Friday, 22 May 2015

The Dance Begins

Mr. Cameron is now making his opening overtures in his renegotiation of powers with the EU. Or so he would have us believe. For someone who has so far omitted to mention what specific powers he wants returned, indeed what the thrust of the renegotiation is, he seems at something of an advanced stage with our overlords.

Presumably he is able to tell them what he wants. We are led to believe that one will be an end to 'ever closer union'. And with such a big question we must ask ourselves, just how genuine is this man who wants us to stay in the EU, even before he has had his cosy chats.

The single point of the Common Market (as it was sold to us by the bare faced liar Heath) has been, is and always will be to create a single nation called Europe. For some it is to put the US in their place and create an, at least equal superstate. For others, it was to recreate the Soviet Union. Working towards this has led to the constant name changes and the increasing grab for power, within sovereign states.

Mind, I say sovereign states, but are we? When Heath signed over law-making in Britain to the government in Brussels (something he had no constitutional power to do, so was illegal) how exactly did the pretence of our being an independent country continue? The Scottish 'parliament' was only allowed as a precursor to it becoming the 'local authority for the area previously known as Scotland' within the EU superstate, no matter what the pompous assumptions of Nicola Sturgeon.

So, if genuine, Cameron is chipping away at the foundations of the whole project, whilst desperately trying not to let the cat out of the bag as to what the end game of 'ever closer union' is. He also hopes fervently that the general public don't understand the way the EU works. Everyone has been conscientious in not explaining it, ever, so it should work.

The usual draft of useful idiots on Question Time will give him the belief that he is right and a letter to the Sunday Telegraph last weekend couldn't have been more definitive of the opposite of reality. The correspondent wrote 'It should not be forgotten that this union has kept the peace in Europe, for the past 70 years, and that Russia is still a threat to stability today.'

The EU has done nothing at all to maintain peace, other than perhaps keeping the perennial problem-causers France and Germany in alliance to build a joint empire. NATO however, has done the job of protector and peacekeeper. Russia is a threat because it remains unstable, but we should remember that it was the expansionist moves of the EU that provoked Russia to protect its 'area of interest' in the Ukraine.

The most common bleat of course is the enormous amount of trade and therefore jobs that we will lose if we leave the EU. You will notice again, there is never any actual public debate on the issue, because like Global Warming, if debate was allowed, then the lies would be too easily exposed.

The EU is a political project, nothing more. It is to build the empire the French and Germans have constantly sought by perpetually bringing war to Europe. That would be the French, who after folding with remarkable speed in WW2, sided with the Nazis and placed their forces at the disposal of the Axis, even fighting British forces.

They whinged when we left via Dunkirk, because they felt we should fight to save their country while not that concerned to do it themselves. Despite the fact that we risked British lives and ships to evacuate 140,000 of their soldiers. And what did most of them then do? They went back to France and were made POW's! A mere 7000 joined De Gaulle's Free French and even then, the number involved in D-Day, the landing to liberate France, was 177.

De Gaulle, epitomising the French hauteur  suggested that the country that no longer existed as an independent entity, France, should join with Britain to become a single state. Nice. No doubt he felt that he was the man to run it too. There is a word for people like him and it cannot be used in front of children, but applies equally to the tribe in Brussels.

There is of course much else; as we constantly see from examples like Spanish house purchases by Brits, to French rules for French farmers benefit, to the Greek tragedy, we are not a single people. There is no demos.

If we see merit in the trading bloc bit though, fine, stick with that for now. People are deliberately mislead naturally, about what the EU is. You do not have to be in the EU to be in the Single Market. And as for influence, well we ain't got none. We are one voice in 28 and are represented at the international level by the EU.

Most new laws originate as ideas outside the EU with International bodies, ones where the old British seat is empty. They then make decisions, the EU rep having had 'his' say and is then converted into EU law. If we were back as a real sovereign state, we could go to the meetings on our own account and have our say directly. Like Norway does. Inside the Single Market but not the EU.

We don't have to copy that idea, we can have our own, tailored to our needs. But here's the thing. The big leaders meetings are not about negotiations and getting things done. That all happens behind the scenes, as Margaret Thatcher found out after being convinced by snivelling aides that the EU had a point (which it does, if you are a bureaucrat). When banging the table and meeting blank stares someone kindly took her aside and explained the deal had already been done.

