The past two years have seen organisations such as CNN, The BBC, Channel 4 Fake News, the Guardian and indeed most of the deadwood press insisting that Donald Trump would be impeached or forced to resign when the Mueller Report demonstrated that he had colluded with the Russians in the 2016 election against crooked Hillary Clinton. There was no real evidence for this other than a dodgy dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign. Yet journalists such as Jon Sopel, Kylie Morris, barmy Carol Cadwalladr and Matt Frei insisted Trump was toast. The Mueller report is now out. There was no conclusion. So where are the apologies for this disgraceful episode in the history of fake news? There are none. The poison of fake news driven Russiaphobia has spread to this side of the Atlantic too, thanks to this dreadful journalism. I discuss this all in today's podcast.
I have commented before on the champagne socialist, Tuscan castle dwelling, Guardian writing, hypocrite Polly Toynbee thinking, each time, that the poisonous old windbag had reached a new depth of liberal depravity and surely she could sink no lower. And then, each time, £300,000 a year Toynbee sinks lower.
This week she argued that we had reached the point where enough old folk had died since the Brexit referendum to be replaced on the electoral roll by snowflakes to mean that we needed a new poll. She assumed that the snowflakes would all vote – they tend not to – that they would vote against Brexit and that no-one else would change their mind.
It is warped logic and the same rationale would at some point this year mean that we should re-run the last General Election.
Toynbee celebrates the idea of a “People’s Vote” but to do so on the basis of folks dying is so utterly callous that she was rightly condemned by most people. One person who objected was Carol Gould a journalist who is dying of cancer and a woman who voted for Brexit and who seemed rather offended that Toynbee, by implication, regarded her terminal cancer as good news.
She tweeted (and I retweeted)
As someone with terminal stage 4 cancer I find it unconscionable that a fellow journalist can make this cruel, flippant reference to death as a solution to her political agenda. Chilling and frankly, shameful.
I am sad to say that my friend Jonathan Price responded with the tweet below for which he has, rightly, been slated by dozens of folks although a good number of his sad Lib Dem Brexit loathing followers actually “like” what he stated.
Replying to @Karashgould @TomWinnifrith
While one may have sympathy with you in your position, it does not change the fact that the elderly swung the vote the wrong way in 2016. If you don’t want to face up to that, please stay off Twitter and use your remaining time more productively.
If folks like Toynbee and Price think that displaying such unedifying nastiness to the old and the sick will sway the argument in their favour I think they rather misjudge the British people.
But since the only British people they ever meet are their fellow rich London based, liberal left elitists and not the other 99% their failure to understand how we little folks think is easily explained.
Helen Pidd is a senior Guardian editor. This tweet below shows how she and her middle class comrades view we 17.4 million who voted for Brexit. Feck me I had a pizza last night but surely I must hate Italians on the Pidd thesis. You could not make this stuff up.
As I have noted before, Oxfam, a charity that likes to cover up for peadophiles, does not care about the truth when it comes to getting money to build up its empire. For when tapping up gullible old Guardian reading fools like my Dad, Oxfam repeatedly insists that poverty around the world is increasing. You do want to fight poverty don't you Dr Winnifrith, you bleeding heart liberal, so get your cheque book out! How can the old man argue with that?
Of course you, and I know that Oxfam employs more than 11 staffers earning £100,000 at its Head Office so not all of my Dad's cash goes to help poor folks out in Bongo Bongo land. But there is a bigger problem with the Oxfam thesis. It defines poverty as relative poverty so the number of folk earning less than a set proportion of the global average wage. In other words it focusses in on income inequality. That is an abstract concept only rich folk can afford to consider. Poor folk fear absolute poverty - not having enough cash to feed your kids etc.
And so while global income inequality has been increasing steadily since the 1970s ( having fallen for several hundred years before that), so increasing relative poverty, absolute poverty has fallen sharply during my lifetime. One measure of that, and a very accurate one, is child mortatlity.
The graph below tells its own story. If Africa could avoid wars it would do even better but what is important is the trend. It is dramatic and shows a key indicator of how global poverty has been reduced massively in absolute terms with a direct inverse correlation to Oxfam's ever more shrill and hysterical bleatings about how poverty is increasing.
Greed is good. Capitalism works. It keeps kids alive. Or you can follow the policies Oxfam advocates to "tackle poverty" and you will end up in Venezuela.
On this day we should remember the anniversaries of 25 folks murdered by the IRA. They were civilians, largely in Birmingham. There were two 17 year olds with their lives ahead of them, numerous other young folks on a night out in a pub, a man away from his pregnant wife who never got to see her give birth or his kid grow up, a factory worker, a railwayman, the list goes on and on.
Folks like Jeremy Corbyn, the BBC and the Guardian and the liberal elites want you to think of the Troubles as an era of British Brutality in Ulster. They want you to view men like the evil Gerry Adams as folks who brought you peace. In fact while the Army did some things which must be condemned that is dwarfed by the sheer scale of IRA atrocities and , as an active IRA member, as were most of the Sinn Fein leadership, Adams has his hands truly soaked in the blood of the innocents.
Do not let the bien pensants re-write history. Do not forget the evil wrought by IRA/Sinn Fein.
As ever the most excellent @onthisdayPIRA twitter feed has the full list of horror
World War One ended 100 years ago this week and so, quite rightly, the media is giving wall to wall coverage to ceremionies and other tributes. It was a ghastly and pointless conflict but we should honour the fallen in that conflict and others and show our respect. Of course some Cambridge students and pampered Serbian soccer players at Manchester United will not. That is a sad reflection on them. But there is one Rememberance day event the liberal elites, the BBC and its sister paper the Guardian will do their best to ignore. They want you to forget.
It was 31 years ago today when the citizens of Enniskillen in Co Fermanagh put on their Sunday best to pay their respects at the town’s war memorial. The IRA detonated a massive bomb to blow them up. 67 year old reired painter, hospital volunteer and preacher Johnny Megaw, 72 year old retired pharmacist William Mullan and his wife, 73 year old grandmother Nessie, 72 year old retired nurse Georgina Quinton, 20 year old student nurse Marie Wilson… the list goes on an on. Twelve died, hundreds were injured. Lives were shattered and changed forever.
It could have been worse. A second bomb was planted down the road at Tullyhommon. It was four times the size of the Enniskillen bomb. The parade there was made up largely of children. Thankfully it did not go off.
Today we are taught by the bien pensants that men like the late, and totally unlamented, Martin McGuinness and his comrade in the IRA and Sinn Fein Gerry Adams brought peace to Northern Ireland. On that basis Jeremy Corbyn talked to those men and other killers over many years. But the grim reality of what these evil men and women actually brought to Northern Ireland is shown in the video, from 31 years ago today, below. The liberal apologists for evil do not what you to remember this part of Rememberance day history as they try to airbush the true horrors of the troubles from history, to portray the British army as the real villains of the peace. Don’t let the elites do that.
Show your family and friends this video. Make them remember, or become aware of, the true evil that stalked Ulster for so many years.
Have you ever been burgled? I have. You feel violated. As if your home is dirty. For a long while you feel unsafe in your own abode. What if they come again? And it is a crime that affects folks of both genders, oops sorry I meant all genders. This Guardian headline below is not meant to be ironic and is the sort of nonsense which helps to explain why sales of this sordid rag are crashing, however many fake news articles by Carole Cadwalladr it publishes.
Suzanne Moore argues, with no evidence at all, that crimes of misogyny, a hate crimes so defined as onme where the victim feels hurt, lead to violent crime. I rather suspect that almost none of those who might wolf whistle a bird in a skirt or term Suzanne Moore or Carole Cadwalladr daft bints(and thus could be accused of misogny) will go on and commit violent crime against individuals. But Ms Moore would rather that the fuzz investigate such folk than tackle burglaries.
This is how the liberal Metropolitan elite really do think. Even Marie Antoinette was more in touch with the sans culottes than are folks like Moore today.
