Tuesday, 20 November 2018

Brexit Blues

Well the Conservative party continue to display how unbelievably hapless they are in ever more inventive ways. We now know that they no longer think they should base their policies on sound economic principles, that law and order are not hugely important, small government is a ridiculous idea for a politician to believe in and democracy should be ignored when inconvenient.

Along with all the members of other parties, they also hold dear that they should be able to act and operate in any way they see fit, basically feeling they are above the law. That lying is not of any consequence either, particularly when it fits their own, personal, narrow agenda. It's about me, stupid.

And then at the head of the pus filled hill is Theresa May. What a piece of work she is; tough, bombastic, resolute, not afraid to offend, able to lie incessantly for tactical reasons and generally not for turning. When talking to the people who elected her and when denying a binding instruction from the country.

In front of the EU bureaucrats (her kind of people) she is a doormat. The only question about her Draft Agreement is, did the EU give it to the Tories before or after the referendum? It is written in a way that gives precedence to the EU throughout, deferring to the EU as the senior partner always.

Now, unless someone like Rees-Mogg led the Conservative party (and with a good majority would be an immense benefit for the country), I would now find myself in a position I have never even had to contemplate before, voting for the socialists. But in a perfect storm kind of way, we have simultaneously lost any last vestige of socialism in this country, replaced by the (currently) led extreme Marxists of Jeremy Corbyn.

So, Theresa May and a grossly under-performing, shackled UK buried in a Franco-German version of the USSR, or Venezuela style communism? Which do you want, because nothing else is on offer?

Thursday, 8 November 2018

We Are In A Mess

How did it come to this? In 1972, in a fit of hubris bizarrely based on weakness, the Prime Minister Ted Heath, masquerading as a Conservative lied to the country and slid the UK into the slime pit of the EU. In those days Heath was known as a 'wet' Tory - one from the Left of the party. He was of course, much worse than that. A self-important socialist, out of his depth.

Now, with that innate common sense with which the country has been traditionally blessed, we have seized the opportunity to extricate ourselves from the Franco-German empire. (It is constantly said that the idea of the EU was to end European war and it has achieved that inasmuch that France and Germany have not had to start another war, as they got their empire without one).

However, with dreadful irony the UK now finds itself saddled with a Prime Minister every bit as disingenuous, careless of the needs of the country and duplicitous as Heath. Despite the efforts of Project Fear, business doesn't care about leaving the EU, what they care about is knowing what is going to happen and so be able to plan. For her own selfish reasons, May is keeping them in the dark. She cannot tell us what she is up to, because it isn't what she has pledged or promised and it is not what the people required her to do.

She should have no choice; the people gave her an instruction that parliament overwhelmingly accepted, yet still she thinks her personal opinion carries more weight. And in her ramblings as party leader she threw away an undoubted majority, when she started copying Labour's Marxist ideas and continues to attempt to out Left the Left.

Our police are now little more than virtue-signalling social workers, running around after crimes have been committed. Yet never embarrassed by their manifest failures. Graduates wonder to older colleagues in the workplace if Africa is a country (I didn't do geography at school!), yet have a range of opinions about correct social behaviours and an identikit believe that the Tories are the devil incarnate and are deeply uncurious.

Step forward with pride the education establishment that successfully created this and much beyond. Churning out kids infused with Left ideology and little actual knowledge has been very effective. They are easier to manipulate and cannot see the glaring faults in Left logic. They never learned how to think for themselves, to research but were imbued with a sense of their own self-importance.

Left educated police graduates were fast tracked into senior positions, there to destroy proper policing with their tree-hugger mentality and lack of any real experience of policing. And so on, right across all sectors. A country being wrecked internally by Left ideology serving only to bring about a Marxist government that will end democracy.

We see the headlines asking why the police cannot stop the rise in knife crimes, in murders, but this is the wrong question. We should be asking why are they not trying to.

Thursday, 6 September 2018

BBC Puff Pieces

Obviously, the |BBC has been trying to overlook the anti-Semitism in the Labour party, taking an inordinate amount of time to even mention it, let alone anything like the full range of terrorist associations of the beloved Leader Corbyn.

Today they took an initiative of their own. Acting at the behest of lobby groups, they did a lovely puff piece for the wind power industry. A kind of Ponzi scheme, but most people would understand it as a scam.

Basically, the main highlight was the chat with three people. A University professor, a representative of the company installing the huge offshore turbines and someone from RenewableUK, the trade body. Now, the sound of them all singing from the same hymn sheet is to be expected, but rarely if ever have I seen one comment being enthusiastically nodded at by another.

We were told that offshore wind turbines are really easy to erect (done in one day - after the foundations are in place), that wind now generates 15% of our electricity and is the cheapest form of electricity generation in the UK.

BBC man accepted all of this with saying a thing, either because he knows nothing about the subject he is 'reporting' on, or because he is happy to comply with nonsense.

Offshore wind generation is the most expensive way to provide electricity. I have just checked and wind is currently supplying 1.03GW or 2.91% of our electricity and gas 48.47%. Gas of course will provide that power whenever you want it, wind farms only when the wind is in the Goldilocks zone, not too fast and not too slow. Oh, and the offshore turbines don't last anywhere near as long as predicted and no one has costed the bill for removing any wind turbines.

In fact, if we started insisting that the 'Green' industry told the truth, by using correct labels then traditional power generation would be called reliable and 'renewables', unreliable.

It is indeed an interesting blend, the Greens with their Marxist anti-capitalist agenda to get us to spend our wealth on a chimera and the greedy crony capitalists building the largely pointless wind and solar farms (that only 'farm' subsidies).

Friday, 10 August 2018

Big Beast Boris's Burqa

You measure a man by what he does rather than what he says. Being completely gender non-specific (rather than fluid, a non-existent type), Theresa May has rather proved that point. Boris has his heart in the right place, but is a bit inept when trying to play political games. Now, whilst that might suggest he is ill suited to politics, this would only be correct if you believe the sole purpose of politics is to corrupt the meaning of words, rather than sometimes manipulating.

As such he has an appeal to the ordinary voter, precisely because he doesn't seem like the machine politician with which our parliament is very much plagued. In that regard, we emulate the US, but perhaps without quite the flamboyance. But isn't it ever this way between us and the USA?

In the extraordinarily closed world of the Westminster bubble this is something that is understood, even if the general workings of the world outside the bubble is magnificently beyond their recognition.

When I was being obliged to sit still, face the front and listen, I was given history as it was instinctively taught within the British culture. When the story of the peasants revolt was told to me, what actually sank into my consciousness was, that the people had become fed up with the way those in charge ran things. Sure there was detail, but it was the overview, the impact at a subconscious level amongst those peasants that was what I understood.

