Government

We supposedly live in a Constitutional democracy here in Britain, with representative government. But who do the government represent? We are used to people accusing Cameron of only caring about the rich, or Miliband, the Unions, but that is not really true is it.

These unpleasant people, for that is a true description is it not, only represent themselves and their own narrow interests for power and personal wealth. I think that the feeling in Britain and the disdain for and contempt in which the general public is held by politicians, is very similar to the situation in America before Independence.

We may not signify disgust by tipping tea into the Thames, it may be something a little closer to 'the body politic'. If our politicians continue to regard themselves as above the law, in league with the sovereign power in Brussels, then this will come to pass.

Middle Lane Madness

The tax collectors, known as the police here in Britain have hit on a new wheeze. People who 'hog' the middle lane are to be subjected to an instant fine, when in the personal opinion of a police officer, targeted to raise a certain amount of revenue (or issue tickets as they call it), you have stayed too long in the centre lane of a motorway.

Lots of people can be found to agree with this policy, often describing themselves as people who drive regularly, long distances on motorways. But what exactly are they complaining about? Well, in my 25 years plus of using motorways, I'll tell you how often I have seen someone driving slowly for no reason, in lane 2; never.

Helpfully Sky News have shown a police patrol pulling someone over 'hogging' lane 2. He clearly was guilty as accused because there was only one other car, in lane 1, for miles. He had gone past this car and stayed in lane 2. Outrageous. He was pulled over for a chat. The police you see can only give advice because to do anything else would take too long, so an instant bit of paperwork is, as ever to a bureaucracy, a god send.

Like 'safety cameras' at 'accident blackspots' they are not intended just to raise funds. No one is supposed to ask why an accident blackspot isn't improved to alleviate the danger.

For the police and the government of course, you making a decision about how best to safely drive in any given circumstance is an abomination. You are out of control.

So back to our chap on Sky News, now having a chat in the extremely dangerous environment of the hard shoulder. The police I guess were saying there was absolutely no other traffic around so he had no reason to stay in lane 2. This is true, but begs the question, what harm was he doing? There was, after all, no other traffic around.

The other people who face a difficult question that they do not want to be asked is, these people doing 70mph in lane 2 are 'in your way' how? Presumably these righteous, much safer drivers are outraged that they should be forced to move to lane 3, a dangerous manoeuvre as any lane change is, to maintain their 95mph plus progress.

What of course the police are accidentally going to promote is a fear of being caught even momentarily in lane 2 when, perhaps it could be claimed you shouldn't be. So overtaking the speed limited, slowly accelerating traffic, lorries and such in lane 1 will require frequent lane changes, pulling in behind a vehicle doing 60mph, then trying to seek a gap in lane 2 to pull out and accelerate back up to 70.

Timid people who, given the responsibility for their driving usually do OK, will be cowed by into understanding that they are not allowed to make decisions and that any straying into lane 2 may attract a fine. Will they for instance be even more reluctant to move over to let traffic join from slip roads? And our important frequent drivers will still assume that, as they have indicated their intention to join from a slip, they will continue the manoeuvre, cause an accident and blame 'lane 1 hoggers'.

The police are cynically using the views, all be it of a large number, of bad drivers to support a ridiculous grab at power and government pleasing money. I presume they consult criminals about prison reform.

Oh Go On David, Tell The Truth

David Cameron has found himself painted into a corner. First he didn't want any discussion of the EU whatsoever. It is a non-democratic institution along Marxist lines, who is going to vote for that (while we are allowed)?

Then he had to give a 'cast iron' guarantee that he would give us a referendum, which turned out to be anything but cast iron and failed to materialise. Then, with the eurozone going breasts uppermost, he had to actually promise one, far in the future and only if we elect him again and then finally to have a law requiring it. He could do without this you know.

David Cameron loves the EU. He couldn't explain why to you, as it only causes harm to little people, like you. He wants to be a good EU apparatchik and ignore the people, but we still have some semblance of democracy, so he has to appear to care what you think. Consequently, he tells you he is going to renegotiate our terms of membership with that nasty EU Commission.

And if they won't play ball, we will have an in/out referendum. But they will give in, he assures us. Funny that. There is only one mechanism by which he can possibly negotiate with his EU masters and that is by invoking Article 50. But he hasn't mentioned that, ever.

