways and is a two way street, but instead creates fear and 'victims'.

Political Correctness is a device to help cover the tracks of Left attacks on society. If there are things you 'cannot say' then debate has been effectively closed down. And it works, both as a weapon and as an infection. If you want to see the proof watch any broadcast of 'Question Time'. Here you will see ranks of well meaning, educated people spouting arrant nonsense that they have been fed by the Left, at school and at college and university. These are places the Left target as the people in them are impressionable and are pathologically inclined to believe in utopian ideals.

It is a very broad subject and affects our society at every level, representing a threat to us of far greater magnitude than ever did Osama bin laden. Radical Islam is a violent arm of an attempt to impose an authoritarian, elite led government, so the Left are trying, via  a different, less obvious route to achieve the same.

I think we have rather forgotten (and probably been helped by the Left infiltrated education system) exactly what the Left proposed when ideas were openly stated and debated. Communism is about a society where the creation of wealth is controlled and the distribution of that wealth is also centrally controlled. Obviously you are supposed to concentrate on the 'fairness' of this system 'to each according to need' rather than the inability of such systems to create wealth and more particularly who, exactly, these people are who will control the system.

It would be reasonable to ask why do the Left need to operate in the shadows. Well, clearly some of their aims are likely to frighten the horses (in an Animal Farm kind of way) but also because they cannot even win a debate. Consider, which would you rather have Roosevelt's America or Stalin's Russia?

Sure capitalism is imperfect but it isn't a system designed to benefit the few. Stepping around the usual Left accusation about the rich and the poor, how many people in America are above subsistence level? And how many people have been forcibly starved to death? How many sent to concentration camps for opposing murders by the state? The authoritarian state of the Left is trying by stealth to subvert Western civilisation and is succeeding.

It is common to understand that Stalin and those like him in the USSR ruled by terrorising the population into obedience. Think where this is happening now, where people need to live in fear of the state. The EU have xenophobia laws that are designed to make objection to the EU itself an offence. And in Britain we have more petty rules that impinge on daily life. Speed cameras are a particular mechanism for this. It is a 'technical' offence only, but is always enforced, even where no suggestion of harm exists. Indeed, local authorities often try to bias the use of these cameras by changing road speed limits for no other reason.

Police like to say, 'it is 30 for a reason'. If a policeman says this to you, ask what the reason is. He won't know. To say that it is an arbitrary speed limit for general safety, completely undermines a machine being able to 'punish' the breach of this rule, because it breaks the basis of good law. That it should meet the need for which it was designed. Sometimes, 34mph just doesn't matter. But the idea is to make you feel helpless. Under the control of authority. Comply at all times.

In fact, if the Left were to have a truthful motto, that they could openly state that reflected their objective, it would be 'resistance is futile'. But it isn't and we must.

Horse Meat Scandal

Some idiot on the Labour bench has said that despite testing for 'Bute' in horse carcasses, they have still entered the human food chain. Her accusation being that the government are responsible. I realise that the Opposition' are supposed to oppose stuff that is wrong and that some people, particularly the Left are going to oppose just because, but what is she on?

I think the whole idea has been that, through a series of motivators, some people have acted illegally to charge beef rates for unsaleable horse meat. There are many things on which this government can be held up to account, what with a blowing-in-the-wind Cameron and total pillock in Clegg in  it, but really, the fact that criminal behaviour exists is not a big point to make.

It is great though, the level of outrage amongst politicians over the horse meat issue is many times the magnitude of their passion over the NHS killing people. A big part of the reason I think is that, is explained by the  mode of thought strongly evident in the Blair regime and exemplified by the phrase 'first do no work'.

Generally, MP's are not there to do anything. Government is complicated and needs care and attention. What am I, the MP's ask, some kind of servant?

Of course the run of the scandal is reliant on this attitude also being prevalent in the EU, but also because the EU is constructed as a perfect conduit for corruption and illegality. It doesn't want to look for it, even where it occurs as an unintended consequence.

Tuesday, 12 February 2013

Wonders Of Life

Watching the latest instalment of Prof Brian Cox's wonders of Life, I thought I was going to get an explanation of evolution that would make sense. After explaining the usual stuff about genetic mutations (and adding the interesting information that it might be sub atomic particles that can have an effect), he went on to say that didn't explain it fully.