Islington dwelling daughter Olaf seems to be in charge of securing public speakers for a posh girls school debating forum. She asked if I knew any funny and controversial speakers. I offered up friends such as James Delingpole of Breitbart and Dominic Frisby but was told that they were Alt-Right, fascists or just not acceptable. I am sure you get the picture. In this world anyone to the right of the Guardian is Alt-Right and should not be offered a platform
As it happens I have swapped a few emails with the great LGBTI and civil liberties campaigner Peter Tatchell so suggested his name. Natch he was deemed ideal so I set to work begging Tatch, offering a donation to his foundation, nudging the school to reply and in the end we have a date in the diary when the great man, who is indeed a national treasure, will explain what free speech and freedom really means to Olaf and her peers.
Having worked damn hard on this for Olaf, I asked if I could come along and Olaf said yes but….
I can attend as long as I promise not to say anything to anyone and to abide by a dress code she has set. That is to say I could wear a dress. Or a Burka. But not a “Make America Great Again” baseball cap and not my Hillary for Prison 2016 T-shirt.
You know what, I reckon young Ms Winnifrith needs to pay careful attention to what Mr Tatchell has to say on the issue of freedom and I would not want to distract her.
Karen White insists that she is a woman. She is what progressives would term a woman with a penis. Right now she is "transitioning" but is a woman. Got it? Welcome to the transgender asylum.
As Stephen Wood this vile individual has a lifetime of rapes and assaults against both women and children behind him. In September last year Wood was held on remand after his latest crime but insisted that he was a woman and wanted to go to a women’s prison and the authorities accepted his request.
I use the word his because Wood has a penis. The Guardian and others use the word her because Wood – or Karen White as he/she wants to be known – says he is a woman. Anyhow, thanks to the useless Tories and their desire to virtue signal at every turn this monster was sent to a women’s prison where he promptly sexually assaulted two inmates. Why allow this folly?
In 2016 the Government concluded that the treatment of transgender people in the criminal justice system had not kept pace with "wider social views". While the 2011 guidelines had emphasised the role of GRCs and medical interventions, the report noted that many transgender people successfully lived their lives without these. The new policy needed to “take as its starting presumption a wish to respect someone in the gender in which they identify”.
So up until 2011 if you had a penis you went to a man's prison. From 2011-16 a doctor's note could get you into a women's prison with your penis. But now all you need to say is that you identify as a woman and you can take your penis straight to a women's prison.
This is insanity. The idea that someone with a penis (with or without a history of violent and sexual crime) can go to a women’s jail or use a changing room with your 13 year old daughter or swim in a women’s pool might be in line with “wider social views” in the left wing Madrassas of the British university system. Or in the Guardian Editorial meeting or among folks like Theresa may and Amber Rudd at the top of what used to be the Conservative party.
Out there in the real world we are just not that daft. Sadly for two inmates at New Hall prison Wakefield now recovering from sexual assault, it is not the sane 95% but an out of touch 5% elite who get to set the rules.
Maybe if you write for the Guardian you don't despise England in a fashionable North London sort of way you just hate folks being happy. After all this is the newspaper that, year in year out, laments the arrival of Christmas. But now it is the World Cup and the progress of England which as seen a nation party and show joy in a way we have not seen for years.
Natch the Guardian, like the equally despicable Independent, started the tournament fretting about folks flying the English flag which was obviously racist, imperialist and typical of wicked post Brexit Britain under the evil Tories. As we saw Britons of all religions and colours painting their faces with the national flag and celebrating, this line looked all the more pathetic.
But some folk did not celebrate when England beat a woeful and dirty Colombian team on Tuesday. Meet Dawn Foster, a tedious virtue signalling Guardian hack. Ahead of the match against the filthiest team in the tournament, Newport born Dawn was cheering on Colombia. Now she is backing Sweden. Who will she back if England play Russia given how her paper devotes about a quarter of its coverage to fake news about Russia and its "collaboration" with Trump, Vote Leave, Assad and other folks?
That will be a tough call for Dawn. Like Dawn, I am British, not English, but like nearly all Brits I back the only home nation at the World Cup or am indifferent. To fly the flag of "not England" in the face of a period of national joy, is just so miserable. So predictably Guardian.
The BBC and its sister publication the Guardian had a weekend wankfest as large crowds gathered to protest against policies Donald Trump had already rescinded to deal with illegal migration across the Mexican border. But their coverage failed to show what is really happening. They are in denial as they serve up non-stop fake news.
The liberal media loves those protesters. But those large crowds are the same folks who protest against everything Trump does. If he says 2+2 equals 4 they scream “racist” and demand that Bob Mueller investigate POTUS for getting Russia to help him with his maths. As Trump brings peace to the Koreas they shout “fascist” and say that he has made the world more dangerous. As news comes through of surging jobs numbers especially among black workers they shout “well done Obama, for it is your policies that have delivered this despite Trump.”
And all the time this affluent middle class mob enjoy spending those tax cuts the President has implemented and which they said were just a sop to the rich.
So Trump is hated by well heeled liberals in the coastal states. Tell us something we did not know Jon Sopel et al.
What the liberal media is not discussing is how the polls show that most Americans actually approve of Trump’s tough line on immigration. And the sight of Beltway Dems and Hollywood celebs screaming about how they, effectively, want no controls at the Border only makes Trump more popular. Among GOP voters his approval rating is now 90% - as we approach the mid terms that is Reagan plus territory.
But more alarming still for the fake news media is that his overall approval rating among all voters is now 47% and climbing and if one factors in “shy Trumpsters” he is doing extraordinarily well for this point of the cycle, far better than Obama was. All talk of the Dems seizing control of Congress in November is now off the table. Not only will the GOP do well but those congressmen elected will be Trump Republicans not the Country Club set like McCain and Romney who cannot be relied upon to support Trump’s policies.
I still worry that, before we start celebrating a win for #Trump2020, the global economy may slow and the asset bubbles created over many years in the USA (and the UK) may start to pop. That would not help the Donald to defeat whichever candidate the Dems select. But, on the other hand, as the liberal media continues to give wall to wall coverage of the Trump hating mob and as the Democratic party aligns itself ever more closely to that mob whose views may be mainstream in the hipster infested parts of Brooklyn but are anathema to most Americans, the popularity of Trump and of the GOP will continue to climb.
And given how Trump's approval ratings in the biggest, solidly blue, states New York and California, are so incredibly low, basic maths suggests that in the rest of America and, critically, in the swing states of the Mid West he is well ahead. In 2016 Trump won partly because some folks thought he was awful but his opponent, crooked Hillary, was far worse. What the Dems just cannot understand, which makes them scream in an even more demented fashion, is that two years later more and more folks actually like Trump and what he is doing. Most of the folks who ldent their votes to Trump as the anti Clinton candidate are now firm pro Trumpsters. They are "deplorables too" and are most welcome to join the party.
One thing that you will not find reported on the BBC, CNN or read about in the Guardian is one group where there has been a big swing to Trump in recent weeks, helping fuel his ratings climb. That group is the Hispanic block. That should not be odd at all although one imagines that the liberal media elitists just will not understand.
More illegal migrants from the South will mean more folk ready to clean the lavatory of Nancy Pelosi et al or to serve them in swanky restaurants. But whose jobs will they be taking? Whose wages will they be threatening to undercut? In many cases it will be Hispanics living in the US legally and starting to pursue the America dream. They may wait in a restaurant but maybe their kids will go to college and get a better life. For such voters Donald Trump protects the American dream, the Dems threaten it.
If there was an election tomorrow the Dems would head to the ghettos and scream "Trump is a racist" not hoping but expecting to get what they regard as "their people" out in drov es. And the Dems would win the hispanic vote and the black vote. But with black employment zooming and black living standards rising in a way that just did not happen under Obama, there is little doubt that Trump would do better among black voters than any GOP candidate since Nixon and would almost certainly deliver the best ever GOP result among hispanics. But don't expect the mainstream media to tell you about that any day soon.