We have the same today with the decision to leave the European Union, a vanity project of shining hubris, too bright for anyone to see. Except the we-own-the-law, different old British. When Ted Heath lied with great passion about how happy he and a bunch of other blithering idiots would be, if only he could be allowed to join and be a part of this lovely edifice, we obliged his whim. A bureaucrats wet dream.

As loving, obliging parents we let him have his way and in an almost patronising way ignored the politicians playing with their tea set, dolls house, train set and cars for decades, in the firm belief that 'Europe' was over there and of no consequence, really, to us. It didn't matter. Nobody knew or cared who 'their' MEP was, what they did or even bothered to vote in Common Market, EEC, EC, EU elections.

And in this way the British were the ideal dupes dreamt of by the founders of the Project; the people had to be kept in the dark, the mission of the Project had to be kept from them. After all, like full blown Communism, who in their right mind ever voted for that? And European history is full enough of revolutions (or in Britain petitions), to suggest care and secrecy were needed.

If you are old enough to have lived some decades under the EU, ask yourself a question; can you remember ever hearing a debate about the EU? You can't, because (as with Man Made Global Warming) you got lots of instructions about how important it was (that was actually propaganda), but no unbiased information and certainly no debate.

The truth is dangerous to any organisation that is really, at root a bunch of international gangsters.Empire builders by the back door. Consider, why are we so afraid of the consequences of leaving the EU? Sure the detail would be messy, like any cancer, it seeks to spread throughout your system, but really it is because we know, we have seen that the EU cannot be trusted. It is not a machine based on logic and it certainly has no intention of allowing International Law to interfere in its malice (Sudetenland, anyone?)

So, the actual objection, the reason why Britain still managed, despite a long time under incessant propaganda, to vote down the EU membership, was because at a visceral level we just knew it was a wrong 'un. Maybe in these deliberately uneducated times, you need to look to the American Constitution to understand the true British character, the way we do government, because it was based on British constructs. Magna Carta means more to them than us, because we have been told that freedom doesn't matter any more.

But the reason we left the burgeoning empire of the EU, was the same as for the Americans. They did not seek to break with Britain and initially the broad feeling was that injustice must be dealt with as a detail, no greater change was required. But, imperial and impervious the upstarts had to be ignored. And so they proved that another course was open to them.

But they still continued to base their lives and laws on what they knew and what worked; British law and custom. 'We the people' is a great start to any sweeping document of state and it cannot be said too often that Britain evolved (through some trial and error) the best system of government in an imperfect world. We own the law and our politicians fear the people. In the EU, the State owns the law and the people need to fear their government.

The biggest mistake? Drawing attention to the EU. Once we started looking at what they were up to, what they stood for, what they did and intended to do it became inevitable that we would revolt (or, send in a petition). And we did. 52 to 48% is a decent difference and remember, for once a lot of people voted. That it was not wider is entirely due to the success of the weakening of our education system, but enough traditional British grit remained.

But then, in all the agonised ranting about how damaging leaving a bureaucrats paradise will be, we forget that the very act of being subsumed by the EU was illegal. Sure we talked of 'joining', but when you are handing political and economic power to a foreign government, it mirrors the way Poland 'joined' Germany in 1939.

No British government has that power, that authority and yet Ted Heath did it. The Conservative Prime Minister Ted Heath. And what mocking irony it is that, at the denouement of our dalliance with corruption, we should be under the 'guidance' of such a similar creature, the British Prime Minister Theresa May. Ted Heath lied shamelessly to get us in and Theresa May is lying just the same, to keep us in.

There used to be a fire safety advert that ran 'Get out, stay out and get the Brigade out', which is excellent advice regarding the EU (though here it would be the Brigade of Guards).

So, all the confected outrage about Boris and some misquotes about what he said and intended, is actually about how scared a bunch of ne'er do well politicians are of Boris Johnson and the likelihood that he would do a proper job of Brexiting. The Burqa is peculiar, it's like a bag and it is a symbol of the beginnings of extremist attitudes. We would do well to heed wise words.

Monday, 30 July 2018

Hot Weather, Man Made Global Warming And Hot Air

It's been hot recently and not just here in the UK. So the Global Warming leeches come slithering out to say it is extreme (it isn't), it's due to Global Warming (it isn't), which is caused by Man pumping CO2 into the atmosphere (or Carbon as 'scientists' insist on calling it. Carbon is an element, C, and Carbon Dioxide, CO2, is a compound. They confuse the two because they think Carbon sounds worse to you. And they know you are thick, because you believe in Global Warming even though they can't prove it).

I mentioned in an earlier post what is causing our current weather and that, by observation, we can see there is no Global Warming taking place. Now, let's be clear Global Warming as a natural, cyclical event is real. It is warmer now than when the Thames froze over in 1814, but less warm than in medieval or Roman times.

Also, CO2 is a potential 'greenhouse' gas, meaning it can help trap heat inside the atmosphere and thus warm the planet. This was first postulated in the 1960's and after research it was decided that Man's output of CO2 is insignificant in the grand scheme of things and will have no noticeable affect on climate. We have no idea what might be a 'tipping point', as temperatures have been much lower at times when atmospheric CO2 was very much higher.

We don't know how all the interlocking natural relationships work to respond to changes. But greenhouse gas is a sound theory. More effective than CO2 is Methane and by far the most causative of weather and climate variations is water vapour. Or clouds as we more commonly refer to them.

So, if the theory is sound but we don't understand the mechanisms and interactions sufficiently, how is Global Warming a thing? Why are governments so stressed about it and reactive? (To be fair all government has actually done is increase taxes on us to give to rich people as subsidies for wind farms and solar farms that don't really help much and not all the time).

Global Warming is being used by anti-capitalists to get idiot Western governments to ruin their economies chasing a chimera and by scientists and activists (like Greenpeace and WWF) to get grants and funding. No Global Warming, no money.

How do the scammers have all this proof of Global Warming then? Well, they don't. Most stories they tell are demonstrable lies which the lazy MSM journalists just cut and paste. Any refutation is ignored by the media. The 'proof' the pushers produce is completely, 100% based on computer models that they programmed with biased inputs and consequently always predict Global Warming.

The models are predicated on CO2 having an influence way out of kilter with observable fact and beyond anything we have direct knowledge of. You might as well believe in fairies.

Water, Water - Nowhere

With a prolonged hot, dry spell visiting the UK recently the focus has been on Global Warming. There have been no records broken, it hasn't been as unendingly hot as 1976 and this one (as most are here), was caused by the Jetstream being pushed North by unusually cold water in the North West Atlantic.

Nothing to do with Global Warming, which isn't a thing with no temperature rise for over 20 years and certainly no identified mechanism at work, caused by Man (such as CO2).

