Sorry, a deliberate headline to infuriate. Did you leap to conclusions, based on your own prejudice? Adrian Elms converted to Islam and as a result of the Muslims he came in contact with (who sought to influence him), drew him to kill innocent people indiscriminately.
He wasn't involved in international terrorism as a senior police officer jumped to judge. He was a Muslim when he decided to murder. But, that doesn't mean Islam is our enemy. It is a religion that has held back many countries around the world, being a faith of political control. Particularly here in the UK, Muslims can join a tolerant society and blend with people of all faiths and backgrounds. Where they choose not to, they allow evil people to use the cover of their religion to harm them and us.
Integration works exceptionally well, placing responsibilities on both sides and requiring an acknowledgement that British values must be shared. Ken Livingstone, despite being keen on creating division to further his political ends, said that Muslim Londoners will be horrified by what happened in Westminster. In correctly so doing, he accidentally agreed that integration was crucial.
Let us not be blinded by a tunnel vision towards communities refusing to integrate and speak English etc, to the failings of people paid to look after us. The Left-liberal weaklings, useful idiots to Marxists trying to undermine Western democracy, have for far too long held sway, fearing to act in a balanced and unbiased way, paving the way to extremist violence.
Tony Blair surrendered to the IRA, so why shouldn't political activists, who also happen to be Muslims, use violence to find another weakling to surrender to them? That they have such limited support that the best they can do is get loners and misfits to do their murderous bidding, is all the proof we need that we are not fighting Islam, but murderers who happen to be Muslims.
What success they have had here to date is massively due to the insidious creep of the Left, destroying our society and capitalism in particular. The weak, lying, scared senior policemen. Politicians who keep saying the 'extreme Right' are a significant threat and that their assertion that Muslims are the enemy is unacceptable. Except there is no real 'extreme Right-wing violence'. No-one who has considered what is happening conflates a killer who is a Muslim, into all Muslims being killers.
Yet this accusation is often repeated by normal people gulled into parroting Marxist tosh, and further reinforces the pathetic policeman in refusing to prosecute crimes by 'minorities'. Instead, they need to be rooting out the people who whisper venom into the ears of the easily confused, turning them into murderers.
Find the base, the root cause and deal with it. But so far the 'authorities' remain in thrall to finding spooks everywhere but hiding within Muslim communities. Where the evil men hide.
Finally, whilst deploring the snowflake generation as they continue their virtue-signalling after atrocities, I do actually think the image of Muslim women standing hand-in-hand on Westminster bridge was quite useful. Pathetic that they should feel they have to do that, but powerful in saying 'Adrian Elms is not one of us'. Which of course, he wasn't.
Monday, 27 March 2017
Brexit, Brexit, Brexit
Question Time is on, that programme designed to answer nothing, but get some soundbites for the BBC's left-wing audience to shout about. Quite late in joining the first thing I see is the rambling comic Salmond, the ex-leader of the SNP who was replaced by someone who isn't so obviously mad. But is. Then there is Keir Starmer, fresh from running the CPS as a political branch of 'justice'. To be fair, he isn't the worst in the debate by a way.
Ooh! Nick Clegg is talking now. Apparently, he wants to stay in an organisation that pays his wife. and him probably, there is of course a massive propaganda fund in the EU.
But anyway, the stunt driven 'Remain' camp keep asking questions they know there is no answer to and then say, 'they haven't got an answer'. What is the EU proposing when we inform them we are leaving? We don't know, they haven't said (for good reason). So why, how could Theresa May have a fully formed plan?
Thankfully no-one asked the clearly deranged Heseltine his view. He is after all, a key player in keeping us in the German empire of the EU, which he turned on its head in his recent muttering. Just be satisfied you knifed your party leader in the back and go away.
But there it is, the Remain camp funded and shouted for by those who benefit from it or are directly paid by it. Why should we (and why do so many scaredy cats) listen to what a bunch of corrupt, anti-democratic, unelected technocrats say? How long should we go on supporting a bankrupt France and allow Germany to impoverish so much of the European continent, to maintain their own economy?