Just enjoy the meal and smile for the photoshoot. And just like her views on Global Warming, she changed her mind when she found out more. (The Left of course, only ever mention she supported both).

So it really is simple. We leave the EU but sign up for the Single Market. Which solves our immigration, balance of payments to the EU, lawmaking, tax and employment problems (or at least gives us the chance to find cures) and shuts up the ignorant savages at the CBI and beyond, who want the political union for some undefined reason.

If however, you want more of the Greek experience, more state control, indeed more of a Soviet Union of Europe, then please vote for it. It may be the last bit of democracy you see. And you get the Euro! Happy days.

Wednesday, 20 May 2015


I like plants and I like a nice garden, but I really can't get interested in the detail and by God the work! So, watching gardening programmes and the Chelsea Flower Show on TV is endured not enjoyed (wife driven, naturally).

But you know, interesting things crop up in the strangest of places. A week or so ago one of the shows had a chap talking about a plant that he said is able to adapt quickly to new environments, so if it finds itself somewhere wet, it passes on coping strategies to its offspring (is that what plants have?).

At the time I just thought 'smart little bugger', but later whilst reposing in a bath (the soak is much underrated in modern society) it struck me that this was potentially something fundamental. In one of my earliest posts I moaned at the flaws, as they appeared to me, in the theory of evolution as currently understood.

Big forward jumps, survival of the fittest etc. The usual how and why the eye. And I become convinced that somehow we manage to pass into our DNA ideas rather than merely length of thigh bone and hair colour. Things that are important to the parents get passed on. A clue for me is instinct. What the hell is that?

The Joey finds its way from birth canal to pouch containing the nipple it needs to survive. How does it know a journey is required, who gave it directions and why is it born with the strength to achieve the trek?

And back to the plant. We may wonder about the thoughts our dog has, but a plant is surely a mechanical device. Having accidentally found the chemical reaction to turn sunlight into fuel to grow as a plant, it has ways to move moisture up the stem and deploys colour and lovely sweet stuff to attract bees to carrying away the pollen, to seed new plants and ensure the survival of the species.

Whoa! Back up! They do what? Darwin of course recognises that it was an accident, a mutation that one day meant a plant produced a colour that attracted a bee. The sweet substance was also a lucky accident and so the symbiotic relationship was formed. Really? That is a lot of accidents. What came first, the bee or the nectar?

But the plant in our programme, it was suggested, skips the randomness of accidents and the long drawn out process of evolution. It somehow changes to cope with differing conditions it encounters as it grows and then passes that information on to the next generation, so it is better able to cope from the outset. I know the first part still accords with Darwinian theory, but how does it ensure (and possibly, why) that its seed develops differently?

There has to be a feedback loop into the DNA. Which might also link in to the stories of 'the power of the mind' to make yourself well. And why pregnant women seem to have strange cravings for food that contains nutrients she is low on, at that time. How the hell does she know what good a lump of coal is going to be? Instant chemical analysis?

Anyway, I clearly don't know, but food for thought surely?

Police Union Whinging - Shock

The Police Federation, the militant Union for rank and file police officers is moaning again. It is of course the Union role and the PolFed are particularly keen to uphold tradition.

Due to continuing large scale cuts they now warn that the ordinary 'bobby on the beat' may soon disappear. There simply won't be the resources. Sounds scary and reasonable, since we are emerged in 'austerity' whilst trying to recover from having had a Labour government.

Except, whilst budgets have undoubtedly been squeezed it is not the government, but rather the senior police officers who decide where the cuts will take effect. Perks and plush offices may remain immune, but stuff you will notice and support their whining about very definitely will be cut.

So, their actual job and your safety matter not a jot when politics is in play. Curious is it not that the Union of the ordinary police does not blame the bosses?  They would in the corporate world. But generally, the Union and the Chief Constables are on the same page; government bashing.

When did you hear anything positive from the PolFed? When did you hear suggestions about how to police effectively, or models for reform? Never. If we sat down and said 'what pressures do the police currently face?' how do modern criminals differ from the past? and what would be the most effective way to deter that, we could then go on to cost it.

It would also require the police to understand what they exist for (clue; it isn't social work and it isn't political correctness). Once that idea had been reinserted into the most senior ranks we could then quickly establish techniques and how technology may be able to assist. You get the idea; a big rolling programme to re-evaluate how we approach policing, to produce what results and at what cost.