He hasn't told you about it, he hasn't explained what it is, or threatened 'Europe' with it. He just hasn't brought it up at all. Yet it is the negotiating tool. Why hasn't he mentioned it? Do you think he might be lying again? That he has no intention of negotiating anything, nor leaving the EU under any circumstances? Shirley Knot.

Protecting Britain

Recent events have shown up that Britain is pretty much defended along the hope and trust basis. Planning, resource provision and competence are in question.

Ten minutes out from landing at Manchester airport a Pakistani airliner has two men try to break into the cockpit, possibly muttering threats, according to reports. The pilot needs to take that seriously and what is anyone supposed to do? You have to get the plane down and deal with the men in as a remote a location as possible. Such a facility is available at Stansted.

But why would these man just allow themselves to be arrested because they couldn't hijack the plane if they were terrorists? But what else can you do when the plane lands than go on board? So trapped by the special circumstances of an aeroplane, you have limited options across the whole scenario. Of course the assault team has to be trained in storming an aircraft.

Are Essex police so trained? How many police in the UK are? When de Menedes was killed, grabbed in a bear hug to prevent any bomb activation moves and shot repeatedly in the head it seemed more likely to be the work of special forces, rather than police. But the claim is they were police officers.

What then are the measures we are aware of, to protect the UK from terrorism (we know the Royal Navy is not designed or equipped to protect our shores)?

Well, as we saw, when a 300 ton plus aircraft is considered a danger a quick reaction jet is sent to intercept and escort it. If a real danger becomes apparent our only option is to shoot the airliner down, hopefully over open countryside. After that it is our para military police. If something develops of an on-going nature then the military can be deployed and the SAS have trained for certain eventualities.

Should we not have a more advanced and integrated response prepared though? Military helicopters could be useful and the extra fire power and dedication to killing their targets of soldiers, more appropriate in certain situations. Whilst an Apache might be scary, it is probably too powerful for any domestic problem, but if area containment was important, circling Lynx with pintle mounted machine guns would be a definite deterrent.

It is unfortunate, but any incident which is 'terror' related (eg the assailant is likely to not behave rationally, nor be concerned for his own life) then overwhelming lethal force needs to be available as quickly as possible, to reduce or eliminate the threat and to form a containment. None of this seems to be understood nor in place currently. The government and the police can only brag about operations where they have had time to plan and organise.

Whenever they have to react to fast moving circumstances they are found wanting in some way. They either shoot first and ask questions later (while they cook their stories) or they absent themselves. We have a right to know why training of police firearms officers, which allegedly says that shots are aimed at the bulk of the mass, the torso, leads to the fatal shooting of an innocent man with a chair leg in a bag (hit in the hand and head) when two dangerous, armed murderers were shot in the legs, as at Woolwich. The police say eight rounds were fired and the audio of the shots was very interesting, particularly the gaps.

We wait to hear more, but one thing is plain. The government have no intention of being deviated from its course of supporting terrorism through the ring-fenced foreign aid budget, nor taking any effective action at home. To do so would be contrary to the Left ethos of undermining Western society, to which our political class cleave.

Arrogance

Peter Tatchell was playing his games last night on QT and talking crap, but the Left educated audience lapped it up. Ah, for the days when thinking for yourself was valued. First let us establish that the audience was programmed in its responses. To the violent, barbaric murder of an innocent they asked the question, what do we expect people to do when we have the foreign policies we have?

Well, our foreign policy is a mess and is today an echo of the empty headed government of Blair and his monkeys. But it was intended to oppose the barbarians such as we saw on our streets, in their homelands. We just didn't do it too well. That is what happens when you give a serious job to someone who likes the idea of a job, but not its content.

Interestingly, we are less resolute about dealing with the barbarians here. Anyway, it is clear that the question from the audience member was idiotic and could only really been seen as a support for the murderers. I'm sure that is not what was meant, but when you chant Left mantras that are very much the vogue these days, that is what you end up saying.

So, their keenness to applaud Tatchell was partly due to his artfulness, partly not paying attention and partly indoctrination - going with fashion. It was stated by Ian Paisley that he thinks marriage is for families and so irrelevant to same sex couples who have civil partnerships, which covers the issue of legal relationship. Marriage is for children and their upbringing.

Dimmo of course needed to undermine this entirely sensible and clear view, so quoted comments of Paisley's where he had said that sex between people of the same gender disgusted him and needled him to explain how this fits with what he just said. Well, it fits exactly. I'm sure if you are a man and you 'fancy' women, the idea of sex with a man would 'disgust' you, indeed offend you. This is OK though. Whilst 'causing offence' is currently one of the greatest crimes you can commit, it is OK if you are offending heterosexuals or the Christian faith.