By leaving the EU is Britain really, once again saving Europe from French and German empire builders?
Clegg delivers the Remain bottom line; referendums until we vote to remain. Very EU of him.
Ooh! Nick Clegg is talking now. Apparently, he wants to stay in an organisation that pays his wife. and him probably, there is of course a massive propaganda fund in the EU.
But anyway, the stunt driven 'Remain' camp keep asking questions they know there is no answer to and then say, 'they haven't got an answer'. What is the EU proposing when we inform them we are leaving? We don't know, they haven't said (for good reason). So why, how could Theresa May have a fully formed plan?
Thankfully no-one asked the clearly deranged Heseltine his view. He is after all, a key player in keeping us in the German empire of the EU, which he turned on its head in his recent muttering. Just be satisfied you knifed your party leader in the back and go away.
But there it is, the Remain camp funded and shouted for by those who benefit from it or are directly paid by it. Why should we (and why do so many scaredy cats) listen to what a bunch of corrupt, anti-democratic, unelected technocrats say? How long should we go on supporting a bankrupt France and allow Germany to impoverish so much of the European continent, to maintain their own economy?
By leaving the EU is Britain really, once again saving Europe from French and German empire builders?
Clegg delivers the Remain bottom line; referendums until we vote to remain. Very EU of him.
Friday, 10 March 2017
Portion Police
Well, completely flying in the face of the nannying injunction on the wrapper and risking the introduction of a new fining bureaucracy, I ate all 120 grams of a Nestle Crunch bar (Dairy Crunch before 1992).
Fines are a wonderful thing aren't they? Initially, when justice referred to, well, justice a fine was imposed when a gaol term would too extreme. Invented to deal with crime in a proportionate way.
Today of course the law, as defined by low grade politicians and implemented (interpreted, don't ya know) by pompous Judges is speeding towards total disrepute. If you imprison people, politicians must provide the budget to provide the structure for incarceration.
But a fine, oh my a fine, well that just requires bureaucrats to catch you out (Portion Police) broaching some arbitrary and pointless rule and then the politicians actually raise money! Win, win!
Who cares about proportionate? You can only truly display power if you fly in the face of such constraints. It is almost important to be disproportionate.
If you want to get even more philosophical, I suppose you could consider that the previous belief in proportionality was because the people owned the law and it sought to serve the people. At least it lived as an entity in fear of the people.
Now of course, to fit in with our overlords in Brussels (please God, not much longer) that has had to be turned on its head. To suit the French desire for everyone to have the appalling system their elite have imposed on the people, we have to put state ahead of nation, government before people.
Everything is illegal unless the elite choose to allow it. And bizarrely, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats absolutely love this system. Your watchword can be 'outrageous disregard'.
Fines are a wonderful thing aren't they? Initially, when justice referred to, well, justice a fine was imposed when a gaol term would too extreme. Invented to deal with crime in a proportionate way.
Today of course the law, as defined by low grade politicians and implemented (interpreted, don't ya know) by pompous Judges is speeding towards total disrepute. If you imprison people, politicians must provide the budget to provide the structure for incarceration.
But a fine, oh my a fine, well that just requires bureaucrats to catch you out (Portion Police) broaching some arbitrary and pointless rule and then the politicians actually raise money! Win, win!
Who cares about proportionate? You can only truly display power if you fly in the face of such constraints. It is almost important to be disproportionate.
If you want to get even more philosophical, I suppose you could consider that the previous belief in proportionality was because the people owned the law and it sought to serve the people. At least it lived as an entity in fear of the people.
Now of course, to fit in with our overlords in Brussels (please God, not much longer) that has had to be turned on its head. To suit the French desire for everyone to have the appalling system their elite have imposed on the people, we have to put state ahead of nation, government before people.
Everything is illegal unless the elite choose to allow it. And bizarrely, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats absolutely love this system. Your watchword can be 'outrageous disregard'.
