On Tory defence cuts

Sometimes I don't get politicians. Weeeeell I usually dot get them to be fair, but even by those standards I simply don't know what David Cameron is playing at regarding defence cuts.

Two things need to be stated outright. The first is that the primary duty of any government to the protection of the country and it's people. Secondly it is a disgrace to cut the military whilst they are fighting wars.

These two things are self-evident.

But I'm going to deal with the political aspect of any cuts. Why on god's green planet would the Tory party be so stupid as to even think of cutting the defence budget. The labour party starved defence for decades. Their treatment of the military became a massive election issue for labour. Labour's shabby treatment and cuts of the armed services allowed the Tory party to attack them and helped them win votes. They painted the labour government as not to be trusted on defence, and for putting the lives of our military at risk through cost cutting.

Both things being true. This was a devastating attack for which labour had no defence.

This line of attack was the cumulation of over a hundred years of the Tory party being seen as the strong on defence party. Regardless of our political leanings we are a country which supports our military. They are our family and friends. We demand their support.

The pro military stance of the Tory party helped them win the election. I simply cannot understand why they would throw away this invaluable asset and allow labour and the Lib-Dems to neutralise this line of attack and win votes by attacking the Tories as the anti-military party.

It's madness and symptomatic of a isolated immature party out of touch with the realities of war and the responsibilities they have to our country and those people that defend us and whom they send to war.

That is worrying.

People bang on about the cost of defence, and usually bring up our nuclear deterrent as items that can be cut. Spending on defence items provides jobs and helps develop and support high-tech industries.

This is true. However the thing you have to remember is that our new nuclear deterrent will cost £20 billion and will have a shelf life of thirty years. Some politicians think this is too much. The Olympic Games the same politicians wanted to sooth their vanity will cost this cash strapped country over £23 billion and has a lifespan of a couple of weeks.

Which do you think is the best value for money?

Cameron really does have to buck his idea up if he wants to remain PM after the next election.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Ed Miliband's Iraq War hypocrisy

People wonder why politicians are hated. A lot of it is due to their incompetence, which is profound, and their corruption, which is immense. But I think that a lot of it comes down to their hypocrisy and the fact they take the as idiots.

Case in point: Ed Miliband. This is a man who is from a very privileged background. He inherited millions from his Marxist daddy. But he has never had a real job....ever. He has been bound up with labour for decades. He was an advisor to labour shadow ministers, he became an MP in a safe labour seat, he was a labour minister in the last labour government. He even wrote the last labour election manifesto. OK that turned out to be a disaster, but he wrote it.

He is labour through and through. An insider.

But now he is trying to paint himself as an outsider, a fresh face. Worse he is trying to get the anti-war vote by mildly condemning the Iraq War. See here.

Now you can take the view that this war was justified, that it was based on lies but justified, or that it was an illegal war. That's fine.

However it is total hypocrisy for a man that has been at the heart of labour since 1993, well before this godawful war, when he became a special advisor to a series of highest ranking ministers, mostly Gordon Brown, to condemn this war.

It is sheer hypocrisy and opportunism. It is taking the public as idiots.

If Ed believes the Iraq War was wrong why did he not say so at the time? If the war was illegal why did he keep on taking the labour pound?

If he thought the labour party had committed a war crime why was he so desperate to become a labour MP?

What Ed is doing is akin to a headline Nazi succeeding Hitler and trying to distance himself from his crimes.

We are not that stupid.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Labour and the Jewish 'question'

One of the most scandalous incidents in British politics in the last fifty years went unnoticed by many. Why the press chose to ignore it is itself a worry, but for another time.

It happened when the Tory party had Michael Howard as it's leader. I do not know what Howard's religious affiliations, if any, are. I do know one son is a Church of England minister. Equally I know he is from a Jewish family.

In this day and age I would have thought a person's Jewishness would not be a cause of comment. And thankfully it wasn't for most people. I can honestly say I never heard one person in the street, Tory or labour, comment on Howard's faith. It seems we lumpen proletariat are not anti-Semitic.

Not so the comedians of the BBC, specifically on the comedy quiz "Mock the Week", who mocked Howard as a vampire, bloodsucker, and the like for years leading up to the election. They say it was because of his ancestral roots in Romania, though I cannot see them putting on silly voices and using ethnicity to mock a person with Pakistani or African heritage somehow. Jews have always been attacked by portraying them as vampires and bloodsuckers out for gentile blood. As such I found the Beeb's use of imagery from the neo-Nazi songbook worrying.

However this is nothing compared to the labour party. Just before an election they had a government minister write for leading Muslim papers telling Muslim voters not to vote for the Jew. Basically it said that if you vote Tory the Jews will take over and all Muslims will be crushed.

This was a government minister spinning a government line. This was not some slip of the tongue or an errant minister. This was labour's official line of attack.

At the time I found it sickening. It was a throwback to the racist politics of 1920's Germany. I could not believe that a modern political party would stoop so low as to use such despicable tactics.

But they did.

I do wonder if at the next election shadow labour ministers will be writing for the Muslim press telling their readers not to vote for the Jew now that their leader is Jewish?

A Jewish person with close family in Israel!

Don't think so somehow. And I sincerely hope that the Tories don't stoop so low as to follow the labour attacks on all Jews. Suck attacks have no place in any modern country.

I wonder if the Beeb's resident comedians will mock Ed Miliband for the fact that his father was an illegal immigrant. Perhaps they can put on funny faux eastern European accents they find so amusing.

Don't think so somehow.

Labour have mined the depths in their pursuit of power. Anti-Semitism is just one of their attacks. I truly hope that such scandalous attacks are banished from British politics for ever, but with labour I doubt it.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

On labour's squeals about 'Red' Ed

Some of the press have made comment on the fact that the new labour leader is unmarried, and has a partner and children out of wedlock. Myself I couldn't care less. Perhaps it could be argued that children raised within marriage do better than those without, I don't know, it all comes down to freedom of choice. I'm pro-freedom.

It has to be said that I've not seen any press condemning Ed for his lack of marriage. The only thing I find a little odd is that Ed is not on the birth certificate of his first child because he was busy. Like I said, odd. But this is not important, just odd.

