The EU - what is coming down the Road

The dangers of remaining in the EU get greater and greater.

We have semi-secret plans which are being implemented, supported by the duplicitous UK Prime Minister Cameron, to create an EU army and navy, and EU levied taxation; this week it was announced by an EU committee that there is to be an imposed personal identification number for every single individual across the whole of the EU nations, 500 million or so.

Were there not riots when the Poll Tax was introduced here? Where are those on the Left who opposed that with such ferocity? Are they in favour of this, or will they keep quiet because it comes from a Left dominated source; happy to be hypocrites and still vote to stay in?

This is a deeply sinister move and should in itself be sufficient justification for anyone who has views on personal freedom to vote to leave. It is not difficult to imagine how it will evolve - how long before the police demand ''....your papers please''. Don't be tempted to believe it won't happen, the EU is determined to make the EU a single state and this is just another step towards it. They will not let it go.

This is what is coming down the road. Vote to LEAVE the EU.

It's Easter

We should be celebrating our Christian heritage, but the news is dominated by what muslims are doing, that is murdering and terrorising the population of Europe.

The BBC and other media including Sky News are trying very hard indeed however today and regularly to ensure that we, the people, make no connection between muslim/islamist killers and their barbaric beliefs and the muslim population in Europe generally and the UK particularly.

I liken the situation to that which Northern Ireland faced when the IRA was at its most active. It carried out a campaign of bombing and shootings and other acts of terror, but it was not done in isolation. It had support from a very large number of citizens, those who believed like them that Ireland should be united, and that Northern Ireland should be wrested by force from the UK. The IRA did the killings and its political branch did the propaganda and its people acted as victims.

We have the same now but on a vastly greater scale. We have muslim killers and political islam, and we have a population of muslims which makes no attempt to stop these who kill and maim in their name and in their religion, because they sympathise and came here to change our society. Indeed they actively and passively support and defend them. Where the IRA wanted Northern Ireland, the muslims want the whole of Europe and the UK. They will keep fighting as long as they are here.

Europe, its indigenous people and its civilisation is doomed unless severe action is taken to push back against this invasive religion and ideology, no political settlement is possible in this case, any compromise would be a disaster.

Bewilderment at Sainsbury's

My shopping habits are of no particular interest to anyone, but as will be gleaned from my title I do tend to look at things from an English perspective.

I was browsing the cheese counter in my local branch of the supermarket this morning looking to buy something English. The cheeses have little flags on them, but all the English cheeses had the Union flag label - only half of the flag as it happens. There was a single Welsh cheese and this had the complete Welsh flag on it.

When I asked why there were no English flags to be seen, the man behind the counter displayed complete bewilderment and incomprehension; he looked at the labels and said, ''but they've got the Union flag''. He could not understand why I would be asking the question.

I then asked if they had a Scottish flag to display on Scottish cheeses. He turned to his 'guidance book' as he called it but it wasn't there, but said that they do have Scottish flag labels.

So, why does Sainsbury's not recognise England? It's a an age-old question, the executives will be well aware of it.

The answer is that Sainsbury's do not wish to recognise England. Is it also influenced by their fear of displaying an English flag in Scotland and Wales?

If I am wrong I challenge them to say so and prove it by displaying the English flag on all English produce such as this, in Scotland and Wales too.
 

The War in Syria and the immigration crisis

Sky News is running a report from Syria to highlight that people from Europe, the USA and elsewhere have travelled to Syria to help fight the Islamist scum and murderers there. We know what these psychopaths and religious fanatics do with captured enemy solidiers and airmen, and civilians and particularly women. Beheadings, burnings, torture and rape, there is no end to their inhumanity and religious zealotry. Their religious views lead to brutality, it wishes mayhem and subjugation on the whole world.

The Sky News reporter interviewed two men who seemed to be English, and an American and, I think a Polish woman. The American said it was easy to get to the fighting zone, so why not be there - it was better than complaining about the brutality from the safety of Facebook. They emphasised that many women from the region are also fighting on the front line, they were shown doing just that. They all know what awaits them if they are captured, and they are at all times at risk of being killed or maimed in any event.

Contrast this now with the hoards of fit and healthy men from Syria who are travelling in their hundreds of thousands, running away from their own nation to get away to save their precious skins. Not content to stay in nearby Turkey or The Lebanon so as to get back as soon as they can, they travel to Europe. They say that conditions are so bad that they have no alternative but to leave.

Some no doubt send for or bring with them their families, but often they are without, mostly in large threatening groups. They demand sanctuary and support. Once here they intend to undermine European cultural values and convert Europe to reflect their religious views and needs, to turn Europe into what they left behind, and they turn violent when they don't get what they demand.