Saturday, 4 February 2017
All You Need To Know About Ken Clarke
Ken Clarke MP(!) is the sort of person you should not trust to hold your ice cream while you tie your shoelaces
Friday, 27 January 2017
Our Tickle 50
Little punning there, sorry, serious subject. Well, to people that understand it!
The people of this country, under a law of 2015 voted to request and require their democratically elected government to withdraw the United Kingdom from the European Union. It is amazing, after years of propaganda, threats of doom from all and sundry, apathy and the general fear that maybe we should cling to nurse for fear of something worse, that we voted to leave.
But we did. And Jeremy Corbyn thinks that is the reason his party should not think it knows better, rather carry out the will of the people. Article 50 of course is an article of an EU treaty. It is the formal way to inform them we are leaving. Some of his MP's think their view more important than the public's though.
But wanting to leave is only something that stupid people and fascists voted for, according to the liberals. Now these are interesting people, because they call themselves liberals, which suggests freedom and tolerance (as it is intended to).
The manifestation though is that they are deeply and often violently intolerant of people having different ideas from them. So, a narrow, dictatorial society is what they are after, as long as the power rests with them.
This is OK though, because they are cleverer than you (clearly, you voted to leave the EU) and are lovely people who would never do you any harm (unless you disagreed with them).
I was trying to think if any country has ever been run on these principles and how it went. Nearest I can come up with is Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, oh and the very similarly structured EU.
The people of this country, under a law of 2015 voted to request and require their democratically elected government to withdraw the United Kingdom from the European Union. It is amazing, after years of propaganda, threats of doom from all and sundry, apathy and the general fear that maybe we should cling to nurse for fear of something worse, that we voted to leave.
But we did. And Jeremy Corbyn thinks that is the reason his party should not think it knows better, rather carry out the will of the people. Article 50 of course is an article of an EU treaty. It is the formal way to inform them we are leaving. Some of his MP's think their view more important than the public's though.
But wanting to leave is only something that stupid people and fascists voted for, according to the liberals. Now these are interesting people, because they call themselves liberals, which suggests freedom and tolerance (as it is intended to).
The manifestation though is that they are deeply and often violently intolerant of people having different ideas from them. So, a narrow, dictatorial society is what they are after, as long as the power rests with them.
This is OK though, because they are cleverer than you (clearly, you voted to leave the EU) and are lovely people who would never do you any harm (unless you disagreed with them).
I was trying to think if any country has ever been run on these principles and how it went. Nearest I can come up with is Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, oh and the very similarly structured EU.
Tuesday, 24 January 2017
Judges Cogitation Over
It was a nice delay wasn't it? The judges 'deciding' on the powers of government. I mean, you know they really thought about it. In a democracy, should the people be allowed a say? Once given a mandate, should a government be allowed to carry it out if they haven't checked with 8 judges first?
Well, no apparently. The delay though was a con. How long do you suppose a group of judges, who are mainly either in the pay of or associated with organisations reliant on the EU, would take to decide that they should interfere in the political process of leaving the EU?
Add to that the fact that judges have for quite a while now felt that they are the pinnacle of decision making in the UK, not parliament. So they could have said 'no' within seconds, but you know, propriety and image requires a delay. Let the idiots think you are serious people.
They should be completely ignored and the government continue with their legal obligation, under an Act of Parliament to withdraw the UK from the EU. Parliament can have all kinds of input in the workings of the process, but informing the EU formally of our intention, Article 50, needs to be triggered immediately. It is only fair on the 27 other member states.
Well, no apparently. The delay though was a con. How long do you suppose a group of judges, who are mainly either in the pay of or associated with organisations reliant on the EU, would take to decide that they should interfere in the political process of leaving the EU?
Add to that the fact that judges have for quite a while now felt that they are the pinnacle of decision making in the UK, not parliament. So they could have said 'no' within seconds, but you know, propriety and image requires a delay. Let the idiots think you are serious people.