The partner of a senior politician is a matter of public interest. Maybe they shouldn't be, but politicians do keep using them and their children for political ends. So they are the legitimate focus of press attention.

What I find rather amusing is the bleating of labour about the free press writing about Ed. This is a party who was forced to sack people who were caught using the press to spread lies about the sex lives, and mental health of the families of their opponents. And we all know that such smears and lies went to the top of the party. So for them to whine now of hypocritical.

The thing to remember here is that the press have not lied or smeared Ed. Reporting the facts about a man who wishes to be prime minister is not wrong. If you want to be PM you have to expect it.

Really labour needs to grow up a bit.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

The unions buying the labour party: not a good idea

So Ed Miliband has been foisted onto the labour party as their new leader. This is not good. I mean he looks and sounds weird. It is alas a sad state of affairs but freakiness is used by the press and comedians to destroy people. William Hague was destroyed because he had little hair. Ed is much odder than that.

It is wrong for labour to have a posh, multimillionaire, as a leader. They are supposed to be the party of the working man. Worse than that, Ed is a through back to the seventies leftwing labour party. This was the labour party which lost every election it stood for. This is not good for the party.

However it is a godsend for the Tory party. Not only to the have a labour party which moves to the extreme left, they have a oddball as an opponent. But best of all, and this is gift to the Tories which is beyond their wildest dreams, they have a labour leader not chosen by the labour party..... Again.

And that's killer.

The actual members of the labour party did not vote for Ed to be labour leader.

The labour MPs, who know him best, did not vote for Ed to be labour leader.

He won because of the union block votes.

This is manner from heaven for the Tories.

Not only can they attack him for being an extremist and try to appeal to the moderate members of the labour party, they can spin the line that labour has been bought by the unions.

This line of attack will do labour much more damage now that the unions are starting strikes which are pissing off the public. Such angry voters will not vote labour.

I would not be surprised if the Tory party are now partying like it's 1999. This is the outcome they could never have hoped for.

I've always found the labour voting system weird and undemocratic. To my mind it is simple: every member has a vote in who leads them. I suppose it is reasonable that MPs have a larger say as they have to work with the leader directly, I'm not a fan of this but can understand it.

So one man one vote is fine. But with labour some people have more than one vote, if you're a member of the labour party and the Co-Op you've two. If you're a union leader you've got millions of votes. Votes that you can use to overrule the party members.

This is simply undemocratic and wrong.

If you don't think it is wrong then just look at what happens to labour with their new leader and how it makes him vulnerable to Tory attack.

Oh yes it'll be happy days in Tory HQ over Ed.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Ed Miliband: labour leader

So after all that labour have been lumbered with Ed Miliband.

Oh dear. Is that the best can do?

Grief.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Ken Livingstone: labour candidate for London...... Yet again

To be frank I'm not a fan of the ex-mayor of London, ex-MP, and ex-London bigwig, Ken Livingstone. Even so I'm at a loss why labour have chosen him to stand as their candidate for the mayoral election.

Ken is one of the most disloyal of politicians, which is astonishingly disloyal as most politicians are by nature disloyal and serve only themselves. This is a man who even though a labour member of parliament stood, and won, the position of mayor as in independent against the official labour candidate because the party wouldn't choose him. And then betrayed all those who voted for an independent candidate rather than a labour one by rejoining the labour ranks.

Not much party loyalty. Or loyalty to the voters.

What I find hard to understand is why chose him now.

This is a man who lost a personal election by millions. More people voted against him than have voted against any person in the history of the UK. Why pick such a monumental loser?

Why pick a drunk who spent most of his days as mayor getting pissed at our expense?

Why pick a wife beater? Though the police he ruled chose not to charge him he had to be restrained from attacking his pregnant wife in public.

A convicted racist? This is a man who was found guilty, though escaping with a minor slap on the wrist, of using racist insults to a reporter.

A man linked to endemic corruption whilst mayor?

Why chose a old, discredited man rather than a new fresh faced, untainted individual? Surely labour has some new talent?

What I find really disgusting about this is the fact that Ken was chosen because London is Ken's. It is seen by Ken and labour are Ken's personal fiefdom. His preserve by right. The people dint matter. It is not about what is best for the people of London. It is about the vanity and delusion of one man. It is pathetic.

I just don't understand why a party who has taken a electoral kicking and who is trying to renew itself with a "new" leader and a new vision to regain power, would pick a discredited dinosaur to represent them. I find that very odd.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Koran Burning

I love books, always have done. There's something special about books, it's silly I know. My Father told me when I was young that even if a book was rubbish you'd always learn something from it. He was right.

The love of books instilled in me by both my parents is a precious gift. You can learn anything from a book: programming, history, brewing, calligraphy, anything. I love that.

Because of this affection I don't like book burning. It is more than just because of my affection for the written word, however, but because of all the images of Nazi, and fundamentalist book burning. Too much baggage for me.

However it is not illegal, nor would I want it to be. We should be free to express ourselves. It doesn't matter if anyone else likes it.

Six men have been arrested for burning the Koran. This burning was not in the midst of a riot or in front of a crowd. It was however filmed and posted on the Internet.

And so the police arrested them. Their crime? Inciting racial hatred. See here.

And it is that that gets me. Book burning, or flag burning, is not illegal in the UK. Rightly so. Therefore these men cannot be arrested for book burning. This is the same protection that protects militant Muslims when they burning our flag and burn books they don't like.

So why were these angry, white, stupid men arrested?

The police say it is a racial issue. It isn't, in cannot be. Muslims are not a race, neither are Christians, Hindus, Mormons, Jews, etc. These are religious groups not racially exclusive groups. In the case of Jews and Hindus, etc., the vast majority of the believers are born into the religion and are from a distinct genetic group, but anyone can convert into the religions. Thus their religion and ethnicity constitute two separate things.

For Islam and Christianity there is no such close ties to ethnicity. Muslims and Christians come in any colour and genetic group under the sun. They are not a distinct ethnic group. Therefore it is ridiculous political correctness to arrest people on trumped up charges. It makes the law look an ass.

You don't have to like their actions but you cannot falsely arrest people because you don't like them.