Stranded in the car with the Mrs, I found myself forced to listen to the Jeremy Vine show on BBC Radio 2 as it discussed Donald Trump with the author, the Guardian writing metropolitan liberal elitist Christina Patterson. Listeners who liked Trump were invited to call in so that Christina could brand them as racists because she thinks all Trumpsters are racist. Keep it up liberal moron! Every such statement makes #Trump2020 even more of a shoo in.
Remember when Crooked Hillary branded Trump supporters as “Deplorables”. We took that as a badge of honour. Trump’s poll ratings improved. Smearing half the electorate is just not that smart. You kind of know that liberals like Patterson are losing the argument when they are forced to both deny what is fact ( Trump’s poll ratings at this stage of the cycle are very good indeed and getting better) but also just to resort to smears and insults.
The BBC then demonstrated exactly why it is not fair or impartial as Patterson discussed Trump’s policy on tariffs claiming that “it will hurt exactly the people he is trying to help, the white working class.” Consider that statement and let it sink in. Trump’s tariff plans are trying to help the entire working class in the rust belt, a working class that is both black and white. He has not inserted or talked of any measures to ensure only whites benefit. His anti illegal immigration policies, whatever you think of the, do not impact on working class blacks (or whites) in the rust belt except in that it might reduce competition for lower paying jobs.
What Trump is trying to do is to help the working classes. It was Patterson who inserted entirely without justification the word “white” to create fake news. The facts are that wages among black workers are rising faster than ever. Black unemployment is the lowest since 1972 having fallen sharply since Trump took office. The Dems may talk the talk on tackling black poverty but Trump walks the walk and that is why he increased the GOP vote among black voters in 2016, from 2012, and much to the annoyance of folks like Patterson, will increase it again in 2020.
Not even mentioning Father’s Day, which she will no doubt forget tomorrow, my Islington based daughter Olaf honoured us with a visit to the boonies and Bristol yesterday. She was checking out the University in an open day and has decided that if things don’t go the right way at a proper seat of learning on the M40 she will, like all the other Oxbridge rejects, come here. Having checked out the University and come away really impressed she met up with myself, the Mrs and Joshua for lunch.
I walked to Clifton wheeling Joshua and heading via Go Outdoor to buy some more walking socks. It is all part of my training for July 28. The last half mile is all uphill and pushing an increasingly large Joshua I arrived a few minutes late and sweating. Olaf gave me a Paddington Stare. Quite by chance I was wearing my “Hillary for Prison 2016” T-shirt. Olaf blathers on about glass ceilings and how Donald Trump is the spawn of Satan in a way that you would expect from someone who lives in an area where everyone is an asset multimillionaire and reads the Guardian.
So what if Trump is bringing peace to Korea and record job numbers to America’s poor and working classes, he does not want Transgenders in the military and so is a bad man. I get it.
On the way I had asked directions from a Bristol Student, wearing a University T-shirt and helping out on the open day. He had commented on my T-shirt. He assumed (correctly, but that is not the point) that I was a Trump supporter but I responded that millions of lifelong Democrats did not vote for Crooked Hillary because she was a terrible candidate. The student countered that Hillary Clinton had been cleared of all charges which is, of course, not true. That was Fake News from a liberal – he should go to work for the BBC. I rattled off a list of things she is clearly guilty of including bleaching emails, pay to play and using charity money to fund her daughter’s $3 million wedding. The student said “that is your opinion”. I said, “no those are facts and that is why she should be in prison.”
I should have pointed out that his inability to appreciate fact from opinion is why he is at an Oxford Reject university whereas I did go to Oxford. But I did not. Olaf and the Mrs think that it is a bad line to use on Oxbridge rejects as it might hurt their feelings. No – suck it up buttercups you are just not top drawer, get over it!
Olaf and I discussed how useless Mrs May was and why she should go. But who would replace her my daughter enquired? “Priti Patel of course! said I. I never waiver on that point. Priti is a real instinctive Thatcherite, it is in her DNA. She is the chosen one. Olaf was not so sure. She said she wanted Mayor Khan to be PM.
Is that really a priority for Londoners? Well maybe up in the leafier parts of Islington where there are no stabbings it is seen as a vital issue. It is the sort of thing the Dems campaigned on in 2016 not caring about matters like jobs for folks in the rust belt or poverty in the farm states. And they wonder why Trump swept the flyovers?
There are surely very few people who still think Sadiq Khan is up to the job as Mayor of London, I rather suspect that Olaf is the only person in the whole country who thinks he should be PM. I know it is hard to think of someone who would be more useless than Theresa May but Mayor Khan might just be the one.
One of the joy's of being in Shipston with my father is getting to answer the phone for him. "Is that Tom Winnifrith?" says someone from the numerous virtue signalling charities run by legions of grossly overpaid Guardian readers, who he supports with his cash. Truthfully I answer "yes." I am then treated to a long spiel about all the valuable work they are doing out in bongo bongo land followed by an appeal for an increased monthly donation.
My father, a closet reactionary, actually rather despises Guardian readers although, to appease my public sector working and rather bossy sisters, he still has a Guardian delivered every day and reads it dutifully before calling me to say how angry he is about whatever piffle has been published in that edition.
He is also fully aware that while capitalism has been lifting hundreds of milions out of poverty, his cash which is not wasted on a bloated bureaucracy in Blighty is usually stolen out in the field, wasted or used to employ the legions of child molesters who work for the NGOs.
As such he does not mind when I make it clear that if Tom Winnifrith is ever called again by this charity he will cancel his direct debit altogether. If there is any objection I start to ask questions about how many paedophile scandals they have covered up this week and they soon piss off.
With this in mind I see that Oxfam now has a lottery. Whereas foreign aid should be defined as "a transfer of wealth from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries", lotteries are a simply "a tax on the stupid." Does Oxfam really think that my Dad is enticed by the thought that by handing over more of his cash he "can win prizes every week." Does it think its donors are that stupid?
Then to say that the cash which is not used for prizes will "beat poverty." when we know that 11 Oxfam staffers earned more than £100,000 last year with the then CEO picking up pay and expenses of c£140,000, is just a lie. Part of the cash that Oxfam lottery players - very few of whom earn telephone number salaries - hand over will be to support a stack of grossly overpaid staff at headquarters. They are not suffering poverty. But not all of the cash Oxfam extracts is used on overpaid staffers at HQ or on "campaigning" against capitalism. There will be some left over to help pay the wages of peadophiles "hard at it", in the field.
My father, like his father and brother an Oxford man, despairs at the way Oxford has become a term of abuse. Seemingly a week goes by without it being attacked for being elitist, a place where only the children of the 1% attend and for being out of touch, or for it being shown to be home to very silly people. Former graduates like Robert Peston, most of the BBC and the Guardian editorial team line up to say how ghastly it is. And the spineless craven fools who run the place do not bother fighting lie with fact but just cower and grovel.
My dear wife took real pleasure in reading a passage from the biography of an, apparently, famous comedian. He went to a state school and then Oxford. Or was it Cambridge? It matters not for both are tarred with the same brush. He recounts that on his first day a posh chap strolled over and said "who is your father?". The comedian replied. The posh chap said "never heard of him and walked away". Thus my Russell Group educated Mrs is reinforced in her belief that Oxford and Cambridge are packed with stupid snobbish members of the upper classes. And therefore the really intelligent folk go to Russell Group universities. Whatever you say, dearest: you lot are cleverer than me and my peers, we only went to Oxford because we were all posh.
Of course Oxford is nothing like that and the comedian just made up the story. He is on the side of the people. and the people want their prejudices reinforced. The latest row, lead by the Matthew Hopkins of the racism industry, David Lammy MP was a claim that Oxford discriminated against women, blacks and folks from the North East. Some headline data emerged and Lammy was off. Peston said he was ashamed to have gone to Oxford. The BBC and the Guardian shrieked with delight with no-one actually bothering to crunch the real data.
In my day there were a reasonable number of right wing Dons at Oxford. The great Norman Stone was a family friend and a real hoot socially. My economics tutor the late and great Roger Van Noorden (as in the Van Noorden Index) would have crunched Lammy's data and spat it out as garbage in minutes. But even in my day, the vast majority of Dons were lefties and folks like Stone were starting to feel the heat. These days the Oxford Dons are almost all ball breakingly PC and the idea that they would discriminate against women, blacks or those with a regional accent is ludicrous. White public schoolboys on the other hand...
