Tuesday, 25 March 2014

Met Office May Have It Right

The BBC via its science editor David Shukman is pushing the latest output from the Climate Change Propaganda Unit otherwise known as the Met Office. This time however, after repeated attempts to predict the weather based on Climate Change ideology and getting it spectacularly wrong, they may have hit on a winning formula.

Apparently, the Met Office thinks that our summers will be hot, unless they're not, dry unless it rains and our winters will be milder, but sometimes cold with snow. Which sounds very much like the weather Britain has had as far back as I can remember.

In fact its unpredictability and variability is precisely why the British have a reputation for always talking about the weather. The twist of course, is that this variability is now portrayed as new and due to human factors affecting the climate.

Interestingly, neither Shukman nor the Met Office are troubled by the lack of science involved in reaching these politically motivated results. The Met Office is 100% on board with the Left oriented, anti-capitalist project that is Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Ask the Met Office why so many scientists have a problem with their prognostications and why their 'consensus' is almost entirely derived from vested interest, Left wing political organisations and they will refuse to talk to you. Offer to debate the subject and they will say it is a settled issue so there is no need. Because they have no ability to prove their case and they know it.

Generally, you can tell if you are being duped (and that it is a Left wing project) if you are not allowed to object to it, debate it, or that you are in some way defective if you disagree. Debating a con is not the way forward as many a criminal would tell you, so the weapon of choice of the Left is the one that shuts out and closes down debate.

Argument and 'proving your case' has long been the way the British have done things. It has shaped our culture and a broader civilisation and it has achieved great things. It is a fundamental of true liberty. So it is no surprise it is something the Left avoid as if it were a contagious plague. For them, it would be utter chaos if everyone was allowed to have an opinion and openly state it.

A command and control system cannot function unless the workers are kept in place, uneducated and with no ambition, without access to any forum for exchanging ideas. For their own good, of course.

Monday, 24 March 2014

The Importance Of Bureaucracy

In Britain today, public sector workers and particularly those in charge of anything, have an absolute belief in their own moral superiority. When something goes wrong, they are most concerned that no blame is attached and no-one is held accountable. Public officials are, they feel, saints who only have the purist of motives. If something goes wrong, it cannot be their fault.

So, to hear that Kettering Hospital puts its 'reputation' above patients lives is no surprise, really. A young girl has an operation to remove her appendix and subsequently bleeds to death. A number of issues of hand-over and handwriting are mentioned, but the glaring omission in the 'care' provided was the gap between her last observation and when they found her dead - nine hours.

Although the hospital carried out an investigation into what happened, it will not disclose the contents of that report to protect their staff whose mental health might otherwise be endangered. It has the added benefit of being able to hide who might be responsible and exactly what went wrong. After all, what purpose would knowing that serve? None of the saints and angels involved meant any harm.

I can't help thinking that many of the problems in our public services would be at least lessened if not completely cured, if public servants were held to account in the same way private firms are. Come to that, the politicians could be required to fall in line too, or pay the price. But I think that really is the block on reform. MP's will not countenance any suggestion that they should be accountable! Elections are bad enough, what with all the twaddle required to deceive voters!

And in the end Kettering Hospital upholds its reputation by not letting you know how bad it really is and no changes will be made for the better, because it was only an accident and as no one, but the victims family, suffered no-one will be that concerned if it happens again. As long as the cloak of invisibility is still available to the guilty parties.

Remember, whilst you might struggle to forgive yourself if there was an accident in which someone died, but where you could have done nothing to help, these people through indolence and a criminal level of negligence have allowed a death that was preventable in all likelihood and they continue to turn up to collect their wages despite being woefully inadequate.

Monday, 17 March 2014

Which Empire?

Trying to pick the bad guy in the Ukraine incident should be easy, bearing in mind Putin is involved, but it isn't. Take the current flashpoint, Crimea. Lots of ethnic Russians live there and they are completely happy to 'rejoin' Russia rather than stay part of the Ukraine. So, a referendum is organised and it probably didn't even need to be rigged, 95% want to be with Mother Russia.