To single out a group of stupid white people for arrest whilst allowing militant Muslims to not only burn our flag or Bible, but to call for people to be murdered to walk free even when they make such threats in front of the police is counterproductive to good community relations. Worse it is the police who protect such extremists whilst they call for others to be murdered. Such protection for a single group and the attacking of the white majority is going to increase the support of the loathsome BNP.

That would be a mistake in my opinion.

I think the most insulting aspect about this case is the views of important people that action has to be taken against these six because if they didn't Muslims would rise up and act violently and kill us.

I would find it hard to come up with a greater insult to the majority of Muslims than that. It is calling all Muslims ignorant primitives with a psychotic propensity to violence. It is not true obviously but it really makes one wonder who has the most racist attitudes of the followers of Islam.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

WTF is David Cameron doing?

There are many things in this world I don't understand. Many things. It was only a few short years ago that I stopped believing that cars worked by magic. Even now I'm not 100% convinced they don't.

The world is complicated and made even more so by people.

Which is all part of the fun.

But one thing I really find confusing is the way David Cameron is allowing the Lib-Dems to humiliate him and his party. You have to remember that the Lib-Dems lost the last election. It was an unmitigated disaster for them. The actually lost MPs, which when you consider how hated labour was is unbelievable.

And yet Cameron has damaged the Tory party by giving into the Lib-Dem, his very junior partners, on everything. Immigration, tax, business, social policy......

The list goes on.

He has also allowed Lib-Dem MPs who are ministers in a Cameron government to criticise that government, to undermine him and it in public, without not one murmur of objection. So much for government loyalty.

This is not about policy but rather politics. By treating the Lib-Dems this way shows Cameron to be a weak leader. Worse than that, by bending to the wishes of a minor party, one thoroughly rejected by the vast majority of the country, he is damaging the Tory party.

People need to believe what is published in election manifestos. If they cannot what's the point. With a issue like immigration, which was such a massive election issue which helped the Tories, not delivering will do massive damage to the Tory party in the next election.

There are two things here. The first is that the Tory and Lib-Dem leaders (and the labour ones) are the same. Same education, same background, same types of family, same life experience. They have a hell of a lot more in common with each other than with us. This closeness means they tend to think alike and are more likely to do favours for each other. I mean to say they are one of 'us'.

By reneging on promises and principles is totally short-term politics. It is trying to keep a coalition government together by giving the Lib-Dems everything they want. In the short term it may work. However doing so massively damages the longterm prospects of the Tory party at the next election. An election that may happen sooner rather than later.

Why vote Tory if you seen them go back on promises, move to the left, and go weak on crime, immigration, or whatever?

It is worrying that any party needlessly destroys their chances of winning an election so pointlessly.

It seems with all the youth and vigour of the new Tory leadership they lack the experience, and maturity, they need. They simply cannot see the long term.

This is worrying for a country which needs long term thinking and work to get us out of the mess labour left.

Like I said, worrying.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Vince Cable: idiot

I'm not blind to the fact that some bankers and some businessmen act in illegal ways. I know that greed can result in disgraceful actions. All of these should be condemned. This is not a radical position. Rather it is sensible. I have the same views about politicians, unions, charities, or anybody. In all things there are good and bad eggs. We need to celebrate and support the good and complain about the bad.

This is the sensible, adult position most take.

And then we have Vince Cable, the self-proclaimed sage of politics. During his Lib-Dem conference lecture he showed himself to be childish, a hypocrite, and an idiot. For a person to prove all three takes a special type of stupidity.

He opening words were

Comrades

Now this is childish. Not even the hardest left labour person would say such a thing. It is simply too 1950's. It really went out of style with Stalin. For a man professing to be a mainstream political type to use such words to garner applause is pathetic.

He insults all businessmen and bankers as spivs. This is the rankest hypocrisy. Was Cable a spiv when he worked for Shell oil advising them how to save money? Is his banker brother a spiv? Was his father a spiv? Was David Cameron's late father one?

Cable is thus shown to be a hypocrite.

Worse than that he is shown to be stupid. What adult would condemn a whole profession or industry for the actions of a few? This is the man who bitterly complains when all politicians are called corrupt. A few bankers do wrong, but over half of politicians like him were caught.

So who are the thieves?

Perhaps the most depressing of the decrepit Cables drone is how utterly out of touch he is. Some banks and individuals did wrong, but the problem this country faces is due to the spendthrift actions of politicians, indeed the US banking system and our was destroyed by the decisions of Bill Clinton. It is they who hosed our cash down the drain. It is the debt they wrought that makes our current situation so dire.

For all the Comrades crap and the blaming of bankers and businessmen for all ill it is the banks and the very same businessmen who will save the country. It is only through brave people setting up businesses and actually creating wealth through the own efforts that our politician caused debt can be paid off. I do not decry the civil service en mass (though there are exceptions), but without private industry this country is screwed.

Cable's scapegoating and stupidity is dangerous. If banks are taxed to ruin or made the personification of evil they'll move to another country. Since these banks contribute about 38% of UK taxation, with another 6% from all the bonuses and wages these bankers bring in, this is not good.

How does Cable think he can make up forty odd percent of taxation if the bugger off abroad? Plus the taxes from big business? Does he think that the people will welcome a doubling, or more, of their taxation on top of cuts to meet the shortfall?

The UK needs to actively encourage business. It should provide every encouragement to get people to use their talents to create new, vibrant businesses. Big business should be encouraged to invest here, to develop new products and services.

This is an incredible country with huge talents and abilities. This needs to be harnessed. Our government should encourage, and get out of the way and let the people create business.

With a vain, idiot like Cable in charge of business it won't be though.

With Cable in the way the future for our children looks dark.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Cricket tensions increase

I've written here about the horrendous stain of corruption hanging over the Pakistani cricket team. Due to the political aspects of the world game this is a scandal has been hushed up for far too long.

The powers that be in the game, and the national politicians who use cricket for political advantage, would like this to simply disappear.

But it won't.

By rights the current cricket tour have been abandoned until the stables are cleaned.

But it wasn't.

Too much money is at stake and too much prickly national pride eager to be hurt.

This was a mistake. Things have descended to a point where the tour is untenable. With the head of Pakistani cricket trying to divert attention from Pakistani corruption leads to him smearing English players, with the English players threatening to sue him for his lies as it will do them serious professional damage, it cannot continue.