They should be completely ignored and the government continue with their legal obligation, under an Act of Parliament to withdraw the UK from the EU. Parliament can have all kinds of input in the workings of the process, but informing the EU formally of our intention, Article 50, needs to be triggered immediately. It is only fair on the 27 other member states.
Monday, 9 January 2017
I Don't Do Groupspeak, So I Need Help
Having never quite grasped why Marxism is the only way to save humanity, which I only base on experience - Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, Cambodia, China, I need some modern stuff explained to me. For instance, Brexit.
Now to me, it seems straightforward. Having succumbed to lies and propaganda way back in the Seventies, we saddled ourselves with a Marxist bureaucracy. Luckily we dodged its worst bits and now have (mostly) awoken to it and elected to leave.
In order to do this, we need to give this club, this institution due notice and that is with something called 'Article 50'. This EU rule says that a member state wishing to leave must invoke Article 50, which gives the EU 2 years to try to talk them out of it. Basically, an opportunity to renegotiate the rules. Or not.
But we have a lot of very disingenuous people asking where is Theresa May's Brexit strategy? What will be her negotiating tactic? Surely (point out where I'm wrong please) her tactic will be to invoke Article 50 "we're offski". And then when the EU negotiates with such things as 'what if we offer to change the shade of blue on the flag?' or 'what about a special handshake?' , you know the usual substantive stuff they come up with, Theresa can say 'No'.
Sounds like a complete strategy to me. I mean, Britain has told its politicians to leave the EU, not just say we are going to and then stay in because they said we could have a cake named after us. What piece of paper could Mrs May come back from Germany waving that would say we should accept a Marxist future?
Not to labour the point, but in Mrs Mays shoes I would just pop over to Brussels, tell them Britain is quitting and leave saying 'let me know when the paperwork is done.'
Obviously, another thing is Global Warming, or Climate Change. Interesting isn't it, how liars change the name of things when people start to realise what they are saying is a crock. Nobody has said there has been no global warming, because there has, recently and repeatedly in the past.
The reason Global Warming morphed into Climate Change was to cover the embarrassment that the temperature hasn't risen since 1997. So, maybe the climate just changes, but it is still our fault, because of all the carbon. Except, they don't mean carbon. Carbon sounds dirty and carbon dioxide doesn't, so they manipulate the language.
But that isn't all it amounts to is it? These Marxists know that you are an imbecile, so it doesn't matter if there is no scientific rigour in what they say, you wouldn't understand anyway. But in fact there can be no scientific rigour in what they say, because then you would know it wasn't true.
Man's emissions are not lovely and we should be producing technology to reduce them, but carbon dioxide emitted by human activity is way too insignificant, on a global scale to affect the climate. They know this but, to use their own phrase 'look where the money is'. Try getting a grant to study why climate change isn't caused by Man, or get a book published by a big publishing house that shows the lie.
No all the money is in government hands and it only goes to the leeches who promulgate the lie. Know why you can't get your bins emptied or roads repaired? Because the councils spend way too much on green crap and other Leftie nonsense no sane person wants. Know why old people die of cold, unable to heat their homes? Because green greed has pushed up prices of energy for no purpose. Wind farms, solar panels? Near to useless and completely barmy if you looked at cost versus return.
Why do you think every 'Green' company squeals like a stuck pig if subsidies are reduced and then go bust. Wind farms only farm taxpayers cash.
National treasure, David Attenborough says that we should not apply the scientific method to Climate Change, it should be illegal to oppose it and no one should be allowed to debate it. Now why would that be? Why should you not even be allowed to talk about it let alone study it? Why should evidence based science be outlawed?
Well, because some have done it, we know for a fact that the ideology of Global Warming is just that, an ideology. It has no basis in fact. It is Attenborough's religion, nothing less. He believes in it as an article of faith.
WWF and all the other Marxist zealots driving the scam are using it to undermine and ultimately to destroy capitalism and with it Western civilisation. Apres la deluge they intend a World government, run by really clever, lovely people (them) and no hint of democracy or return on ambition and hard work.