Surely, though, this still amounts to Russia interfering with the internal politics of another country, not least due to the military in and around the country? Undoubtedly, yes. But when we look at how this all came about we find that it was the EU attempting to sign up Ukraine to deals that are really the early stages of joining the EU and all is not so clear.

No referendum there and in fact a semi-violent overthrow of the existing regime to allow the EU to keep on track, absorbing the Ukraine into their empire. And I'm not sure that joining a completely undemocratic, command and control superstate is what the Ukrainians think the EU is about, (the EU are somewhat coy about mentioning it).

So rejoin the corrupt and flawed former Soviet Union state of Russia, or sign up with a proto-Soviet Union in the making, such is the choice facing the Ukraine.

Where Do You Hide A Boeing 777?

The Malaysian Airlines jet mystery would be an interesting intellectual problem, were it not for the fact that it had 239 people on board. It is an agony not knowing, not knowing that someone is dead and grieving or whether to have hope that they are still alive, even though it can be dashed in  a moment.

But all we can do currently is speculate in an effort to find it and answer the questions. So what do we appear to know? That the aircraft was completely 'normal' in its crew, fuelling and all other issues relating to its flight to Beijing. That it turned soon after crossing over the sea, back towards Malaysia, crossed the peninsular and turned off the devices most likely to give away its location.

Reports now suggest that it flew low, at 5000 feet. All of this suggests two things, that the aircraft was deliberately taken in this direction and that it was trying to hide its intentions. This further suggests a third, that dying was not part of the equation. If crashing the plane into the sea, or just blowing it up were the objectives then these actions would only make knowing about it and finding the wreckage more difficult and why would that ever matter?

But if you wanted to land somewhere, unobserved then this would be what you would need to do. The question then, how on earth can you land something as big, noisy and obvious as a Malaysian airliner without someone noticing. Someone at least, inclined to mention it?

Naturally, countries run by idiots, like North Korea fit the bill, but what would be the agenda, for North Korea let alone the pilot? The easiest place to hide something of course, is in plain sight. A Malaysian aircraft landing in Malaysia is hardly news, but you would hope that the airfield receiving it would have had some filed flight plan, to allow it to land, and then when the story broke, mention it.

Maybe a fictitious flight was invented? Not sure how easy that is, in Malaysia. But then, how to explain 239 passengers in the wrong place, who are not allowed to contact anyone?

No, it seems most likely that the plane has landed somewhere and some nation, or elements within it are hiding it. But as above, a motive for such an action is unclear and would have to have involved at least both pilots and the conviction to carry it out with some threat to the passengers. The pilots could have been coerced by a terrorist taking over the plane, or who had the ability to fly it himself, but that doesn't change anything, other than blame and detail.

For me, the plane has been landed somewhere West of Malaysia, where no-one would report or notice the aircraft. But it is still the most bizarre of actions.

Friday, 7 March 2014

Left And Right In Politics

I think we ought to bring a little honesty into the discussion of politics. The people who seek to form the framework of political debate have suggested that there are two opposing ideologies in play and they represent the two extremes. So far so good. However, these extremes are then explained as being from Stalin, for instance, on the Left to Hitler on the far Right.

This has been the accepted logic for a long time and it has been massively successful for the Left. Because Stalin was 'correct' in his thinking, people of the Left such as Ed Milibands' father and Eric Hobsbawm have absolutely no problem with all the killing. Well, OK, they would rather it wasn't publicised.

But good grief, the horrors of that nasty Right wing bloke and all like him. Have you seen what they get up to? And it is all aimed at you!

Problem is, these are not two opposing points of view. When you talk about teaching a child the difference between right and wrong you are trying to pass on something important and pointing out that one is unhelpful and socially unacceptable and the other is much better received by everyone.