But when the English and Pakistani teams resorting to violence the tour is over. See here.

I know how passionate Pakistan is about cricket but for the good of the game they need to be suspended from world cricket until the corrupt players are routed out and banned from life. It goes beyond that though. The whole Pakistani cricket organisation needs to be purged of the corrupt and the nepotistic. They need a new, pure, open organisation not the rancid morass they have now.

I want to be perfectly clear here. Although it seems that Pakistan is at fault in this case my sentiments would apply to ALL corrupt players. It does not matter if they are English, Australian, Indian, or whoever. I don't care if they are a minor player or the greatest captain in the game, the corrupt needs a lifetime ban. No ifs and no buts.

Unless this problem is dealt with with full open vigour this scandal will destroy the game internationally and do massive damage nationally.

Political correctness, money, and politics cannot be allowed to stand in the way of what needs to be done.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Monday morning oddness

A strange thing has happened. A very odd thing indeed.

Very.

It's Monday morn and yet I find I've nothing to be cross about. Not even a little. This could mean that I'm mellowing in my dotage, which I doubt (grr)' or I'm getting inculcated to the corruption, incompetence, and sheer buggeryness of life. I simply cannot be bothered.

The fact that it's the Lib-Dem party conference doesn't help. I mean to say this is the event which is the third definition of dullness in the OED.

I can only apologise to my loyal readers (you know who you are) and can only hope that normal service is resumed as soon as possible. And now some free form jazz humming.


Oh I see. Yep that's a bit of a problem really. I should use a microphone to record my humming opus. Don't got one......

....you'll just have to do your own humming whilst perusing this site and do your best.

Cheers.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

On Halal meat

I like my meat. I don't eat huge amounts, and am partial to vegetarian food, but the fact remains I'm a carnivore.

Even though this is true I do care about the welfare of the animals who supply me with my meat. It is for those reason I find the story that the meat produced for Muslims using their Halal method is being fed to non-Muslims without their knowledge worrying. See here.

This cannot, to my mind, be right. There is concerns and arguments about this form of slaughter. In fact non-Muslims would be taken to court for killing animals in this way. It is seen as part of the Islamic faith and as such is granted permission to kill in this way. One could argue about this permission both for and against but the fact is it is legal to kill using the Halal method for Muslims.

Even the most politically correct person who supports minorities must be a little concerned that meat prepared in such a manner for Muslims is being fostered onto non-Muslims. The problem is the fact that such meat is not labelled as bring Halal, and non-Muslims are not given an option of non-Halal meat.

To my mind this is political correctness, and unscrupulous business practice seeking to foist minority practice and spare, cheap meat, onto an unsuspecting public.

What should happen, though it won't, is for the animal charities and the courts to take the matter to court. Special dispensation to kill using the Halal method is granted to produce Halal meat for Muslim consumption. But it should only be for Muslim consumption. Any selling of Halal meat to non-Muslims should mean the supplier, business, school, or body, should be prosecuted for animal cruelty. Halal meat is exempt from animal law specifically to produce meat for Muslims. They moment it is given to non-Muslims the animal cruelty legislation as it applies to non-Muslims should be enforced.

At the very least all Halal meat should be labelled as such in order to give the public a choice.

My fear is that political correctness and a pathological fear of being labelled as racist or 'Islamophobic' means it won't be. Not doing so will provide ammunition to the racists who will garner votes by using this Halal secrecy as proof of the fact that the majority Christian population has become second class citizens in their own country. This is not good.

There is a restaurant near me which is part of a national chain of restaurants. In the window of this establishment there is a sign informing the public that they serve only Halal meat. I have never eaten there. They have a second restaurant of the same chain nearby with no such sign. I assumed that this meant that they served non-Halal meat. Maybe they don't, or maybe they do without telling.

We need to know if the meat being served is or is not Halal. If Muslims can legally prepare meat using Halal methods because of their religious principles then the principles of non-Muslims need to be respected by informing them that the meat being served to them is prepared by a method which may be against their principles.

Respect and understanding is a two way street.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Daily Express headline: 'Muslim plot to kill pope'

I feel sorry for the Daily Express. This was once a proper, respectable paper read by people who wanted a proper paper. This is one of the oldest surviving papers and was once seen as a quality daily paper for the working man.

Not any more it isn't. Not since a pornographer bought it. After sacking real journalists and going ever more down market it has become a national joke.

Make no mistake this is a terrible 'newspaper' whose only journalistic line is the continued printing of the front page story informing the public that Princess Diana is still dead.

It has become a pathetic shadow if it's former glory.

However some people have taken offence regarding today's headline about six Muslims being arrested as they plotted to kill the Pope. Trouble is I don't see the problem. Six men of the Muslim faith have been arrested for allegedly plotting to kill the Pope. Unless they are owned money by the Pope, or the Pope 'dissed' their girlfriends, I think it is safe to say that their motivation for any plot was their faith. It may be a extreme or false version of the faith but it is faith driven all the same.

That faith is Islam.

So I don't think you can criticise a paper for printing what is the facts as known now. And that headline was accurate, it isn't inflammatory or incorrect. Both thing for which the Express has tragically become infamous for. For once the Express has done nothing wrong.

Political correctness is ridiculous when it protects the guilty or doesn't mention the elephant in the room.




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

What makes an American?

Conspiracy types have been banging on about where President Obama was born since before he became president. Now you'd think that such attacks are veiled racism, you know along the lines of a black man not being a real American. In some cases this is a true picture of some of these attackers.

However it goes beyond that. His father wasn't American and he lived abroad as a child. But I don't care about that. For all the debate about why is birth certificate is said to be hidden, I don't care. Really I don't.

What I found interesting at the time of the election was that Obama's people spun that his opponent McCain wasn't qualified to stand as he wasn't born in America. He wasn't, he was born in Panama. Unfortunately for this line of attack he was born on a US base in Panama. Such bases are American soil. Thus he was eligible to seek election as president.

My question is this: what is an American?

A woman could be born in Prague and move to the US at three days. She could become an American as a babe in arms. She could go through the US educational system. She could join the US Airforce and win the Congressional Medal of Honor before leaving to pursue a dream to become a doctor. She could find the cure for cancer and win the Nobel Prize. She could them bring peace to the Middle East and win a second prize for peace. She could become the most famous and most loved person on the planet. Her views could become akin to the word of God in America.