I pricked my ears. I sat forward, I was intent. He said that mere chance mutation couldn't explain the hippo in the river in front of him. It was too complex and the chance mutations required were mathematically hugely, defyingly unlikely.

I agree, so what was the explanation? Er, natural selection. That if a mutation lends an advantage, then it will stay and be 'more likely' to be passed on as a useful mutation made that animal better adapted than its peers. Which still kinda takes us back to randomness, its extreme unlikelihood and only 65 million years to get it all done in.

Why did the 'others', the less well adapted die out? Surely the weren't incapable, just not as 'good'. so, really fast cheetahs, and some a bit slower. Doesn't seem to happen though. Animals adapt to their surroundings, but not to competition from their own species. But, everywhere we look there is conformity in species.

The Aye Aye has a spooky long finger that has a ball joint which makes getting the grubs out of trees easier. And how did it get along waiting for the finger change to happen? If it got along fine eating other stuff, why are there no Aye Aye's that don't have the long finger and eat something else? Why can only what we deem as the successful survive? Not thrive, just survive.

Ah, we seemed to skip that bit. Again. To me it is clear there are changes, but I think that to be as specifically useful as they are and to occur as relatively quickly as they must have, I think there is a feedback mechanism. When the Aye Aye spends its life wishing it hand a longer finger, I think its offspring and future generations supply the answer. It feeds back, somehow, into it's own genetic make-up, that a longer finger would be really useful.

Oh and there can be more than just the Theory of Evolution and Creationism you know. It is interesting isn't it, that Darwinists seek to mock any opposition to their 'facts' (that have no empirical basis)? Why the current trend to be frightened of a pet theory being challenged? It used to be what science was about.

Thursday, 7 February 2013


I have just retweeted something from Stephen Fry. He was saying that today is the trial of a man from the only paper in Russia that stands up to Putin. I can support that. But it got me thinking, connecting the dots.

Have we not just had the Leveson report, which seems to be concerned mainly that the state should control newspaper output? I was also fascinated by the route taken to achieve this. In a celebrity obsessed world (not least by politicians) they used celebrities to complain that their phones had been hacked into. So what? Who, really, cares?

And how is it important to the entire output of newspapers? Well, it isn't, it was just to hold your attention and perhaps be something you would support. There has been a lot of heat and not a lot of light. How many people arrested and how many found guilty? Lots of the former almost none of the latter.

Why? Because it wasn't about crime, it was about control. Left wing control of the papers. Look who has been swiftly dealt with - a whistleblowing policewoman. I mean, why were quite so many police officers put on to an enquiry into the listening to celebrities voicemails? Crime of the century, I think not.

So perhaps Stephen will tweet about the threat to press freedom here, I know none of the Left are so far.

The 'Muggers Club'

We know that Government has always been seen as a fathomless soft touch. Recently though, this has not only been refined into an art form, it has become relentless and unbridled. PFI is slightly different inasmuch that a very probably insane Chancellor agreed the concept with barely-able-to-believe their luck companies, who stood to make fortunes. Brown decided to give them huge amounts of money to build hospitals, as long as he could hide the debt 'off the books'.

In America a company tried a similar trick. You may have heard of them, Enron. Unfortunately the man behind the scheme here hasn't been imprisoned, but then as we will see, people 'at the top' don't pay for their crimes.

People, including me often refer to the recent parliamentary scandal as having involved MP's 'fiddling' their expenses. This is a convenient use of words for the MP's as another, more legally accurate word is fraud. The latter though tends to suggest court cases and imprisonment, whilst the former perhaps a rap on the knuckles. And on the whole, how were our fraudulent MP's dealt with?

Today of course, we are absorbed in the truly shocking actions of the saintly NHS. It is ironic, is it not, that the Left, prime squealers as they were at any criticism of this institution who have presided over its  total annihilation by communism's most ardent adherents.

Tony Blair worked hard to incorporate just such people into any and every system he could, either by installation (giving them posts) or corruption (rewarding compliant behaviour) of current post holders. In his case, it wasn't ideological zeal, Blair never had any time for politics, it was just his own ego and lust for power, plus the need to feed the avarice of his 'socialist' wife.