And so while Peston et al virtue signalled someone who knows about academia and learned more in his time at Oxford about data than Peston did, Toby Young actually crunched the data. The headline is that the BME percentages at Oxford are almost the same as in the wider peer group and black applicants are actually proportionately more likely to get in than white applicants, it is just that there are far fewer of them. In other words there is no discrimination at all by Oxford. Yet it grovels "we must do better" because no one dares confront the Witchfinder General and his media pals to say they are talking pure cock and adding nothing to the cause of racial harmony by pushing such a false narrative.
In that respect I, like Peston, am also ashamed of going to Oxford, I am ashamed of its collective cowardice and also for obviously teaching Mr Peston quite so badly. Young's demolition on twitter follows:
Since Friday a young man, whose name you must all know by now, has been languishing in prison in very real danger of being attacked by his fellow inmates. I cannot say who he is because the Judge who sent him down for thirteen months has imposed draconian reporting restrictions. But you all know his name - it is all over social media and a video of his arrest has been watched 1.5 million times on youtube already.
Let us be clear this young man has some ghastly views and I do not wish to defend those views for a second. Before his supporters comment that he is misunderstood, I have read enough to satisfy me that his views are repugnant. Please do not bother trying to convince me otherwise. Nor is he, as his supporters insist, a journalist. He is an agitator and a campaigner. But that is not the point.
The details of what exactly happened are unclear thanks to the reporting restrictions but it seems that last year he filmed inside a court trying men on horrible rape charges and was given a three month suspended sentence. On Friday he was filming outside a court where other men were on trial facing horrible rape charges. That was seen by the judge as a breach and he was quickly arrested and without proper legal representation tried and sentenced and a reporting ban issued all within six hours.
I compare the actions of West Yorks Police with those of another force when Cliff Richard's home was raided. That force invited in the BBC although Richard has been shown to be innocent. The Police welcomed coverage of their belated actions against Saville, Hall, Harris and the other celeb nonces - there seems a bit of a contrast here.
There may be more to this case but thanks to the reporting restrictions we do not know. It seems on the surface of it a sinister way for the State to deal with a fringe politician it despises. Of course social media is ignoring any ban and this young man is now seen as a martyr and a hero by vast numbers. That is an unintended, utterly predictable, and thoroughly regrettable, consequence of the actions of the state
Some on the left, such as the Guardian's pipsqueak columnist Owen Jones, have cheered on this imprisonment because of what the young man believes. Be careful Owen, one day the State may decide your views are unacceptable. The issue is not whether this young man's views are loathsome. I think they are. The issue is one of a free press and basic civil liberties for all of us as citizens. In that vein, I find events on Friday as hugely disturbing and cannot see why that should be a matter of debate back in Airstrip One.
I think that I am abroad when President Trump visits the UK. Were I not to be overseas I would regard it as my duty to head to London in my "Hillary for Prison 2016" T-shirt to show my support for the leader of the free world. For every ghastly lefty going, notably Guardian squit Owen Jones and useless Mayor Khan, are promising to launch mass protests against The Donald.
Natch they accuse him of sexism, racism, homophobia and of making the world more dangerous by er... making Korea a nuclear free zone. So they must protest. You would have thought that they could have had a dress rehearsal this week.
For who is in town by another President who has banned all public displays of LGBT activities as he regards homosexuality as evil, sent thousands of journalists to jail, sent his troops to fight alongside folks who use chemical weapons and behead 12 year olds (the FSA in Syria), and has sacked any state employee he thinks disagrees with him. Not even The Donald stands accused of such things, yet where are the protests against Turkey's fascist leader Erdogan, by the British left?
Is this not a double standard or am I missing something?
I sometimes read the Guardian just to bring you delights on how the liberal left really think without you having to suffer the pain of reading this humourless left wing bilge. Readers I do a lot for you. Below is an effort from Rhik Samadder "Landlords are social parasites. They’re the last people we should be honouring". I reprint his words of poison, malice and fake fact devoid news with my comments in bold.
The ‘landlord of the year’ is being announced but most buy-to-let opportunists make their tenants’ lives hell – giving them a prize is like giving Stalin a humanitarian award
Really Rhik would you care to share the data which allows you to make this sweeping statement. I mean real hard data?
The landlord of the year award is announced on Monday, bestowed by the home insurance provider Home Protect. “Landlords often get a bad rap,” the CEO explains on its website, and I’ll stop him there. They don’t get a bad enough rap.
Again Prhik do you have any data?
When they do make the news, you already know the story. Tory landlords dragging their absentee, ancient arses into parliament solely to vote down a bill that says rented properties should be “fit for human habitation”.
So you have no data just the Guardian cuttings file as a basis for your assertion. Tory MPs only go to Parliament to vote on this bill. Really: your data to back up this claim? Oh.. you mean you read an article in the Guardian that Tory MPs never actually vote in Parliament as they are too busy hunting down poor people to death now that fox hunting has been banned.
“Lockdown” landlords bleeding councils dry, installing vulnerable people in micro-units, with inadequate fire provisions, so they can soak up treble the housing benefit.
Still no data then?
Who can forget the competition in the Daily Mail that offered up a buy-to-let property as top prize? This, from a paper that crucifies scroungers. Scroungers being people who live off others, and shirk their responsibilities. But back to landlords, eh?
Well you have got scroungers nailed to a T. I give you that. Well done Prhik.
Landlord of the year. Lol! Rofbhawuild! (Rolling on the floor, banging my head against the wall until I lose my deposit.) Who is it going to be? One who lets you have a pet? Some of my friends are landlords, and I’m sorry to say it, but they are going straight to hell too. Imagine how satisfyingly overcrowded the underworld must be with landlords; partitioning the seventh circle into seven more circles, charging each other extra for underfloor heating. The best thing you can say about them is that they are better than letting agents. But that’s like giving Stalin a humanitarian award for massacring fewer people than Genghis Khan. The fact is, they’re all rogue.
The fact is they are all rogue. Er data? How do you define a fact Phrik? The definition the rest of us use is "something that has happened" You appear to confuse your opinion based on no data at all with a fact
Whether your landlord is a genial profiteer or an actual psychopath is the luck of the draw. Anyone can be one, if they have made enough money or inherited property, and those are two of the worst qualifications imaginable. Like anyone who thrives off the housing crisis, they are social parasites.
Aha.. folks who inherit money as a forebear worked hard or who have made money themselves are evil. Thanks for clarifying your world view Prhik. Perhaps you can clarify, if I make money and pay tax on it what would you rather I do with it: bury it in the ground, buy shares or perhaps buy a run down flat, do it up and rent it out. The latter two involve me risking my capital ( taxed income for which I worked). Do you regard that as inherently wrong?
I rather think that Prhik does think that risking your hard earned capital is wrong. So do many Guardian readers. Perhaps they might want to spend a few weeks in Venezuela where the Government thought as they did and look how that turned out...
Hamas, the rulers of Gaza whose leaders still openly talk of driving the evil Jews into the sea and who happily fly Nazi flags alongside their own as you can see below, continues to organise protests on the Israeli border. Thanks to the liberal media's hatred of Israel it has been a PR triumph. But the truth...
On day one of the protests, c30,000 Palestinians took part in demonstrations along the Gaza border, during which rioters threw rocks and firebombs at Israeli troops on the other side of the fence, burned tires and scrap wood, sought to breach and damage the security fence, and in one case opened fire at Israeli soldiers. So much for the "peaceful" demonstrators that the BBC and others reported on. But at least they were civilians right? Those nasty Israeli soldiers, the wicked Jews were firing at civilians. well er...no.
So far at least ten of the 15 killed have been identified by the Israeli Defence Forces as Hamas combatants as you can see below. The others are still being investigated. For rather than fire indiscriminantly on civilians as the Western media states time and time again, the IDF was targeting combatants. Hell's teeth even Hamas has fessed up that five of those killed were its own guys. Has the BBC, CNN or The Guardian reported on that? Of course they have not.