They don't wish to fight for their own country. And they won't thank anyone who does it for them.

Why should we allow them to come here, why do we not return them, now, and in large numbers?

It's Bloody Outrageous. The BBC, double standards and hypocrisy in large measure

So, Dame Janet Smith has published her report into the behaviour of Jimmy Savile at the BBC and the BBC's involvement.

She has decided that the BBC Corporation is not culpable and that senior management, above a certain level knew nothing about what was going on, not even for the many years that it was going on. It seems that they had no suspicions; if they had then they should have done something of course, and they didn't.

It follows that only junior management knew and they never said anything at any time to their superiors.

Does anyone really believe this? Can anyone believe anything so preposterous?

Let us apply this to any reputable business anywhere in the UK, or anywhere else in the world. An accident occurs, people are hurt because something has gone wrong with the company's operations.

It is reasonable to ask who knew what, and whose responsibility it would be to find out if all was well or not well, and who would be answerable for mistakes and negligence. It is senior management's and directors' responsibility to know things, to get involved with the 'shop floor', to have an ear to rumour, discontent, inefficiency and negligence. They have a duty of care.

If it were serious enough, and this criminality at the BBC is extremely serious, it would be expected that senior management and directors would have to pay for failures to manage. It is what they are paid for and they should accept responsibility for failure even if it is not their direct fault. It is the price they should accept for their status and high pay.

But here with the BBC and Smith we have to believe in a different set of standards.

There have been many instances in business where the chairman, or chief executive for example have resigned or being sacked for failure well beneath their own level. Sacked because they ought to have know what was going on. But not in the case of the BBC, the senior management are absolved of blame, they can't be blamed because they didn't know what was going on.

It is the British Establishment looking after its own, yet again.

And hypocrisy? How often has the BBC called for resignations of senior management of businesses when there's been a problem, particularly in those business which the BBC does not approve of. And what of the climate of fear which we have heard so much of at the BBC? Again if this were to be in another organisation, the BBC would be highly critical and demanding change.

It stinks to High Heaven, the BBC is not fit to exist, it entire senior management would resign if they had any honour, but they don't, and its protectors should be removed from their positions.

Whose nation is it?

More much so-called ‘inward investment’ seems to be coming our way with the acquisition of 54% of the London Stock Exchange by Deutsche Borse.

How long will it remain 54%, but in any event it is a controlling interest. Something tells me this will not be good for the UK; will we see a gradual transfer away of business to Germany? More decline because we can’t or don’t wish to stop it?

 

Our elitist and remote leaders seem intent on selling out not only our assets but the spirit which goes with it. No doubt the spivs and politicians will get a big rake-off either in cash or kind to assist their retirement in comfort to their country houses where they can insulate themselves from what is coming the way of the rest of us. They will send their children to elite schools to return to elite jobs and benefit from the gravy train they travel on. 

Is there much left of our land, businesses and property to be sold before it is no longer our nation, because foreign interests pull the strings? Not much, methinks. Much like the EU which controls us politically and legally.

The EU Referendum - Cameron Lies

I saw the expressions on some of the faces of backbench Tory MPs while the deceitful and angry Cameron was responding to questions after his statement on his so-called negotiations yesterday. Many could not conceal there disdain, in some cases more than this.

 

Surely he is has tested the loyalty of many past breaking point. Just how long can the Tories tolerate the man and his clique? He must not be allowed to survive. He betrays the purpose of the referendum, that it is should be a straight choice for the people; Cameron thinks only his view should prevail. It shows his grant of one was another deceit; he had hoped it was another promise he wouldn’t have to keep.

 

The ritual comments that some make that he tried his best and worked hard are getting a bit sickening. Being polite is one thing but this can and is seen by some as weakness.

 

We need more people like Michael Gove and Boris Johnson to inspire us and win over waverers, and to show just how thin the arguments are for staying in the EU, and how leaving would restore some pride and confidence to our country. Softly, softly is not a practise Cameron is keen on, his nasty side could not be concealed yesterday. Why should his opponents hold back against his bile. Whilst I’m no fan of George Galloway's politics he certainly did well in confronting and exposing the BBC's tactics in attempting to stifle the Leave arguments on The Daily Politics show yesterday as practised by Jo Coburn - more should adopt his approach. And if the Tories who wish to Leave the EU don’t assert themselves people will give him political support too.

 

I have said many times that Cameron betrays everyone in the end - how much longer will his party stand for it. They must regain their self-respect.

Socialism - A classroom experiment

A teacher said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. The class had insisted that Socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The teacher then said OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Socialism.

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too, so they studied little.

The second test average was a D. No one was happy.

