Today is New Year's Eve and this evening the local bell ringers will gather at about 11:30pm to ring out the old year and ring in the new, a tradition which has been in place for centuries.
We will start ringing with the bells half-muffled, that is a leather pad will be fitted on one side of the clapper so that ringing the bells will produce the normal 'bright' sound on one stroke followed by the muffled sound on the other, almost like an echo. This is normally done when ringing for funerals or on such occasions as Armistice day and, as on this occasion, to mourn the passing of the old year. At a few minutes to the hour the ringing will stop so that someone can go up the tower and remove the muffles. Then at midnight the tenor bell ringer will ring the twelve strokes followed immediately by the rest of the bells, now free from their muffles, to welcome the new year.
The ringers usually manage to welcome in the new year with a small tot of something suitable along with perhaps a mince pie before retiring to our homes.
I wish everyone a happy, safe and prosperous new year.
Thursday, 31 December 2015
Wednesday, 30 December 2015
Foreign Aid and Refugees
We have had huge numbers of 'refugees' and 'asylum seekers' entering this country in the past few years. I use the inverted commas because I believe that few truly fit into either category and that the majority are economic migrants simply seeking a better life in this country. Cameron's one sensible move in this respect was to say that any quota of refugees that we accept must come directly from the refugee camps in the Middle East, in Jordan or in Lebanon. At least that way there is a better chance that they are genuine refugees.
The question which then needs to be asked is how the country is to pay the costs of these new arrivals. Information from Germany seems to indicate that in spite of claims made by many left wing commentators that these refugees are largely from the educated middle classes, practical experience shows that the majority are poorly educated and that many can't read and write. Hence the assumptions that they will be able to work in other than basic labouring type jobs is clearly incorrect.
So where does Foreign Aid come into the picture? I would argue that all the costs attributable to these refugees should be considered to be part of the Foreign Aid budget until such a time as the families become self supporting and taxpayers. It is just as much foreign aid supplying them with housing, benefits, education and medical facilities here in the UK as it would be if we spent the money in their countries of origin providing such facilities.
You have only to look at the huge numbers involved.
Take for example the Somali Community in this country. According to the ONS it has a collective unemployment rate of some 82%; the latest government figures, if you believe them, suggest there are some 104,000 Somalis in this country. Think of the cost; the job seekers allowance can be as much as £72 per week which will cost some £300 million, without taking into account child benefits and their housing costs. Add to that the costs of health, through the NHS, and education, through local councils, both of which will be, per capita, considerably higher than for British born residents and the the totals become unquantifiable, largely because no-one in government wants to do the calculation! Informed guesses suggest the overall cost of just this one community is probably in the region of £1.5 billion p.a.
Then we come to the 'Asian' community as it is called in media speak. Comprising essentially those from Pakistan and Bangladesh (countries which are not normally mentioned by name), there are considerably more in this Asian Community than in the Somali Community. It is said that the unemployment rate amongst non-UK born ethnic 'Asians' is again of a similar order and of those who are working, many are are collecting in-work benefits. No doubt these include the woman standing outside our local Waitrose 'selling' the Big Issue, although I've never actually seen anyone buy a copy. But presumably she claims to be working! I hesitate to even guess a figure for this group, but I would suggest is it several times as much as the Somali Community mentioned above.
To these must be added all the immigrants from places like Nigeria, Tunisia and other African countries as well as the Syrians and Turks. Whether we should count in addition all the East Europeans, particularly those from Romania and Bulgaria is arguable as they are from within the EU and should have been expected by the government when they agreed to allow freedom of movement!
The overseas aid budget is now set to rise to £16 billion per annum and if you try to do the maths, it seems reasonable that you might conclude that it would just about cover the cost of all these economic migrants arriving in this country. So at present we are paying, not only for foreign aid abroad, but also a similar sum in aid to support the ever rising tide of immigrants. I would suggest that this is not an amount that we can afford without significant cuts elsewhere or general tax increases.
It is interesting to note from 'The Local' that Germany is expecting to spend €17 billion (£12.7 billion) on refugees in 2016, double the figure for this year.
And don't get me onto our extra security and policing costs brought about by potential terrorists and other criminals hiding amongst these immigrants; Germany believes that probably one in sixty of the arrivals could be a terrorist. That, of course, is without our own home grown terrorists, two of whom were convicted today for planning a major suicide bombing in London.
I despair for the future of this country.
The question which then needs to be asked is how the country is to pay the costs of these new arrivals. Information from Germany seems to indicate that in spite of claims made by many left wing commentators that these refugees are largely from the educated middle classes, practical experience shows that the majority are poorly educated and that many can't read and write. Hence the assumptions that they will be able to work in other than basic labouring type jobs is clearly incorrect.
So where does Foreign Aid come into the picture? I would argue that all the costs attributable to these refugees should be considered to be part of the Foreign Aid budget until such a time as the families become self supporting and taxpayers. It is just as much foreign aid supplying them with housing, benefits, education and medical facilities here in the UK as it would be if we spent the money in their countries of origin providing such facilities.
You have only to look at the huge numbers involved.
Take for example the Somali Community in this country. According to the ONS it has a collective unemployment rate of some 82%; the latest government figures, if you believe them, suggest there are some 104,000 Somalis in this country. Think of the cost; the job seekers allowance can be as much as £72 per week which will cost some £300 million, without taking into account child benefits and their housing costs. Add to that the costs of health, through the NHS, and education, through local councils, both of which will be, per capita, considerably higher than for British born residents and the the totals become unquantifiable, largely because no-one in government wants to do the calculation! Informed guesses suggest the overall cost of just this one community is probably in the region of £1.5 billion p.a.
Then we come to the 'Asian' community as it is called in media speak. Comprising essentially those from Pakistan and Bangladesh (countries which are not normally mentioned by name), there are considerably more in this Asian Community than in the Somali Community. It is said that the unemployment rate amongst non-UK born ethnic 'Asians' is again of a similar order and of those who are working, many are are collecting in-work benefits. No doubt these include the woman standing outside our local Waitrose 'selling' the Big Issue, although I've never actually seen anyone buy a copy. But presumably she claims to be working! I hesitate to even guess a figure for this group, but I would suggest is it several times as much as the Somali Community mentioned above.
To these must be added all the immigrants from places like Nigeria, Tunisia and other African countries as well as the Syrians and Turks. Whether we should count in addition all the East Europeans, particularly those from Romania and Bulgaria is arguable as they are from within the EU and should have been expected by the government when they agreed to allow freedom of movement!
The overseas aid budget is now set to rise to £16 billion per annum and if you try to do the maths, it seems reasonable that you might conclude that it would just about cover the cost of all these economic migrants arriving in this country. So at present we are paying, not only for foreign aid abroad, but also a similar sum in aid to support the ever rising tide of immigrants. I would suggest that this is not an amount that we can afford without significant cuts elsewhere or general tax increases.
It is interesting to note from 'The Local' that Germany is expecting to spend €17 billion (£12.7 billion) on refugees in 2016, double the figure for this year.
And don't get me onto our extra security and policing costs brought about by potential terrorists and other criminals hiding amongst these immigrants; Germany believes that probably one in sixty of the arrivals could be a terrorist. That, of course, is without our own home grown terrorists, two of whom were convicted today for planning a major suicide bombing in London.
I despair for the future of this country.
Tuesday, 29 December 2015
Foreign Aid
Foreign aid continues to be a very controversial issue especially as aid seems to be given to many of the most corrupt countries in the world and to many who don't need it. Why should we give money to, say, India which is rich enough to have its own space programme?
I would argue that whilst there are good reasons for helping poorer countries, there are equally good reasons for restricting it to emergency aid following some natural disaster or similar unforeseen events. It should not be give so that, at the best, it simply becomes part of the national budget of the country concerned causing them to rely on this payment to run the country. At the worst, and not infrequently, it does not even end up being spent on the country, but ends up in the bank accounts of corrupt dictators and their cronies.
When it comes to the actual aid, there are therefore very good reasons why it should not be given in cash, but in goods and services. Wherever possible, any goods should be made in Britain, which in itself would provide a boost to our economy and industry. There should be limits on the type of goods being supplied; certainly no armaments or luxury goods. In addition, they should not be goods which are easily "sold on", which again would allow corrupt officials to pocket money. If the country wants any services, such as the construction of infrastructure in the form of roads, bridges, etc., these should be carried out by British Contractors under contract to the British Government. They would recruit and directly employ local labour, where appropriate, to carry out the work. They would bill the British Government in a similar manner to that which they would when employed on a UK project.
Finally, I would not allocate aid money to be administered by any of our major charities operating abroad; they seem to spend a far to large a proportion of their money on running the charity rather than on the causes that they are supporting. Reports of their staff flying to these countries and swanning around in Land Cruisers whilst staying in the best available hotels does little to increase one's faith that their funds are being well spent.
If the countries concerned don't like this approach, they should be simply told that we are offering these goods/services as a gift, if they don't want what we are offering, there are others that might.
I would argue that whilst there are good reasons for helping poorer countries, there are equally good reasons for restricting it to emergency aid following some natural disaster or similar unforeseen events. It should not be give so that, at the best, it simply becomes part of the national budget of the country concerned causing them to rely on this payment to run the country. At the worst, and not infrequently, it does not even end up being spent on the country, but ends up in the bank accounts of corrupt dictators and their cronies.
When it comes to the actual aid, there are therefore very good reasons why it should not be given in cash, but in goods and services. Wherever possible, any goods should be made in Britain, which in itself would provide a boost to our economy and industry. There should be limits on the type of goods being supplied; certainly no armaments or luxury goods. In addition, they should not be goods which are easily "sold on", which again would allow corrupt officials to pocket money. If the country wants any services, such as the construction of infrastructure in the form of roads, bridges, etc., these should be carried out by British Contractors under contract to the British Government. They would recruit and directly employ local labour, where appropriate, to carry out the work. They would bill the British Government in a similar manner to that which they would when employed on a UK project.
Finally, I would not allocate aid money to be administered by any of our major charities operating abroad; they seem to spend a far to large a proportion of their money on running the charity rather than on the causes that they are supporting. Reports of their staff flying to these countries and swanning around in Land Cruisers whilst staying in the best available hotels does little to increase one's faith that their funds are being well spent.
If the countries concerned don't like this approach, they should be simply told that we are offering these goods/services as a gift, if they don't want what we are offering, there are others that might.
Sunday, 27 December 2015
Transgender children
According to an article in The Telegraph by the 'Chair' of a charity called 'Mermaid' which supports transgender children, some 80 children of primary school age in the UK are currently 'transitioning' from one sex to the other.
It is known that there are a very small number of children born who have incomplete or incorrectly formed sexual organs, but this article is not referring to these. The charity is supporting young children of one sex who 'believe' that they should be the other and are currently 'transitioning'.
There are a number of problems here; the main one being that there is no reason to believe that children have any idea of their sexuality prior to puberty. Another is that, having set up a charity to support such children, they need clients in order to justify their existence.
I had a sister who was forever moaning that she wished that she were a boy when she was at junior school. This seemed to be largely based on the belief that boys did far more exciting things from climbing trees, playing football to falling in the local stream whilst trying to catch frog spawn or tadpoles! This desire largely disappeared when she went to an all girls school at eleven and discovered there were girls sports such as hockey and netball as outlets for her energy.
Our elder daughter was very similar, she much preferred the toys owned by the young boy next door, and always wanted to join in boys' games and generally she was allowed to do so. Then she discovered another girl in her class was having tennis lessons and persuaded us to let her do the same, with the result that any idea of being a boy and becoming a footballer suddenly disappeared.
But had either my sister or daughter been asked at the age of, say six, whether they would like to become a boy, I'm sure that the answer would have been a definite 'yes'. One wonders how they would have felt by the age of fifteen if they'd been allowed to 'transition' to be boys as seems to be the current 'thing' if they 'identify' as a boy.
Another problem, I suspect, could be all these bright young things with shiny degrees from second-rate universities who have swallowed these trendy ideas and become social workers. What happens when they meet a child who wants to be the other sex and the parent says, as I would, "Don't be so damn stupid" or a more forceful equivalent. Would these social workers see them as children to be taken into care on the basis that they are being abused by their parents because they refuse to go along with the child's beliefs?
We don't let children smoke, drink or get married until they are an appropriate age because it is generally accepted that they are not mature enough to make decisions on such matters. How can anyone the believe that a child as young as four years of age can decide on his/her sexuality?
It is known that there are a very small number of children born who have incomplete or incorrectly formed sexual organs, but this article is not referring to these. The charity is supporting young children of one sex who 'believe' that they should be the other and are currently 'transitioning'.
There are a number of problems here; the main one being that there is no reason to believe that children have any idea of their sexuality prior to puberty. Another is that, having set up a charity to support such children, they need clients in order to justify their existence.
I had a sister who was forever moaning that she wished that she were a boy when she was at junior school. This seemed to be largely based on the belief that boys did far more exciting things from climbing trees, playing football to falling in the local stream whilst trying to catch frog spawn or tadpoles! This desire largely disappeared when she went to an all girls school at eleven and discovered there were girls sports such as hockey and netball as outlets for her energy.
Our elder daughter was very similar, she much preferred the toys owned by the young boy next door, and always wanted to join in boys' games and generally she was allowed to do so. Then she discovered another girl in her class was having tennis lessons and persuaded us to let her do the same, with the result that any idea of being a boy and becoming a footballer suddenly disappeared.
But had either my sister or daughter been asked at the age of, say six, whether they would like to become a boy, I'm sure that the answer would have been a definite 'yes'. One wonders how they would have felt by the age of fifteen if they'd been allowed to 'transition' to be boys as seems to be the current 'thing' if they 'identify' as a boy.
Another problem, I suspect, could be all these bright young things with shiny degrees from second-rate universities who have swallowed these trendy ideas and become social workers. What happens when they meet a child who wants to be the other sex and the parent says, as I would, "Don't be so damn stupid" or a more forceful equivalent. Would these social workers see them as children to be taken into care on the basis that they are being abused by their parents because they refuse to go along with the child's beliefs?
We don't let children smoke, drink or get married until they are an appropriate age because it is generally accepted that they are not mature enough to make decisions on such matters. How can anyone the believe that a child as young as four years of age can decide on his/her sexuality?
Saturday, 26 December 2015
'Far Right' or 'Patriotic'
The Daily Express refers today to the "Shocking march of the far-right across Europe as migration fears reach fever pitch".
I would agree that many people across Europe are concerned about the influx of immigrants, and I am amongst those people, but does this make us all 'far-right'? I certainly don't consider that I am far right, I consider that I am a patriot wishing to see my country protect itself against invaders, the majority of whom belong to a religion which preaches ideas which are totally alien to our way of life, and indeed alien to the way of life in most European countries.
Most people would agree there is a need to help genuine refugees from war and violence, but the majority of these invaders are simple economic migrants. We should no more accept them into our country than we should accept someone who decides to camp at the bottom of our garden whilst demanding entry to the house. We defend our personal property against intruders, the State should do likewise with our country.
In the absence of action by the established centralist politicians of all the major parties throughout Europe, who try to be all things to all people, is it surprising that groups of people are coming together to demand action? The leader of just one country within the EU is trying to do something. In Hungary, Viktor Orban, the prime minister, has closed the borders and started the construction of border fences. His view, which I feel is supported by many throughout Europe, is that he is not prepared to allow the mass entry of non-Christians into his country as it would destroy the Hungarian culture and way of live. The EU, of course, condemned this action and issued its usual threats whilst at the same time failing to offer any solution to the problem.
So these days then the media say "Far Right", I think "Patriot".
I would agree that many people across Europe are concerned about the influx of immigrants, and I am amongst those people, but does this make us all 'far-right'? I certainly don't consider that I am far right, I consider that I am a patriot wishing to see my country protect itself against invaders, the majority of whom belong to a religion which preaches ideas which are totally alien to our way of life, and indeed alien to the way of life in most European countries.
Most people would agree there is a need to help genuine refugees from war and violence, but the majority of these invaders are simple economic migrants. We should no more accept them into our country than we should accept someone who decides to camp at the bottom of our garden whilst demanding entry to the house. We defend our personal property against intruders, the State should do likewise with our country.
In the absence of action by the established centralist politicians of all the major parties throughout Europe, who try to be all things to all people, is it surprising that groups of people are coming together to demand action? The leader of just one country within the EU is trying to do something. In Hungary, Viktor Orban, the prime minister, has closed the borders and started the construction of border fences. His view, which I feel is supported by many throughout Europe, is that he is not prepared to allow the mass entry of non-Christians into his country as it would destroy the Hungarian culture and way of live. The EU, of course, condemned this action and issued its usual threats whilst at the same time failing to offer any solution to the problem.
So these days then the media say "Far Right", I think "Patriot".
Thursday, 24 December 2015
Happy Christmas
As one of the bell ringers at my local Parish Church, I will be going out just before eleven this evening to help to ring the bells for the Midnight Service.
The number of our local bell ringers is unfortunately getting less and we've only managed to get one new recruit during the past year but have lost three ringers who have moved away. All except our new lass are over sixty, and I'm certainly finding that I can no longer manage any of the heavier bells. With a bit of luck we'll manage to ring six of the eight bells for about half an hour, with a few breaks.
No lie in in the morning however, back to ring for the Christmas day service before we go to our younger daughter and family for Christmas Lunch
Here are two examples of ringing, the first being rung on the six bells of St. Lawrence Church, Abbots Langley.
The second, at the other end of the scale, on the twelve bells at Trinity Wall Street, NY on Jan 19, 2009, being a 10 minute clip of peal of Bristol Maximus rung by the St Paul's Cathedral Guild.
Twelve bell ringing is way beyond my range of skills, personally I prefer the sound of six or eight bells when I can hear the individual bells.
Happy Christmas.
The number of our local bell ringers is unfortunately getting less and we've only managed to get one new recruit during the past year but have lost three ringers who have moved away. All except our new lass are over sixty, and I'm certainly finding that I can no longer manage any of the heavier bells. With a bit of luck we'll manage to ring six of the eight bells for about half an hour, with a few breaks.
No lie in in the morning however, back to ring for the Christmas day service before we go to our younger daughter and family for Christmas Lunch
Here are two examples of ringing, the first being rung on the six bells of St. Lawrence Church, Abbots Langley.
The second, at the other end of the scale, on the twelve bells at Trinity Wall Street, NY on Jan 19, 2009, being a 10 minute clip of peal of Bristol Maximus rung by the St Paul's Cathedral Guild.
Twelve bell ringing is way beyond my range of skills, personally I prefer the sound of six or eight bells when I can hear the individual bells.
Happy Christmas.
Wednesday, 23 December 2015
British Muslim Banned from the United States.
The morning news was all about a Muslim family of eleven people being banned from the US and certain sections of the media were full of instant condemnation and the local Labour MP penned an immediate missive to David Cameron demanding action as this hard-working family was being deprived of the pleasure of taking their children to Disneyland for the Christmas holiday.
My initial thought was that the US is a sovereign country and it is entirely up to them whom they let into the country and perhaps this might also be put down to what I would describe as the "Trump effect".
However, as the day wore on, people started to ask questions. First of all, it was revealed that the family consisted of the father, his brother and nine children. No adult female was in the group. Then one wondered why a Muslim family should be going there anyway, surely such frivolities and music are banned by their religion. And why for Christmas, when we are frequently told that our Christmas celebrations can be offensive to many Muslims?
By the evening, it emerged that a Facebook page claiming links to radical Islamist groups was set up by someone who has lived at the family's postal address, although they claim that it has been set up by hackers.
The latest revelations are from the Daily Mail.
As I said, the US is a sovereign country and has the absolute right to refuse anyone entry; unlike the UK where we have to accept anyone with an EU passport, something that is given to most so-called refugees without question by some EU countries.
My initial thought was that the US is a sovereign country and it is entirely up to them whom they let into the country and perhaps this might also be put down to what I would describe as the "Trump effect".
However, as the day wore on, people started to ask questions. First of all, it was revealed that the family consisted of the father, his brother and nine children. No adult female was in the group. Then one wondered why a Muslim family should be going there anyway, surely such frivolities and music are banned by their religion. And why for Christmas, when we are frequently told that our Christmas celebrations can be offensive to many Muslims?
By the evening, it emerged that a Facebook page claiming links to radical Islamist groups was set up by someone who has lived at the family's postal address, although they claim that it has been set up by hackers.
The latest revelations are from the Daily Mail.
As I said, the US is a sovereign country and has the absolute right to refuse anyone entry; unlike the UK where we have to accept anyone with an EU passport, something that is given to most so-called refugees without question by some EU countries.
Tuesday, 29 September 2015
Volkswagen and Emissions
A lot has been said in the media about the "fiddling" of the emissions produced by the diesel engines in VW cars and of course how governments and the poor old public were badly misled. This is, as usual, followed by the flood of people who feel that they should get compensation.
I used to own a VW Bora Diesel, and it was a very nice car with amazing acceleration for a diesel. Before buying, I looked at quite a number of things, how it drove and its handling, comfort, space, availability of a local dealer, etc. I even considered its fuel consumption, although experience suggested that any manufacturers' mpg figures needed to be taken with a very large pinch of salt. However, one thing that I never looked at was its emission figures as they are pretty meaningless to anyone unless they have carefully studied the subject. How would I know without a lot of research whether a certain number of grammes of CO2 emissions per mile was good or bad?
So, out of curiosity, I spoke to a few friends and acquaintances and I was unable to find anyone who had actually considered a car's emissions before making a purchase. Most had looked at fuel consumption, and like me, had little belief in the manufacturers' figures. In general, they all thought it was a useful way of comparing different models, but otherwise not representative of the real world.
So where are all these people are who thought about emissions before buying a car? Where are all these people who are so traumatised by feeling that they have been deceived that they deserve huge amounts of compensation? It is suggested that the second hand value of such cars will plummet; my experience in selling my old cars suggests that the values could hardly plummet far without the owner having to pay someone to take it away! If you want to part-exchange a VW for a new one, I suspect VW will offer much the same as previously in order to secure a sale.
The only organisation which may have made a loss is probably the Treasury should the cars have been put in the wrong tax band and if so no doubt they will take action if they feel it is appropriate.
It is also interesting to speculate on what, if anything, will be found when the test results from other manufacturers are examined - have any others been fiddling their results?
If VW decide (or are forced) to offer any compensation, how long before we are inundated with TV and radio advertisements or text messages similar to those for PPI ?
I dread the thought of TV adverts, "Have you ever owned a VW within the past ten years, if so there is a pile of money which has been put aside waiting for you to claim, just text XXXX at once to stake your claim".
As an aside from the main issue, I have been wondering whether it is actually possible for a manufacturer to meet the emission limits required by the EU. So many other EU targets have not been met because they are simply impractical, so are their required car emissions equally impractical?
I used to own a VW Bora Diesel, and it was a very nice car with amazing acceleration for a diesel. Before buying, I looked at quite a number of things, how it drove and its handling, comfort, space, availability of a local dealer, etc. I even considered its fuel consumption, although experience suggested that any manufacturers' mpg figures needed to be taken with a very large pinch of salt. However, one thing that I never looked at was its emission figures as they are pretty meaningless to anyone unless they have carefully studied the subject. How would I know without a lot of research whether a certain number of grammes of CO2 emissions per mile was good or bad?
So, out of curiosity, I spoke to a few friends and acquaintances and I was unable to find anyone who had actually considered a car's emissions before making a purchase. Most had looked at fuel consumption, and like me, had little belief in the manufacturers' figures. In general, they all thought it was a useful way of comparing different models, but otherwise not representative of the real world.
So where are all these people are who thought about emissions before buying a car? Where are all these people who are so traumatised by feeling that they have been deceived that they deserve huge amounts of compensation? It is suggested that the second hand value of such cars will plummet; my experience in selling my old cars suggests that the values could hardly plummet far without the owner having to pay someone to take it away! If you want to part-exchange a VW for a new one, I suspect VW will offer much the same as previously in order to secure a sale.
The only organisation which may have made a loss is probably the Treasury should the cars have been put in the wrong tax band and if so no doubt they will take action if they feel it is appropriate.
It is also interesting to speculate on what, if anything, will be found when the test results from other manufacturers are examined - have any others been fiddling their results?
If VW decide (or are forced) to offer any compensation, how long before we are inundated with TV and radio advertisements or text messages similar to those for PPI ?
I dread the thought of TV adverts, "Have you ever owned a VW within the past ten years, if so there is a pile of money which has been put aside waiting for you to claim, just text XXXX at once to stake your claim".
As an aside from the main issue, I have been wondering whether it is actually possible for a manufacturer to meet the emission limits required by the EU. So many other EU targets have not been met because they are simply impractical, so are their required car emissions equally impractical?
Saturday, 26 September 2015
VW and Climate Change.
I thought that this cartoon was one of the best that I'd seen lately
Courtesy of the Bishop Hill Blog and Cartoons by Josh
Courtesy of the Bishop Hill Blog and Cartoons by Josh
Tuesday, 15 September 2015
Just in case you missed it!
According to Breitbart, Labour MP Rachael Maskell, the Member of Parliament for York Central, declared:
This is the reality of Corbyn's Labour party.
“We need to shout so much more and say 20,000 is not enough, 30,000 is not enough. We will keep going until we hit our saturation point because what does it matter if we have to wait another week for a hospital visit? Or if our class sizes are slightly bigger? Or if our city is slightly fuller? What does it matter if things are slightly more challenging? If we have to pay a little bit more into the system? Surely it is worth it to see those lives being restored again.”At last a Labour MP has admitted that immigrants are increasing the time waiting for appointments and treatment at our hospitals, she has admitted that school class sizes increase (but no mention of falling standards because of the time taken with non-English speakers), she has admitted that cities are becoming overcrowded, and last but not least, she has admitted that we will have to pay more tax. What she doesn't mention is that many also carry diseases, with TB and polio which were once virtually eradicated from this country now making a come-back.
This is the reality of Corbyn's Labour party.
Saturday, 5 September 2015
One Dead Boy
Seventy migrants suffocate in the back of a lorry and everyone metaphorically shrugs their shoulders. One photograph of dead child on a beach and the whole of the EU changes its policy towards migrants.
This video from Nigel Farage is worth watching
The dead boy's family were quite safe in Turkey, a Muslim country, indeed one might even conclude that they were safe in Syria as they went back to bury their son. This shows me that they were economic migrants, nothing else, not refugees, as apparently they were not in danger in Syria.
Ask yourself, would a refugee, fleeing from Nazi Germany with his family return there to have buried a member of the family who got killed during the escape? That is the reality of real refugees from war or oppression, not someone who goes back, apparently quite freely, to have a burial service.
It is also of interest that Breitbart is the only media outlet that I am aware of which refers to them as Kurds. The Kurdish controlled area of Syria is now relatively stable (if anything in the Middle East is stable), so one might ask why didn't they join their fellow countrymen and assist with the fight against ISIS? Or were they from the Kurdish area which meant that they could return at will, but decided that it wasn't good enough for them?
However you look at it they were economic migrants, not asylum seekers fleeing for their lives. Even then, Turkey wasn't good enough for them so they decided to try to get to the Germany or, as they speak English, more likely to the UK.
If we are to take any Syrian refugees, they should be genuine refugees who are living in poor conditions in Lebanon or Jordan, not ones who are effectively trying to jump the queue by forcing themselves upon some unwilling country.
In any event, I take the view that it is wrong to rehouse large numbers away from their home country; hopefully ISIS will be beaten and in due course they will be able to return home. The right approach is what this country was doing, providing humanitarian aid to the adjoining countries which are housing them, Lebanon, Jordan and to a lesser extent Turkey. There they are with people of their own culture, speaking their own language, not having to try to live, in what to them, must be an alien environment.
We have accepted refugees in the past, but they were in relatively small numbers compared with the overall population, they were generally of our culture and were assimilated within a couple of generations. With their different outlook on life, I cannot see Muslims ever being assimilated into the native population.
So I would ask our politicians, don't make major decisions on the basis of one dead boy lying on a beach, but on the basis of common sense and rational logic.
This video from Nigel Farage is worth watching
The dead boy's family were quite safe in Turkey, a Muslim country, indeed one might even conclude that they were safe in Syria as they went back to bury their son. This shows me that they were economic migrants, nothing else, not refugees, as apparently they were not in danger in Syria.
Ask yourself, would a refugee, fleeing from Nazi Germany with his family return there to have buried a member of the family who got killed during the escape? That is the reality of real refugees from war or oppression, not someone who goes back, apparently quite freely, to have a burial service.
It is also of interest that Breitbart is the only media outlet that I am aware of which refers to them as Kurds. The Kurdish controlled area of Syria is now relatively stable (if anything in the Middle East is stable), so one might ask why didn't they join their fellow countrymen and assist with the fight against ISIS? Or were they from the Kurdish area which meant that they could return at will, but decided that it wasn't good enough for them?
However you look at it they were economic migrants, not asylum seekers fleeing for their lives. Even then, Turkey wasn't good enough for them so they decided to try to get to the Germany or, as they speak English, more likely to the UK.
If we are to take any Syrian refugees, they should be genuine refugees who are living in poor conditions in Lebanon or Jordan, not ones who are effectively trying to jump the queue by forcing themselves upon some unwilling country.
In any event, I take the view that it is wrong to rehouse large numbers away from their home country; hopefully ISIS will be beaten and in due course they will be able to return home. The right approach is what this country was doing, providing humanitarian aid to the adjoining countries which are housing them, Lebanon, Jordan and to a lesser extent Turkey. There they are with people of their own culture, speaking their own language, not having to try to live, in what to them, must be an alien environment.
We have accepted refugees in the past, but they were in relatively small numbers compared with the overall population, they were generally of our culture and were assimilated within a couple of generations. With their different outlook on life, I cannot see Muslims ever being assimilated into the native population.
So I would ask our politicians, don't make major decisions on the basis of one dead boy lying on a beach, but on the basis of common sense and rational logic.
Wednesday, 29 July 2015
Thrown in from the Telegraph
I haven't posted much lately because I've been very much "under the weather", but I couldn't resist this sub-heading from the Daily Telegraph.
It shows what happens when you rely on a spell-checker!
It shows what happens when you rely on a spell-checker!
Saturday, 9 May 2015
The General Election
As far as I'm concerned, the General election produced mixed emotions. The Tories won with an acceptable majority, keeping out Labour and its extra taxes on the rich which would be required to fund their promises. I've nothing particular for or against the rich, but if they are to spend their money rather than keep it in a bank vault, it must result in additional employment and jobs either directly as staff or indirectly on purchases. But apart from the so-called mansion tax, the other proposed Labour taxes would end up falling on the ordinary worker. A tax on banks would mean that the banks would seek to make more profit elsewhere, which could mean even lower interest rates (hitting pensioners in particular) or even the end of free banking, as has been mooted from time to time. A landlord tax would do much the same; landlords would either find some way of increasing the rent for any new tenant, or sell-up and pull out of the market. Either way, it is unlikely to be the landlord who would lose out. A tax on non-doms looks attractive, but Labour overlooks the fact that they could equally live in another country, Ireland having made it clear that they would be very welcome. But the big thing, as far as I'm concerned is that both Ed Balls and Vince Cable are out and that the LibDems won't be part of a coalition.
The big disappointment is that UKIP didn't get more seats. The fact that Nigel Farage didn't win in Thanet, I would suggest is due to the effort that the Tories put into the election with almost every Minister visiting the constituency, plus the activities of various left wing organisations who were not standing for election and thus could effectively run riot with false claims about UKIP.
However to my mind, the biggest scandal is our electoral system, which allows a party, which overall collected more votes in the coutry than both the SNP and the LibDems combined, to get only have one MP, whilst Queen Nicola claims the right to tell us all what to do.
It one thing comes out of this election, it should be some electoral reform which ensures the parliamentary representation more closely matches the actual votes cast. One assumes that Cameron will push through the Boundary Commission's report, which the LibDems failed to support in the last parliament, so ending the anomaly of a vote in many cities being worth two in the country. But more than that. Now that Scotland has its own Parliament, and Wales has its own Assembly, there is surely no longer a case for having a disproportionately large number of MPs from these regions. We should be aiming for the situation in a modern democracy like Australia or New Zealand where all constituencies by law must have an electorate within 5% of any other. New Zealand is proposing to do even better and get the figure within 3%.
Other reform must be to ensure that Scottish/Welsh MPs do not have any say on English matters where such matters have been devolved to Scotland/Wales. It is iniquitous that Scotish MPs can come to Westminster and support tuition fess at universities and charges for NHS prescriptions, whilst their fellow members in The Scottish Parliament vote to make them both free in Scotland.
To a cynic like me, Cameron's biggest problem with having an overall majority is that he will have to keep his promises. No longer will he be able to blame the LibDems for preventing him doing something that he had promised!
As for the SNP, I'm sure they will make a lot of noise and hope to be able to tell Cameron what to do. He could simply point out that Labour have more MPs than the SNP which illustrates the relative importance of the SNP in the Union as a whole. As Queen Nicola won't be at Westminster, I would hope that Cameron would have no problem dealing with Alex Salmond who expect to the the leader of the SNP in the Commons.
We could have an interesting time ahead.
The big disappointment is that UKIP didn't get more seats. The fact that Nigel Farage didn't win in Thanet, I would suggest is due to the effort that the Tories put into the election with almost every Minister visiting the constituency, plus the activities of various left wing organisations who were not standing for election and thus could effectively run riot with false claims about UKIP.
However to my mind, the biggest scandal is our electoral system, which allows a party, which overall collected more votes in the coutry than both the SNP and the LibDems combined, to get only have one MP, whilst Queen Nicola claims the right to tell us all what to do.
It one thing comes out of this election, it should be some electoral reform which ensures the parliamentary representation more closely matches the actual votes cast. One assumes that Cameron will push through the Boundary Commission's report, which the LibDems failed to support in the last parliament, so ending the anomaly of a vote in many cities being worth two in the country. But more than that. Now that Scotland has its own Parliament, and Wales has its own Assembly, there is surely no longer a case for having a disproportionately large number of MPs from these regions. We should be aiming for the situation in a modern democracy like Australia or New Zealand where all constituencies by law must have an electorate within 5% of any other. New Zealand is proposing to do even better and get the figure within 3%.
Other reform must be to ensure that Scottish/Welsh MPs do not have any say on English matters where such matters have been devolved to Scotland/Wales. It is iniquitous that Scotish MPs can come to Westminster and support tuition fess at universities and charges for NHS prescriptions, whilst their fellow members in The Scottish Parliament vote to make them both free in Scotland.
To a cynic like me, Cameron's biggest problem with having an overall majority is that he will have to keep his promises. No longer will he be able to blame the LibDems for preventing him doing something that he had promised!
As for the SNP, I'm sure they will make a lot of noise and hope to be able to tell Cameron what to do. He could simply point out that Labour have more MPs than the SNP which illustrates the relative importance of the SNP in the Union as a whole. As Queen Nicola won't be at Westminster, I would hope that Cameron would have no problem dealing with Alex Salmond who expect to the the leader of the SNP in the Commons.
We could have an interesting time ahead.
Sunday, 3 May 2015
Thank Goodness for the Royal Baby!
The birth of the, as yet unnamed, Princess of Cambridge at least brought relief from the incessant drone of politicians and political journalists on the TV news programmes. Not that the reports on the baby actually provided any real news, but it was a change to see cheering crowds rather than the usual rabble of demonstrators which seems to be the norm these days. The BBC, of course, managed to produce an anti-monarchist for interview who ranted on about the cost of the monarchy (but didn't feel it appropriate to mention the far higher costs of Presidents like Obama, along with the costs of all the ex-presidents) and who also seemed to believe that the birth had been timed as a political event to interfere with the general election. If interfering with the general election means getting politicians off the screen for a while, please carry on interfering!
Elsewhere in the political news, Guido shows us this picture of a Labour Party Public meeting in Birmingham.
Elsewhere in the political news, Guido shows us this picture of a Labour Party Public meeting in Birmingham.
I wonder what Harriet thinks about it!
To most English this is totally unacceptable in a public place, and it simply shows how subservient Labour is becoming to the diktats of Islam. If I'd been going to the meeting with my wife and we were asked to sit apart, we'd have simply walked out. I do hope all the non-Islamic voters in Birmingham see this picture.
Now to the "Greens". Breitbart tells us that
Green Party leader Natalie Bennett has said her party would consider
allowing polygamous marriages and civil partnerships in the UK. This of course was the fear of many of those who opposed Gay Marriage; that one thing would lead to another and that it would lead to marriage being redefined in other ways, including allowing more than two people to enter into a union.
Which brings us back to Cameron and the Tories. Traditionally, political parties in power have only introduced legislation that they had proposed in their manifestos unless there was some overriding imperative that was not anticipated at the time of the previous election. Gay Marriage can hardly said to fall within that category; there was no reason for it not being included in the Party Manifesto for this election and brought forward by the Tories should they be in power. For that reason, if no other, I am not prepared to vote Conservative and have informed my sitting MP accordingly. Who knows what Cameron might do if he thought polygamy might increase his share of the Islamic vote.
Every day as I read the news, or watch it on TV, I become more than ever convinced that UKIP is the only party that genuinely represents the ordinary voter of British ancestry.
Wednesday, 29 April 2015
Politics, Politics and more Politics!
I've been on holiday for a few weeks and as my lap-top decided to die, I haven't been able to write anything. But has there actually been anything worth writing about? Has anyone actually come up with anything new? The main parties all want to spend more money without visibly increasing taxes, whilst at the same time reducing the deficit. The Tories claim that the money will come about as a result of growth, which is questionable, whilst Labour propose mansion taxes, bank taxes and landlord taxes, the last two of which will simply be extra indirect taxes on those renting or using banks. The LibDems are delightfully vague, trying to be all things to all people, whilst the SNP are hoping to tax the English.
UKIP at least suggests that the money for their proposals will come from the saving in not paying huge sums to the EU from which we get little return and also by reducing foreign aid which at least appears to be feasible, but there is no clue what withdrawal from the EU would cost us in other areas. Nevertheless, I'm optimistic that there would be a net financial gain from leaving.
Meanwhile, the parties are being forced to indirectly respond to UKIP. Would any have suggested possible restrictions on the NHS treatment of visitors and immigrants to this country had Farrage not brutally raised the cost of HIV treatment for immigrants in the TV debate?
An interesting snippet today: Guido reveals that since the beginning of the year, 291 LibDem, Labour or Tory councillors/candidates have hit the headlines for all the wrong reasons, yet received nowhere near the same level of outrage dished out over Ukippers misdemeanours. Research by ‘Nope No Hope’ reveals 21 paedos, 2 rapists, 1 terrorist, 13 racists, 6 sexists or homophobes, 1 drug fiend, 8 expenses cheats, 4 benefit fraudsters, and 28 thieves!
To that we must add the news from Bloggers4UKIP that the Labour parliamentary candidate for Banff & Buchan has been suspended after being charged with drink driving, driving without a licence and driving without an MOT and the the Lib Dem candidate for South West Surrey, has been accused of election fraud in relation to his nomination papers to stand for Waverley Borough Council.
Looking at the real news, the only item of any importance seems to be the devastating earthquake in Nepal, the home of the Gurkhas, one of the worlds finest fighting forces. This is where we should be spending our foreign aid, giving help to these victims of a totally unpredictable event. This is aid that can be fully justified, unlike the bulk of our foreign aid which merely props up incompetent corrupt governments.
Tomorrow, providing that it's raining and I have an excuse for not mowing the lawn, I hope to try to see if I can get the lap-top working using the recovery disc, the course of action recommended by the supplier. Time will tell whether this works; If it doesn't I'll be looking at tablets - Friends have suggested the I consider the Samsung Galaxy range as offering better value and greater compatibility than the iPad.
UKIP at least suggests that the money for their proposals will come from the saving in not paying huge sums to the EU from which we get little return and also by reducing foreign aid which at least appears to be feasible, but there is no clue what withdrawal from the EU would cost us in other areas. Nevertheless, I'm optimistic that there would be a net financial gain from leaving.
Meanwhile, the parties are being forced to indirectly respond to UKIP. Would any have suggested possible restrictions on the NHS treatment of visitors and immigrants to this country had Farrage not brutally raised the cost of HIV treatment for immigrants in the TV debate?
An interesting snippet today: Guido reveals that since the beginning of the year, 291 LibDem, Labour or Tory councillors/candidates have hit the headlines for all the wrong reasons, yet received nowhere near the same level of outrage dished out over Ukippers misdemeanours. Research by ‘Nope No Hope’ reveals 21 paedos, 2 rapists, 1 terrorist, 13 racists, 6 sexists or homophobes, 1 drug fiend, 8 expenses cheats, 4 benefit fraudsters, and 28 thieves!
To that we must add the news from Bloggers4UKIP that the Labour parliamentary candidate for Banff & Buchan has been suspended after being charged with drink driving, driving without a licence and driving without an MOT and the the Lib Dem candidate for South West Surrey, has been accused of election fraud in relation to his nomination papers to stand for Waverley Borough Council.
Looking at the real news, the only item of any importance seems to be the devastating earthquake in Nepal, the home of the Gurkhas, one of the worlds finest fighting forces. This is where we should be spending our foreign aid, giving help to these victims of a totally unpredictable event. This is aid that can be fully justified, unlike the bulk of our foreign aid which merely props up incompetent corrupt governments.
Tomorrow, providing that it's raining and I have an excuse for not mowing the lawn, I hope to try to see if I can get the lap-top working using the recovery disc, the course of action recommended by the supplier. Time will tell whether this works; If it doesn't I'll be looking at tablets - Friends have suggested the I consider the Samsung Galaxy range as offering better value and greater compatibility than the iPad.
Friday, 3 April 2015
The Leaders' Debate - Farage on Health
In last night's debate, Nigel Farage, the UKIP leader was the only
one of those present to question whether non-British citizens should be treated by the NHS.
All the others present, and seemingly much of the audience, seemed to
feel that it was quite all right to treat all and sundry who happened to
manage to make their way to a GP or NHS hospital.
Possibly Farage made a mistake in highlighting the cost of HIV treatment which seems to be, for some, a rather emotive issue, but even so, it is a very expensive issue which needs to be addressed.
However, I simply can't understand why people are apparently upset by Farage's desire to restrict the use of the NHS to our own citizens; they complain about inability to get GP appointments, they complain about waiting times in A&E, they complain about the time to get an operation, they complain about the shortage of doctors and nurses, yet, it would seem, they are happy about foreigners being treated here at our expense.
Farage highlighted HIV because it is one of the most expensive illnesses to treat, some £25,000 pa per person. And as they are probably unfit to work, benefits come on top of that! There are millions of cases of HIV in Africa, any of those individuals who can manage to get to Britain gets treatment and manages to stay here because it is "against his human rights to send him somewhere where he can't get the necessary medical care".
Is this what we want? At at time when people who have paid taxes all their life are being declined certain drugs for cancer, at a time when we can't afford proper care for our elderly who are being treated worse than animals in some so-called care homes. Do we really want to provide drugs at £25K pa for life to any HIV sufferer who manages to get into this country? If the individual survives for 40 years, that's a million pounds for drugs alone, it doesn't count the cost of the doctors, hospitals, tests and any other treatment needed as in indirect result of the disease.
That's just the HIV sufferers, but what about our maternity services? This country seems the destination of choice for pregnant females; it's also another way of staying here. The child becomes a British citizen, so you can't deport its mother! When our grandson was born in the local hospital, there was only one other mother on the ward who's native tongue was English. My daughter was pushed out of the hospital the following day as she had a home to go to and her bed was needed.
But it's not only the third world we are treating. A friend working at a hospital near Heathrow tells me that they often get US citizens, particularly ones with heart problems such as the need for by-pass surgery. Apparently they don't have the necessary health insurance at home and the airfare is a cheaper option!
Farage is right; we should not spend taxpayers' money on treating non-citizens except in an emergency. All legal incomers should be required to have suitable insurance, proof of which should be provided for Border Control. Illegals, should be detained as a minimum until they have been checked for contagious diseases, including HIV/AIDS, and if infected should be deported.
Our own citizens must come first, there is a limit on both money and facilities, and our own citizens should get the treatment and care that they need, whether is is cancer treatment, hip replacements or just simple GPs appointments.
An afterthought!
Perhaps the cost of all the non-citizens being treated here should be charged to the Foreign Aid budget, after all, that is what it is!
Possibly Farage made a mistake in highlighting the cost of HIV treatment which seems to be, for some, a rather emotive issue, but even so, it is a very expensive issue which needs to be addressed.
However, I simply can't understand why people are apparently upset by Farage's desire to restrict the use of the NHS to our own citizens; they complain about inability to get GP appointments, they complain about waiting times in A&E, they complain about the time to get an operation, they complain about the shortage of doctors and nurses, yet, it would seem, they are happy about foreigners being treated here at our expense.
Farage highlighted HIV because it is one of the most expensive illnesses to treat, some £25,000 pa per person. And as they are probably unfit to work, benefits come on top of that! There are millions of cases of HIV in Africa, any of those individuals who can manage to get to Britain gets treatment and manages to stay here because it is "against his human rights to send him somewhere where he can't get the necessary medical care".
Is this what we want? At at time when people who have paid taxes all their life are being declined certain drugs for cancer, at a time when we can't afford proper care for our elderly who are being treated worse than animals in some so-called care homes. Do we really want to provide drugs at £25K pa for life to any HIV sufferer who manages to get into this country? If the individual survives for 40 years, that's a million pounds for drugs alone, it doesn't count the cost of the doctors, hospitals, tests and any other treatment needed as in indirect result of the disease.
That's just the HIV sufferers, but what about our maternity services? This country seems the destination of choice for pregnant females; it's also another way of staying here. The child becomes a British citizen, so you can't deport its mother! When our grandson was born in the local hospital, there was only one other mother on the ward who's native tongue was English. My daughter was pushed out of the hospital the following day as she had a home to go to and her bed was needed.
But it's not only the third world we are treating. A friend working at a hospital near Heathrow tells me that they often get US citizens, particularly ones with heart problems such as the need for by-pass surgery. Apparently they don't have the necessary health insurance at home and the airfare is a cheaper option!
Farage is right; we should not spend taxpayers' money on treating non-citizens except in an emergency. All legal incomers should be required to have suitable insurance, proof of which should be provided for Border Control. Illegals, should be detained as a minimum until they have been checked for contagious diseases, including HIV/AIDS, and if infected should be deported.
Our own citizens must come first, there is a limit on both money and facilities, and our own citizens should get the treatment and care that they need, whether is is cancer treatment, hip replacements or just simple GPs appointments.
An afterthought!
Perhaps the cost of all the non-citizens being treated here should be charged to the Foreign Aid budget, after all, that is what it is!
Wednesday, 1 April 2015
Part Time and "Zero Hours" Work
Our politicians, as usual, don't seem to know what they are taking about when it comes to part time or so-called zero-hours work.
Labour, in particular, seems to believe that everybody who wants to work should be in full time employment and that anything else is bad.
But why? These working arrangements suit many people. Both of my married daughters are working part time as they prefer it that way; in fact they had considerable difficulty finding suitable part time work as their employers would have preferred them to work full time. I've "retired" friends who work part time or zero hours, not so much for the money but in order to do something useful where their knowledge is appreciated.