The upshot though, is that he created a perfect storm. He inculcated a creed of greed, but not only in capitalists but in the communists too. (Communists don't just love power, they also realise that money is power and also makes life very tolerable). So, all those people who took state jobs 'because they are dedicated to serving the people' in their words, but known to everyone as incapable of surviving in the real world, suddenly found that their uselessness was overlooked. And their pay shot up.

No longer were public sector employees on low salaries but with decent pensions, with the ability to retire early. Now they had all of that plus better than private sector pay, plus the bosses were never held to be accountable (else someone might require the same of the Prime Minister!)

And private company bosses knew the floodgates were open. Not only could they demand and get, ridiculous pay packages but they could justify them by chasing government 'work' that would just keep giving. The NHS IT project for instance. Many times it was pointed out that it wasn't working, that it was taking a very long time to achieve nothing. The 'muggers club' was in action.

When the project was completed on time and to budget, the dream would be over, so the consultancies just kept working on getting it right, But strangely never did get there. Eventually, the pressure on politicians became unavoidable and the companies involved in NPfIT were told to deliver, basically, put up or shut up. So one by one they pulled out. Not even ashamed by possible accusations that they had been deliberately milking the public purse. Because those accusations were never made by the government.

Why not? I don't know. But consider this angle on the scandal of NHS care. The Francis report details people not fed, not given water, left in soiled bedsheets for days. Under-staffing is pointed to, but that doesn't quite cut it does it. It might mean that things take much longer than they should, but not the scale of what we have heard. That takes an absence of care.

But here is the point no-one seems to be making. Relatives knew what was going on and sometimes even pitched in to help. But why did their complaints register no response? Because the state machine is very good at hiding from its responsibilities. There is no mechanism that they fear to ensure justice. If you have a dispute with  a company, sure they can make life hard, but usually they either fear the law or bad publicity.

The state however fears nothing. I was pursued for fours years (four years!) by HMRC for a sum of money I didn't owe. Why couldn't we get to the bottom of it? Because at the outset, surprised to owe the money, I asked where the debt had been incurred. For four years they refused to answer, but kept up a steady stream of threats including using their power to act as judge, jury and executioner to enter my house and seize property.

My son, completed a speed aware course (at great cost) to avoid a fine and penalty points. They later said he hadn't completed the online element and issued the penalty points anyway and also the fine, now increased by half again because 'he hadn't paid it on time!' Complaining merely brought the usual round of 'another department deals with that' and eventually, 'no one made a mistake'.

The state and its functionaries have become impossible to fight. And they know it. This whole culture of no accountability (and Cameron can complain about no doctors or nurses struck off, but politicians are so guarded as well) is at the root of the problem. You start to cure the malaise by making them accountable.

What senior public figures have we seen dealt with recently? Director of social services for Haringey, Shoesmith, who was a scapegoat to take the heat off Ed Balls, deserving of the sack even though she was. But even then she was given an enormous pay off. She now complains of being unemployable. Yes, well that would be because in the real world, incompetence is a bit of a barrier to getting a job.

And the senior police officer imprisoned for talking to the press. Her offence was 'misconduct in a public office' and she received 15 months, but would have been 3 years if it hadn't been for her pending adoption of a child(?) How many politicians have been guilty of this offence, not least over their expenses fraud? Certainly Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper.

But the policewoman was that despicable outcast of a character, the one thing the state sector cannot abide and will not tolerate, a whistleblower. There was no substantive proof that she asked for money, but even so what she did wasn't right. But how else do you get public sector people, politicians and all, to do their job properly? Definitely not by using the proper channels of complaint. We all know the ignore gene is present in any state employed boss.

Remember Andrew Wakefield? He was the doctor struck off for suggesting a link between autism and the MMR jab. I have no idea if he was on to something or not, but my suspicion is raised by the level of the reaction by the state and its goons. Struck off! Marietta Higgs didn't get that and she destroyed families and abused children! Blair went berserk, almost insisting his son had had the jab. But in all reality, probably hadn't. So no truth in Wakefield's assertion then.

Compare it with the reaction to the 'dodgy dossier' claim by Andrew Gilligan. Alistair Campbell went off the deep end denouncing the man endlessly and getting several people removed from their jobs. Only for us to find that Gilligan had been right and the famous liar, Campbell was, well, er, lying. And the ramifications for Campbell? Well of course, none.