Currently we have leadership that is ideologically adrift, muddle headed and inept. All planning starts with what size and style the new police headquarters should take, the colour of leather for the chairs, when would a new computer system be available and how many iPads does each officer above Superintendent need? With interruptions to consider a press release complaining about something.

Oh and planning the line to take at the latest enquiry into something they haven't been able to keep hidden any longer. It all makes the few police who still do a good job very expensive indeed.

Tuesday, 19 May 2015

In The News

Looking at The Telegraph today, I gather that the National Socialists from north of the border are still trying to shock, using the tactics of seven year olds. Petulant, silly rule breaking to show they are 'it' and you can't stop them. Well, yes and no. Tony Blair proved that, in the end, if a politician decides to behave in a totally immoral manner, there is no actual check that can be applied.

Let alone the will to do it. But for the Scottish NatSocs the problem is we've had the Tony Blair experience and we grew tired of it, so childish stunts by newbies with a gang mentality isn't going to be patronised for long.

If being rude and unlikeable is the image of Scotland they wish to portray, then that is up to their leader and her thugs. We already knew not to expect serious politics! And if Scotland was treated as a normal part of the UK it would have 10 or so constituencies, but even with 56 they are still a small part of the 650 in the Commons. So sit where you are told and shut up until asked to speak.

Outside the Commons you can say what you want, it is already clearly understood I should think that you winkers, so won't come as a shock. What I really want from this new branch of the totalitarians is what they really want and how they intend to get wealth they haven't got, because the 'Barnett' formula isn't going to exist forever, not with all your complaining. And Poland is a way to go for an invasion......

Aldi, Aldi, Aldi, what were you thinking? You get so much right, your pricing model, staff, buying policies but then you have a little slip in attention and bang! Fancy saying something is halal when it isn't. Not that difficult surely? And it matters to people who are committed to that kind of product. Much worse than hiding something and hoping they wouldn't notice, you were actually saying that the product was something it wasn't. That's lying.

How would non-Muslims like it if they were not told that the meat they are eating had not been killed humanely by being stunned first? Oh hold on, loads of companies pull that stunt, using only halal meat because it hardly matters to non-Muslims but means all their products are OK for Muslims. And the idiots we just voted for (all of them) tell us endlessly that this is the UK and UK law is supreme!

As for the slow motion Labour leadership race, I don't have a clue. Who on earth can lead those backward, inept and politically na├»ve imbeciles? Not one of them shows any grace. Now, as they jostle to find a form of words that the electorate would vote for (not policies, not ideas and heaven forfend! not anything they intend to do, just words), we get the escapee from the elfish regions of Lord of the Rings, Yvette Cooper telling us that Labour got some stuff wrong.

Would that be the Labour you were a senior part of? The Labour that ran up a deficit in the good times, under your husband? How come you never mentioned Ed Mil. was more an edless chicken, before, you know maybe perhaps during the election? Still, Labour are hardly alone in British politics today in being solely concerned with their party, as opposed to what would be good for the country.

Saturday, 16 May 2015

Ah, The Election!

I know you may well be bored of the recent election here in the UK (that is, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), but I wanted to leave a while for all the flavours to soak in.

At this date, a little remote from the action (and the shock!) of the day, the BBC - and others- with little left wing to talk up, are relentlessly ramming 'stories' about the one MP party UKIP down our throats. For what possible reason? No word of the other one MP party the Greens, but then I suppose the BBC don't want too much light shining on this peculiar lot, surely the true modern home of the Monster Raving Looney Party. Their views of course, being too close to those of the BBC elite.

But back to the result; so much joy! The pollsters got it wrong, so wrong that there is some suggestion of copying, maybe Ofsted should be involved. On second thoughts maybe not; I can't think of anything that benefits from Ofsted existing. nevertheless, these Magic Meg soothsayers were believed wholeheartedly by the political parties and their campaigns were based on 'neck and neck.

Interestingly, there is a possibility that this caused Cameron to start making some genuinely Conservative remarks and promises. But whatever, Miliband was and is only a comedy character and whilst Labour could not be allowed to 'do it again', Miliband helped make them unelectable. For that we must be thankful.

Joy of joys though, was Ed Balls being deleted from our misery and by a Conservative. I just wonder how stupid you have to be to vote for him at all, but I suppose it must be the 'always vote Labour' crowd. We also lost Ed Davey, another classic moron who has cost the country dearly by running his crackpot 'green' schemes against reality.