But she couldn't stand for president.

How is that fair?

To my mind if a person can become a citizen. If they can serve in their country's armed services. If they can bleed and perhaps die for their country they should be able to stand for any office, including president.

I don't understand how it is possible to have two classes of citizens in a country based on geography. One is either a citizen or not. Non-citizens cannot stand for office. But citizens can.

How can anything else be fair?

I find the US attitude strange and feel that it reflects a inherent xenophobic fear of other countries. I don't think this is the view of the people, just the archaic system.

It's just weird.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

On the Pope's visit

I'm not Catholic. Nothing against them but I'm not one of them. I know people who happen to be Catholic but to be totally honest religion does not play a part in the relationship. The same with the Jews, Hindus, Muslim, pagans, atheists of my acquaintance. For most people their religious beliefs, however strong or weak, are private.

As it happens I have always had my doubts about any religion taking a tithe of the wages of a follower. And remember that a lot of religions seem to do this. I just don't think it is fair. It's ok if an individual voluntary gives money to a religion, or any group. That is free will. But I worry about being required to give money.

This is not about religion rather it is about compulsion.

In my life I've had to deal with the victims of childhood abuse. Such abuse has been emotional, physical, and of course sexual. I've seen the long term effects of such abuse on people.

I do not take the abuse of anyone, especially children, lightly. Any perpetrator of such abuse should face justice. I do not care who they are. Tragically some in the Catholic Church failed to do this and with the collusion of various states actively protected the abusers.

Such action shames the Church and the state. It is also not confined to the Catholic Church as some other religions have protected long term abuse and been protected by states terrified of being accused of racism if they acted against them.

All abusers need to be brought to justice.

However I find the leftwing hysteria by sundry comics, writers, and the media over the visit by the Pope to the UK pathetic. I wouldn't want to take spiritual advice from a comedian.

Yes child abuse if evil. Yes the abusers and those who protected them in the Church and state need to face justice. That goes without saying.

However these people are condemning every priest when a few did the abuse. Yet the same people tell us that Muslim terrorists may kill us but not all Muslims are terrorists. This is true not all are by any means. But neither are all priests abusers.

For them not to see that in dealing with the Catholic Church shows how they are blinded by their bigotry.

Stephen Fry, et al, tell us that the Vatican is not a state and so the Pope should not get a state visit. Someone recently said that Fry is a stupid person's image of a clever person. They may have a point. He knows big words and snippets of information, but he isn't really clever. The Vatican is small, but it is a state. It is recognised by every country, including Iran, it has ambassadors to and from these countries, it is a member state of international bodies. It is legally and politically a independent state. I would have thought that an intelligent person would understand that.

If size is the key then many countries who are states in Micronesia and the pacific need to be worried. Luckily statehood does not rest with bigots.

Some decry the cost of the visit. But they didn't criticise the tens of millions spent on visits by the US president, or the very anti-human right states of China, or the corrupt leaders of Pakistan, South Africa, etc.

So picking on the Pope's visit on terms of cost shines a light on the critics bigotry.

The sheer anti-German bile heaped on the Pope by people who are forever telling us to forget the second world war is ridiculous. How can you condemn a person who joined the Hitler Youth at fourteen when they had to join by law? They don't condemn labour leaders who were hardline, pro-Stalin, communists into their late twenties. If these actions are seen to be mere childish over exuberance how can they condemn a child?

Reading the press I am shocked to here such anti-Catholic hate. It is as if the right-on comedians and the media whore are possessed by the rabid anti-Catholic rants of the most bigoted protestant politician from 1911 Ulster.

To pick on the billions of Catholics this way when the abuses of other religions is both ignored and protected is rank hypocrisy. The Catholic Church, like every religion, gets things wrong and does things I don't agree with, but it doesn't execute homosexuals, stone women, or promote murder.

Comedians are there to amuse, writers of children's books to captivate. It is a mistake to believe that they have anything to teach us about religion or politics. They should just stick to their day job.

Don't take your views from song and dance men. You are better than that.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Torture payouts without proof?

My views on torture are simple and clear: it is totally wrong. Torture demeans all involved. The victim, and the state who orders the offence. Any country who tortures reduces themselves to the level of the lowest and most barbaric of regimes. It is also counterproductive as people will tell you anything, scream any lie, in order for the torture to stop.

Torture is not a necessary evil. It is not ok because it has become the norm for glamourous tv or movies to show their heros torturing people. Reality is not like the programme '24'.

This is my consistent, and I think reasonable, view.

However I have some serious doubts about the way the UK government seems to be about to pay millions to men who say they were tortured by the US or it's partners. See here.

These men are not innocent sightseers caught up in a dark 'Carry On' nightmare. These were foreign nationals caught in a fundamentalist state, in some cases serving with irregular forces in that state. They are not innocent.

Don't get me wrong no one should be tortured. If they were mistreated then those responsible should face justice. Justice in court.

But it seems their millions will be given without any proof that they have been tortured. It seems they are being made millionaires to simply shut them up. I find that worrying. Their allegations are of serious physical torture. In at least one case that their penis was repeatedly cut. Such physical scars are easy to prove. Any medical doctor can tell if the scars exist.

But none have done so. That I find strange.

If these men are the victims of torture then let them have their day in court and let the guilty be brought to justice. In an American court as they tell us that it is the US who tortured them. Let the Miliband brother, David 'the hypocrite',who was the labour foreign secretary who allegedly knew of the torture be brought to justice if the allegations are true.

To pay people in this way, especially as the current government had nothing to do with their abuse is wrong. It seems to be paying out our money in order to protect labour politicians and the US. If these allegations are true the guilty should be punished. That would be justice.

But are the allegations true? If these self-proclaimed victims take the dosh we'll never know.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Ray Gosling: guilty verdict

I've written here before about the ex-BBC journalist, Ray Gosling, who confessed to being a murderer. A crime he did not commit. Well today he has had his day in court. He has pleaded guilty to wasting police time. He has been handed down a ninety day suspended sentence.

See here.