Hitler and Stalin are very much at the same end of the scale. They were totalitarian and they fall at the Left end of the scale. This scale balances the realities of human life and experience. Whether someone else runs your life and tells you what to do on pain of death or at least punishment. Arbitrary and at the whim of a faceless 'state'. Or whether you have personal freedom as long as what you do is not to the detriment of others, or cause them harm.

All Left ideology believes in dehumanising society for the benefit of better controlling it. This ideology believes that the state exists as if it were a living organism and needs to be served by the people. In return it will provide (by imposition) order and safety. Obviously, when you get to the level of the elite who make the rules then things like wealth, luxury, personal freedom and such like will come back into play. They do the difficult bit after all, making it all work!

At the other end of course is a loose society, held together by mutually agreed and acceptable limitations. A state exists but it is seen for what it is, an invention to serve an end and that end is to do as little by way of control as is necessary for the good order of society. There will be some rules, but the absence of overt rules exerts an influence of its own, that of individual responsibility.

People must accept their place in society and participate. At the simple level of the policemen, a citizen in uniform operating only by the consent of the people, will be assisted by the people in the apprehension of an offender, for instance. They will see it as their duty and understand that their right to freedom is upheld by their responsibility in maintaining it. The policeman will not fear the community and will operate freely and openly because he is a part of it.

This free society will have its problems and it must face them by introducing laws to point in the right direction, but still allow as much freedom as possible. The biggest danger such a free society faces is if (when) people who wish to have without giving agitate for power. Due to the nature of a Right wing, free society it will allow these people to speak and the gullible will be drawn in.

The totalitarian has little problem with lying of course and operating apart from the 'society', merely seeking to undermine it from within.

Today, Britain finds itself heavily influenced by the totalitarians and is some way down the path to giving in to them completely. There may never have been a 'golden age' when everything was better, but it is tangible and self evident to those old enough to know, that politically and in societal terms this country is very much worse now than it has been for a very long time.

Once socialism had done its good work (mainly riding on the backs of the rich, philanthropic Victorians) it was subsumed as the first useful tool of the Left and strangely became associated with the Left.

A structured and technological society is an easier one for command and control ideology to grasp of course, but it only requires a small effort to fight it off. You have to think for yourself. So put down your iPad a moment and consider. Do you want all that you have and the ability to do what you want when you want, how you want (within the rules of a civilised society, not harming others), or do you prefer the route being taken now of being instructed by politicians on the how, where, when of life?

Thursday, 6 March 2014

Pistorius On Trial

I'm not familiar with courts here, let alone in South Africa, but even so, from the questioning so far Pistorius would appear have hired a comedian for a lawyer. His strategy to date has been to invoke wild counter theory to dismiss the evidence given by witnesses.

He said that the neighbours couldn't have heard screaming  because you couldn't have even heard it on the balcony. Now that seems straightforward. Either that is true or it isn't. Haven't heard any substantiation, so it appears to be his opinion. An assertion. And he wasn't there!

Then there is the 'you didn't hear gunshots you heard a cricket bat banging on the door, trying to break it down'. Now I'm sure the latter activity would be noisy, but I know a gun being fired is. I'm guessing that they at least heard the gunshots and maybe the bat too.

Best of all of course was his use of a plot line from a Simpson's story (as I saw reported on Guido Fawkes), that the screams were Oscar not Reeva, he just sounded like a girl.

I can't wait though to hear OP explain how he didn't know where his girlfriend was, but thought she was in bed. On hearing a noise, guessed it was burglars rather than the other person in the house and couldn't see whether she was in the bed or not because it was dark, but he was quite happy to pop out onto the balcony and get in two fans, without putting the light on.

Presumably burglars don't use balconies, or prefer toilets or something. Anyway, going with a gun to confront the evil person, 'to protect Reeva' he didn't even say anything to her, like 'stay there' or maybe, a wild guess here - just something I think other people might do- ask her to call the police. Or at the least the community guard.

Much is said about his 'paranoia' regarding burglars, though we don't know where this fear came from (other than he lives in South Africa, maybe that's enough?). He cites a previous occasion when he came home and thought there was a burglar, so went into combat crouch mode with his gun drawn, only to find it was the washing machine.