The Left drives all of this naturally, being the parties of the big state. They want more state control, the removal of your wealth, so the state can decide who deserves what, whilst enriching themselves, introducing ever greater corruption and wasting money like water. They get you to believe the most stupid things, like global warming. There is no evidence Man is having any real affect on climate and they know it, but your acquiescence allows them to take ever greater power and ever more money.

The communists refer to people like this as useful idiots, because they implement outrageous calamities themselves, even though they suffer as a result. And the rich and powerful get richer and more powerful. But still claim to be communists - all in it together.

Wednesday, 6 February 2013

Europe - Again

I wasn't paying attention. Of course 'Europe' is involved with the gay marriage rubbish, this time the Council of Europe. Just need to keep up with the EuReferendum blog by Richard North.

Cameron And The NHS

As I write Cameron is wittering on in the background about the report into the scandal at Mid Staffs, a hospital that managed to kill (not just harm) between 400 and 1,200 people by not caring even a little bit.

Cameron is talking all the political stuff about what happened being terrible and how can it have happened. It happened, dimwit, because Blair introduced a careless, self first culture to the country, made worse in detail in places like hospitals where he imposed idiotic,pointless targets. It happened because there were systemic problems that couldn't be cured because of the political culture that senior people should never be held to account.

What police action has been taken? None. What disciplinary action was taken at the hospital? Very little.What did the GMC do? Next to nothing. What happened to the CEO who was responsible for this shambles between 2006-8? She was made CEO of the Care Quality Commission! In what better way could the Establishment say, 'we really don't care'.

Here is what you do; make curing patients the reason for the NHS existing (I know, you thought it was already) and second you make the people responsible for delivery of safe healthcare, responsible. There must be real and serious consequences for something like Mid Staffs.

When my mother was killed by coming into contact with health 'professionals', she was abused, ignored and finally given an infection that killed her. Presenting with a condition involving sudden loss of certain motor functions, the hospital decided it must be cancer (she had had a small lump removed from her leg, with no recurrence, a couple of years earlier).

After spending months trying to prove their theory, they passed her on to neurology, where she was instantly diagnosed (treatment; steroids as soon as possible - oops). What happened to treating the patient? Whilst undergoing this time wasting investigation of cancer, the home she went to after a fall at home, let her fall to the floor (whilst escorted by two staff?) and denied water (she was admitted to hospital due to dehydration and there got the infection).

Written complaint about treatment in the home drew a self excusing letter about her being a problem and the fall was 'controlled' so staff didn't hurt themselves (just an old woman left bruised) and a death certificate quoting septicaemia as cause of death - wouldn't want to call it what it was, MRSA as that might affect targets.

The whole system has been corrupted because of self important senior managers who know, absolutely that they are never going to be held accountable for their failings. never. (Hence the outrage when social services Director Shoesmith was held responsible for the failings of her department. She was genuinely shocked to be considered accountable.)

Left Spoiler Vote

The so called Gay Marriage vote has at least shown that a large number of Conservatives do actually believe in a strong, moral country. They have once again led rather than be led, supporting the majority for the good of all. The fads and fashions of the Left and the far Left who use these useful idiots, voting for 'gay marriage'  to upset our society, not cure any supposed ill.

I feel a little more comfortable about the Conservative party now and I think it has clearly shown Cameron for what he is; an idiot, devoted to Left ideology. This is not the time for such pathetic politics, with people like Cameron seeking important jobs, like party leader, PM to bolster their ego.

At times of crisis a country needs clear, decisive leadership, men of ideas and with a clarity of purpose all designed to bring about the best result for the country as a whole. Instead of visionaries we get the boy band Cameron, Clegg and Miliband.

There used to be a saying that you wouldn't trust someone to look after your kids, which being from more trustworthy days meant that most people wouldn't harm your kids but some people were too stupid. Cameron has already proven he is not that good with looking after kids and I don't think we need any more evidence about trusting him with the country.

This weasel avoided a manifesto pledge to allow us a say on how we are governed and now he says we can have a vote if we re-elect him. Nice that he understands he needs to resort to blackmail; there is little chance of being re-elected on merit.

Monday, 4 February 2013

Calling Occupants Of Planet Cameron

Why does David Cameron have an impact on what goes on, on the planet he rarely visits? The manifesto 'pledge' for a tax break for married couples has been dropped, so he can spend time on a project that no-one asked for, homosexual marriage.