I assume the fact that he is 71 explains the leniency. Considering all the police hours and expense his lies cost he is a very lucky man.

But now that is is over I'm still left with the same question that stuck when all this came out: why the fuck would anyone say the murdered a defenceless person?

I'm assuming it is attention seeking on Gosling's part. Insert Benny Hill joke here!

Your life has to be seriously fucked up, and you yourself have to be spectacularly vacuous if you have to confess to such heinous crimes on radio to get someone to talk to you.

For all the awards and all the prestige Gosling reaped during his journalistic career, he is a sad, pathetic, man. It is tragic.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Why is the BBC staff so pants at media image?

The BBC is what is known as a media empire. Their realm stretches to sundry tv stations, some of whom seem commercial, dozens of radio stations, huge Internet sites, publishing, videos, etc.

What I'm saying is that the people who make all those stuff know how the media works. They know how image and spin are important. That is why I don't understand why the very same people are holding a blatantly political, and anti-Tory strike which will mean that the Prime Minister's conference speech will be blacked put by the Beeb. See here.

It has been known for years that the Beeb is anti-Tory. Just look at the hate Mrs Thatcher gets from them even after all these years. When labour scandal emerges they do not cover it until it becomes obvious that it is a story and not covering it is odd. Even then no Tory is allowed to give their view on it. But any minor criticism of the Tory party is awash with labour critics being interviewed.

Even now with a Tory government it is labour who gets the most air time and allowed to give their spin uninterrupted.

Such institutional bias has been noticed. It is also causing controversy as the Beeb is not a normal broadcaster. They are supposed to be independent by law. It is one of the balances of a system which funds them. They are not a commercial body. They have their own tax to pay for them. People, mostly poor women, go to prison for not paying the BBC tax.

This is the reason impartiality is key to the Beeb's survival.

For such media types to make an explicitly anti-Tory statement is bad propaganda. It shows them to be pro-labour. This is not good. Why should the current government do the BBC any favours as they have shown their true colours? More seriously, if people, who are already getting tired of the Beeb tax which pays millions to talentless people by threat of prison, turn against them their position becomes untenable.

You see the Beeb people have a good deal. They are, except at the lowest rung, paid very well with brilliant taxpayer backed pensions. They are able to make a fortune out of the taxpayer. They have no real competition as they are protected from commercial pressures.

By making their bias so clear many are going to ask why we need them. We could sell their property for billions. We could sell their broadcast spectrum for hundreds of billions. Handy for a country bankrupted by the labour party they are seen to support. Why cut education or raise taxes when we could sell the makers of 'Fuck me I'm a hairy woman'? The fact that most Beeb programmes are cheaply made, vacuous, and rubbish, does not help.

The BBC staff need to understand how their actions look to a poor public. If they don't it could land them in trouble.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Phil Woolas troubles: the media catch-up!

As regular readers of this site know I've written about the scandal attached with the ex-minister, and current labour MP Phil Woolas. Basically he scraped in at the last election by smearing his opponent. Now politics is a dirty business make no mistake. But even so the false linking of an opponent to terrorism marks a new low.

Naturally his opponent is not happy and is taking this disgraceful man to court. Which is good news. I've written about this here previously.

But now the media have caught up and are printing the story, see here, and and here.

I've posted some of the disgraceful election literature Woolas, and the labour party, put out in the election. Here are some other: ask yourself this this a man who was in charge of uncontrolled immigration using race and fear to smear a blameless opponent and to win by terrifying the voter. All based on lies. How is he allowed to get away with it?




Note that this lie headline is published in the official labour propaganda rag!




The blatant linking of terrorists and Muslims.

I wonder if it is due to the trial date coming closer or a way to deflect the news from Coulson? Either way I hope Woolas loses his cases massively. He deserves it.

What a sleazy person he is.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Was Murdoch treated with kid gloves my MPs?

As we know the News of the World was caught hacking into phones of famous people. Two people were imprisoned but the paper itself was let off. By the law, and more importantly, by a committee of MPs. This is common knowledge.

However an obscure MP who was on the committee who treated Murdoch's papers so leniently before stepping down as an MP at the last election, says there were reasons for this leniency.

Adam Price says that News International was treated with kid gloves by the said committee for a simple reason: fear.

See here.

Not political fear which would have been understandable. Despicable, but understandable. Personal fear. These august members who are paid a hefty price to represent us, backed off because they were terrified that Murdoch's henchmen/women would go after them and publish all their nasty little secrets.

Everyone denies it of course. But I for one would not doubt it.

But the thing that gets me is not the fact that Murdoch was let off, as we have seen all the papers have been let off their illegality. This being because the parties need the media. Need them for spreading their propaganda and need them for employment if the key party people are kicked out. Leniency is obvious and blatant.

No what gets me is the fact that no one seems to have made the logical leap to the second part of the fear. part one is the fact that MPs were terrified of the power of the press to publish their scandal.

But it is the second aspect no one seems to realise: such fear only has force if the MPs have scandals, or fiddling they are terrified will come out.


That is the aspect I find worrisome. Do we want people who are open to blackmail, or the fear of exposure, and so will not do their duty?


More importantly, what are the secrets or illegality that makes them so afraid?

I feel the final point constitutes a much bigger scandal than a tabloid printing secrets of a minor celeb's phone message. Personally I think we have a right to know about the MPs secrets if such secrets means they wont do their duty. One only has to look at the fiddling and illegality of the MPs to realise why this is important.

What are they afraid of?

Newpaper 'hacking'

Once again let me state my severe dislike for all the Murdoch press. The News of the World and the Sun are a stain which have destroyed many innocent people to sell more papers.

They are being hauled over the coals for breaking into phone messages for some famous people, MPs included. The labour party are going after them now after letting them off when they were in power because Murdoch jumped ship.

Guido Fawkes has a interesting graphic, which I'm stealing, which puts the illegality of News International in context with the other newspaper groups, including the Mirror and the Guardian who are attacking the Murdoch groups so vocally. This graphic shows illegal acts of phone hacking or illegally gaining access to private data. This shows the proven incidents of illegality.




See here.

Once again it exposes hypocrisy of the press. If the NoW needs an investigation and prosecution. Them all the press, including the Mirror and the Guardian do. In fact the Mirror group deserve much more scrutiny and punishment than the Murdoch press.