But it was a gift that kept giving, because Danny Alexander and Douglas Alexander have been turned into historic figures. And Galloway at last got what he deserves, obscurity.

Much of this was due to the seismic events north of the border. Or maybe not seismic, but interesting from a propaganda perspective. The SNP holed Labour below the waterline, but not for logical reasons, which is a pity, but we will take it for now. That we were then treated to lots of posturing by someone who is not a member of the UK parliament was annoying, but also instructive.

Nicola Sturgeon was always reckoned to be a better operator than Salmond (not difficult though) and she is. She certainly hides what she is up to much better than big mouth does. Not so much a case of keeping her powder dry as not letting the electorate know what they have voted for.

Trying to sound rational and easy going, she says before the result that she didn't expect to take all the seats or anything like it and afterwards that it meant nothing in respect of Scottish independence. Then went on to say they do have demands to make of the UK parliament, but not full financial independence. She hoped that would sound good to non-Scottish voters. Not a chance, luv. You may have mugged those with the same accent as yours, but down here we are not so blind.

Financial independence would mean she would have to have a means of paying for her demands, beyond 'England should pay'. And no such plan exists, because they can't afford what they do now (they could save an enormous amount though if they got rid of the Scottish parliament).

So there she sits, biding her time and the rest of the country was treated to the strange spectacle of her flying to London, to attend a memorial to those who died fighting the Nazis, just as she leads a surge of National Socialism in Scotland. Complete with the thuggish intimidation of competing politicians and voters. The popularity based on promises of handouts that the country can't afford, though this is of little importance, the seizure of widespread power being more important.

I can't wait to hear how she disguises attempts to form a separate dictatorship by somehow blaming England for trying to destroy Scotland. Then perhaps forcibly occupy nearby territory where they speak 'Scottish'.

Cameron really should make the redrawing of boundaries a priority and make Scottish constituencies more closely reflect overall sizes. To have 59 MP's it seems they have constituencies based around a pub and its customers.

Can Women Really Not Cope?

Heard a couple of stories in the news recently, where women are being pushed to the fore, if not actually having positive discrimination applied.

I know the cover story is that men hold women back, but it isn't ever as simple as that. Personally, the two women managers I have worked for were fine, both deserving of their jobs. Maybe I'm a strange version of a man, but being told what to do by a woman wasn't that much of a shock to me, I had a mother after all.

But I gather that it is really important to ask women to stand up for jobs they currently aren't doing (and are not physically beyond them or anything like that). They need to be implored, or systems altered to drag them in. Again, maybe I just don't get it, but isn't that the living embodiment of what, we are told, the pro-women programme is about?

A bit like diversity in employment officers whose job is to exclude certain types. Mad old world isn't it? Perhaps the election result reflects the growing realisation that we have let children and wuckfits run stuff for too long.

Tuesday, 5 May 2015

The Stupidity Of The Intellectual

We know universities hand out bits of paper instead of earned certificates of learning. The endeavour now being to turn up. However, despite the political failings, some people still have intelligence and leave university having learnt something.

Some go on to use it usefully. Some become intellectuals, which all too often means left wing ideologues, with no idea. And like Global Warming, even their education doesn't stop them believing truly unbelievable things. Their ideology trumps all and any hint of science (in this case) is roundly forgotten.

Now, Christopher Booker, James Delingpole and others have been honoured by a particularly stupid bunch of intelligent people at a Polytechnic in Cambridge. They have been labelled 'deniers' because they point out the scientific flaws in the claims of the political groups pushing the Global Warming scam.

Of course, the idiots get to use the prejudicial term denier because they seek always to set the agenda (and use political correctness to close any debate that accidentally starts). They always do this.

So these morons are hoping that history will see Booker et al as idiots for opposing Global Warming. Here is a comment from real history that reflects where those claiming there must be no debate, may themselves be judged.

In the late 1800's an Italian by the name of Lombrosso developed a theory that people were 'born criminals' and that you could identify this class merely by looking at them, from their physical features. I'm guessing this is not a view currently held even by Global Warming fanatics.

When scientific views were put forward to show how wrong Lombrosso's theory was an outraged colleague said, reflecting the high esteem in which Lombrosso was otherwise generally held; "The criminal type is a definite fact, acquired by science, on this point no further discussion is admissible".

Is that right? Was it based on science? Is denial or disagreeing as it is usually called, of the theory that people are born as criminals, not allowed?

*Quoting Giulio Fioretti.