This is a view apparently that is not allowed. You are not allowed to think such thoughts. Tatchell then pulled his master-stroke  he said that by supporting marriage for just heterosexual couples he was living in the past, that was not traditional, it was old fashioned. The audience loved it and applauded so hard their iphones nearly fell out of their pockets. Tatchell of course, was conflating not liking the idea of men having sex with opposing the right for homosexuals to exist. Dimmo helped this view along, but it was not even nearly what Paisley had said. Truth and the Left however, are not frequent bedfellows.

Tatchell had not produced a killer political point, undermined an argument, proved a falsehood in his opponents argument. No he had done something much more important, he had appealed to fashion and who will not pay any price to be seen as 'in fashion'. It is dreary to have to point out that marriage is itself something of an old fashioned idea. Indeed has not the Left used homosexuals to promote the destruction of marriage and families? So Tatchell supports one old fashioned idea but not another. Oh dear, the inconsistency, the hypocrisy. Never mind, its not important, its Left wing political manoeuvring.

Tatchell then went on to talk more self evident crap, when he offered to level the playing field he had himself disturbed by suggesting heterosexuals should not be denied the option of civil partnerships! Clearly, it is not what you say, but the way you say it.

I reserve my greatest outrage with homosexuals though, for the deliberate harm they do to children. They do it solely for the most selfish of reasons. This demand that they should be able to buy the children they cannot naturally procure. I say buy, because they are viewed by the state as eligible not just for political reasons, but through being able to afford to raise them.

Consider the boy given to two men. We will say the adoption was enacted when he was a baby, so he knows nothing else and we will assume that the couple fall in the statistically unlikely group of homosexuals who stay together. (And we will certainly assume that the adults find adults attractive and leave the boy alone, just as heterosexuals can adopt without interfering with the child).

The boy however is not biologically prone to homosexuality. He will be subjected nevertheless, to images at home of homosexual behaviour. How will he relate to other boys at school who are heterosexual? Where does his sense of relationship build from? When he meets a girl, how will she react to being taken home, to an environment she cannot understand? Will the boy attempt to be homosexual to please his 'dads'? Will he feel he has let them down if he dates a girl? Will they project feelings of dejection if he isn't homosexual?

This is also to ignore the simple way kids address blatant, rank stupidity by laughing at it. A family of homosexuals is not like a man and a woman who cannot have children for medical reasons. It is a state of being that they have created intentionally, knowing that children are not possible (though perhaps there should be a law banning only heterosexuals from being able to procreate). Yet the demand to 'have' children to 'normalise' their 'marriage' is paramount. Or political to an outside observer.

Marriage was devised to build a family unit for raising children, love didn't really enter into it, so this modern argument is nice, but if you use it to undermine a working system, you are just stupid. And as for homosexuals who want it all, marriage, kids the whole thing - grow up.

As for the QT audience? Well, the Left have ensured that they are as uneducated as possible and promote issues of fashion instead. A nation that worries about its hair and nails, reads Hello and follows drippy 'love everybody' political notions. So while you pay no attention things are done to destroy the capitalist society that has served you so well, to be replaced by an elite in power for ever. And a key part of that is to destroy marriage and the family unit, the basis of our society.

Woolwich - The Response

Politicians rush to the airwaves not just to show sympathy but to anxiously call for calm. What they fear you see is that the general public might one day become tired of such attacks as these and demand protection. This the politicians are unwilling to provide as it contradicts the ideology they cleave to.

And the politicians also are quick to say that these people did not represent Islam or the contribution it makes to this country. There of course is the most obvious aspect of their lies. Islam contributes nothing to this country but harm

Fraser Nelson at The Spectator has reproduced tweets from 'Muslims' who say that this is not done in their name and it is not a part of Islam to murder like this. But these are successful, integrated people, decent upstanding and sometimes not even Left wing, so they are Muslims in the same way I am Christian. I kind of hold to the values but in no way am actively involved.

I don't go to church, but for family events. No religious leaders from Islam, no heads of Madrassa's have appeared and said it is against Islam. The reason why is because they collude.The murderers yesterday did it in support of their agenda and objectives. Those objectives are echoed by the theocracy of Islam.