What should be the focus is the water supply. Now, with a wet early start to the year the supplies were at a high level, but nothing lasts forever. But more damaging is the fact that, despite the massive influx of people to the UK since the moron Tony Blair allowed unrestricted immigration, no new capacity exists.

Yes, that's right, no new reservoirs to meet the additional needs. Mad eh? Well the reason is even more insane. Following an EU directive we must have less water supply than is needed by design. This is to make us use less water, which we must do due to Global Warming (which as stated earlier doesn't exist).

So, you may be familiar with the population increase, in the late Eighties it was  56,953,861 and is now 65,511,097 but when was the last reservoir built? 1989, that's when. In Devon. Unbelievably, no added capacity from before unlimited immigration began.

And then there are the legendary scale water leaks, which the water companies really cannot be bothered to fix despite legal obligations and targets. This is because our politicians, currently scrabbling to keep all the real work of governing in Brussels, are weak and believe in fairies, which is what Global Warming is.

Friday, 6 July 2018

Pretty Girls In Fast Cars

I enjoy seeing a successful woman in an expensive car, be it Bentley or Porsche, I think it is highly appealing. My feelings are the exact opposite if the female is actually the wife of a rich man and does nothing with her day but fret about herself, book treatments and meet up with others in her air-head circle to talk about reality TV.

Basically, I have always been attracted to clever women. I am not threatened or intimidated by them, which is it seems, amazingly common with the male of the species. I like to think I am a fair judge, but can be ridiculously naïve at times. It has never occurred to me that men and women are anything other than different versions of the same thing. I never considered that they might be inherently inferior.

Likewise, meeting people who originate from places other than these shores who may have a different colour skin, I also just take them on the merit they present. Hell, when I was at school we saw that African people were darker skinned and that was as far as my thinking went; people lived in Africa too, but they had a darker skin.

I didn't make the 'intellectual' leap to conclude that this made me superior. Even when the distinct lack of any parallel with the societal developments in Europe was considered, when pushed all I would do is wonder why. Perhaps it was the heat?

So, if I met an 'African' I wasn't surprised by the colour of his skin. This means I am not Left wing. They shriek about it in perpetual surprise. Culture however, is something I am less forgiving about. God may have decided the colour of your skin, but you choose your culture.

If your culture is to treat women as inferior to men (because the men in question are fundamentally weak and resort to the tactics of the bully to gain and maintain ascendency), then I detest you. Or maybe your culture is to lie and cheat in order to gain advantage and power. This means you exhibit the fundamentals of Marxism. You see others as existing only for what you can get out of them.

Obama was elected because he was black and that is very wrong, both because his colour should be irrelevant, but also because black people should never have been deprived of opportunity, which would probably have meant a black President ages ago. But Obama was also a terrible President, not because he was black, but because he is a snake. Like our own Tony Blair, he was just out for himself.

Theresa May is terrible not because she is a woman or that she is white, but because she lacks principles. (And it seems, a spine). She has been told by the nation to take the UK out of the EU; she is a politician so she is bound, by Parliament's promise to obey that specific demand, but also because MP's are there to serve the public will. Additionally, she presented a party manifesto to get elected to power that emphatically restated that commitment.

Now, the wholly unsurprising attitude of the bureaucrats around her (that we should not leave the greatest agglomeration of bureaucrats the world has ever seen) is convincing her to do their bidding instead. Which is weak and unprincipled.

She keeps saying the opposite of what she does, but maybe I am wrong and will be surprised. Maybe she will say to the EU that she has tried to play nice but enough is enough, now stop being childish and sort things out properly. Maybe.

Saturday, 30 June 2018

Grenfell Blame Dodging

So far the Grenfell enquiry has heard lots of emotional stories from residents involved in the tragedy, who unsurprisingly were greatly affected. So what the point was, at an enquiry is beyond me. Now we have moved on to the response of the fire service. Personally, I would now be looking at the building and the work that had been done, the basic safety of the building and the responses to complaints from residents.

Then talk to the people completing the work and the materials used, who ordered what materials, who had oversight of that and who signed off on it. Only then would I move on to the emergency services role. But we are where we are, though I hope this is not to set a blame profile in people's minds, to prepare us for a full-on, several coats of whitewash final report.

We have had more emoting, which is a little poor from an emergency service but very much the fashion these days, very au courant. I'm sure it isn't part of a sympathy garnering agenda. The officer in charge and who maintained the standard response to a tall building fire of 'stay put', now much criticised, could not remember ever having any training about what to do in that specific circumstance. A sort of "I'm not to blame, how was I supposed to know" plea.

But then I hear (not from the enquiry -odd surely?) that this same officer had recently visited Grenfell for a fire safety check. In the discussion where I heard this a Fire Brigade Union rep, after giving the obligatory references to the officer being "brave" and "dedicated" which no-one had queried, said that he didn't know about the flammable cladding and the combustible window frames, amongst a list of other things he didn't know.

But the whole point is that he is there to check and to know and then to advise. A pathetic attempt at an excuse, but then, Union.

I was responsible for regulatory matters in setting up a temporary charity ice rink. It was in an old supermarket building that we adapted, so there was a lot to get right. There was a sprinkler system so we had to avoid impeding its operation.

There was netting over the top of the ice pad because hockey was going to be played and we needed to protect the lights from being hit by a puck. The fire safety guys were concerned about this, but I assured them, from my own knowledge and life experience that water would pass through a mesh with like, two inch holes in it. They were not happy though.

We had to get our rink expert to contact the manufacturer of the netting, in Canada to obtain the fire safety tests that the netting had undertaken and passed. I told them I was fairly sure that in the history of history an ice pad had never caught fire, but they just drew breath and said they needed that from an expert.

So, apparently some tiny little community charity ice rink should be held to standards so high they exceed the borders of sanity, but a multi-million pound project on peoples' homes should involve people who don't know much about fire safety, apparently.

I mean we now understand Grenfell had a faulty smoke extraction system, no smoke alarm or detectors inadequate fire doors and even some missing. Then there were the building materials and the way the work was being done. But it is beyond reason to expect an expert in fire safety to notice any of this?

Seventy two people died. When is it going to be important enough that we actually hold people to account, which would put us a good way along towards making sure it doesn't happen again. Because currently there exists a belief that senior and 'important' people (on big salaries, often paid by us) cannot be expected to be held responsible when they mess up. So it does happen again.

If we are starting with the fire service, my question would be why our senior fire officers do not respond to a situation as it presents itself, but follow 'protocols' that were thought up in an office and given to the fire service as a tick box.

You see 'stay put' requires firemen (non gender specific reference) to go into a burning building to rescue people if the fire becomes uncontained by their initial efforts. As was apparent from the outset, the fire was spreading at an unprecedented and unexpected speed. But standard operating instructions were followed as if nothing was unusual.