These are the facts but the Western liberal elites don't care about facts. The narrative is of peaceful civilians being indiscriminantly fired on by the wicked Jews again. The truth is that the mob was a mixture of Hamas soldiers and civilians whipped up to act as a human shield for combatants. In the same way, Hamas launches its rockets targeting Israeli civilians from inside schools and hospitals knowing that any attempt by Israel to take out its weapons will result in civilian deaths and another PR triumph. That is thanks to a complicit Western press.
The facts never change, the human shields and PR triumphs of Hamas never change. When they know that the BBC and others will lap it up why change tactics? If the Western press was to report what is really going on then Hamas might stop using its own civilians as human shields and that would not be a bad thing would it? But such is the loathing that the liberal media elites feels for Israel, the facts will never be reported when they conflict with the narrative of victims in Gaza good - everyone there is a victim even if they are firing rockets on an Israeli primary school at the time - and Israelis bad.
My father knows why I am in New York rather than Shipston and approves so he has had to make do with a card (which has arrived) and a present (which has not). But he is aware of what it is, something that combines two of his great loves in life: Kent and cider. Fingers crossed it will arrive tomorrow.
I have been sent photos from his carer E, of him grinning into a camera with cards on the shelf as he celebrates this great landmark. I'm sure that each of what he terms the nest of vipers, that is to say his six children and step children, will be in touch as well as many of the 17 grandchildren ranging from the eldest (just started at a minor university in the Fens) down to Joshua.
I would imagine that otherwise it is business as usual. Digest the Guardian and, as one of its most loyal if also most reactionary readers, splutter to carer E ( a sound Trump and Brexit loving right winger) about how it is all lies and "fashionable left wing filth." Then there will be a trip to the office ( aka the White Bear) which may allow him to buy yet another copy of the Big Issue from the fat Bulgarian who is picked up every day in a silver Merc and who often flies home for holidays. This will give him pleasure as he knows how much this annoys both myself and E so he may even buy two copies from the far scrounger as a Birthday treat.
Then there will be some ITV 3 detective re-runs and perhaps a good book. By his living room chair there are a selection of books he deems good and worthy of a re-read, a good number of which are by his favourite author, Dr TJ Winnifrith. Modesty is a family trait.
Maybe a resolution for Dad's 81st year to help with the blood pressure: cancel the Guardian subscription and release your inner reactionary: treat yourself to the forbidden pleasure of the Daily Mail each day and perhaps the Telegraph as well. Good for the blood pressure and it would annoy my lefty sisters to boot. What's not to like?
My father brought me up, largely, as a single parent so I owe him an enormous amount. I'm sorry not to be at the White Bear today with him but happy birthday anyway to a great father and grandfather.
There is no doubt in my mind that the appalling way that the evil apartheid regime treated the late Winnie Mandela and her children is a very legitimate mitigating factor for Winnie as she trudges her way on the long march towards a meeting with St Peter. Indeed the evil of apartheid and the way it treated all dissenters and all black Africans is another factor St Pete will take into account. But I very much doubt that he will be utterly forgiving and, I am sure, that Mrs Mandela will show no sense of repentance. Natch the Guardian, the newspaper of the liberal elite, thinks she did nothing wrong and it goes further, in its usual poisonous way, as it tries to silence debate on this matter. .
Its case put by, among others, Owen Jones & Afua Hirsch is that Apartheid was so evil that whatever happened in the struggle was legitimate. And the columnist below goes a step further in suggesting that anyone challenging that narrative is a racist. Of course. With its usual poison the Guardian wishes to stifle any debate by cowing dissenters into silence for fear of being branded a racist.
To be clear, Mrs Mandela was, during the years when Nelson Mandela was in jail a beacon of hope and her heroism and bravery should be recognised. She was a heroine. However as apartheid was visibly crumbling, not because - as young Mr Jones insists -- of bombs and violence but because of concerted international pressure, both moral and economic, some bad things went on.
Mr Mandela recognised that South Africa could only avoid the appalling bloodshed and chaos that had happened in so many places in post colonial Africa is a rainbow nation worked together. He found it in his heart to genuinely forgive. Mrs Mandela did not, her anger turned to hatred and her vision was of vengeance and was driven by hatred. And that saw her thugs in Mandela United kill other black folks, men and boys, with machete and "necklace" on, often, the most spurious of grounds.
Those murders which Winnie Mandela must be held to account for did not hasten the demise of apartheid. And her agenda of hatred and vengeance is still alive in some circles today. That is why being a white farmer in South Africa is now the most dangerous profession on earth in terms of murder rate. Winnie Mandela's calls to action after her husband's release legitimised hatred and vengeance.
One of the great things about Nelson Mandela was that he was the first to admit his sins and his failings as a man although his actions ahead of and after release showed a level of forgiveness which marks him out as a superior being to almost all of us. With Mrs Mandela there was no such humility, no such acceptance of her failings. Yes she was a hero but she also did some very bad things. To refuse to accept that balanced appraisal as the Guardian writers like Mr Jones and Afua Hirsch do is just dishonest. To smear those offering a more balanced perspective is simply poisonous.
Across the West the story is the same. Offended snowflakes object - or in some cases far worse - and craven academics cancel events or no platform speakers. This is a matter I am now all too familiar with after giving this most excellent talk at Bath Spa University. It is surely only a matter of time before some liberal arts faculty somewhere organises a book burning. Today's demonstration of the Orwellian nature of the liberal arts campus of today comes from McMaster University in Hamilton Canada.
For years, as the great Mark Steyn has discovered to his cost, the Canadian thought police have been out to stifle free speech but under the ludicrous clown Justin Trudeau life in the socialist hell hole to the North of the land of the free has got much worse.
And thus over at McMaster the anti-poverty group Overcome the Gap organised a panel discussion “Tolerating Intolerance: A Discussion on Free Speech.”
Naturally there were complaints from those who find the idea of a discussion on free speech where one of the panellist was a conservative thinker. There were not a lot of complaints but a few and therefore the discussion on free speech has had to be cancelled because of “concerns about the safety of the event.”
In 1984, sorry 2018, in La La Campus land you cannot discuss free speech because that might offend someone. Monty Python could not have made up anything so ridiculous. Time and again these episodes demonstrate two things: one is the intolerance of too many students to those who have ideas which conflict with what they regard as "settled", ideas outside a very narrow mindset. The second is the sheer cowardice of academics who simply do not dare stand up to the intolerant bedwetting millennials.
To those academics, with apologies to Pastor Niemoller:
First they came for the conservatives and I did nothing because I hate the fucking Tories too...
Then they came for the University Christian Society claiming it was homophobic and I did nothing because anyone who believes in the sort of old fashioned nonsense gets what they deserve
Then they came for gay rights and feminist icons Peter Tatchell and Germaine Greer for daring to question the new trans agenda and I did nothing because I was too busy reading the Guardian
Then they came for me for not giving them a 2-1 as was their human right even though they had done no work at all and were very stupid and there was no-one left to speak for me
Yes there were clear electoral irregularities in the Russian Presidential Election. But rather like Nixon in 1972 Vladimir Putin did not need to cheat to win.The headline number is that Vlad got 75%. Whether the real; number is 65% or 55% who cares, he won and he won easily.
For the fact is that an awful lot of Russians like Vlad. He refutes the LGBTI and Christianity bashing bullshit which dominates the Western liberal agenda. In a conservative and religious country that plays well. He has made a Russia that was broken and humbled at the end of the cold war feel great again restoring a sense of pride in a nation where patriotism is not someone one is meant to be ashamed of. Gone iks the grinding poverty of the socialist and post socialist era, Russians have never had it do good.
In defending Russian speakers who, by a quirk of history, found themselves in a Ukraine where Russian was being banned as an official language, he showed that Mother Russia cared for all its people. He does not bother taking prisoners when fighting Islamic terror. Hee is certainly not offering a bump up the housing waiting list to ISIS fighters who want to go back to Mother Russia.