What we in the West don't understand is how different it is. Because we see Islam as a 'religion' and thus in the light of the religion we know, Christianity we completely misunderstand what is going on. Islam is not a religion in reality, it is a political construct and uses a branching of much of the Judeo-Christian beliefs. Muslims have the same God and acknowledge Jesus as a Prophet but try to promote their own in the hierarchy by claiming that the Koran was the literal word of God.

Islam relies on the tribal society of the medieval arabs to survive as a totalitarian government, using 'the literal word of God' to keep the people in thrall. Any true modernisation threatens their grip.

If we claim to have invaded countries to support the ordinary people, we were at the same time opposing the political side of Islam. Clearly the politicians don't understand this as helping the little people abroad fits with allowing multiculturalism here, allowing Islam to thrive, whilst it is opposing the state that it sits in.

This is why I say we must act, not against everyone who says they are a Muslim, but those who support the theocracy of Islam. Enormously dangerous people like Yvette Cooper say that we shouldn't let this attack divide us, but what she means is that she will continue to support the right of those who attack us to do so. She says to react to their violence is to give in to their plan. What like fighting Hitler was the wrong thing to do?

As for Cameron, he was talking these sorts of words about 'us' and 'we' but what I actually heard was 'I can assure everyone that No10 is quite well protected with gates and everything. I travel in armoured cars with armed guards. You have nothing to fear if nothing is done'.

Islam Is A Failure

When people were blown up on Tube trains and a bus, it seemed a terrible thing and we were shocked, but there is something fundamentally different about yesterday's attack in Woolwich. The barbarity was beyond belief. For people who, generally live a 'live and let live' existence it is incomprehensible. That human beings feel able to do such things, deliberately and calmly to a complete stranger is outside human experience. Only the insane and animals are capable of such acts, surely? And yet here they are, amongst us.

To confront this, to deal with it we have decided on weakness. We have given in to the mad demands of a foreign cult and asked them not to hurt us. This cowardice is exactly what the enemy despise about Western society and confirms, in their madness their actions.

Our weakness is not only to surrender to violence in the same way Tony Blair did with the IRA, but also to the Left as it uses any and all means to destroy our capitalist society. Multiculturalism was designed specifically to allow this kind of attack. The Left were aware that it would cause great upset and ghettoisation of groups. This was exacerbated by the racial 'equality' laws which were always anti-white and highlighted difference, in case you forgot.

As social workers are trained to only see child protection as a way to use children as a tool against capitalism, so the Left uses every means to destroy the Britain of note, the remarkable country that we love. Now they see that the violence that so often accompanies a tyranny with no popular support, is likely to come from extreme Muslims. This is why civilised Muslims need to stand up to them.

Whilst Christianity has done precisely the same thing in the form of the Crusades, that was in a very different time and over 900 years ago, and even then as a reaction against Muslim invasions that got as far as France and Spain. That Islam has got stuck in that age is ridiculous and holds back those countries in its thrall. Moderate Christian thought has subsequently led to great advances in the West and a peaceable attitude. The objection of the nutters like yesterday is that the West have attacked their 'brothers' in Iraq and Afghanistan.

By our own standards these were very poor decisions by some very disreputable people, like Blair and Campbell. However, at root the action was to support the ordinary people against violent bullies; in Afghanistan these are the Taliban. Of course, these bullies are Muslims and so blameless, apparently!

This strange religion, attached as it is to the Christian faith, claims that the Koran is the literal word of God (as the Bible doesn't claim to be), spoken to Mohammed and written down many years after his death. Certainly Mohammed was struggling to get his ideas of religion accepted by any real community and had to go into hiding from his enemies, who wanted to kill him.

When he emerged from the desert he was suddenly able to gain converts and his following swelled. Once powerful enough he used this force to do the religious thing and attacked and killed his enemies. His followers believed that they lived special lives and that life should be frozen in the Middle Ages. Except for anything they want. Like TV, porn, drugs, alcohol, guns, bombs, cars, everything really except that men are in charge, women do what they are told and criticism means death.

More a theological version of communism really.So, we need to treat this seriously at last and require the Muslims and the Left to shape up or ship out. And not let up until it is done.


On a separate note, it was disappointing that the armed police (who took a strangely long time to get to the incident) shot and wounded these men, rather than being able to kill them. A man with a chair leg in a bag is shot dead, but real criminals get wounded. Ending these animals lives would have been so much better too, than the ridiculous trial our Left wing judges will 'subject' them to with prison sentences at the end of it. Or a caution if the Met Commissioner had his way perhaps.