When the third test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, and name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else.

To their great surprise, all failed. The teacher told them that Socialism would ultimately fail because the harder it is to succeed the greater the reward, but when a government takes all the reward away, no one will try so no one will succeed.

There are five morals to this story:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot make the poor rich by making the rich poor.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

On Flooding and the Environment Agency

I saw Sky News early this morning and the newspaper review. (30th December 2015) Naturally the recent bad weather and the flooding was discussed.

Some evidence of the real problem our country has was illustrated by the comments of Liz Kershaw, (a presenter of music programmes.) In respect to dredging she said that if rivers were dredged all that would happen would be that the flow of water would be speeded up and it would make matters worse! She clearly has no concept of the difference between speed and capacity. The country is sadly full of such people who have been misled by others with a subversive agenda.

I live a few miles from the Thames; walking along the banks last year just downstream from Lechlade I was struck by the number of trees which overhung it, with branches trailing in the water in many places perhaps 20 feet into the flow. At this point the Thames is still meant to be a navigable waterway.

Many rivers are neglected through lack of clearance in the same way and it is stating the blindingly obvious that when overgrowth breaks away in flood conditions it stops at the next obstruction – apart from being an obstruction in itself – endangering and blocking flow under bridges, which might otherwise be avoided or reduced. Maybe those who should be dealing with this sort of thing put birds and fish before people and property and thus deliberately and consciously do nothing.

It’s almost pointless to hope that a virtually useless bureaucracy like the Environment Agency would have a change of attitude and, instead of spending £41 million on risk analysis and maps, would get people off their flabby backsides and away from their computer screens and send them out with chain saws and the like to cut away and clear all such overgrowth. It would do every office wallah a world of good to learn how to use one and how to drag the cut branches out on to the bank.

Fat chance! They are so detached from the real world that such an idea will be considered ludicrous. But what if their houses were at risk and in danger?

The BBC

It is foolish to imagine that the BBC will abandon voluntarily its present partiality and bias. Those who run and those who operate from it are well aware of the agenda they are promoting, and they believe they are unassailable, a law unto themselves. It has fatally corrupted the definition of balance, and is rotten to the core. It was given too much power and has abused it.

Why have we not seen the Balen Report for example, and later ones into other aspects of its conduct? It may be it is right in its view that it is untouchable, we hear that Mr Whittingdale MP thinks this and that but nothing is done which makes a blind bit of difference. Lord Hall of the BBC gets a soft time when questioned and oozes Establishment oiliness, he has too many friends in government. He talks about its ‘soft power’ and gets resounding support from Cameron. It appears to me that the BBC, instead of responding positively to the valid criticisms, becomes more blatant in its behaviours, probably taking the view that now is the time to move for even more power so as to strengthen its ‘negotiating’ position.

However, it is incapable of reform, changing its governance will make almost no difference, if small pieces are cut off it will, like a worm, merely grow the pieces back again. It must be broken up, it is a malevolent monopoly. Anything with claimed value can be sold and if as good as claimed will be bought. What cannot be sold should be closed as clearly valueless and not worthy of subsidy.

As for ‘news’, if the state considers it needs a public service broadcaster it should be strictly restricted to reporting fact, not opinion. Announcements by government should be clearly seen and described as such, in an updated style of the old public information films so government will need to rethink its own view on how the public is informed. Other media outlets, not subsidised, can do the opinion pieces.

What should we do with the money saved from leaving the EU

If it were to be spent, it should go on some clearly visible and big modernisation and security projects, maybe those which have previously been ruled out as unaffordable, or entirely new concepts for the urgent modernisation and rebuilding of our country. These should then be clearly promoted as benefits of our leaving.

We should also use these projects to rebuild our own domestic businesses, workforces and skills. When the first ones have been completed, the practice should continue on others for subsequent years, a rolling programme in other words. £10 billion pa or thereabouts is an awful lot of money and spent sensibly will be transforming. We should no longer need to go cap in hand to foreign sources for example, and we could regain our self-respect.

My preference would be however, for it to go first directly to the reduction of the deficit and its earlier elimination with the amounts being identified in each budget for all to see, and then for it to be spent on projects, which take a long time in the planning anyway, so this could be well how it would work out.

Under no circumstances should it be frittered away by dissipating it into existing budget lines where it will likely become invisible, as questions will soon be asked about where the financial benefits have gone.

What on earth is a British accent?

We've seen in the press over the last few days reports of a survey which states that around the world a 'British' accent is considered the 'most dateable' and the sexiest.