Seems only fair.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Rev Terry Jones' Koran burning

It seems that the unknown pastor of a small, trivial, church, may, or may not, be going ahead with his burning of the Koran. See here.

You have to say that it's been a coup for this leader of a tiny church. A few days ago no one, even in the city he lived, knew of him and his church. Now he is front page news worldwide. You cannot buy that type of press. I've no doubt that this week will do wonders for his church numbers.

I believe in freedom of expression and of freedom of religion. People should be able to do, and say, what they want. Unless they are incitine hatred or violence. So the Koran, or the Bible, should be able to be burned. Any book should be. Any temple, church, or mosque should be buildable anywhere as long as it has planning permission.

However the fact that such freedoms should exist does not mean that they should be used. The so called 'Ground Zero Mosque' is legally able to be built where it is planned. However it is so offensive and insensitive that it shouldn't be situated at a place where the existing building was damaged by plane wreckage from the 9/11 attacks, nor should it be named after a symbol of Islamic domination of a Christian country. It is pointlessly extreme and provocative.

Similarly the burning of any holy book is an act which sets out to offend and inflame people. You may be free to do so but it is deeply insensitive and offensive to do so.

As it happens I hope that the Koran burning does not got ahead. Not because the book that would be burned is the Koran. I'd be against the burring of the Bible or any book holy to any religion. I'd be against the burning of any book. I love books. You would say it is may passion. As such I don't like to see any books destroyed.

It goes beyond that though, the mass burning of any books, or art is redolent of images of Nazism or Stalinism, or extreme Islam. As such it is deeply offensive. I would hope that no one engages is such a practice with so dark a past.

I hope the book burning is called off.

But

I find it offensive and stupid the way some Muslims and the US government have gone about persuading this minor pastor to call it off.

For some extremist Muslims to threaten violence and murder is much worse than the actual book burning. Such calls tar all Muslims, wrongly, with the taint of extremism. It also makes it much harder for the book burning to be called off. To call it off because of reasonable debate is one thing. To do so because of murder threats is another. If anything is going to strengthen the resolve to burn the books, this is it.

Secondly it is worrying that the President of the US is personally trying to make anyone to stop a totally legal act. For Obama to try to bully someone into giving up their constitutional rights is wrong.

What really gets me is the hypocrisy in this. The Muslim group behind the Ground Zero Mosque are using rights to freedom of expression and freedom of religion to justify their build. But at the same time they, and other groups, seek to deny the same rights to a trivial church. You cannot do that as it makes you and your religion look hypocritical. It also inflicts massive political damage on the President.

Freedoms may not be acted on but they are important none the less.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Ian Tomlinson: hidden evidence

Ian Tomlinson was an innocent man who died after being assaulted by a policeman, Pc Simon Harwood. This thug got off with it. Even though he'd had already left the police due to 'health reasons' after he assaulted another person previouslly. His health did not stop him rejoining the police and transferring back to the police force he had left after the original assault.

It must have been a miracle cure!

Anyway he got away with killing Ian. Even though two pathologists testified Ian's death merited charges, and even though the pathologist who found in the cop's favour was banned from doing autopsies at the time because of incompetence. This incompetent medic has now been struck off, albeit not for life, for his incompetency in other cases.

And yet it is because of this useless doctor the man who killed an innocent man walks free and justice is denied.

It now emerges that this killer cop had commissied his own independent autopsy on Ian, no doubt paid for by the police federation. However the results of this autopsy have not been released and the Coronor who dealt with this inquest was not even told that the fourth autopsy existed.

See here.

Now two things strike me:

1) I thought that ALL evidence had to be given to the coroner in order for them to make their judgement. It would be unacceptable for any party to hide evidence in any court case.

2) the secret autopsy results must be damning for the policeman. I doubt that if the results exonerated the thug he'd have kept them secret do you?

This case is shocking and tragic. Justice has been denied and a killer of an innocent man remains in uniform. This is a national disgrace. We need this killer tried and imprisoned.

Pc Simon Harwood should pay for his crime.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

What about the Observer's illegal hacks?

I don't like the News of the World and feel that all those involved in illegal phone hacking should be dealt with to the full extent of the law. As I've been saying for months Andy Coulson should not have been employed by the Tories.

However I find the hypocrisy of the labour party and the Guardian and it's sister paper the Observer offensive.

Labour was the government at the time of the NoW hacks. They let Murdoch's stooges off. For Alan Johnson to whine now about the hacks when he was the Home Secretary who let them off is frankly pathetic. But what really stinks is the Observer and the Guardian. They are bleating in full sanctimonious flow now but are silent about their own crimes.

There were two newspapers found illegally hacking into phone accounts. The NoW and the
Observer.

See here.

If the police need to reinvestigate the NoW and imprison more of the guilty, which I support, then they need to prosecute the Observer and the Guardian. Their reporters, and editors need to be thrown in clink

I despise Murdoch but I hate hypocrisy more!!!

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Tony Blair runs away!

So Tony Blair goes onto the hardest of tv programmes, breakfast tv (joke) and announces thatch has cancelled his London book signing. He tells us that he doesn't need to do anything as trivial as signing books to sell books! You see he is too grand to actually meet the paying public.

He is truly the people's Princess. A true hero (sarcasm).

I find it fascinating that Blair does not understand how hated he is, both here and internationally. I think he thought he'd be mobbed by hero-worshipping throngs. Sexy ladies would throw lingerie at him and he'd be hoisted on our adoring shoulders.....

Didn't work out like that though. Blair is hated. Hated by the anti-war people naturally, but hated by most of us. He is seen as a sleazy, corrupt, lying, warmongering, antidemocratic, weirdo.

How could the fool think he's loved by us?


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

On Andy Coulson

As readers of this site know I have no time for the Tory spin doctor Andy Coulson, the News of the World paper he used to edit, or Rupert Murdoch. Nope I'm not a fan.

Coulson should never have been made Tory adviser. We don't need his sort in our politics. (by 'sort' I mean tabloid editor).

However the current witch hunt trying to weaken the Tories by attacking him is odd. How can labour attack the Tory party for any impropriety of a man who has not been charged or convicted of any offence before they employed him? That'd be like making a firm guilty of something if they hired a person who'd been naughty years before they met.