I've worked a zero hour contact, although it wasn't called that at the time. It was as a stand-by paper boy; if one of the regulars didn't turn up, one of the others came banging at the door with the message that I was wanted. As far as I can see there is nothing wrong with this concept as long as the contract does not tie you to a single employer, something that this government has already stopped. I'm aware of several ladies who "help out" in local shops; that is they are occasionally called in when needed. It suits both them and the shopkeepers.
I know one could not earn a living wage on this basis and clearly any government should aim to ensure that full time work is available for those who want it. But even so, my reaction is that the Labour party is currently making a mountain out of a molehill; companies will find it harder to find people for such work as employment prospects improve.
But when politicians talk of work being available for all those who want to work what exactly do they mean? I read in the Mail today about the man who has fathered forty children by 20 women, all living at the expense of the taxpayers, obviously he doesn't come into the category of those who want to work. No doubt the Mail is seeking out such individuals, because only a few days previously they reported on another man, aged just 29, who had managed to father something like 15 children by various women who, together with their "families", are all living on benefits. Then we have the grossly obese woman who could hardly move from her armchair and who requires two carers to get her in and out of bed and presumably feed her, all paid for by the taxpayer as she is "disabled". These may be extreme examples, they may be few and far between, but nevertheless, few of our politicians are willing to address the issue of what to do about those who don't wish to work even when work is available.
No doubt in the course of the election campaign other "new" problems will be brought to the fore, mainly, I suspect, to try to hide the fact that our politicians of all parties have no real idea what to do about so many of the existing problems.
Labour, in particular, seems to believe that everybody who wants to work should be in full time employment and that anything else is bad.
But why? These working arrangements suit many people. Both of my married daughters are working part time as they prefer it that way; in fact they had considerable difficulty finding suitable part time work as their employers would have preferred them to work full time. I've "retired" friends who work part time or zero hours, not so much for the money but in order to do something useful where their knowledge is appreciated.
I've worked a zero hour contact, although it wasn't called that at the time. It was as a stand-by paper boy; if one of the regulars didn't turn up, one of the others came banging at the door with the message that I was wanted. As far as I can see there is nothing wrong with this concept as long as the contract does not tie you to a single employer, something that this government has already stopped. I'm aware of several ladies who "help out" in local shops; that is they are occasionally called in when needed. It suits both them and the shopkeepers.
I know one could not earn a living wage on this basis and clearly any government should aim to ensure that full time work is available for those who want it. But even so, my reaction is that the Labour party is currently making a mountain out of a molehill; companies will find it harder to find people for such work as employment prospects improve.
But when politicians talk of work being available for all those who want to work what exactly do they mean? I read in the Mail today about the man who has fathered forty children by 20 women, all living at the expense of the taxpayers, obviously he doesn't come into the category of those who want to work. No doubt the Mail is seeking out such individuals, because only a few days previously they reported on another man, aged just 29, who had managed to father something like 15 children by various women who, together with their "families", are all living on benefits. Then we have the grossly obese woman who could hardly move from her armchair and who requires two carers to get her in and out of bed and presumably feed her, all paid for by the taxpayer as she is "disabled". These may be extreme examples, they may be few and far between, but nevertheless, few of our politicians are willing to address the issue of what to do about those who don't wish to work even when work is available.
No doubt in the course of the election campaign other "new" problems will be brought to the fore, mainly, I suspect, to try to hide the fact that our politicians of all parties have no real idea what to do about so many of the existing problems.
Tuesday, 17 March 2015
Political Party Manifestos
Any time now our political parties will be publishing their manifestos, but are they worth the paper that they are written on? I'm just going to consider the Conservative party's manifesto, as logically with my education and lifestyle I should be a core Tory supporter.
Whilst I never read the actual Conservative manifesto before the last general election and relied upon reports in the media, I am far more concerned about what the manifesto doesn’t contain.
I don’t recall the Tories mentioning anything about Gay Marriage in the 2010 manifesto. Whilst I can appreciate that a manifesto can't cover every possible contingency and that events might make it necessary for any government to introduce unanticipated legislation, this was not so in the case of gay marriage. There was no reason for the hasty action with minimal consultation and it could have waited until the forthcoming election and been included in the party manifesto. But, in my view, the party took the cowardly approach, didn’t consult with the majority population, and pushed it through hoping that most of the electorate would have forgotten by the time of the election.
Nor did the manifesto mention entering foreign wars for the sake of regime change. Again the government rushed into action without any real thought. If it hadn't been for the rare event of Parliament acting to prevent the government going to war against Assad in Syria, we would now be fighting alongside the evil ISIS who happily decapitate any non-believer without a moment's thought. However you look at the situation, Assad is by far the lesser of the two evils.
Then, of course there is Libya. Our aerial intervention was designed to prevent civilian deaths resulting from the fighting between rebels and the forces of Gaddafi. Here, again we opted to support the rebels and the media rejoiced at Gaddafi's death, but has this improved things? Seemingly not, as we now have two "governments" in Libya busy fighting each other and civilian deaths, either due to fighting or starvation are never ending. And Cameron claimed this was a great success - I wonder what would have had to have happened for him to feel that we had failed?
Then what did the manifesto say about our military? Did it propose cutting them to the bare bones and relying on a part time army of reservists? Did it mention scrapping the Harrier. Did it mention aircraft carriers with no aircraft? I'm sure it didn't as I don't remember any coverage of the subject in the media at the time.
And then there is Scotland. Were the English offered any say in the decision to give extra powers to Scotland whilst leaving England at Scotland's mercy in the event of a coalition?
That's what the manifesto didn't say, now let's look at what it did say.
The most important promise for a majority of the electorate was to reduce immigration and Cameron even said he wanted it reduced to tens of thousands. This has been totally ignored with the current political line being that immigration is good for the country. Tell that to those trying to buy houses, get their children into English speaking schools or waiting for treatment on the NHS. I'm sure they will all believe that immigration is good for us!
What will I be looking for in the manifesto?
One priority is to ensure that Christians in this country are able to practice their faith without interference. Seemingly, you can be of any other faith, or even no faith, and can claim that you are being discriminated against if you are not allowed to practice it and wear its symbols in public. Yet Christians are being sacked because they wear a cross or are asked to carry out work which is contrary to their beliefs, such as assisting with abortions or registering gay marriages. This article in Breitbart is worth reading.
Another is the issue of unbiased and independent policing. The failure of the police forces in both Rotherham and Oxford to do anything about gangs of Muslims grooming young white females for fear of being called racist is symptomatic of the political correctness of our police. The "Police and Crime Commissioners" have done little, if anything, to change the situation as many are political hacks who failed elsewhere. One, who has now resigned, was actually a councillor in Rotherham whilst all the abuse was taking place! Even now the police seem more interested in historic crimes committed by so-called celebrities rather than dealing with present day abuse. Today's reports of the “closing down” of police investigations into a child sex abuse allegations in Cyril Smith’s time is clearly a scandal, and needs urgent government action, although, unlike gay marriage, I doubt if it will be seen as a Cameron priority.
I await the manifestos with interest, but I doubt if any of those from the major parties will dissuade me from supporting UKIP.
Whilst I never read the actual Conservative manifesto before the last general election and relied upon reports in the media, I am far more concerned about what the manifesto doesn’t contain.
I don’t recall the Tories mentioning anything about Gay Marriage in the 2010 manifesto. Whilst I can appreciate that a manifesto can't cover every possible contingency and that events might make it necessary for any government to introduce unanticipated legislation, this was not so in the case of gay marriage. There was no reason for the hasty action with minimal consultation and it could have waited until the forthcoming election and been included in the party manifesto. But, in my view, the party took the cowardly approach, didn’t consult with the majority population, and pushed it through hoping that most of the electorate would have forgotten by the time of the election.
Nor did the manifesto mention entering foreign wars for the sake of regime change. Again the government rushed into action without any real thought. If it hadn't been for the rare event of Parliament acting to prevent the government going to war against Assad in Syria, we would now be fighting alongside the evil ISIS who happily decapitate any non-believer without a moment's thought. However you look at the situation, Assad is by far the lesser of the two evils.
Then, of course there is Libya. Our aerial intervention was designed to prevent civilian deaths resulting from the fighting between rebels and the forces of Gaddafi. Here, again we opted to support the rebels and the media rejoiced at Gaddafi's death, but has this improved things? Seemingly not, as we now have two "governments" in Libya busy fighting each other and civilian deaths, either due to fighting or starvation are never ending. And Cameron claimed this was a great success - I wonder what would have had to have happened for him to feel that we had failed?
Then what did the manifesto say about our military? Did it propose cutting them to the bare bones and relying on a part time army of reservists? Did it mention scrapping the Harrier. Did it mention aircraft carriers with no aircraft? I'm sure it didn't as I don't remember any coverage of the subject in the media at the time.
And then there is Scotland. Were the English offered any say in the decision to give extra powers to Scotland whilst leaving England at Scotland's mercy in the event of a coalition?
That's what the manifesto didn't say, now let's look at what it did say.
The most important promise for a majority of the electorate was to reduce immigration and Cameron even said he wanted it reduced to tens of thousands. This has been totally ignored with the current political line being that immigration is good for the country. Tell that to those trying to buy houses, get their children into English speaking schools or waiting for treatment on the NHS. I'm sure they will all believe that immigration is good for us!
What will I be looking for in the manifesto?
One priority is to ensure that Christians in this country are able to practice their faith without interference. Seemingly, you can be of any other faith, or even no faith, and can claim that you are being discriminated against if you are not allowed to practice it and wear its symbols in public. Yet Christians are being sacked because they wear a cross or are asked to carry out work which is contrary to their beliefs, such as assisting with abortions or registering gay marriages. This article in Breitbart is worth reading.
Another is the issue of unbiased and independent policing. The failure of the police forces in both Rotherham and Oxford to do anything about gangs of Muslims grooming young white females for fear of being called racist is symptomatic of the political correctness of our police. The "Police and Crime Commissioners" have done little, if anything, to change the situation as many are political hacks who failed elsewhere. One, who has now resigned, was actually a councillor in Rotherham whilst all the abuse was taking place! Even now the police seem more interested in historic crimes committed by so-called celebrities rather than dealing with present day abuse. Today's reports of the “closing down” of police investigations into a child sex abuse allegations in Cyril Smith’s time is clearly a scandal, and needs urgent government action, although, unlike gay marriage, I doubt if it will be seen as a Cameron priority.
I await the manifestos with interest, but I doubt if any of those from the major parties will dissuade me from supporting UKIP.
Wednesday, 4 March 2015
"Jihadi John"
It seems rather strange to me, but there seems to be some sort of campaign in the media to rehabilitate "Jihadi John". One of the leading lights of the organisation CAGE, which claims to be supporting human rights, describes him as a "beautiful boy", whilst school teachers and the like describe him as a model pupil. The BBC in particular seem to be leading this campaign to have us believe that Emwazi is somehow deserving of our sympathy. The approach seems to be that his "radicalisation" is all the fault of our Security Services.
If one follows that argument and considers the number of criminals in this country who have been stopped by the police and even convicted of crimes on numerous occasions, the country should be full of radicalised criminals who would seek nothing more than to be able to go around chopping of the heads of police officers! "It's not my fault, it's all the fault of PC Bloggs who questioned me about my bag of loot"
But let's look at a few details
Why did the Emwazi family had come to Britain from a rich country like Kuwait?
They fled Kuwait and claimed asylum here because they were suspected of assisting Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Kuwait had just been invaded by Iraq and British troops were sent there as part of a coalition to oust Hussein's forces. So our immigration officials allowed a family into this country who had sided with our enemies. Why? As we were on the same side as Kuwait we should have refused them asylum - you don't give asylum to your enemies or even your friend's enemies.
But not only did our system aid the enemy by giving the family asylum when it should have extradited them to Kuwait, it also gave the family home after home in some of the most expensive areas of our country, together with benefits, which must be worth millions of pounds over the years. Then rather than sending them home to what is a friendly country, we gave this family, who were suspected of helping our mutual enemy, full British citizenship.
I believe our Security Services did the right thing in questioning Mohammed Emwazi about his activities, it seems quite clear from his upbringing and origins that he was very likely to be an enemy of this country.
If there is to be any enquiry into this matter, it should be into the actions of our immigration officials and of the Home Office who granted the family asylum and the subsequently allowed them British Citizenship.
If one follows that argument and considers the number of criminals in this country who have been stopped by the police and even convicted of crimes on numerous occasions, the country should be full of radicalised criminals who would seek nothing more than to be able to go around chopping of the heads of police officers! "It's not my fault, it's all the fault of PC Bloggs who questioned me about my bag of loot"
But let's look at a few details
Why did the Emwazi family had come to Britain from a rich country like Kuwait?
They fled Kuwait and claimed asylum here because they were suspected of assisting Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Kuwait had just been invaded by Iraq and British troops were sent there as part of a coalition to oust Hussein's forces. So our immigration officials allowed a family into this country who had sided with our enemies. Why? As we were on the same side as Kuwait we should have refused them asylum - you don't give asylum to your enemies or even your friend's enemies.
But not only did our system aid the enemy by giving the family asylum when it should have extradited them to Kuwait, it also gave the family home after home in some of the most expensive areas of our country, together with benefits, which must be worth millions of pounds over the years. Then rather than sending them home to what is a friendly country, we gave this family, who were suspected of helping our mutual enemy, full British citizenship.
I believe our Security Services did the right thing in questioning Mohammed Emwazi about his activities, it seems quite clear from his upbringing and origins that he was very likely to be an enemy of this country.
If there is to be any enquiry into this matter, it should be into the actions of our immigration officials and of the Home Office who granted the family asylum and the subsequently allowed them British Citizenship.
Tuesday, 3 March 2015
Failures by the NHS, Councils and Police
Two reports have been published today into the failings of state organisations.
The first is into the failings of the NHS maternity care at Morecambe Bay Hospital which led to the needless deaths of a number of babies.
The second is into the failings of Oxfordshire County Council officials and the Thames Valley police who refused to take child sex abuse cases seriously.
In the first case, according to the Telegraph, the inquiry found that a band of midwives, who dubbed themselves the “Musketeers”, failed to call doctors when they were needed, in their determination that women should have a “natural birth” and then colluded to cover up critical blunders. In spite of some 19 deaths, of which 12 should not have occurred with the right care, no one has been prosecuted or struck off, although six cases are due to be heard by Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) later this year. One would have thought that colluding to conceal or give false evidence at an inquest was perversion of the course of justice, a criminal matter.
But even more appalling in many ways was the failure of those at the top of the NHS Trust to be aware that anything was wrong, and that the Care Quality Commission along with various other Authorities were either unaware of the situation or failed to take any action.
In the second case, also reported in the Telegraph, both the Police and Social Workers ignored the grooming of an estimated 370 girls in the Oxford area over the past 16 years. The police in some instances took the view that the victims were “prostituting themselves” and “deliberately” putting themselves at risk, whilst the Social Workers took the view that they should be "non-judgemental" about the girls' activities. Again there seems to be failings at the top of both the Police and the Oxfordshire County Council in that they failed to take any action. Whilst seven men have been jailed for child sex offences, there does not seem to have been any disciplinary action taken against either the individual policemen or council officials who ignored the problem. Why not prosecutions for failure of duty in a public office?
The thing that I can't understand is how those at the top of the NHS Trust, the Oxfordshire County Council and the Thames Valley Police can get away with saying "I didn't know" or "Nobody told me" that these things were taking place. Surely it is their job to know.
Now I worked as an Electrical Engineer, and our Chief Engineer made it very clear that he expected to be told about anything that might result in him having to answer questions from either the media or any of the Board members. He had maybe a hundred or more projects under his control, some outside the UK, and he expected all the project engineers to keep him fully informed of any aspect of the project which might give rise to any enquiries. Woe betide any project engineer who hadn't ensured that he had information about a problem should he find out about the problem from any other source. This is what he was paid for, controlling the projects, being aware of any problems and if necessary taking steps to correct the situation. Because of this, all the project engineers took a similar approach. I wanted to know from my staff immediately there were any problems in order that I could both inform the boss of the situation and tell him what was being done.
This was project management, what we were being paid to do, and it was no good any of us saying "Nobody told me", it just wouldn't wash. So why do those at the top of Social Services, the Police and County Councils get away with "I didn't know what was going on". Surely that is their job, a job for which they are very highly paid, a job where it should be their duty to know what is going on. The head of the NHS Trust should have known what was going on at the Morecambe Bay Hospital because the Head of the Hospital should have told him. The head of Oxfordshire County Council should have known what was happening because the head of the Child Protection Services should have told him. The Chief Constable should have known what was going on because the various Chief Superintendents should have told her.
It's time the Government ensured that action was taken against those at the top in these cases; those at the top have failed all those mothers whose babies died and all those vulnerable girls who were groomed and abused. An apology is simply not enough; they should accept full blame and resign; if they are unwilling to do so they should be subjected to disciplinary proceedings and hopefully be fired. We've had more than enough enquiries, we want action.
The first is into the failings of the NHS maternity care at Morecambe Bay Hospital which led to the needless deaths of a number of babies.
The second is into the failings of Oxfordshire County Council officials and the Thames Valley police who refused to take child sex abuse cases seriously.
In the first case, according to the Telegraph, the inquiry found that a band of midwives, who dubbed themselves the “Musketeers”, failed to call doctors when they were needed, in their determination that women should have a “natural birth” and then colluded to cover up critical blunders. In spite of some 19 deaths, of which 12 should not have occurred with the right care, no one has been prosecuted or struck off, although six cases are due to be heard by Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) later this year. One would have thought that colluding to conceal or give false evidence at an inquest was perversion of the course of justice, a criminal matter.
But even more appalling in many ways was the failure of those at the top of the NHS Trust to be aware that anything was wrong, and that the Care Quality Commission along with various other Authorities were either unaware of the situation or failed to take any action.
In the second case, also reported in the Telegraph, both the Police and Social Workers ignored the grooming of an estimated 370 girls in the Oxford area over the past 16 years. The police in some instances took the view that the victims were “prostituting themselves” and “deliberately” putting themselves at risk, whilst the Social Workers took the view that they should be "non-judgemental" about the girls' activities. Again there seems to be failings at the top of both the Police and the Oxfordshire County Council in that they failed to take any action. Whilst seven men have been jailed for child sex offences, there does not seem to have been any disciplinary action taken against either the individual policemen or council officials who ignored the problem. Why not prosecutions for failure of duty in a public office?
The thing that I can't understand is how those at the top of the NHS Trust, the Oxfordshire County Council and the Thames Valley Police can get away with saying "I didn't know" or "Nobody told me" that these things were taking place. Surely it is their job to know.
Now I worked as an Electrical Engineer, and our Chief Engineer made it very clear that he expected to be told about anything that might result in him having to answer questions from either the media or any of the Board members. He had maybe a hundred or more projects under his control, some outside the UK, and he expected all the project engineers to keep him fully informed of any aspect of the project which might give rise to any enquiries. Woe betide any project engineer who hadn't ensured that he had information about a problem should he find out about the problem from any other source. This is what he was paid for, controlling the projects, being aware of any problems and if necessary taking steps to correct the situation. Because of this, all the project engineers took a similar approach. I wanted to know from my staff immediately there were any problems in order that I could both inform the boss of the situation and tell him what was being done.
This was project management, what we were being paid to do, and it was no good any of us saying "Nobody told me", it just wouldn't wash. So why do those at the top of Social Services, the Police and County Councils get away with "I didn't know what was going on". Surely that is their job, a job for which they are very highly paid, a job where it should be their duty to know what is going on. The head of the NHS Trust should have known what was going on at the Morecambe Bay Hospital because the Head of the Hospital should have told him. The head of Oxfordshire County Council should have known what was happening because the head of the Child Protection Services should have told him. The Chief Constable should have known what was going on because the various Chief Superintendents should have told her.
It's time the Government ensured that action was taken against those at the top in these cases; those at the top have failed all those mothers whose babies died and all those vulnerable girls who were groomed and abused. An apology is simply not enough; they should accept full blame and resign; if they are unwilling to do so they should be subjected to disciplinary proceedings and hopefully be fired. We've had more than enough enquiries, we want action.
Saturday, 28 February 2015
HS2 - Something Different?
I was intrigued to read about the proposed Hyperloop passenger transport system and that a prototype is to be built in California next year. It is being backed by Elon Musk, the PayPal billionaire and is being crowd funded. Available details are sparse, but a description is given in today's Daily Telegraph.
The basic idea is for the trains to run in tube from which the air has been partially evacuated, at speeds of up to 800mph, although the short prototype track will only allow them to reach about 200mph.
Whether it is feasible or not, only time will tell, but if it is, it seems that the Americans will have an entirely new type of ground transport whilst we are still arguing over HS2. We were the inventors of the steam railway and led its development all over the world, but it seems that now we have lost all appetite for new innovations and are happy to build our new high speed line using technology which is already considered out-of-date in Japan and China.
I wish the Americans good luck with this project, it is nice to see that innovation there does not depend on government funding and that people are willing to put up money to give it a try. Clearly the pioneering spirit is still alive.
The basic idea is for the trains to run in tube from which the air has been partially evacuated, at speeds of up to 800mph, although the short prototype track will only allow them to reach about 200mph.
Whether it is feasible or not, only time will tell, but if it is, it seems that the Americans will have an entirely new type of ground transport whilst we are still arguing over HS2. We were the inventors of the steam railway and led its development all over the world, but it seems that now we have lost all appetite for new innovations and are happy to build our new high speed line using technology which is already considered out-of-date in Japan and China.
I wish the Americans good luck with this project, it is nice to see that innovation there does not depend on government funding and that people are willing to put up money to give it a try. Clearly the pioneering spirit is still alive.
Saturday, 21 February 2015
UKIP - Media Hypocrisy
The latest Facebook posting by one of the UKIP branches has produced more synthetic rage from politicians and the media.
Apparently the main cause of offence is the Swastika which, we are told by the politically correct, must never be used as it is a symbol of evil. We are told that its use will do nothing to promote "community cohesion". To me the EU is a dictatorial organisation which makes a pretence of being a democracy when in fact it is run by non-elected officials and where the so-called parliament has virtually no powers.
In view of the mess that the EU has led us into with its meddling in the Ukraine, perhaps we should be glad that, as yet, it's not the Russian flag instead of the EU emblem.
The outrage here follows an attempt earlier this week to link Nigel Farage to racism by publishing a photograph of him (taken some time ago) with one of the alleged racists involved in the incident on the French Metro. Unlike the major parties, where everyone who meets the leaders is checked in advance, the UKIP leader meets all kinds of people whilst out canvassing.
Meanwhile, the media says nothing about the election agent for Peterborough Labour Party, Andrew Palmer, being a convicted paedophile. Or about some Labour and Conservative Winchester Councillors resigning over a High Court judgement which found the council guilty of acting unlawfully over a redevelopment contract. Or even about a Leicester Labour councillor who has been convicted of intending to pervert the course of justice. Details are on the Bloggers4UKIP web site
Whilst the UKIP posting might be considered by some to be in poor taste, that is all that is wrong with it; no laws have been broken but nevertheless it has been well publicised by main media outlets. The hypocrisy is that the very same media outlets prefer to ignore those cases where the law has most definitely been broken by both Labour and Conservative party members.
Monday, 9 February 2015
Hospital Fines
The Telegraph reports that
Hospitals will be fined £10,000 if they are found to have lied over negligence claims, under new Government plans to tackle a “cover-up culture” in the NHS
Apart from the fact that Hospitals are buildings and that it is human beings within those hospitals who cover-up the problems, what on earth is the point of fining the Hospital Trusts?
Every fine they have to pay reduces the amount of money that they have available to treat patients or improve the conditions within the hospital. In no way does it have any impact on those who were complicit in the cover-up. The top executives invariably carry on exactly as normal, and occasionally, should enough pressure be applied, they usually manage to leave "by mutual agreement" with a large pay off, only to be re-employed in a similar position elsewhere.
The only real sanction would be to fine or sack the individuals involved. In the latter case, they should be banned from employment within the NHS. The government proposals don't address the problem and the government is effectively proposing to fine patients for the misdemeanours of their employees.
Hospitals will be fined £10,000 if they are found to have lied over negligence claims, under new Government plans to tackle a “cover-up culture” in the NHS
Apart from the fact that Hospitals are buildings and that it is human beings within those hospitals who cover-up the problems, what on earth is the point of fining the Hospital Trusts?
Every fine they have to pay reduces the amount of money that they have available to treat patients or improve the conditions within the hospital. In no way does it have any impact on those who were complicit in the cover-up. The top executives invariably carry on exactly as normal, and occasionally, should enough pressure be applied, they usually manage to leave "by mutual agreement" with a large pay off, only to be re-employed in a similar position elsewhere.
The only real sanction would be to fine or sack the individuals involved. In the latter case, they should be banned from employment within the NHS. The government proposals don't address the problem and the government is effectively proposing to fine patients for the misdemeanours of their employees.
Thursday, 5 February 2015
Sex Abuse
The top item on the BBC's web site at the moment is
"Glitter guilty of child sex abuse"
You have to look amongst the small news items to find "Twenty men charged with sex crime". If you bother to follow the link, you find a mere 12 lines about these arrests by the Northumbria police and absolutely no indication as to the names or ethnic origin of those involved.
If you want to know more, you either have to go to Breitbart or the local Newcastle newspaper, the Chronicle.
Breitbart also reveals that 25 men from Calderdale have been charged with the sexual exploitation of a girl, more details are in the Halifax Courier.
Only Breitbart makes any reference to the ethnic origin of those charge, but you can perhaps draw your own conclusions from their names as in both cases there are several named "Mohammed" amongst those arrested.
At the time of writing, the news feeds from both the Telegraph and the Mail make no reference to either of the cases although, like the BBC, they both seem to go overboard to cover the conviction of Garry Glitter.
Why should one have to rely on an American owned web site to bring us such news? 45 men have been charged with offences, and the UK media feel it is more important to give blanket coverage to the conviction of a 70 year old man for crimes committed 40 years ago.
However one must congratulate the two police forces involved for taking action, unlike the South Yorkshire police in Rotherham who did nothing for many years.
"Glitter guilty of child sex abuse"
You have to look amongst the small news items to find "Twenty men charged with sex crime". If you bother to follow the link, you find a mere 12 lines about these arrests by the Northumbria police and absolutely no indication as to the names or ethnic origin of those involved.
If you want to know more, you either have to go to Breitbart or the local Newcastle newspaper, the Chronicle.
Breitbart also reveals that 25 men from Calderdale have been charged with the sexual exploitation of a girl, more details are in the Halifax Courier.
Only Breitbart makes any reference to the ethnic origin of those charge, but you can perhaps draw your own conclusions from their names as in both cases there are several named "Mohammed" amongst those arrested.
At the time of writing, the news feeds from both the Telegraph and the Mail make no reference to either of the cases although, like the BBC, they both seem to go overboard to cover the conviction of Garry Glitter.
Why should one have to rely on an American owned web site to bring us such news? 45 men have been charged with offences, and the UK media feel it is more important to give blanket coverage to the conviction of a 70 year old man for crimes committed 40 years ago.
However one must congratulate the two police forces involved for taking action, unlike the South Yorkshire police in Rotherham who did nothing for many years.
Wednesday, 21 January 2015
Not My Responsibility!
During my lifetime there seems to have been an enormous decline in the number of people who are willing to take personal responsibility for themselves. No longer will anyone who suffers a misfortune accept that this might be a result of their own actions, someone else is to blame.
The latest organisation to support this concept is the Centre for Social Justice which said that wine, beer and spirits bought in off-licenses and supermarkets should be subject to a levy of a penny per unit to fund rehabilitation for alcoholics.
Why? Why should we all be charged to pay for the treatment of those who don't have the responsibility to look after themselves? In my view anyone who attends A&E as a result of either drink or drugs should be made to pay for their own treatment.
The problem with such a policy is there is no knowing where it might end. Obesity is a matter of increasing concern and today some of the media highlighted the number of teenagers awaiting surgery. The cost of gastric band operations is difficult to ascertain from the media, prices of between five and ten thousand pounds being mentioned, although it is not clear whether this also includes aftercare.
So following the logic of a tax on alcohol to cover treatment, why not take it a step further and have a tax on junk-food, sugar and all the other foods stated to be the causes of obesity in order to fund gastric band operations? Where does it end?
If you take out insurance to cover you or your property against possible misfortunes there is always a clause requiring you to make your best endeavours to safeguard your insured items, whether it is your person or your home. Few holiday insurance policies will pay out if you end up in hospital as a result of being drunk. If you want to engage in some risky holiday activity, you will be expected to pay an additional premium, as indeed I do because of my age.
Why shouldn't the NHS take a similar approach? If there is good reason to believe that you are responsible for your own misfortune, surely it is reasonable to make a charge. Why should we all pay for your irresponsibility? I like my quite regular drop of Scotch, but I don't drink to excess and have never had to have any medical treatment because of my drinking. Indeed my doctor, not so long ago, suggested that a glass of wine of an evening would help me to relax and sleep better and would probably do me less harm than any pills that he might prescribe.
I take responsibility for myself, as do most people of my age for as long as they are capable; I resent the thought of paying for those who have abrogated any personal responsibility.
The latest organisation to support this concept is the Centre for Social Justice which said that wine, beer and spirits bought in off-licenses and supermarkets should be subject to a levy of a penny per unit to fund rehabilitation for alcoholics.
Why? Why should we all be charged to pay for the treatment of those who don't have the responsibility to look after themselves? In my view anyone who attends A&E as a result of either drink or drugs should be made to pay for their own treatment.
The problem with such a policy is there is no knowing where it might end. Obesity is a matter of increasing concern and today some of the media highlighted the number of teenagers awaiting surgery. The cost of gastric band operations is difficult to ascertain from the media, prices of between five and ten thousand pounds being mentioned, although it is not clear whether this also includes aftercare.
So following the logic of a tax on alcohol to cover treatment, why not take it a step further and have a tax on junk-food, sugar and all the other foods stated to be the causes of obesity in order to fund gastric band operations? Where does it end?
If you take out insurance to cover you or your property against possible misfortunes there is always a clause requiring you to make your best endeavours to safeguard your insured items, whether it is your person or your home. Few holiday insurance policies will pay out if you end up in hospital as a result of being drunk. If you want to engage in some risky holiday activity, you will be expected to pay an additional premium, as indeed I do because of my age.
Why shouldn't the NHS take a similar approach? If there is good reason to believe that you are responsible for your own misfortune, surely it is reasonable to make a charge. Why should we all pay for your irresponsibility? I like my quite regular drop of Scotch, but I don't drink to excess and have never had to have any medical treatment because of my drinking. Indeed my doctor, not so long ago, suggested that a glass of wine of an evening would help me to relax and sleep better and would probably do me less harm than any pills that he might prescribe.
I take responsibility for myself, as do most people of my age for as long as they are capable; I resent the thought of paying for those who have abrogated any personal responsibility.
Sunday, 18 January 2015
Sir Winston Churchill
Sir Winston Churchill died fifty years ago this week and in my view he was the greatest Prime Minister that we've had during my lifetime, and in my father's view he was also the greatest one that he'd had during his lifetime. So that takes us back to the 1899!
To me, Churchill was one of those rare Prime Ministers who achieved as much outside politics as he did as a politician. He wrote numerous books, and these days anyone who wrote so many authoritative books would achieve fame solely on the strength of that alone. But no, he was a soldier, a newspaper war reporter, a painter, a politician and much more before becoming Prime Minister. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1953.
My father was a great admirer of Churchill because he was one of the few who spoke out against the appeasement policy of the thirties and who recognised that, sooner or later, war with Germany under Hitler was inevitable. This was because my father visited Germany numerous times during the thirties and always said that anyone who was prepared to open their eyes would have seen the preparations for war. Churchill was one of the few who did, and saw what was happening. He was prepared to stand by his convictions regardless of the prevailing political viewpoint.
Certainly, we have had no Prime Minister since Churchill who was such a great orator and could speak with such conviction, which I'm sure was one of the many reasons which made him such a good war-time leader. I'm sure that I will never see, or hear the likes of him again.
A question that I ask myself, from time to time, is who would lead and inspire this country if we had a major crisis as in 1940? I simply can't think of anyone either inside or outside the current political establishment who has Churchill's qualities.
Andrew Roberts piece in today's Telegraph is well worth reading.
To me, Churchill was one of those rare Prime Ministers who achieved as much outside politics as he did as a politician. He wrote numerous books, and these days anyone who wrote so many authoritative books would achieve fame solely on the strength of that alone. But no, he was a soldier, a newspaper war reporter, a painter, a politician and much more before becoming Prime Minister. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1953.
My father was a great admirer of Churchill because he was one of the few who spoke out against the appeasement policy of the thirties and who recognised that, sooner or later, war with Germany under Hitler was inevitable. This was because my father visited Germany numerous times during the thirties and always said that anyone who was prepared to open their eyes would have seen the preparations for war. Churchill was one of the few who did, and saw what was happening. He was prepared to stand by his convictions regardless of the prevailing political viewpoint.
Certainly, we have had no Prime Minister since Churchill who was such a great orator and could speak with such conviction, which I'm sure was one of the many reasons which made him such a good war-time leader. I'm sure that I will never see, or hear the likes of him again.
A question that I ask myself, from time to time, is who would lead and inspire this country if we had a major crisis as in 1940? I simply can't think of anyone either inside or outside the current political establishment who has Churchill's qualities.
Andrew Roberts piece in today's Telegraph is well worth reading.
Saturday, 10 January 2015
Islamophobia
phobia, noun, an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.
Following the tragic events in France, most politicians have been at pains to try to stress that what happened is nothing to do with Islam, but was the actions of a few extremists who are not representative of the majority of Muslims. The general consensus seems to be that anyone who doesn't take that view and dislikes Muslims is suffering from Islamophobia.
So far there has just been one British politician who disagreed with this consensus and that was Nigel Farage who spoke about the "Fifth Column" within this country, as a result of which, he was roundly condemned by the usual appeasers for "making a political point" out of a tragedy. Sky News, to their credit, interviewed a French MP about the events and he, too, spoke about the enemy within. But as far as I'm aware, not one other UK politician has said anything about the event other than to offer condolences to those involved and to the French nation, whilst, in most cases stressing that the events were nothing to do with Islam.
I'm sorry, but the events have everything to do with Islam, and many "moderate" Muslims are quite happy to accept such events in the name of their religion, as was reported in our local press at the time of 9/11 when pupils at a couple of schools were said to have all cheered as the tragedy unfolded, something that was hastily denied by the local education authorities. It seems to be the case that no Muslim will ever publicly criticise what another Muslim does however heinous the crime. It is impossible to have a dialogue with even "moderate" Muslims. Suggest that they should obey the law of our country, and one will be informed that it is not our country but it belongs to Allah. You cannot have dialogue with a religion which believes in Taqiyya, a concept that accepts it is perfectly in order to lie to a non-believer in order to advance the religion. When I see Muslims wearing T-shirts saying "Not in My Name" or "Not in the Name of Islam" following an atrocity, I may start to believe in "moderate" Muslims.
I believe that the media of the western world should have stood in solidarity with the murdered journalists, but they have done very little. If they'd had any guts, they would all have simultaneously reprinted the offending cartoon on their front pages to demonstrate our free speech and freedom of expression.
Surprisingly, one small section of the press did this, in Quebec where all the French language newspapers reprinted the cartoons. The English language papers opted out! My respect for the French language media in Quebec has increased immensely.
See: "Prophet Muhammad cartoon in Quebec papers after Charlie Hebdo shooting"
(H/T to Anna Raccoon)
Coming back to my original heading. I do not have an irrational fear of Islam, I have a genuine fear of what the religion is doing to my country. There is absolutely nothing irrational about a fear of a religion which instructs its adherents that they should either enslave or kill all non-believers. There is nothing wrong with a fear of a religion which claims to be the "Religion of Peace" and yet finds it acceptable for its adherents to murder anyone who "insults" the religion. No other religion goes to such extremes, and there is no way that I could possibly believe in a God who advocates such action.
So, I am not suffering from Islamophobia, as the politicians and appeasers would claim, I have a real and genuine fear of Islam and of the future that it is leading us into.
Following the tragic events in France, most politicians have been at pains to try to stress that what happened is nothing to do with Islam, but was the actions of a few extremists who are not representative of the majority of Muslims. The general consensus seems to be that anyone who doesn't take that view and dislikes Muslims is suffering from Islamophobia.
So far there has just been one British politician who disagreed with this consensus and that was Nigel Farage who spoke about the "Fifth Column" within this country, as a result of which, he was roundly condemned by the usual appeasers for "making a political point" out of a tragedy. Sky News, to their credit, interviewed a French MP about the events and he, too, spoke about the enemy within. But as far as I'm aware, not one other UK politician has said anything about the event other than to offer condolences to those involved and to the French nation, whilst, in most cases stressing that the events were nothing to do with Islam.
I'm sorry, but the events have everything to do with Islam, and many "moderate" Muslims are quite happy to accept such events in the name of their religion, as was reported in our local press at the time of 9/11 when pupils at a couple of schools were said to have all cheered as the tragedy unfolded, something that was hastily denied by the local education authorities. It seems to be the case that no Muslim will ever publicly criticise what another Muslim does however heinous the crime. It is impossible to have a dialogue with even "moderate" Muslims. Suggest that they should obey the law of our country, and one will be informed that it is not our country but it belongs to Allah. You cannot have dialogue with a religion which believes in Taqiyya, a concept that accepts it is perfectly in order to lie to a non-believer in order to advance the religion. When I see Muslims wearing T-shirts saying "Not in My Name" or "Not in the Name of Islam" following an atrocity, I may start to believe in "moderate" Muslims.
I believe that the media of the western world should have stood in solidarity with the murdered journalists, but they have done very little. If they'd had any guts, they would all have simultaneously reprinted the offending cartoon on their front pages to demonstrate our free speech and freedom of expression.
Surprisingly, one small section of the press did this, in Quebec where all the French language newspapers reprinted the cartoons. The English language papers opted out! My respect for the French language media in Quebec has increased immensely.
See: "Prophet Muhammad cartoon in Quebec papers after Charlie Hebdo shooting"
(H/T to Anna Raccoon)
Coming back to my original heading. I do not have an irrational fear of Islam, I have a genuine fear of what the religion is doing to my country. There is absolutely nothing irrational about a fear of a religion which instructs its adherents that they should either enslave or kill all non-believers. There is nothing wrong with a fear of a religion which claims to be the "Religion of Peace" and yet finds it acceptable for its adherents to murder anyone who "insults" the religion. No other religion goes to such extremes, and there is no way that I could possibly believe in a God who advocates such action.
So, I am not suffering from Islamophobia, as the politicians and appeasers would claim, I have a real and genuine fear of Islam and of the future that it is leading us into.
Tuesday, 6 January 2015
The NHS and A&E
Today, and no doubt for weeks to come, the NHS is in the news.
Hitting the headlines is the fact that many A&E departments at hospitals around the country are unable to cope with the number of people requiring attention and arguments are raging as to why this is happening. One cause for this is claimed to be that too many people are visiting A&E when they should be visiting their GP; but what should they do when they find they can't get a GP's appointment for a week or so? No mention is made of the closure of A&E departments at numerous hospitals; in my area the nearest A&E has been closed and of the next two nearest hospitals, one is in a different NHS Trust whilst the other was already overloaded. Neither has had its facilities increased to cope with the closure, and it shouldn't have needed a genius to deduce that that the closure of an already busy A&E department would have further overloaded departments elsewhere.
But the main problem, in my view, is the mass immigration. You cannot run any service that is "free at the point of use" and can then be used by anyone who turns up for treatment without asking any questions. Unlimited immigration and free treatment for all-comers has broken the NHS, nothing else, and the high birth rate amongst immigrants makes the situation even worse. Locally, the maternity wards are probably under similar pressure to A&E, with mothers often being sent home within hours of giving birth.
Until you are prepared to charge all newcomers to this country there is no solution, short of more and more funding from ever increasing taxation; the NHS has become a World Health Service. I'm told by a friend at a hospital near Heathrow that it's not only immigrants from poorer countries, her hospital gets quite a few US citizens who "are taken ill" here whilst on "holiday" as they don't have adequate health insurance back home for some major operation.
It is time that everyone coming into the country was made to have adequate medical insurance. You can't go to work or live in Australia without health insurance; two retired friends of mine recently went to Australia to live near their children, they had to take out a bond to cover health treatment which cost them about £100,000. They also, incidentally, had to prove that they had the capital to rent or buy a home along with sufficient pension income which would ensure that they wouldn't become a burden on the state. We are only going to solve our NHS problems is we ensure that every user pays for the service, either indirectly by having paid taxes in the past or directly in cash, preferably from an approved insurance policy.
UKIP advocates such measures, and that is why I will be supporting them at the General Election.
Hitting the headlines is the fact that many A&E departments at hospitals around the country are unable to cope with the number of people requiring attention and arguments are raging as to why this is happening. One cause for this is claimed to be that too many people are visiting A&E when they should be visiting their GP; but what should they do when they find they can't get a GP's appointment for a week or so? No mention is made of the closure of A&E departments at numerous hospitals; in my area the nearest A&E has been closed and of the next two nearest hospitals, one is in a different NHS Trust whilst the other was already overloaded. Neither has had its facilities increased to cope with the closure, and it shouldn't have needed a genius to deduce that that the closure of an already busy A&E department would have further overloaded departments elsewhere.
But the main problem, in my view, is the mass immigration. You cannot run any service that is "free at the point of use" and can then be used by anyone who turns up for treatment without asking any questions. Unlimited immigration and free treatment for all-comers has broken the NHS, nothing else, and the high birth rate amongst immigrants makes the situation even worse. Locally, the maternity wards are probably under similar pressure to A&E, with mothers often being sent home within hours of giving birth.
Until you are prepared to charge all newcomers to this country there is no solution, short of more and more funding from ever increasing taxation; the NHS has become a World Health Service. I'm told by a friend at a hospital near Heathrow that it's not only immigrants from poorer countries, her hospital gets quite a few US citizens who "are taken ill" here whilst on "holiday" as they don't have adequate health insurance back home for some major operation.
It is time that everyone coming into the country was made to have adequate medical insurance. You can't go to work or live in Australia without health insurance; two retired friends of mine recently went to Australia to live near their children, they had to take out a bond to cover health treatment which cost them about £100,000. They also, incidentally, had to prove that they had the capital to rent or buy a home along with sufficient pension income which would ensure that they wouldn't become a burden on the state. We are only going to solve our NHS problems is we ensure that every user pays for the service, either indirectly by having paid taxes in the past or directly in cash, preferably from an approved insurance policy.
UKIP advocates such measures, and that is why I will be supporting them at the General Election.
Monday, 5 January 2015
The Benefits of Migrants !
I suppose it all depends on who gets the benefits, us or them.
This blog by Anna Raccoon is a "must read" for all those who believe immigrants contribute to this country.
In essence it is about the cost to the state of a Bangladeshi immigrant, Mr Ouanq, who "married" his cousin, Tia, who has a mental age of between four and eight, who then bred four children which were taken into care; of the "wife" who needs a 24/7 team of carers because of her mental state, and of a further "wife", also a cousin, who has since produced two more children.
All are living in social housing and on benefits.
Anna lists some of the costs:
This blog by Anna Raccoon is a "must read" for all those who believe immigrants contribute to this country.
In essence it is about the cost to the state of a Bangladeshi immigrant, Mr Ouanq, who "married" his cousin, Tia, who has a mental age of between four and eight, who then bred four children which were taken into care; of the "wife" who needs a 24/7 team of carers because of her mental state, and of a further "wife", also a cousin, who has since produced two more children.
All are living in social housing and on benefits.
Anna lists some of the costs:
"We have two adults, possibly three if we include Mr Ouanq, fully supported by the taxpayer.
"We have housing association accommodation subsidised by the tax payer.
"We have six children, each fully supported in care by the taxpayer.
"We have full time care via a rota of employees for Tia.
"We have (I may have lost count here!)
nine high court actions/family court/court of protection/immigration
tribunals – each of which has been attended by a murmur of black gowned
legal experts including top flight QCs.
"We have a range of psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, case conference attendees, and assorted council employees."
For once, I simply don't know what to say!
Thursday, 1 January 2015
Spending Money that the Country doesn't have!
Anti-corruption group Transparency International reports that 'Britain
gave more than £1 billion to some of the world’s most corrupt countries
in 2013, possibly even helping fund extremism, despite numerous
warnings that the money was being misspent'.
And that 'Even North Korea, with its oppressive communist regime, received money from the British government'.
The Daily Mail gives more detail.
Giving away money we don't have and incurring interest on that money hardly seems to be a very clever way of restoring the country's fortunes, especially as the government is now spending more paying interest on borrowed money than it is on defence.
This billion pounds, of course, is just the money given to some of the world’s most corrupt countries, nothing is said about that given away elsewhere to countries like India which can afford a space programme or to Argentine which never has a word of good for this country. There was even money given to Venezuela, a country which is oil rich but remains in poverty due to incompetent government.
The biggest joke, if it wasn't so serious, is the statement by The Department for International Development last night that "it took a zero-tolerance approach to corruption". Indeed it claims that it doesn't give money to the some of the countries mentioned, but that it given through organisations like the United Nations, which is not much of a recommendation as the UN itself is hardly free from corruption.
That was in 2013, and this year Cameron adopted the UN aid target which required a 30 per cent increase in the UK aid budget to £11.5 billion. Whilst this has been ignored by most of the world’s major economies, our government is pressing ahead and it seems that our officials are just giving away money by the bucket load without thought, simply to spend the budget on schedule.
No doubt ministers will be going to the UN patting themselves on the back at having spent money that the country hasn't got to meet a UN target simply plucked out of thin air. Or perhaps someone is expecting a nice sinecure with the UN when he doesn't get re-elected next May.
And that 'Even North Korea, with its oppressive communist regime, received money from the British government'.
The Daily Mail gives more detail.
Giving away money we don't have and incurring interest on that money hardly seems to be a very clever way of restoring the country's fortunes, especially as the government is now spending more paying interest on borrowed money than it is on defence.
This billion pounds, of course, is just the money given to some of the world’s most corrupt countries, nothing is said about that given away elsewhere to countries like India which can afford a space programme or to Argentine which never has a word of good for this country. There was even money given to Venezuela, a country which is oil rich but remains in poverty due to incompetent government.
The biggest joke, if it wasn't so serious, is the statement by The Department for International Development last night that "it took a zero-tolerance approach to corruption". Indeed it claims that it doesn't give money to the some of the countries mentioned, but that it given through organisations like the United Nations, which is not much of a recommendation as the UN itself is hardly free from corruption.
That was in 2013, and this year Cameron adopted the UN aid target which required a 30 per cent increase in the UK aid budget to £11.5 billion. Whilst this has been ignored by most of the world’s major economies, our government is pressing ahead and it seems that our officials are just giving away money by the bucket load without thought, simply to spend the budget on schedule.
No doubt ministers will be going to the UN patting themselves on the back at having spent money that the country hasn't got to meet a UN target simply plucked out of thin air. Or perhaps someone is expecting a nice sinecure with the UN when he doesn't get re-elected next May.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