And by doing that, really brave indeed heroic firemen then go into a raging building to rescue those doing as they had been told. Or, God help us, they are ordered to stay put themselves and watch people die, as their failing senior officers now go on to the health and safety tick box of not putting their officers in danger. Convincing themselves, in the words of Shoesmith (Baby P), that while there had been an unhappy outcome, they could not be to blame because they had ticked all the boxes.

One thing I know: we all deserve better.

Solving Crime

Witness Appeal - Theft Of Motorbike Cutlers Mews Neath Hill

Thames Valley Police are appealing for information following a report of a theft of a motorbike from Cutlers Mews, Neath Hill.

Between 3am & 6am  on Saturday 30 June  a black motorbike vehicle was taken from Cutlers Mews Neath Hill without keys.
We are appealing for anyone who may have witnessed the offences taking place or who may have information to call our 24-hour enquiry Centre on 101, quoting reference 43180198091

If you don’t want to speak directly to police you can contact the independent charity Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111.No personal details are taken, information is not traced or recorded and you will not go to court.

Set up a Neighbourhood Watch Scheme in your area

Would you like to bring your community closer together, or do you have concerns about burglary, antisocial behaviour or the general environment in your street?

Through Neighbourhood Watch you can help the Police and your neighbours to strengthen your community.  You can make your area a better place to live.  The scheme is free to join

Consider setting up a NHW Scheme in your area, for more information email MK.Community.WatchCoordinator@thamesvalley.pnn.police.uk

This was emailed out by Thames Valley Police about a vehicle taking in Milton Keynes. They want to hear from anyone who actually saw the theft occurring, which is fine but exceedingly unlikely. If they had given a full description of the vehicle such as manufacturer and registration there is a greater chance someone would have seen it and could help. Someone might know where it is now, or who has it.

They might even see it being ridden around the streets, but reporting every black 'motorbike vehicle' you see may not be terribly helpful.

It strikes me that the police issue lazy rubbish like this because they are not that sure how to go about solving crimes, which also seems from anecdotal evidence at least, to be because they don't really care about solving crime either.

Thursday, 14 June 2018


It is irrelevant who died in the Grenfell Tower tragedy, race, colour, creed, illegal or whatever - it is a stain on the reputation of this country that it happened as it did. There is an anecdote that says that in Italy, to get the water turned on quickly in your new house you must bribe officials, but that in Britain officials don't take bribes, so nothing gets done quickly by bureaucrats.

This lack of corruption in Britain is still largely true, but due to the baleful influence of decades of Left ideological influence, the corruption that does exist led to Grenfell occurring becoming inevitable.

All levels of bureaucracy, councillors, MP's, civil servants, all now feel that they are above the law, if their personal opinion is that they are doing something necessary or good. The most graphic example is probably the MP's expenses scandal. Firstly, it took ages to get published as the press, who speak truth to power, were scared to carry the story for fear of 'reprisals'. When it did break, the shock on the faces of the MP's that anyone could think what they had done as wrong was amazing to behold.

They felt outraged and we see this again with the personal opinions of some MP's who wish to remain within the German empire of the EU, aghast that someone, anyone is allowed to oppose them.

Grenfell of course occurred because the council wanted cheap (not 100% a bad motive) but also decided that their role as overseer of safety could be dispensed with. So flammable material was placed around the tower and internally, fire doors, alarms, detectors, fire containment generally were all sub-standard or absent.

Who was responsible for signing off the fire safety of the building? Who signed off on the fire safety of the cladding? Who sold the panels and who agreed to fit them, knowing they were illegal and not fit for purpose?

The fire service advice to 'stay put' is entirely sound if the right preventative measures are built in as regulations require and the fire service are confident they can control the situation and get to people quickly. Whilst they couldn't know of the perfect storm of fire safety deficiencies inside the building, even on arrival they could see the extent of the fire and the speed with which it was spreading.

The criminal failure of the fire brigade as an organisation was not that 'stay put' existed, but that through years of Left influenced thinking about any nonsense but the business of firefighting, senior officers had no tradition, no experience and seemingly no training to react appropriately to a situation they are presented with, but rather stick to the bureaucratic, tick-box rule book. And so 'stay put' stays while people die.

And the enquiry will try to use detail to make everything seem less black and white and 'whilst this seems...' will be much heard, it will really be tasked with not finding fault, not apportioning blame (unless to a private company, preferably foreign). Because if you find bureaucrats at fault, that they didn't do their jobs properly, then it will move up to their bosses and then their bosses' bosses.

Ultimately members of the elite may find themselves being held to account and we will see the look of total shock and then outbursts of rage such as we have seen over expenses and Brexit (from Remainers)and Sharon Shoesmith. For the elite there must, on no account, be accountability. That would mean working for a living!

Thursday, 31 May 2018

When To Act?

Historically, things tend to get well out of hand before anything is done and often, before anyone realises there is a problem. Appeasing Hitler was to avoid war, but it made things so much worse. Thinking anyone could rely on France to act decisively to stop Hitler once he had invaded Poland was another great delusion. I mean, seriously, the French?!

And I guess, if we prevent a terrorist setting off a bomb we have no real idea how many lives were saved and any other consequences that might follow on. But, again looking at the Nazis, they spent years building up their party to be single-minded. They entrenched anti-Semitism as a core tenet and by constant repetition it became common currency that there was something wrong with the Jews.

So when war started, the brutality was immense, bestial and committed by ordinary soldiers as well as the special troops, SS etc. Part of the racial division was to ensure there was no Polish society as such, no education for the children, because then the Nazis would have their worker bees, who wouldn't know any better.

Coming back to the UK, we have had decades of education by idiots to produce idiots and propaganda that now sees our young, unable to think for themselves believing almighty tosh from the Left. Why would anyone do that? I mean, the fact that the Left install stupid systems of education wouldn't surprise anyone, but why persist with it when it is proven a failure?

Surely the only reason can be that the design objective of the 'system' was to produce functionally illiterate children, even after years of 'schooling'.

And how does any political movement get away with drastically changing the relationship of the government to the people and handing over national sovereignty without any debate or analysis taking place? How can the economically ruinous, anti-capitalism of the Climate Change scam also avoid debate? How but with a pliant and compliant populace.

Then of course there is the embedded anti-Semitism leaking out of every pore of the Labour Party. They can't contain it and they don't want to. They and then you are being subjected to propaganda so that you come to see Jews as abnormal and a threat to be 'dealt with' by our leaders.

Of course, in our codified, Left controlled society, any suggestion that the Left might be up to no good will bring accusations that you wear tin foil as a hat. Maybe I am wrong and drawing the wrong parallels, but what harm would it do to take robust action against the Hate Party (still known as Labour as of today)? What could go wrong if we properly educated our children and were allowed to know what the EU does?

