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.

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'.

Immigration And Benefits

QT was sensationally bad last night with Dimmo seemingly unable to control the rabble he had assembled. And everyone except Farage sounded strangely mute on any subject. The pointless rich person, Polly Toynbee was not as feisty in support of some patently unsupportable nonsense. And she also, again, failed to mention that she works for a company that avoids paying UK tax.

Farage seemed to get a good reaction to a number of his points, except on immigration. Here one young chap went virtually bonkers at Farage who had said that EU immigrants qualify for immediate benefits. Mr Outraged in the audience said he was employed in the housing benefit industry (not how he put it) and Farage was wrong. He insisted, he shouted, he repeated it several times.

Now, possibly he is partly right, but late last year the EU told Britain to offer benefits to EU nationals immediately and Brussels are in charge after all. So I think the UKIP man, making an anti-EU point was actually right in his assertion. But then the man in the audience was probably more politically motivated than personally concerned with factual accuracy. Indeed, several of those who spoke from the audience seemed to be public sector workers. Who would have thought, in a QT audience?

It was also odd that Grayling, who I believe had a remit that might give an insight into benefits, kept quiet.

What I can't understand is that people keep squealing about cuts, as if government spending was a manifest good in itself. If we get rid of 90%+ of the Quango's no one would notice, but a bunch of bureaucrats would be unemployed. If we got rid of the disgusting overseas 'aid' budget, people would lose their jobs. If we got rid of gay and lesbian 'outreach' workers, no harm would be done but people would be unemployed.

These things are true and I'm sorry for anyone losing their job, but if it shouldn't have existed in the first place and when we can't afford it, what choice is there? Overall, public sector employment harms an economy, though some of that has to be accepted. If we get rid of the dead wood, we would be in a much better position.

If, for instance we left the EU and completely forgot the Climate Change scam, then the UK would recover in a very short time. It is because we will not end these idiotic policies and practises that we are doomed to an austere future, for as far as we can see. And still the Left want to support and extend the harm they do!

Britain In 2011

As the year comes to a close Britain finds itself in an interesting situation. In an attempt to prove we can rise above the chaos all around comment is made of Britain's historic virtues, its national character and the 'been here before, survived' creed. Whilst this is all historically true, it is not so now. The British character has been eroded and dissolved, from within and without. What has happened? We must go back a little way.

Tony Blair is a strange man. He is not a megalomaniac though some of the signs were there. He stopped short of seizing power for absolute control, merely grabbing what he needed to ensure his tenure was as untrammelled as possible; he did not want power where responsibility would also come into play, he was in love with the wealth of power. Tony Blair did not have traffic lights changed as his escorted entourage traversed London, to speed his way. He was only interested in the effect it generated; that it proclaimed him a great man.

Blair claimed to have felt the hand of history on his shoulder, though it was actually his imagining that the thing he craved was happening. Blair wanted a legacy, something for which he would be remembered for all time, such as a great man should. He also went about his acquisition of wealth with an ambition and drive that only a venal man with a greedy wife behind can. Blair saw in the writings of his namesake, George Orwell, a manifesto for his own greatness. That he should find a Squealer who so exactly fitted the role, in every way, was magnificent.

Whilst this utter weakling and his chosen, even weaker placemen, formed a government, the march of the Left continued. All academe, much of the Judiciary and almost all the media was beholden to the ideology of the Left. No amount of evidence could convince them of anything contrary to their thoughts. This Left ideology despised Britain and its culture; it had to be destroyed. Key to this was the undermining of religious belief and the established norms of family life. (Look at the truly Orwellian statement of the Left liberal Nick Clegg recently, that no-one would want to go back to the Fifties. A time of honesty, hope, low criminality and social cohesion underpinned by the traditional family unit).

So we found ourselves as the close of the Twentieth Century approached, in the hands of a man who sought personal enrichment as his overweening principle and goal, at a time when the institutions were in need of strong leadership and control. Now was not the time to drift. But a sudden acceleration of agendas set by activist homosexuals and the continuing entrenchment of racism by the race industry, was promoted by elements of the Blair government such as Mandelson. The aim being not to offer succour to these people as much as to undermine those who would naturally question actions taken in support of such moves.

We were to forget the real past and imagine that 1997 was Year 1. Immigration was allowed to pass unchecked to destroy British jobs at the lower level, to break the cohesion of British society and to change the culture. It was loudly shouted that these newcomers must be allowed to keep their own 'culture' and ways here. To ask them to speak English was absurd we were told. If they want Sharia law what of it? If they live in enclaves and die under gangmasters and councils and shops print in their languages, then who should speak against it?

Greed became good, because otherwise there would be something wrong with Tony Blair. Each person should consider themselves above all others, should consider their own welfare first. This has manifested itself in many ways, from the 'don't criticise me' binge drinking to the riots of the summer, when the trainer seeking youth decided they could take what they wanted with impunity and rain wasn't forecast (always a riot killer, so intent on their cause are they).

Corporations, with banks in the lead started to do very strange things, not least allowing executives to be hired on packages that included bonuses whether they succeed or fail. Only a very corrupted society could let that pass. Senior officers in every course of government life became useless and detached, adhering to political correctness and Left ideology against sense and role. Hence senior fire officers consider a rescue successful if they get a person out of their predicament, even if dead through their inaction.

And so it is. Britain is a denuded, despised country, with self loathing causing much of the misery, assailed by external enemies smelling weakness and challenged by new economic realities that we will not rise to challenge, because we must shackle ourselves to a corrupt regime of totalitarian ideas, across the narrow sea. Britain can do it, can win against this sea of insanity, but as Britons, with allies of many nations, who all subscribe to a similar view of decency and courage, of selflessness and of community. People together, against those weighed down by heavy chains of guilt and ideology, some bad governments others malicious activists for harm. If Cameron were a Conservative, 2012 could be the year, as things stand perhaps it won't be.

Though politicians of every stripe should be aware that people will not stand idly by forever.

Border Controls

I have to say that Theresa May would have less problem with Immigration if her government had a strong policy on the subject, otherwise I do have some sympathy. The nit running the Border Agency, seems like the head of the CPS to think his appointment is of a political nature and he should make policy decisions himself. He has said that the problem goes back to 2008, so I wonder if the idiot Cooper, calling for full disclosure of all relevant documentation should really be so keen.

New Labour of course, famously decided that we didn't need border controls and checks on people working here could be performed by recruitment agencies and employers. I hear today as well, that Yvette Cooper has called on May to tell the truth, which kind of implies she has been lying up to now. Hardly polite speech and I would have thought a liar would have been seen as a kindred spirit, very New Labour.

I remember being told years ago that checks on non EU nationals were not being carried out fully, by order, so people could openly lie about qualifications and family resident in the UK, to obtain permission to come to Britain. So it is nothing new and not confined to EU nationals.

Why do politicians make the simple job of maintaining a national definition, so hard?

BBC

Sorry to bang on about the BBC, but last night I watched a programme that was going to explain why immigrants come to the UK, despite all the difficulties and dangers and then a bit of Newsnight. I don't usually watch Newsnight because I never thought of it as a serious, intelligent programme.

The programme on immigrants was amazing, not least because the one thing it didn't try to investigate or answer was why they come here. We saw how easy corruption abroad makes it for them to start their journey. We saw how they are then pray to criminals and the weather, dying in the Saharan heat or the cold of Europe. These were terrible stories, but the BBC didn't dig, they didn't think through what they were seeing, not least because the surface gloss (their hardships and the wealth of the West) immediately conformed to their ideological image. These travellers know all about Europe and how to get there (and where), they know about the smugglers and it is clear they have a pretty good appreciation of the stupidity of EU laws. What they didn't appear to know was that the criminals they paid might cheat or harm them. Those stories apparently never make their way back. Normally we would be harsh and critical of mothers who put their children in harms way, but an African woman weeping about her rape and the interference with her 4 year old daughter was included only to gain pity. Why was she there, why was she putting her child in such danger? Because the West waves a goal at her that she thinks makes it worthwhile. That should be our shame.

Afghans were shown, almost exclusively young males, proud that all they had with them was the equivalent of £3. Now, if you think of the newsreel images of refugees in the second world war, you see people with prams and handcarts bundled high with their possessions, old men and women struggling to save their lives. But in Afghanistan, things are so bad only the young men leave home and with nothing, no clothes, no food, no money. And they are careful to avoid taking anything with them. Why should they? Europe apparently will house, clothe and feed them. Then they can get a 'job'. They were shown wailing about the lack of facilities and the BBC joined them lamenting the lack of care of the rich West. Presumably we should have enough housing and food stockpiled, just in case the whole world decides to pop over for a visit. The BBC seems to be a shamefully ignorant organisation. The left-liberal bias they spin everything with, doesn't fully explain why this important subject was so badly handled. It was plain that most of these immigrants had a fantastic sense of entitlement and were genuinely confused as to why, in another country they cannot be handed free, vastly more than they could achieve at home. One said he had no choice but to leave Afghanistan, but that he had been so badly treated in Europe that he now just wanted to go back.  I thought he had 'no choice? It doesn't occur to these people that the West is more advanced than them not least because, many years ago and in a continuing pattern, Europeans fought for better conditions and opportunities in their own countries. Yet here we are faced with our soldiers fighting and dying for the freedom of Afghans and they neither assist to improve their lot, nor feel they should be burdened with that responsibility. In Africa it is the corruption and brutality of 'leaders', in Afghanistan and the like it is that they are stuck in the Middle Ages and Islam doesn't help, as it is the same.

So, was Newsnight a breath of fresh intellectual air. Nope, it was the usual left-liberal stuff and nonsense. Apparently, sunspot activity is decreasing and this means less energy will reach the Earth. So what of Global Warming? Well, at this point any suggestion that this was a reasoned view evaporated. The intention was to bolster the theology, not allow it to be mocked. Due to 'greenhouse gases' we may heat up more slowly but it will still be dangerous and of course, when the Sun is back up to strength we will be devastated. To back this up we dropped the plural (green house gases) and decided it was all due to carbon (meaning carbon dioxide) and us. The reason they drop to the singular is that of course, water vapour is by far the most active 'greenhouse gas'. Yes, clouds.

Further evidence was obtained from an expert who supports AGW, a member of the IPCC and an in-studio guest who was from Greenpeace. Very balanced. Just to show they know what they are talking about a mention was made of when sunspot activity was low previously; in the 1600's when we had 'frost fairs' on the Thames. They picked this of course because it was pre industrial revolution Britain. But the weather was severe in the 1800's with the Thames freezing repeatedly. Oh dear, can't mention that, stick to the Climatic Research Unit's tactics and hide anything that gives the game away. Mention was made, to secure the point that the AGW religionists are right, of the 'computer models'. These are the ones that cannot get next week's weather right but can be totally relied on to predict it 100 years in the future. No really, they are. Models that tell us to destroy our economy. Now where have I heard that before? Oh yes, the anarchists and dreamers who talk of destroying capitalism and living as one with nature.

They even started the much more dangerous talk of attempting to affect weather with mirrors, or pumping chemicals into the atmosphere. Man isn't currently doing enough to damage the climate but these loons want to. The level of threat they represent is ratcheting up. But do the BBC notice? Are they capable of so doing? Clearly, not.