Who on earth (no pun intended) put this in Cameron's head? It is being pushed by activists no doubt and some of them may be homosexuals, rather than the anarchist ingrates that are behind most of these attacks on Western civilisation (because it is 'capitalist').

First the Left tried to set the battleground by twisting language and using Political Correctness to invent things you can't say. Here is an example. My views attract the accusation of 'homophobe' which is designed to suggest my view is extreme and should not be allowed to be aired and certainly not listened to.

Thing is though, I'm not afraid of homosexuals, I find the idea distasteful and unpleasant. The reason for this is that I find women attractive, so I would guess that it would be reasonable, for a reasonable person to find my attitude unsurprising.

Nature, as Richard Dawkins and Brian Cox I'm sure would agree, cares nothing for society or human rights, but just sets the parameters for life. To ensure the best result from reproduction, Nature requires animals (humans) to use sex to mix the DNA. So, to careless Nature, homosexuality is not wrong, it is just useless and an evolutionary dead-end. Which is why I always say that all homosexuals are glad their parents weren't.

Sometimes, a chemical imbalance results in a person who does find members of the same sex attractive. Recognising that in the sentient life that humans have, we engage in sexual acts for recreation, not exclusively procreation, perhaps we should not ban same sex, sex.

Marriage is another human construct. It is the union of two people for the best protection of the children of that union. Outrageously, homosexuals cannot have children (though they can buy them) and I'm sure there will be some future activist agitation to make homosexuals believe they are being victimised again.

Society has allowed same sex people to co habit and have 'civil partnerships', nothing else is required. We have to keep a focus on the qualities of the society we have created, to serve real needs, not allow and introduce divisive elements, that are only being promoted by people of malicious intent.

To be brutally honest, we are dealing with choices. When a person becomes 'aware' that they feel they are a girl in a man's body, they seek drugs to assist them with being a 'girl'. They look to surgery to 'improve' their physical condition. All of this we must not be 'judgemental' about, we should allow it as a natural part of their development; we can help them so we should. Well, why then is it 'wrong' to suggest alternative drugs that would make them comfortable as they are, as a man?

No, we get the activists screaming from the rooftops about making victims of these poor people (which is actually exactly what the activists themselves desire and are causing). But it is just a choice and I would suggest, the most obvious one. Again, homosexuality faces the same challenge and the same choices.

If we must accept, apparently, the bludgeoning point of view that the chemical imbalance that causes homosexuality is their right to maintain and just accept they are 'differently sexual' then where does that stop? Animals, children, rapists? Do you not find it strange that, whilst there is no reason to think a bloke who fancies other blokes would also fancy young boys (else why do heterosexual men mange, on the whole to leave young girls alone?), that there is an activist push for ever younger age of consent for boys?

Not forgetting that there are organisations, one of which Harriet Harman used to represent, that sees no reason why sex between adults and children should not be allowed. It is because Left activists are pushing it. It is also why so many politicians of the Left get arrested for child sex offences; they were convinced it was OK by those they associate with.

Homosexuality exists. If they want to seek medical assistance to be heterosexual then that should be a choice they can make, without the vilification that currently attaches to it. If they want to be in a same sex partnership, then so be it, (though it does cause issue with segregation of course, toilets etc) but leave marriage with people who can and do have ambitions for a family.

Chris Huhne Pleads Guilty

The odious Chris Huhne has just remembered that he is guilty of the charge against him. He did in fact drive past a speed camera too fast and he did use his wife to take the blame, it obviously slipped his mind on the repeated occasions that he claimed he was innocent.

Knowing that he would be sacked as an MP he has got in first and given notice of his intention to resign. I'm sure that we cannot feel confident that he will not, despite his crimes, qualify for a big pay-off and a whopping pension that you won't get.

The judge has warned that Huhne should be under no illusions about the nature of the sentence he can expect. It is a fitting comeuppance for a man who, as an MP spent much of his time making life easy for owners of wind turbine related companies and talked endless drivel about something of which he is completely ignorant; climate change.

He must take his share of the responsibility for the damage the UK economy has suffered, as a result of all the 'green' taxes that have been introduced. The crime fits the man; he is a despicable character and I hope we hear more when Vicky Pryce uses marital coercion in her defence.