Why would it be dangerous to allow debate about climate change and the actual real science? The worst that could happen is that people demand an end to the taxes and subsidies to ward off dragons and pixies (just as real as any danger from 'Global Warming'). And then the preachers of hate, Left wing activists can crawl back under a stone.

Wednesday, 30 May 2018

The Lessons Of History And Corbyn

It comes up from time to time, that Corbyn wants to turn Britain into a version of Venezuela. Hell, I've said it myself and with no understanding of economics (or reality) the current Far Left cabal masquerading as the Labour Party. no doubt could bring such a situation about in short order.

But something else struck me as I started re-reading Richard J Evans stupendous and (settle in) stupendously long book 'The Third Reich At War'. This was just how stupid, petty and childish the leadership of the Nazi Party was, jockeying for power and privilege, taking fine houses and other wealth for themselves, whilst planning inhuman actions.

Now, we have no current knowledge of warlike adventures planned by the Corbyn gang, but they certainly fit the mould as self-important, individually incompetent, desperate and devious clowns on the make. The way they suppress internal dissent, the ideology of violence, the lies and the deceit - no real interest in actual politics.

And I'm sure Momentum and its like can summon up their brownshirts in a blink, should some extra political muscle be called for. I fear these people who seem like fools may in fact be very dangerous fools.

And there are too many openings in the way our society acts and thinks, due to long term influence of the Left in schools, all public services and through the deployment of Political Correctness, for this authoritarian ambition to succeed. Take for instance Thames Valley Police. If you want to join they ask if you belong to any Right Wing parties. Why Right Wing specifically? Because the current feeling is that they are the problem.

Name the last violent action by a Right Wing group. You can't. (You may be led to suggest that the shooting of Jo Cox was such an event; it wasn't. The perpetrator was a nutcase, who read Far Right literature amongst other things. He didn't belong to a group, nor received instruction).

The Left however are endlessly involved in violence; every 'march' where windows are smashed, property burnt, heavy objects thrown off roofs onto police below. Every event that you can think of that erupted into violence had its origins in Left activism and agitation.

Except I guess, the Countryside March which was entirely peaceful, but so massive that Tony Blair was deeply shocked, so he had them attacked by the police and then blamed the marchers for the violence. Yeah, and David Kelly committed suicide.

Demos Does It Again

Reported in The Mail, the Leftie tank of thinking, Demos has decided that British people think communities have been harmed and the national culture undermined by mass immigration. This is a bit like saying 'more people coming into the country means there are more people in the country'

Actually, scratch that because according to the Left (and way too many Conservatives) unrestrained immigration leading to a surge in the size of the 'population' has no effect whatsoever on the demand for houses, schools, health services and certainly doesn't lead to more crime.

Anyway, back to the real world. Much too much, much too soon. I remember being shocked when I realised we, Britain, had denied citizenship to Hong Kong Chinese, so they didn't all come here when the colony was handed back to the Communist Chinese.

I thought we owed them something, but of course so many and at once was impossible to deal with (we didn't know how many would come but the prospect was bad enough). So, hard though it was, you kinda understand the thinking.

But switch to the satrapy of morons known as the EU and unlimited numbers of foreign nationals, to whom we most certainly owe nothing, can flood in. There will be no consequences. Well, except for good ones.

The good by the way is that rich Lefties, who don't have an immigrant influx issue, can get cheap servants.

And to add insult to injury, our civil servants - you know, the ones who don't think you should be allowed to say we should leave the EU and won't do their job if it is to that end - decide what they will do about immigration is throw out of the country good, productive long-term British people from the West Indies.

Compare and contrast the rabble of Islamist terrorists and foreign criminals we welcome with open arms and the film of black men coming off the boats, struggling with their suitcases (yep, they brought clothes, not pretending to be 'refugees' looking for handouts), dressed in suits and wearing trilby's. If you want people who intend to fit in, to integrate, what more could you ask for?

They spoke English and felt they had a right to come here as they were British and this is the Mother country. That's how they felt and I feel proud that they did. It's why I always insist on buying small, West Indian bananas; as a way of supporting friends.

But I suppose, if you are a Leftie civil servant, aware that your ideology supports and promotes racial division in an attempt to cause societal chaos, you would say 'yes, but they are black'.

Friday, 25 May 2018

Irish Referendum

The Republic of Ireland (not Northern Ireland, Kay Burley) is having a referendum on changing the country's abortion laws. I presume as an EU country the result only stands if it supports the 'correct' political agenda.

I struggle with this one myself, but the arguments are too often disingenuous. The blanket 'No' means damage, both physically and psychologically can happen to mother and baby. It is too often present as a never allow option.

But the pro-abortion side just seem to come up with selfishness as an overriding principle. In fact, even principled. I mean by this for instance, the fatuous 'it's my body'. So in an age of multiple, sophisticated and effective means of birth control, a girl should be entitled to demand to end a life any time she can't be bothered with contraception, but fancies a shag.

Because, it actually isn't her body and the only reason the subject of murder doesn't crop up is that we persist with an ancient ruling that life starts only at birth. Unless a much loved foetus is killed by a third party assaulting the mother, which we think is terrible.

It isn't her body, it is an entirely separate body that happens to be inside her. And Nature leads the mother's body to perform some pretty incredible things in order to hide the interloper.

It is of course, a strong part of the feminist argument that women have been wronged by Nature as the party having to carry the child. They rage into the wind.

Lazy, indolent women who get pregnant and want an abortion whenever they want, make the pro-abortion case almost impossible to support. We think it a terrible thing to terminate a foetus that is going to be terribly disabled when born, as this demeans the lives of those that were born (in the mad Leftie world) and yet we defend implacably a mother's choice to end a life whenever she feels she wants to (up to 24 weeks).

There is no easy answer, but giving women whatever they want, whenever they dream up some new injustice, isn't it.

Tuesday, 1 May 2018

The Lords And Brexit

The irony of an unelected bunch of idlers and ne'er do wells (with some possessed of common sense - not Lefties) saying that the elected House should have the final say on Brexit, is surely not lost on them.

But what exactly are they asking for? Ostensibly, they think parliament as a whole should control the negotiations and what is acceptable. Well, that wouldn't be an issue if the ground rules were adhered to; parliament has accepted to be mandated by the public via a referendum result. So the only debate is the manner of our leaving.

Now usually, this is the proper preserve of government, but it is fairly important so input from a broad range can be listened to. To achieve the desired result. However, from those with a sense of entitlement in the Houses of parliament, to the mischief makers in Labour the hard Left party, who just want to cause turmoil to a Conservative government and the country can go hang, the desired result of the people is not what they want delivered.