At least that's what I think. You could point out where I'm wrong, but I guess that would be like providing evidence and I realise we are past all that stuff. So, can I have the change from the £50 I just gave you? What do you mean it was only a tenner? And don't ask for proof. See, I do get it.
Now to me, it seems straightforward. Having succumbed to lies and propaganda way back in the Seventies, we saddled ourselves with a Marxist bureaucracy. Luckily we dodged its worst bits and now have (mostly) awoken to it and elected to leave.
In order to do this, we need to give this club, this institution due notice and that is with something called 'Article 50'. This EU rule says that a member state wishing to leave must invoke Article 50, which gives the EU 2 years to try to talk them out of it. Basically, an opportunity to renegotiate the rules. Or not.
But we have a lot of very disingenuous people asking where is Theresa May's Brexit strategy? What will be her negotiating tactic? Surely (point out where I'm wrong please) her tactic will be to invoke Article 50 "we're offski". And then when the EU negotiates with such things as 'what if we offer to change the shade of blue on the flag?' or 'what about a special handshake?' , you know the usual substantive stuff they come up with, Theresa can say 'No'.
Sounds like a complete strategy to me. I mean, Britain has told its politicians to leave the EU, not just say we are going to and then stay in because they said we could have a cake named after us. What piece of paper could Mrs May come back from Germany waving that would say we should accept a Marxist future?
Not to labour the point, but in Mrs Mays shoes I would just pop over to Brussels, tell them Britain is quitting and leave saying 'let me know when the paperwork is done.'
Obviously, another thing is Global Warming, or Climate Change. Interesting isn't it, how liars change the name of things when people start to realise what they are saying is a crock. Nobody has said there has been no global warming, because there has, recently and repeatedly in the past.
The reason Global Warming morphed into Climate Change was to cover the embarrassment that the temperature hasn't risen since 1997. So, maybe the climate just changes, but it is still our fault, because of all the carbon. Except, they don't mean carbon. Carbon sounds dirty and carbon dioxide doesn't, so they manipulate the language.
But that isn't all it amounts to is it? These Marxists know that you are an imbecile, so it doesn't matter if there is no scientific rigour in what they say, you wouldn't understand anyway. But in fact there can be no scientific rigour in what they say, because then you would know it wasn't true.
Man's emissions are not lovely and we should be producing technology to reduce them, but carbon dioxide emitted by human activity is way too insignificant, on a global scale to affect the climate. They know this but, to use their own phrase 'look where the money is'. Try getting a grant to study why climate change isn't caused by Man, or get a book published by a big publishing house that shows the lie.
No all the money is in government hands and it only goes to the leeches who promulgate the lie. Know why you can't get your bins emptied or roads repaired? Because the councils spend way too much on green crap and other Leftie nonsense no sane person wants. Know why old people die of cold, unable to heat their homes? Because green greed has pushed up prices of energy for no purpose. Wind farms, solar panels? Near to useless and completely barmy if you looked at cost versus return.
Why do you think every 'Green' company squeals like a stuck pig if subsidies are reduced and then go bust. Wind farms only farm taxpayers cash.
National treasure, David Attenborough says that we should not apply the scientific method to Climate Change, it should be illegal to oppose it and no one should be allowed to debate it. Now why would that be? Why should you not even be allowed to talk about it let alone study it? Why should evidence based science be outlawed?
Well, because some have done it, we know for a fact that the ideology of Global Warming is just that, an ideology. It has no basis in fact. It is Attenborough's religion, nothing less. He believes in it as an article of faith.
WWF and all the other Marxist zealots driving the scam are using it to undermine and ultimately to destroy capitalism and with it Western civilisation. Apres la deluge they intend a World government, run by really clever, lovely people (them) and no hint of democracy or return on ambition and hard work.
At least that's what I think. You could point out where I'm wrong, but I guess that would be like providing evidence and I realise we are past all that stuff. So, can I have the change from the £50 I just gave you? What do you mean it was only a tenner? And don't ask for proof. See, I do get it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)