But what on earth is a British accent? I am English - I don't talk with any element of a Scottish, Welsh, or Northern Irish accent. I have never heard anyone speak where I could identify accents from all of these together. We all speak English in our own ways, and sound different from each other, sometimes not much but different nevertheless, and where there is no trace of an accent, it has to be said the language is truthfully English english, and others will not wish to own it. What do the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish people think of the report?

For me the difficulty here with the authors is that for politically correct reasons they have probably said British because they dare not say English, because there would be an outcry from everywhere else, or maybe they do not understand the country. It is a common phenomenon.

Maybe they could explain, but I venture that is what they mean because overwhelmingly the people of the rest of the world hear English english more than any other.

Some change in the NHS

Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State for Health has an enormous task on his hands in England to bring about change in the NHS. We have seen how a state bureaucracy can fall to the grotesque and criminal when left untouched, and where dishonesty is rife with individuals being bullied and threatened.  I hope he can rely on the full support of Prime Minister Cameron.

Yesterday in a TV interview a doctors' receptionist described mornings at her general practise surgery - 'the phone never stops ringing and reception is full of patients - it's terrible', she said. She went on to say that she was the 'barrier' between the patients and the doctors. When appointment slots are filled 'what can I do'?

The discussion was about the '8 o'clock rush' which leaves patients angry and receptionists frustrated, and a training programme was being promoted for receptionists on how to handle these emotions. This was not a pretty sight, seeing a person set in her ways with no way out, except councelling.

I suggest a remedy - I hope this does happen in some places already - to alleviate the early morning desperate rush to get an appointment, and that is for doctors to collectively man the phones for their practises for the first hour or so, and maybe again later in the day, making appointments for each other for the urgent and important cases; ‘reception’ can then be asked to ring other patients back for future dates, maybe on some coded priority system.

It may take a while to bed in, but they can responsibly prioritise and reassurance with authority can be given to patients who may need nothing more than this. It will take pressure off receptionists who are probably being expected to do too much.

I would like to think that in time many of the problems currently experienced by the practices over demands for their services, and the worries and anger of patients will eventually diminish considerably.

Tax evasion and tax avoidance

There is something unsavoury, if not malevolent, about using tax evasion and tax avoidance in the same sentence, as if they were one and the same, as Prime Minister Cameron did in Prime Minister's Questions today in the House of Commons.

Miliband, leader of the Opposition Labour party also referred to avoidance as if it were illegal.

You would expect this from Miliband, who is generally seen to be a Marxist and class warrior, but Cameron and Osborne jumped on this populist bandwagon of 'cracking down' on avoidance some time ago because they thought - if they did in fact think about it at all - that it might bring some voter support their way. Another example of Cameron's irresponsibility.

It appeals to the envious and stokes social division, and it may well be that it will be coming back to bite them, and the Tories as a whole. Ironically the whipped up 'scandal', about who had accounts at Swiss banks - another thing which is perfectly legal - covers a period well before the present government was elected in 2010, and when the Labour party was in power, and with its leader Miliband as a Minister.

The questions from the Labour opposition nearly all referred to avoidance, not evasion, forcing Cameron to attempt to clarify, being in something of a fix, but most people won't notice and probably now see no difference between the two and won't give any thought to the facts.

Buggin's Turn

A not much used phrase now, once used to describe the right to promotion of a long-serving employee say, merely because he or she had been waiting a long time. It was subject to criticism, often hypocritically by the liberal Left, who complained it excluded those allegedly better qualified, either from elsewhere, or younger.

It is interesting to read then, that the concept is being resurrected in a new guise by Labour MP Margaret Hodge, who also chairs an important Parliamentary Select Committee, who has decided that 'it is time for London to have a non-white mayor'. I won't go into which racial profile she thinks would be best among the mixed origins of people who now live in London; she has deviously ducked this problem by saying 'non-white'. If it is important to her, she should explain.

She thus attempts to display her ever-so liberal and patronising values by defining people by their colour only, that is as long as it's not white, on the basis that it's 'their turn'.

Wages and Employment

Prime Minster David Cameron has urged private sector employers to pay higher wages because the oil price is down and inflation is low. Thus they are much better off and 'Britain should have a pay rise'. He also wants the minimum wage to rise to £8.00 per hour, the same figure favoured by the leader of the Labour party.

If Cameron was a genuine believer in the free market he would be campaigning for the abolition of the minimum wage, not wishing it to become even more embedded. Abolition is more likely to raise wage rates more quickly than state intervention. It is an excuse for lazy employers, and unions for that matter, to keep the market under control, and to give them an easy life into the bargain.

A freer market in the workplace both in wages and freedom of contract of employment would not only give much-needed flexibility and more freedom for the individual but render many of the doubtful practices used to get round it  un-necessary.