But what really sticks in my throat is that labour let off the News of the World. They did not ensure a full investigation into the allegations. Labour are to blame for any botched investigation not the Tory party. Labour was the government on power at the time and they let Murdoch off.

For labour types to try to manufacture rage now is frankly pathetic. They must be able to attack the Tories on policy. This smear and blame for their own mistakes is proof that labour haven't changed. Smear and personal attacks rather than policy is all they do.

If it were me I'd take the labour types to court for slander and make them prove that I'd committed a crime. As this is all about phone calls and incriminating personal details I'd demand all the phone records, email, text messages, etc., of the accusers. To prove they were wrong you understand not to find all their affairs or illegality. I'd rake them over the coals.

But that's just me. Mean.

I despise Murdoch and his malicious empire. I'm sure that all the dirty little secrets he's been keeping about the labour people will spill forth. He does not forgive I fear. That should be fun considering the real scandals he hiding about many labour people.

That should be fun to see.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Tony Blair pelted with eggs and bottles

As part of his book selling ruse Tony Blair was in Dublin to do a book signing (I do wonder if he gives the money from outside the UK to charity? I doubt it as even the UK release won't make any profit to give to any charity).

Any road up the locals seemed restless and unappreciative, and pelted him with eggs and plastic bottles! See here.

Oh well

How sad


Never mind :0)

It seems the Irish people aren't so taken with the man who keeps telling them that he saved them from the evil of terrorism. Maybe they're not that stupid.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Sally Bercow: hypocrite

Sally Bercow is a nobody. She has achieved exactly nothing of note in her plush life. The only thing going for her is that she's married to that odious little creep John Bercow, our vain, pro-labour, incompetent and corrupt speaker.

And that's is. She's never been elected to anything, never done anything of note.

And yet she has become a media whore because of who she sleeps with. And in this role she has the front to condemn William Hague for trying to protect his wife from lies by revealing some details of their live togeher in the hope that the media will respect their privacy. See here

How on earth is she allowed to get away with judging anyone. She tweets the most fatuous, pathetic, tweets. She's an admitted ex-alcoholic with uncountable drunken sexual encounters. She's stupid and brain dead.

How can anyone take he seriously? Why was this sot not laughed out out the studio?

The Bercow's are talentless, corrupt, stains on this country. They demean the powerful position of Speaker and spouse. Sally is being enriched by the BBC only because of who she married. Don't forget that this corrupt and corrupting cretin is a joke.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Sir Cyril Smith passes away.

We've seen politics at it's most corrupt and incompetent so it is sad to note the passing of one of the decent old school characters, Sir Cyril Smith, the ex-Liberal MP.

I've never been a Lib-Dem or Liberal but I admired Cyril. He was a huge man, massive in fact. But he decency and humour shone through. He was raised by a remarkable unmarried woman in Yorkshire eighty two years ago. And for that time and for class it is remarkable how well he did. He understood the people he represented as he was one of them to the core.

He was what all politicians should be: independent minded. He was vocal about his opposition to some of his own party's policies. But he was never offensive, mean spirited, or duplicitous. He was not a person that schemed, bullied, or smeared in order to advance his career. He never fiddled, lied, or stole.

He was funny, and kind.

And when he left parliament he returned to his beloved home town, the town where he started, the town for which he was mayor before becoming an MP. He never changed what he was, he never became a media whore, or moved to London to achieve fame.

He returned to his ordinary live amongst people whom he served most of his life. He was always ordinary. This is not an insult or disparaging his achievements in any way, it is a complement. What I mean is that he was a clever, articulate, well loved, man who retained himself through all the hype and media exposure that surrounded him. He was one of us. Amongst all the shallow, fickle, incompetent people in parliament this was a great achievement.

He was a real recognisable human unlike the modern day creeps.

In the vacuous world of spin and appearance, where image is king a very large person like Cyril would stand no change of getting through the selection process even to represent his party. He would be condemned as being too fat, too working class, too ordinary. That's the thing about spin and image. We lose the abilities, and decency of people like Cyril and are lumbered with the incompetent and the corrupt. We are all the weaker for that.

And so a real decent man passes away. We'll not see his like again. And that makes me sad.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

The William Hague gay rebuttal

Some things need to be made clear from the onset: I don't care if people are straight or gay. Secondly I like William Hague. He is funny and one of the few political types who can make more money outside politics than within. His writing is really good.

With the above in mind I'm going to turn to his letter that he has released denying that he is gay, that he was having a gay relationship with an advisor, or that he has ever had any relationship with a man, ever.

See here

Now this letter is both unprecedented and unambiguous. It is so clear that he is not homosexual and has never had a sexual experience with a man that it must be true. Simply put it would be insane for Hague to lie about it in writing with the certain knowledge that any lie would be exposed and his career ended.

Say what you like about Hague, he is not stupid.

What I find interesting is why a bluff politician like Hague would comment on such rumours and lay bare his private life like this. I think the reason is because of his wife Ffion and their life together. As the letter states the couple have been trying for a family but have been beset with miscarriages on several occasions. Indeed Ffion has only just suffered from such a devastating loss a couple of months ago.

Miscarriages are tragic, devastating events for anyone. Feeling of guilt, anger, and loss wrack couples, especially women. They are not to blame but it is what caring people do to themselves.

I think it is against this raw emotional trauma that Hague released his letter. I think it was an attempt to comfort his wife whilst she was coming to terms with their latest loss. Look at it this way: you are a woman at your most vulnerable trying to pick up the pieces after losing a much longed for baby. And the press and the Internet, and the gossips are bleating about how your partner, a man you need to recover from your loss, is having an affair. Would you not need the truth to be known?

The letter is Hague's attempt to give his wife the support and love she needs. I think it is for that reason he has made his life open to the press.

A left wing labour associate of mine asked why the press are concerned with Hague's sex life when we should be more concerned with his work. She's right.

If there was any financial impropriety or theft then no stone should be left unturned to expose the crime. But this lie demeans the press.

Putting politics aside I just want to express my sympathies to the Hague's and hope they get their longed for children. I'd say the same to any loving couple in the same situation.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad