New Year Mayhem

Or what the papers DON'T say!
If you believe what the BBC and most newspapers tell us, New Year was generally peaceful both here and in Europe at large. The worse thing that happened was that too many people got drunk and that the NHS was overwhelmed by the A&E admissions.

But Breitbart tells a different story.
First we read that the City of Augsberg in Bavaria where, as well as a spate of sexual attacks, revellers were also attacked and several properties were damaged by Syrian migrants using fireworks.
Then another report from Austria reveals that there multiple cases of sexual assault, violence, and attacks with fireworks committed across the country by migrants.
A further report from Germany relates that in Dortmund, a mob of more than 1,000 men chanted ‘Allahu Akhbar’, launched fireworks at police, and set fire to a historic church.
This, according to most of our media, was a generally peaceful start to the new year. Whether the locals where the above events took place would agree with this assessment is questionable.

Of course, the EU apologists will tell us that Breitbart is part of the new "alt-right" responsible for fake news, where in practice they are the people exposing the fake news that all went well over the new year. But in the case of the reports above they quote the local newspapers reporting the events, and even if you can't read German, the pictures and video tell their own story, just don't expect to see any of the videos on UK TV.

The good news today is that the British Ambassador to the EU has resigned. Much of the media, led by the BBC are trying to convince us that this is a total disaster for our forthcoming negotiations with the EU as he is the most knowledgeable person in the UK concerning the workings of the EU. He is also firmly in the 'Remain' camp and has been part of the message of doom, most recently with his leaked warning that it could take ten years to negotiate a new trade treaty with the EU.

I trust that when it comes to his replacement it will not be up to the Foreign Office but is let to the Brexiteers in the Cabinet. My choice would be Nigel Farage!

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.

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!

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.

The Middle East

I've already made it clear that I do not feel our government is being sufficiently pro-active in trying to produce a plan to safeguard this country from the events in the Middle East. Indeed, from reports in the media it is difficult not to reach the conclusion that our government hasn't got the slightest idea what to do about the Middle East and is merely acting in response to events  rather than trying to anticipate them.
I would have hoped that the government, by now, would have got together all the various experts from the Civil Service, the Military, the security services, etc, and tried to come up with a detailed analysis of the situation and the possible scenarios that might result. That should include, not only what action, if any, to take in the Middle East, but also, in my view more importantly, an analysis of the threat to this country from extremists resident here and any returning from abroad.

Our record on dealing with terrorists hardly gives much confidence; as Theresa May writes in the Telegraph, "69 people have been arrested for offences relating to terrorism in Syria; so far, 12 have been charged and four have been successfully prosecuted". Hardly an inspiring record!
So far, a mere 23 people have had their passports withdrawn because it was suspected they might be heading for Syria; as Breitbart points out, this hardly compares favourably with the 1400 football supporters/hooligans  who had their passports withdrawn to stop them travelling to Brazil.  Clearly our police know more about football than terrorism!

As I said previously, I favour an isolationist policy and take the view that we should do absolutely nothing in the Middle East unless it can be shown that our inaction would have a direct effect on our security in this country. Our interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya can hardly be called a roaring success.

We should be concentrating all our effort in dealing with the situation at home, identifying and weeding out potential terrorists. Those responsible for radicalisation need to be identified and prosecuted. If we don't have the laws to deal with the situation, Parliament should set about enacting some suitable legislation, ideally as a cross-party endeavour.
So far all we seem to have is lots of knee-jerk proposals from various politicians, followed by others telling us we couldn't possibly do that because it would infringe someone's rights. Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage have all come up with ideas in the last week or so, only for some one else to argue that we couldn't possibly do that because it would infringe some law. The most laughable suggestion, apparently from the Home Office, is that there should be some form of ASBO for potential terrorists: "You are banned from being a suicide bomber, if you infringe this ban you will be jailed"!

Last week, Nigel Farage proposed that the Government strip militants with joint nationality of their UK citizenships, and withdraw passports from British citizens who want to travel to the jihad. He also wanted to see those who do not hold UK citizenship but have been granted the right to live here, have that right revoked immediately. I can't see anything wrong with this idea, but apparently it would be contrary to international agreement to make people stateless.
Boris Johnson has suggested that there should be a basic assumption that anyone returning from the war-torn areas has been participating in the conflict unless the individual can prove otherwise. This is, of course, contrary to the basic British law presumption that one is innocent until proved guilty. However, there is a way around this; America has laws by which it can ban people from going to specified countries unless they get prior permission by showing good cause, such as being a news reporter. This doesn't stop anyone from breaking the law and going to these countries, but does enable them to be prosecuted on return.

Then, what's happened to our treason laws? Don't the laws about aiding and abetting or consorting with an enemy still apply to British citizens? Can't British citizens returning from the war zone be charged with treason?

Come on, its time that Parliament and our Government earned their living and came up with a plan to deal with the threat to this country instead of engaging in the usual "Ya-bo" politics which seems to be all that they can manage these days.