Their goal is to cancel the will of the people (why not? The EU leaders have long bemoaned the ability of the citizenry to vote and are they not in love with the EU?). Some are keen on bureaucracies, some are in receipt of pensions or other funding from the EU and are obliged to support them, or lose the financial arrangement, some are just plain stupid. Some are hopeful of employment by the crazies in Brussels; the terms and the money and perks are fantastic, what's not to like?

So, whilst I would love to hear other views being aired, why would you want to listen to Corbyn and his cronies witter on about how they hate Britain, the West, Jews and capitalism? How does that help proper negotiations or consider the good of the country? It doesn't.

Corbyn doesn't like the EU though because it is the wrong kind of totalitarianism; the Left is very much like the Peoples Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front and the Front for the People of Judea. In fact, basically they have so many problems with so many people, they are just really the Party of Hate.

Brexit is a grand opportunity to reset the country, to cast aside the moronic shackle of the EU corpse and stand on our own two feet. In this country the people own the law and the government fear the people. We will not stay part of an organisation where the State tells us everything is illegal unless they allow it and we exist to serve the State. Where the people must fear their rulers.

Look at the arrogance of Barnier et al, so incensed that we should think we are allowed to decide for ourselves! No, our real problem is that even when we leave, we will still be haunted as will much of the world, by the sheer stupidity of the EU. Will the Franco-German empire building continue and cause more conflict, as it did in the Ukraine?

Will Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and possibly others see a successful UK outside the EU and suddenly realise why their economies are tanking and Germany and France(!) are doing just fine? And what they can do to rescue themselves. (I'm talking here about the populations, because as with the UK, the politicians love of bureaucracy and hence the EU means they won't ever do the right thing for their countries).

A proper Conservative would probably make short work of the negotiations and get a workable deal, suitable for all sides. And take a stern view of the partisan Civil Service, imprisoning the worst malfeasants and sacking a shed-load of others, replacing them not with people with the right Left wing views, but instead a solid dose of common sense. We don't need 'yes men', but we also don't need what we currently have; preening, self-important prats with no work ethic.

Monday, 30 April 2018

The Home Office

So Amber Rudd has gone; what a surprise. She wanted to ignore the will of the people (except when they voted for her to become an MP, apparently that was OK), and have her own way over Brexit. Theresa May isn't to be seen as exactly committed to the cause though she is blundering on in her own way at least, but Rudd couldn't stay out of it and was doubtless angling for the top spot.

Slim chance! Why you would make someone so obviously out for themselves the head of such a dysfunctional department as the Home Office, I have no idea? That she has turned out not to be on top of her brief is no surprise at all and her inability to lessen the damage doesn't make her much of a politician either.

The Windrush thing is a steaming pile; basically we still haven't heard of tangible deportation damage done, but because Labour keep chanting nonsense, the BBC and MSM cronies keep talking it up. What we have basically got is a crap policy package dreamed up by Labour and carried on by the Left leaning dimwits who run the Conservative party currently.

This flawed policy is then given to a bunch of civil servants who endlessly prove that there is no task that they are up to and implement policy as they see fit. Which is usually to do the dopiest thing imaginable. And so they did.

Whether undermining Brexit or having car crash after car crash at the Home Office, our civil servants are a constant source of embarrassment. And how has it got to this? Because politicians now are not interested in doing their job (which they were elected and paid to do), but rather preening and strutting. No wonder they are terrified of Brexit; imagine having to be a real politician, make real decisions every day. Do stuff of consequence!

Wednesday, 28 March 2018

Channel 5 Armed Police

I will not go to length again about this pathetic programme, but I just wanted to mention the most outrageous statement in this weeks episode. This was the shooting of Mark Saunders, a barrister.

Needless to say he was shot by armed police. He had been firing a shotgun from his flat and clearly was a danger. It was considered that he was having some kind of breakdown and had been drinking heavily. So you might not be too sympathetic and the programme ended the piece about him by saying that 'apart from his drinking their was no explanation for his behaviour'.

The edited piece showing Mark just before he was shot was of him leaning quite far out of the window, holding the shotgun (though not pointing it). He was shot ten times.

What they didn't say about what actually happened was that, when he was shot by seven firearms officers (five managed to hit him), he was leaning out and saying "I can't hear you", referring to someone shouting at him. The reason he couldn't hear was because the police helicopter was hovering low above the scene. The police were also trying to phone him at the time.

He wasn't presenting a threat, he was presenting the best target the police had had since the 'siege' started. If you are a criminal on a roof, the police will close all the surrounding streets and wait as long as necessary for the man to come down, not doing anything that might cause him to fall. If you are a barrister doing something completely out of character, then a quick end so everyone can go home is preferable.

The programme keeps talking about how our well-trained armed police are the best in the world. So how did two of the firing squad of seven officers miss a sitting target?

Reading the report into the Manchester Arena suicide bomber, it is clear that the mindset of senior officers is completely at odds with dealing with reality and the solution seems to be the odd tweak, here and there and quite a bit more paperwork and protocols (whilst saying it was an important aspect of the response that many strayed from the 'rules' to save lives).

Monday, 26 March 2018

Is Labour Anti-Semitic?

There are numerous, almost unending examples of anti-Semitism at the forefront of the Labour political machine, since Corbyn became leader. Corbyn either doesn't apologise, denies the truth or issues a non-apology apology (as now). So, yes Labour is deeply rooted in anti-Semitism.

Naturally, with such a high profile story affecting the leader of the Opposition, the BBC led with it at lunchtime news. They reported what people were saying and then went to interview their own political correspondent, as is the vogue these days. He skirted around the subject and didn't offer any analysis either, like why people are making the accusation, what the substance was.

In other words, the BBC admit it is an important story, but do their best to just give an anodyne report allowing lefties and those who don't generally pay attention to think it is all hot air and not worth the bother.

Not a huge surprise for an organisation run by rich, dinner-party lefties who are absolutely certain that they know more than you and are better people too.

Tuesday, 20 March 2018

Armed Police - Channel 5

Having written a number of times about armed police incidents, I of course had to watch this programme on Channel 5 last night. I don't know what hopes I had for the programme, but I constantly look for someone to explain about when their operations go smoothly, with outcomes in the control of the officers. Basically, something to confirm their utility in our society and to balance the other stuff we know.

Well, this output from Channel 5 was not the place to seek such enlightenment.

So far, it is a series, we were shown only incidents that are very well known and not always 'successful'. Balance was offered by mentioning an occasion when it went wrong; I'll come back to that. What was the motivation for this piece of television? Did a film maker want to do this, or was it promoted to them as a potential 'puff piece' for the police. It certainly ended up as the latter. Perhaps the police had the final say on what was aired?

Naturally, being about a very serious subject, involving the potential of lives ending, the style was very much sensational. Tabloid TV. Early on, we heard Tony Blair speaking of our 'determination to protect our values', something he worked hard to undermine, not least the rule of law.