Putin may not be top of the pops in the West but in Mother Russia they really do like him. So how does the Western liberal media and political establishment react. Presumably it is blaming Russian bots just like they do when any other election goes the wrong way for them? Nope. They are even dafter than that. Over to all round leftard millionaire socialist and Guardian columnist Owen Jones who tweets:
Hmmm. Owen so how many Russians were murdered when the country last tried out socialism? Was it 20 million or 30 million? I suspect that young Master Jones was not even out of nappies or perhaps not even a glint in his father's eye when the USSR oppressed its people creating untold misery, poverty and state sponsored murder in the name of socialism. Mr Jones, like so many young people, is ignorant of history for he looks only to the future without learning from the past.
Back in what was the USSR there is no craving for socialism. Folks there are just happy to be living in a society which, under Vladimir Putin, is richer, more free and far less murdersome than that which Jones harks back to as some sort of golden era.
Yeah that Donald Trump is a racist, our sort of story, says the Guardian and thus leads its foreign news section with a story "US Senator uses Trump Pocohontas jibe to raise awareness". Dem uber-bore Elizabeth Warren, according to the Guardian: "responded to President Trump's latest Pocohontas jibe yesterday by highlighting sexual violence against native American women, a tactic she said she would pursue every time the President "threw out" such a "racial slur"
Yes Trump calls Warren Pocohontas. The Guardian, being written by and for humourless liberal bastards desperate to show what an evil racist POTUS is, does not tell you why. So let me help. When Warren applied for a job at Harvard Law school she said that she was a Native American although if you look at her she appears to be whiter than most members of the Hitler Youth. But the liberals who run HLS loved the diversity cred and boasted about how they had their first "woman of color" on the payroll back in 1995.
Warren even contributed some old family recipes to a cookbook of Native American cuisine. Although it subsequently emerged that they were not very Native American at all less still part of the Warren family archive and, in fact, came from a plush restaurant she frequented. So then folks started pushing her on her claimed Indian heritage.
Eventually, by now in Congress, her staff managed to find a great great great grandmother who was designated as Cherokee in the online transcription of a marriage application of 1894. Great. So Warren was 1/32nd Native American and 31/32 white but she is still according to Harvard Law School a woman of color and according to the Dems a "Native American"
Unfortunately, the actual original marriage license does not list Great-Great-Great-Grandma as Cherokee at all so it now looks as if Ms Warren is in fact 32/32 white. Did you know I was 1/64th Swiss - can I claim any special exemptions if I go to Switzerland and claim my birthrights as being as Swiss as cuckoo clocks, alpine ski-ing and stashing gold stolen by the Nazis from Jews they had murdered? Have I told you about the old family recipe for Bűndnernusstorte passed down from my great, great great great Grandmother? Is there a compilation cook book I can submit it to as I reclaim my heritage? Of course not, my claim to be Swiss would be ridiculed. And as such for Trump to laugh at Warren's claim to be a Native American by calling her Pocohontas when she is, at the very best, 1/32 Native American but almost certainly, just like Frosty the Snowman, that is to say 100% white, seems perfectly fair.
It is not a racial slur on the Native Americans but a legitimate jibe at a woman who has played the race card to perfection to advance her own career in a way that will distract attention from the real issues Native Americans face. It is not a bad joke nickname but we all know that those on the left have no sense of humour at all and also a bit of a problem with real facts.
But its worse than that. By failing to put Trump's comments into their true context, the Guardian serves up what can only be seen as fake news. The article will confirm all the prejudices of its diminishing band of readers about the leader of the free world but it is one that is profoundly misleading.
The narrative of folks like the BBC, The Guardian, CNN in fact the whole of the liberal media elite is that Donald Trump should not have defeated crooked Hillary in 2016. Without admitting that their gal was useless they agree that next time around the Donald just cannot win, in fact many argue that he will not stand at all. But have they actually looked at the polls in detail? If they have, they ignore them as they churn out yet more fake news.
On the impeachment level, after almost a year of Mueller nonsense a few folks associated with Trump have been charged with either financial crime pre-dating and unrelated to the campaign or of lying to the FBI. 13 Russians have been charged with interfering with the election, staring in 2014, a year before Trump decided to run. Facebook says most of the Russian money spent with it was spent after the General Election. No link has been shown between the 13 and the Trump campaign. In other words not a shred of evidence of Trump Russia collusion has emerged which is not surprising as there was none.
On the other hand the FBI, crooked Hillary and the Obama administration have been shown to have real links to Russia via the dirty dossier funded by Clinton, via Uranium One and have been shown lying to judges and destroying evidence of Clinton wrongdoing. Russiagate is a Democrat problem and Trump will just not get impeached. But can he win the vote?
As I noted repeatedly during the General Election there is always a "shy Trump" factor in all polls - something the liberal media ignores since it is their non stop vilification of Trump and his supporters that has created it. I am happy to admit to being a "deplorable" as Hillary Clinton branded 50% of her fellow Americans. And so are many others. But given the non stop attacks we Trumpsters have suffered in the press it is no surprise that some folks will pull the right lever on election day but don't dare admit it to anyone.
At this stage of his first Administration Obama was on 45% approving of his (dismal) performance. The most recent poll (Rasmussen) had Trump on an amazing 50% approving 49% not and he has been on the up in all recent polls. That Rasmussen poll is meant to have a margin of error of 2.5%. Now I concede that other polls (claiming a similar margin of error) taken a few days earlier have him on as low as 37% approval. One thing we can say for sure is that at least one of those polls is wildly wrong!
The overall tracking poll currently has Trump at c43% ( and rising). Throw in the shy Trumpsters and he is basically where Obama was at this point. But Trump's ratings are improving rapidly.
But there is another factor at play here. Trump lost the popular vote but stormed the electoral college. That is because millions of useless Dem votes piled up in safe and big Dem states like New York, California and Illinois. Whereas in smaller flyover states Trump won by a narrower margin. His landslides in the South and Mid West were also largely in smaller states - the only big red states being Texas and Florida.
There was a state by state poll on approval ratings undertaken some weeks ago when the overall picture was that Trump was nationally in the mid to high thirties. What was clear from that was that in places such as New York, New England and California, i.e safe Dem states, POTUS was even less liked than he was back in November 2016. There has been a large swing against him. But this makes no difference at all to the electoral college.
In the States that were safe Trump in 2016 he was still safe and in the swing states, back then he was in the 40s already. In other words, at what should be a low point for Trump (mid term year) he is still very much in contention in all the states that matter. Throw in the recent revival and the shy Trump factor and he could well be ahead or only marginally behind in all the swing states. At this point in the cycle that is a remarkably good showing.
The great unknown is how the economy fares between now and 2020. If it is stimulated by the Trump tax cuts and jobs continue to be created in those swing rust belt states the #Trump2020 victory party is s slam dunk cert. If it falters then the race is more of a toss up with a lot depending on which of the umpteen dwarfs the Dems are considering is selected as their candidate. Natch I am praying that Chelsea Clinton decides that it is her familial turn to steal the Dem nomination but the reality is that there is no strong and obvious choice bar Bernie Sanders who is a) very old, b) tainted by his wife's financial scandals and c) a total fruitcake.
When push comes to shove will folks in Ohio or Michigan want to back a man who thinks we should #takeaknee in solidarity with transgender campaigners in a programme funded by tax hikes? Okay I parody his position slightly, but on the big social and economic issues Trump stands with folks in Ohio, Bernie kneels with snowflakes in Brooklyn. It is the story I have commented on many times before, one of the two Americas.
The Bottom line is that any media outlet telling you that Trump has a 0% chance of residing in the White House after 2020 is just ignoring the facts to pedal fake news.
The liberal remoaning elite have spent the past year bleating on about Russian interference in the Brexit referendum. Loons like, person of the people, Carole Cadwalladr of the Guardian and all the folks at Channel 4 fake News have droned on ad nauseam. Sure there were only about 1000 tweets from Russian state related accounts on Brexit but that caused all 17.4 million of us to vote the wrong way. There is no evidence but that will not stop the Russian "exposes".