That he is a borderline nutter seems fairly evident, but he doesn't seem to have a record of calling the police about 'noises' or any of the other stuff you get with the paranoid. I guess we know why he didn't have a dog and he certainly isn't the sort of person you throw a surprise party for.

Maybe the defence lawyer just knows how thin is the evidence suggesting he didn't actually do it on purpose. Possibly what the French call a crime of passion, a heat of the moment thing but still deliberate. Maybe. Strange things turn out to be true sometimes, but still....

The best chance for the defence is the police. I bet we see the lawyer step up his game when any of them are on the stand and I bet his questioning will be about technical issues and procedural stuff. Because from what we have seen so far the police have not covered themselves in glory over this case and are highly likely to have done something which can have the trial halted.

Wednesday, 5 March 2014

The Real World

We often talk of politicians needing to live in the 'real world' and it is true. But we also are excluded from a real world, this time deliberately. Politicians operate a cosy club that they don't really hide, but they certainly don't talk about. That world is the one that see's them taking up sinecures related to their political work, moving on from MP to 'renewables consultant' after being involved in the energy brief in government.

It sees them hiding their corruption (thankfully usually fairly petty in this country to date), shielding their friends and as we have seen lately, with advisor Rock, delaying our access to information involving serious crimes within the government machine.

Today, the United Kingdom is in the hands of a cabal of hopeless types. With the EU calling the shots, our politicians mess about with trivia, play their silly political point scoring games, but mostly spend their time either a) seeking to improve their grand image, if a senior politician or b) increase their income, if of the lower order.

Consider; if you thought that a local community elected someone to represent them in parliament and that group of MP's then met to decide on the bigger issues facing the nation as a whole, decided how to plan and run the infrastructure for all and debated and sought best advice at all times, then you would be imagining the system devised for this United Kingdom.

However, having strayed away from the manacles of service into the more exciting command and control areas, politicians have corrupted the process in every way. Your MP may get some local votes and win his way into parliament but he will not represent you in any way. He will cleave to his party and follow its instructions, his career depends on it.

Parliament, having handed sovereignty to a foreign power, will seek to enforce the instructions from above as all good bureaucrats do, in an unthinking and uncaring manner. Listening to vested interests is both easier and more rewarding than any other mechanism and one size fits all solutions require less time and thought.

As the poster boy for just how stupid the people pulling the strings think you are, take Global Warming. There is no scientific justification for thinking any warming is man made. There just isn't a link. There is plenty of evidence for both other mechanism in play and that Man's 'greenhouse' gases are insufficient to cause any identifiable change. Then there is observation.

Despite the infallible computer models predicting ever increasing temperatures as CO2 concentration increases, this just hasn't and isn't happening. Do the politicians and all those activists who form a global consensus know all this? Yes they do. Their agenda is not connected to climate but social change, they are just playing with you. Coming up with the most ridiculous things for you to believe and seeing if you actually do.

Quite how people like George Monbiot don't literally explode with hysterical laughter I do not know. Although, when you read his output, it is entirely possible that he does believe in AGW and as such is even more stupid than the people others are laughing at.

Getting our country back is relatively easy it terms of the changes required, but very difficult because those entrenched in the pay boat of the public purse will not let go. Like a child with a packet of sweets. All we need to do is leave the EU and require MP's to represent their constituents, debating freely in parliament.

A good start would be this kind of rule. If you don't turn up for three debates, without a reason such as ill health, then you are immediately stripped of your status and there must be a constituency election. And also, abstaining should be banned. Being excused due to vested interest is different. MP's acting corruptly should not as now be treated with special, kid gloves, but receive immediate and much harsher sentences than the general public. Why should we expect higher standards? Because what they do is important and pivotal and they put themselves forward.