Not far in, Tony, an ex-firearms officer explained how the blowing open of a door to a flat, containing two terrorists in 2005, was the 'first operation in UK history to use explosive entry'. Presumably this expert had never heard of the incident at Prince's Gate in 1980, although as that was the SAS, perhaps he meant an operation conducted by the civil power? That was not made clear and is a detail to the general public. It was wrong and gave a wrong impression.

A point is made, dramatically, that the police using a 'circling tactic' to contain the area the bombers were in, having been led to their flat by intelligence. I'm sorry, but the idea that two dangerous men, potentially armed and careless about their own lives, should be surrounded doesn't strike me as the work of a genius. It seems the most basic of ideas and one that has existed forever, I would guess.

To give an example of the terrible way this programme handles such terrifying stories, to sensationalise and titillate for the viewing public, the narrative talks of the police entering a terrorists flat in 2005 and finding him standing in the bath, with a rucksack on his back and a mobile phone in his hand. An unidentified police officer is quoted as saying he formed the opinion that he was going to have to shoot this man. Which seems eminently reasonable,

The pictures switch from the training exercise being shown during the previously mentioned detail, to a thoughtful ex-policeman walking thoughtfully across a flat rooftop (for some reason). The voiceover continues; 'after a violent melee the man was tasered and overpowered'. So not lethally shot then? What strikes me about this is that the officers involved were extremely brave and their tactics perhaps not that clever. To avoid innocent death, I would have accepted an immediate lethal shot would have been the preferred option.

If someone who has already tried to kill people, looks like he is planning to do it again, I would end it, straight away. Basically an action based on decisions he made. I don't think police have a right to shoot first and ask questions after, but I do think that the terrorist, in order to live has the onus placed on him to make himself appear very non-threatening.

However, dangerous terrorist arrested, not dead.

Now we move on to the 'when it goes wrong bit'. This is 'balance'. The mistake was the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, a case of mistaken identity. Which is the first misleading statement, as he was shot because they hadn't identified him, at all. He was  a man and came out of the same block of flats where the terrorist was, whilst the overwatch officer was relieving himself. No-one got a clear view of Jean Charles and he remained unidentified until he was shot.

One of the ex-officers talking to the programme said, he knew 'the two officers who pulled the trigger, the two shooters' and went on to explain that whilst ordinary people would have been getting away, they went towards him. Not sure those two things go together and certainly don't in hindsight.

The curious thing for me is that, I understand that Jean Charles was grabbed, when he was in the Tube carriage, in a bear hug (to prevent him detonating a device and another officer stepped up and shot Jean Charles repeatedly in the head. So, in this instance an unidentified individual was shot and killed presenting no danger (not standing in a bath with a rucksack for instance).

And the manner of the killing is interesting too. It is very much more in the manner of the SAS. They apply a doctrine of 'overkill' to definitely eliminate a threat and quickly - not just dead, very dead. Now  there was talk at the time that the police were receiving training from the SAS, but was the real reason no proper investigation took place and no criticism levelled at senior officers knowingly lying about the incident, because someone had allowed the SAS to take the lead without proper handover from the civil power?

If that were to happen, you would expect lies, lack of investigation and perhaps the promotion of key officers who 'know too much'. The senior officer during the incident was Cressida Dick.

In the strangely dragged out piece about Raoul Moat, when the incident finished with Moat shooting himself surrounded by police, the voiceover says that the police were praised afterwards for the way they handled it. At no point did we see the comedy senior officer, who put herself in front of the cameras as often as possible, talking about 'my officers', nor was mention made that she ordered the deployment of an illegal weapon.

During the hunt for Moat, the officer who was in charge at the time (shown at one point leading a column of armed officers wearing a military style helmet at a jaunty angle, which with his casual clothes, protective 'vest' and firearm, made him look an amateur), spoke about his command. After Moat's car was found in Rothbury, he set teams to search for Moat in the surrounding woods and fields, because he was convinced he was there. Although, it seemed obvious to everyone, surely?

The Lee Rigby murder is covered and again, as we watch the armed police arrive and the murderers run straight at them, the female officer explaining that she feared for her life and shots were fired. Again, the terrorist lives, shot in the leg. Is it only innocent members of the public with chair legs in bags who can hit with kill shots?

I also watched with interest the carefully edited footage of the response to the terrorist attack in Borough market in 2017. Firstly the voiceover tells us the police are armed with handguns and high velocity carbines. Except they are not, some may have rifles, but usually, carbines of lower velocity, which is more appropriate in an urban environment. But research is tedious, no?

Then we see the BMW X5 arriving where officers deploy immediately and open fire. They needed to. No what wasn't shown was that the driver forgot to put the handbrake on and one of the officers falls over as the car rolls forward into them, having run round in front of it. Funny, if the fallen officer didn't then become a target for one of the knifemen. These ones definitely didn't survive. Better tactics overall, led to the conclusion.

The programme is awful and merely a PR piece to convince the public how brilliant the armed police are, when in fact, a balanced objective analysis would more likely suggest that our armed officers are poorly trained, use dire tactics and are very, very badly led. But, undoubtedly very brave individuals. We all deserve better.

Wednesday, 28 February 2018

The Left vs Civilization

It is interesting, I think, in light of Jeremy Cobyn's current twists and turns to get himself into a position to wreck the economy of at least one hated capitalist country, that others of a seemingly lighter touch on the Left did so much more damage.
You will remember when Bill Clinton was the US President and Al Gore his side-kick, or Vice. Bill of course, insisted that banks gave loans to poor people to buy houses they couldn't afford. And in obeying his law he initiated the global economic crisis.

Al had his own plan to destroy Western capitalism (except he actually just used it, to make himself richer). He latched on to the Groupthink project of Global Warming and, as the accomplished snake-oil salesman he is, he spouted utter nonsense which resulted in governments pumping money in to carbon reduction projects and renewable energy.

By pure coincidence, Al was invested in these sorts of projects and has done very well out of it. He is even responsible for the extortionate amount you pay on your energy bills today. To make a few rich people richer.

So yes Jeremy, you not only look, sound and act like a bumbling amateur revolutionary, but that is actually what you are.

Tuesday, 27 February 2018

Jeremy Corbyn -Opportunist

Jeremy Corbyn may have annoyed even Labour voters by his unprincipled U turn on a Customs Union with the EU, but some of them still see him as mainly principled. Can we be clear about this oaf - he is not principled. He is obsessed with schoolboy politics, but no principles.

He wasn't ever a spy, you can be sure of that. I'm pretty sure agents of totalitarian regimes can spot an idiot pretty easily, so yes they could use him, but they would know he couldn't be relied on to know, or be able to find out anything really useful.