The remoaners argue, correctly, that foreign interference in a domestic vote is wrong. Oddly they did not complain when President Obama weighed in to intervene but folks like the Guardian editorial team operate in a post fact world where there is no need to be consistent.
So this week we learned that Hungarian American George Soros has given £700,000 to groups trying to overturn the referendum. Give her dues even the high priestess of barking mad metropolitan elitist remoaning, Gina Miller, says this is wrong. But most in the liberal media thing there is nothing to see here.
Thus, on Channel 4 Fake News, Krishnan Guru-Murthy, found himself interviewing Brexit supporting Richard Tice about the matter. Krishnan went straight for the smear as you can see below noting "There have been allegations of a nasty undertone in that George Soros, who throughout he's life has been attacked in an antisemitic way. That's been denied by various people today but what do you say to this allegation.
What to say? We Brexiteers were onme led by a Jewish businessman, Sir James Goldsmith ( father of arch Brexiteer Zac), back in the days of the Referendum Party. Would Krish like to clarify who exactly has been daft enough to go on the record saying that the objection to Soros money is because of his faith? Krishnan did not elaborate on that matter. Jews gave money to both pro and anti Brexit campaigns in the referendum. This is not about faith it is because Soros is a foreigner trying to get Britain to change a policy voted for by 17.4 million folks who, unlike Soros, have a British passport.
This was not a question from Guru-Murthy it was just a nasty and silly smear. When did you stop beating your wife? Are you sure that some of you lot are not Jew haters?.
My sister N is the sort of public sector employed lefty whose prime source of information is the Guardian. And since I am about the only Tory she speaks to, for there are few to no-one in her social circle, there is no-one to challenge the lies she is fed by the BBC's sister publication. And thus when I asked her if she had seen the Cathy Newman car crash interview with Jordan Peterson on Channel 4 Fake News she said "I've read about all the abuse and death threats she is getting."
Sadly it is true that a very small number of folk have posted the most vile abuse and threats against Ms Newman. Just as the Left has some vile trolls who post the most hateful abuse against Jews and enemies of the dear leader Mr Corbyn, we on the right have our arseholes too.
Thus Channel 4 News has branded critics of Ms Newman as misogynists and said it has called in its security experts. The fact is that 99.9% of her critics, including my own wife, a Guardian reading lefty, criticise Newman because her performance was just so dreadful. We have every right to point out that a presenter earning a six figure salary at a State owned broadcaster has recorded an interview which is so toe-curlingly bad and that it demonstrates the mentality and intellectual vacuum at the heart of the liberal media establishment.
Yet the few vile threats allow C4 to move the narrative. The story is now one of trolls, harassment and the loony right. For folks like N that is all that they will read and know of the incident. My sister is bright enough to watch the whole video and I hope that she will see that there is far more to this story than Channel 4 and the Guardian would have her believe. Sadly others will not watch the video and will conclude that Cathy is just another victim of we evil folks who do not follow JC as he seeks to build a new Venezuala.
Guardian columnist and celebrated virtue signaller Owen Jones earns £500,000 a year for writing material which is, far too often, directly contradicted by facts. Here is his take on demonstrations in Iran which have left more than 20 dead.
Solidarity with any Iranian protestors who are fighting for democracy and freedom, both from a vicious regime and from US domination ✊
Of course the demonstrators really should have nothing to fear since Iran sits on the UN Human Rights Council.
Jones is right that the Iranian regime is vicious. It is a bigoted theocratic and corrupt regime that has caused bloodshed across the Middle East. And I suspect that the US has learned its lesson from the blowback it suffered from its joint intervention with Britain in Iran in 1953.
If Owen Jones listened to the wise words of President Trump or the woman we right thinkers hope will succeed him in 2024, Nikki Haley, it is clear that the US has no desire to intervene in Iran. The days of the US wading into Mid East countries to stir up a hornets next ended when Trump whipped the warmonger, crooked Hillary, in 2016.
There is no evidence that the US wishes to intervene. That the wonderful Miss Haley and the leader of the free world have stated that folks should be allowed to protest without being shot dead is surely something that we can all agree on, can't we Owen?
However there absolutely no evidence at all that the Iranian protestors are out on the streets fighting for freedom from US domination as Jones asserts. Most of the - largely working class and poor - folks risking a beating from the National Guard are protesting against the lack of jobs and spiralling food prices. Some others want regime change in Iran. Only Jones imagines that the protests are somehow against the country which he and Iran's rulers jointly view as the Great Satan.
Just sometimes Jones gets it right. But his propensity to assert things which are patently wrong means that even when he is correct you just assume that he is making it up. I guess round at the fake news publication that is the Guardian that may not matter but perhaps such willingness to publish such easily demonstrable lies might, in some way, explain the ongoing decline in circulation?
A friend who is the epitome of the remoaning metropolitan elitist emails me today to claim that "you really are becoming a fascist in your old age what with your support of Donald Trump and your climate change denial." The elitists always forget that labelling anyone with whom you disagree as a fascist demeans the true horror of what fascism is. But I suppose it is easier than actually debating facts. I shall deal with my admiration of the leader of the free world another day but let's look at some hard facts about climate change or , as it used to be known, global warming. I bring you three quotes:
The first is from 2000. David Viner who made his name at the world leading global warming (data bodging) establishment that was the University of East Anglia warned in 2000 in the Indescribably boring newspaper that because of global warming snow would soon become a “rare and exciting event”. He added: “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
The UAE forecasts published in the late 1990s, replicated by other experts notably the IPCC, suggested that the world would just get hotter and hotter. That underpinned Viner's prediction. And this Group Think has formed the basis for the Paris Accord and other initiatives that will cripple Western economies in order to fight global warming. Only one world leader has dared to point out how horribly wrong the UEA forecasts ( and all the other "expert" projections) have been so far. If Viner at al cannot get their forecasts right for 20 years why should we believe their 100 year guesstimates?
Of course the only leader understanding this basic logic is Mr Donald Trump. Fools like Theresa May and all of the rest of the EU are happy to sign up to economic suicide for their own nations even though the data on which the hara kiri pledges are made is now utterly suspect.
So you understand Viner's predictions and the UAE/IPCC projections on which they are based. Now I refer you to the Guardian, the fake news publication of choice for metropolitan liberal elitists, from yesterday:
Record-breaking big freeze grips much of North America
Bone-chilling cold gripped the middle of the US as 2018 began on Monday, breaking a low temperature record, icing some New Year’s celebrations and leading to at least two deaths attributed to exposure to the elements.
The National Weather Service issued wind chill advisories covering a vast area from south Texas all the way to Canada and from Montana and Wyoming in the west through New England to the northern tip of Maine.
Dangerously low temperatures enveloped eight midwest states including parts of Kansas, Missouri, Illinois and Nebraska along with nearly all of Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota and North Dakota.
The weather service said a temperature of 15 below zero (-9.44C) was recorded in Omaha before midnight on Sunday, breaking a record low dating back to 1884, and the temperature was still dropping early on New Year’s Day. That reading did not include the wind chill effect.
etc etc etc
But maybe that is a one off? I now refer you to Uncle Chris Booker writing in the Telegraph ten years ago:
"The winter from hell’
Over the first three months of 2008, as global temperatures continued to fall, the world endured one of its coldest winters for decades, In January, the northern hemisphere recorded its most extensive snow cover for the month since 1966 (just before those predictions that the world might be entering a ‘new ice age’). Not only were there record snow falls across North America, but countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq and several regions of China experienced more snow than they had seen for 50 or even 100 years. NOAA and the US National Climate Data Center reported that on land it had been only the 63rd warmest January globally in 114 years.
In February the chill continued. Snow was recorded in the deserts of southern Iran where no one could remember it ever falling before. Jerusalem had its second snowfall in a month. Astonished Athenians gazed up at a snow-draped Acropolis, while more than 200 villages in Greece and Crete were cut off by blizzards. In Turkey the number of villages cut off was estimated at 1,000.] Further heavy snows across southern China added to a disaster which had already damaged 10 percent of the country’s forests and devastated thousands of square miles of farmland.