Monday, 3 March 2014

Conversations: A Politician And A Wind Farmer

P: We are going to remove subsidies on wind turbines. The technology is now established so I'm sure prices have come down. And if the turbines are all you claim them to be you should be able to make a profit.
WF: Remove the subsidies? Are you mad? It's not about making a profit, it's about making a lot of money. You'll be suggesting we should work for a living next!
P: Possibly
WF: I only set up this company because you promised to hand over wads of cash, regularly for ever. It was like printing money. Now you are talking about changing the rules!!
P: Well I realise you might make less money, but it will still be a good business surely? I mean, people always need electricity.
WF: You really don't understand do you? These bloody things are useless, they don't generate anything like the amount of power we claim. That's just to get the subsidies, make it seem like a good deal. Think of our claims as your manifesto. It's what people want to hear so you say it. You know you can't possibly deliver what you say!
P: Ah yes, I see. Perhaps there is some arrangement we could come to.

Weather Forecasts

I know the British are obsessed with weather. And to conform to stereotype, here I go. Is it just me or do other people get annoyed about the way the Met Office presents its forecasts? What I mean is, last weekend we were bracing for snow, with several inches predicted, quite widely and a yellow warning pasted up.

Then, without reference to having said it was going to snow, they just said that it was going to rain. I mean, it doesn't matter Met Office, stuff like that happens. As the day gets closer, its a bit warmer so rain instead of snow. It would do no harm to say 'well, it looks like we're going to dodge the snow, but it will rain instead'. The Met Office however, seem intent on giving the impression that they are never wrong and this is backed up by not mentioning an earlier 'incorrect' forecast.

This nervousness about being wrong is strange when you consider their penchant for ideologically framed statements. As they believe in Global Warming, it will be hot in the summer, mild in the winter and we will have droughts. This idiots approach to pronouncements is nearly always wrong, yet they persist.

I suppose it is what we should expect when the Met Office is run by ninnies.


Just quickly. Was the Labour woman on QT last week only there because she is able to do a pained look? She seemed to play victim to a tee. The nasty Mail printing stories about her colleagues, which whilst backed by documentary proof of the support given to paedophiles, were smears and outrageous. And dropped in that this terrible paper had also printed a story about Ed's dad being a Marxist and trying to undermine Britain. Despite that being his position, it was a terrible thing to bring up, him being dead and all.

I mean, how can the Left operate successfully if newspapers are allowed to print the truth, when it does harm to the Left? It's not censorship, it is just ensuring that people don't get confused. So to be clear, the Left supported paedophilia in the 70's as part of the strategy to undermine British society, but they don't any more. Although they are still keen to lower the age of consent. A bit. You know, to help the kiddies not feel oppressed.

Saturday, 1 March 2014


There is much debate as we approach the 100th anniversary of the start of WW1 about whether Britain should have stayed out, exactly why it was fought, is the Blackadder version actually what the Left believe to be a documentary?

But one thing is clear, a small incident in a backwater kicked off puffed up indignation from powerful countries looking for an excuse to take offence. Countries took 'positions' not to protect anything tangible, but to validate action they wanted to take anyway.

And then there is the excuse for WW2; that Germans in a foreign country needed protecting.

Which brings us to where we are today in the Ukraine. The EU has been in the region (and was heavily involved in the trouble at the inception, trying to scoop Ukraine into its empire), but have you any idea what they have been saying, what they propose? No, didn't think so.

The US? Here the weak and habitual work-dodging President, Obama, seems to have had a recollection that the Russians are the enemy. So he is quoting in that weird, homely, insincere way platitudes of American resilience and standing firm. And Russia should take care. Who knows, he might even try to find out what the hell is going on out there and maybe even, where 'there' is.

Russia under Putin, it has to be said is doing a half decent job of catching the West out and getting his own way. Yet the feeling always is that he is a thick, thug and spends all his time concentrating on corruption and how to get away with it. But the thug bit is definitely there, so he will push the military side. And he won't want to lose influence in a region such as Ukraine. Not sure, apart from the 'democracy' shout, what the reason is for the US (or the squeaking Cameron) to get involved.

Unless it is to posture against 'the enemy' Russia. in which case there will be war.