Just as it is clear his little gang of thugs (well, not his gang as he doesn't lead them) are taking this stance in the Brexit debate because it suits their aspirations and is an attempt to destabilise the Conservatives. They has given zero consideration regarding the good of the country or its people, which is common to all they do.

They are hardened Marxists, who support other totalitarian regimes and any terrorists that oppose the West. Given the chance, Corbyn and his fellow travellers would turn Britain into a single party state, with no democracy, a secret police to protect them and an economy that would see Venezuela as remarkably competent.

Would be nice if Theresa May realised this, became a Tory and worked for the benefit of the people.

Tuesday, 20 February 2018

Cheddar Man (Gromit)

I have just watched the childish Channel 4 compilation about the DNA-based reconstruction of a 10,000 year old skeleton found in Cheddar Gorge. From the outset, the voice-over was full of portent. We were in for some fundamental shocks, apparently.

Summary; Cheddar Man came from the Middle East, was related to several other skeletons found in Spain, Luxembourg and Hungary and had darker skin than we would have thought. Obviously, whilst traced to the Middle East, originally he will have come from Africa. And the 'relations' being across a wide range means we are more European than British.

Review; Yep, I think that we have believed a migration from the Middle East (probably from Northern India/Persia) for decades. So, not new, not a shock. And a darker skin than we currently have? Why is that a surprise? I'm guessing knowing origins, suggests it quite strongly and it is as irrelevant regarding him as anyone else today.

It seems that the scientists (or just the script writer?) would be shocked to see a dark-skinned person disembarking from an Air Nigeria flight from Lagos. Which accords with how poor they seemed as a crew, being unable to string proper sentences together. They may know their subject, but they obviously didn't pay much attention during their Eng Lang/Lit classes.

For me, hearing there were close DNA relationships with other people right across Europe was interesting because of the spread and why did they spread? But the programme could not get past the politics it wished to project; we are not 'British' (which is a cultural construct, not racial) but 'European' (but held back from pointing out how ridiculous this made Brexit).

Maybe, though, just maybe Cheddar Man didn't know he was 'European' either, but surely paid a fair rate of tax. Our shock at his skin colour would be because we are racist, yes?

And the added, unsupported fact that we all came out of Africa is now being questioned, but not by this programme. They completely ignored the discovery of an 'oldest ever' skeleton in Europe. Where Lucy was found is an ideal, undeveloped part of the world. The fact that the land of much of the rest of the world is unexamined doesn't mean we came form Africa.

Finding old remains there is interesting and the theory may be correct, but as ever, we don't know. Unless you are a cultural Marxist and are desperate, at every turn to state your distaste for Western civilisation.

I'm amazed that, as the programme assumed we couldn't but project modern views onto the past, they didn't also explain that there were no cars or aeroplanes when he was alive.

I particularly enjoyed the guy saying that people migrated to what is now Britain seeking 'living space' (lebensraum), which seemed odd as the entire population was around 12,000. Just seemed an strange thing to say, yet alone the words used!
Could have been an interesting programme, but Channel 4 did it, so it was politically oriented tosh.

Wednesday, 31 January 2018


I see the current fascist leader of the police traffic section thinks that the rate of illegal fining of motorists is not high enough and wants fines imposed as soon as possible, from 1mph of a 'limit'. I wonder if he wears his uniform at home and admires himself in the mirror, wondering how a gun would look with it.

Or if he dreams of strutting out to order his neighbours to do his bidding? He must do really, it fits his undoubted profile. The police like to say 'it's 30 for a reason' and I would ask this Grade A imbecile what exactly that reason is. Oh, he will launch into platitudes about knocking people down at 30 or 40 and maybe reel off facts and figures he had made up specially, but in the end he won't know.

He can't, because a speed was picked arbitrarily, for no other reason than it sounded about right. Now I dislike dangerous speeding as much as the next person, but drifting over a limit is neither here nor there. I will slow down and watch carefully if I see a group of kids playing near the roadside (the police feel such behaviour is beyond drivers), though I could of course maintain 30mph.

I started by saying he wants more revenue and that can be the sole motivator (well, that and the sense of control engendered by cowing the entire population with draconian regulations), as safety is entirely absent. It is well known, even within the state bureaucracy that Safety Cameras actually cause accidents, that such fine control of driving manners, leads to too much observing of speed and less of the road ahead.

In fact, pretty much everything we are told about speed is a pack of lies. Speed Awareness courses are just Marxist re-education programmes to cow a population into a mindset of state control. Pathetic.

The variable speed, smart motorways (that seem designed to kill people) create congestion when they reduce a limit and the congestion clears when the limit is removed. The limit alteration is to cause problems and bring you to realise, who is in control. The freedom enjoyed by the motorist must be curtailed!

Unashamed Children

The silly little girl who led her entourage of similarly immature twerps in protesting about Winston Churchill in a café, leaves you gasping really. Where to start? When I was their age I kinda knew that I was inexperienced at pretty much everything and kept quiet. Now however, students as they like to call themselves have no sense of shame about anything, a huge amount of self-importance and stunted ill-informed political views.

The Left of course, never progress beyond playground politics by definition. Marxist ideology is all immature. Then there is the target, a café. Really? The overthrow of capitalist economic theory starts here comrades. That alone marks her out as a complete fool.

Or the supposed target Churchill, who whilst pursuing his hobby of leading the nation against Nazi aggression, was more committed to oppressing blacks. Are we fortunate that she, uniquely has discovered this?

Of course, it is more likely, as a Marxist that she is more concerned to make the enemy of totalitarianism her enemy. Because the Left is where evil dwells (her, Corbyn, Hitler, Stalin) which means the Right is where people who don't wish to oppress others sit.

The big problem creeping up on us is of course, the likes of Momentum. This organisation and countless others in a similar vein are becoming bolder, more public. They are the proto Brownshirts and they need to be confronted and dealt with before they seize any more power. The slide into totalitarianism can be unnoticed too often as it hides under some uniting principle.

For the Nazis it was a national mood for a greater Germany, here it is a nation falling for the 'equality etc' cooings of people who would do you harm. Having spent decades ensuring the young are as uneducated as possible, through Marxist ideology in schools and colleges, we have a population that overwhelmingly doesn't notice stuff.

Global Warming is an anti-capitalist scam. Why has the public not noticed there is never any open debate about it? Just lists of instructions and increased taxes. The EU is an anti-democratic scam to create the Franco-German empire they repeatedly failed to achieve through violence. Again, no-one notices the lack of debate.

It has been inserted into our thought processes that State control is good, always. So whenever something goes wrong the person in the street interviewed for TV says 'the government should do something'.

The whole country needs to grow up and take more responsibility (which means taking it from Corbyn and his thugs), not just the silly girl in the café.