As the four official sources of temperature data agreed that global temperatures had fallen below their 20th century average, even Hansen’s GISS figures showed the steepest January-to-January global temperature drop (0.75 degrees) since surface records began in 1880.
In the US in early March there were blizzards as far south as Texas and Arkansas. In the northern US states and Canada what was being called ‘the winter from hell’ continued to break records for cold and snow going back in some cases as far as 1873. In Afghanistan it was reported that the abnormal snow and freezing weather had killed 1,500 people and 200,000 animals. In Tibet six months of snow and record low temperatures had killed 500,000 animals, leaving a further three million at risk of starvation.
Meanwhile in Antarctica sea-ice cover was at its highest March level since satellite records began in 1979, nearly a third above its 30-year average. In the Arctic, where sea-ice the previous September had dropped to 3 million square kilometres, its lowest level ever recorded, prompting frenzied media predictions that it would soon be gone altogether, the winter freeze had now returned the ice to 13 million square kilometres, the same level it had been at a year earlier.
In western Greenland, the Danish Meteorological Institute recorded temperatures 30 degrees C below zero, while more ice was clogging the strait between Greenland and Canada than at any time for 15 years.
Snow falling in record amounts in winter, whatever next?. To happen once in a decade looks like an inconvenient truth. To happen twice suggests that the predictions made to support the bogus religion that is global warming by the "experts" are just plain bollocks. Here in Europe we ignore the facts, the record snowfalls, the plunging temperatures and still stuff the peasants with energy tariffs to fight global warming, we crucify heavy industry with additional costs to stop the planet getting warmer, our leaders follow this religion blindly.
Only one politician looks at the real data and is brave enough to call out global warming for the fraud that it is. That admirable and brave man is Donald Trump and the true fascists are those who try to close down debate on climate change by saying that it is a settled science when the hard data of what is falling from our skies suggests that this is simply not the case.
As of 2019 new British passports will be coloured blue as in the good old days, not EU red. This will not cost £500 million as some remoaners like James Caan claimed. It will not cost a cent. But still the fake news continues with the loathsome Guardian leading the way. Its headline today is "Blue Passports to mean red tape say EU officials" Natch this is just sheer fiction.
Certain EU officials have told the Guardian that once we leave the Evil Empire those of us with British passports may face delays at airports as we leave the EU queues and go into the Rest of the World Queues. Well if EU countries wish to punish Brits for Brexit by under-staffing the RoW lines I am sure that it will do wonders for the tourist trade in Spain, Italy, Greece etc. In other words while the EU wants to threaten another punishment beating for we naughty Brits, the real casualties will end up being its own citizens.
But that is not the point. The point is that we will be punished for being Brits, the colour of our passport makes no difference. We could stick with EU red or go for a glorious LGBT rainbow to pander to the Guardian and it would make no difference. In other words the Guardian headline is just pure fake news bollocks.
A couple of weeks ago BBC Question Time went to Barnsley in the Grim North and among its audience of hand picked members of Momentum was the lass below Samanatha Thompson who bleated on about how she and her family had to use food banks and this was a sign of wicked Tory austerity causing rising poverty, blah, blah, blah. I gather that Samantha has taken offence at some Tory councillor who noted that for someone claiming to be on the brink of starvation she is, to put it bluntly, very fat indeed. Miss Piggy reckons that this is offensive and wants an apology and maybe in these PC free speech denying times the poor chap will be forced by his party to grovel. Since I have no such pressure I say "Miss Piggy your are a fat blubbermonster and if you find that offensive how about you eat less and stop looking quite so much like a beached whale? Of course this story gets more ridiculous.
The first thing to note is that poverty as defined by Miss Piggy and the left is relative poverty.So you are poor if you earn less than 60% of the mean average wage. If the banksters get big bonuses even if the poor get real pay rises too and so have more purchasing power and are thus better off, the left says that their poverty has increased. This is clearly utter rot.
There are rising levels of relative poverty but there are actually falling levels of absolute poverty, in good part thanks to the evil Tories massively increasing the threshold at which one pays tax, a measure that is of most benefit in terms of disposable incomes to low earners. If you are actually poor ( as in struggling to feed your family) it is absolute not relative income that you care about. Relative poverty is only something those who are well enough not to be troubled by real cash worries, like Guardian journalists and Labour MPs and most middle class public sector lefties, can actually afford to care about.
SZo the left tell us that soaring food bank usage is down to increased poverty. But the facts are that in absolute terms ( i.e) purchasing power, poverty is going down. So why do so many folks use food banks? Because they offer free food silly! That means that food bank users have more disposable cash for things like fags, booze. expensive fast food takeaways, playing the voluntary tax on the stupid that is the lottery, SkyTV subs and foreign holidays. Foreign what FFS? That brings us back to Miss Piggy...
Go to her facebook page, below, and among the many examples of blatant consumerism is this pic of her on a foreign holiday. There are others. Summer and winter breaks. Such is the face of poverty in 2017 Britain.
Miss piggy gets to go on even better foreign hols thanks to food banks. What percent of food bank users smoke/have foreign holidays/play the lotto/have Sky etc? It would be an interesting academic study but what are the chances of any academic daring to risk career destruction by requesting to do such a study?, They are of course nil. But that will not stop those on the left screaming that any suggestion that food bank growth is down to anything outher than increased poverty is just a wicked Tory lie.
I see that Guardian journalist Carole Cadwalladr is complaining that she has received death threats after writing what she, without any justification, claimed to be an expose of Russian meddling in the Brexit vote. Let us be clear: Carole is talking shite on the Russians, as she does on almost everything, as I noted here, but death threats against journalists are always utterly wrong. I speak as a journalist who has received death threats.
Natch the old Bill did sweet FA about those I received for having the audacity to expose Quindell as the Stockmarket's biggest fraud in thirty years - you need to be an MP like Anna Soubry or a celeb or shagging Tom Daley to get any joy out of the rozzers these days. And as such folks like Carole and myself have a sad choice: write about fluffy kittens and so be loved by everyone or expose things (or in Carole's case make them up) and get grief.
And so in every respect I sympathise with Carole and defend her right to carry on writing. But equally I should point out that she, Theresa May and others are just talking utter shite about the Russians and Brexit. On new media it has now been established that of 22.6 million tweets opposing Brexit, 416 came from folks who are likely to be linked to Russian agencies. Can anyone say that this is really significant? How many tweets went out reminding us of President Hopey Change's American intervention in Brexit on behalf of Project Fear? A stack more than 416.
I do not believe that many of the 48% were swayed by the Nobel Peace prize winning man, who did so much to make Syria the country it is today, with his interventions. But equally is it really credible to suggest that those 416 tweets swayed any of the 17.4 million of us who voted for Brexit? Yet Mrs May, the Guardian and other remoaners continue to state otherwise.
Carole Cadwalladr's big thesis is that Russian cash found its way to fund the Brexit campaign and the link man here is Arron Banks who is married to a Russian and therefore clearly suspect. Carole has missed out that my uncle Chris Booker who has written about the evils of the EU for three decades is also married to a half Russian. I suggest that she half implicates him too.
Admittedly the finances of Banks are mysterious. He did pump £9 million into the campaign yet his finances elsewhere seem stretched. Where did that cash come from. Let's go to the Channel 4 website:
In a statement, Mr Banks said: “The Leave. EU campaign was funded by myself, Peter Hargreaves and the general public . . . My sole involvement with ‘the Russians’ was a boozy 6 hour lunch with the Ambassador where we drank the place dry.”
In an interview with Banks earlier this year, the Guardian quoted him as saying that “we had no Russian money into Brexit”.
The journalist conducting the interview, Carole Cadwalladr, wrote that the comment “would be a perfectly reasonable answer, if he had been asked if Russia had put money into Brexit. But he hadn’t. He asked and answered his own question”.
I suspect that some of the Banks cash may have come from non UK sources - he has a number of Eurosceptic pals in the Isle of Man. And that might be an issue for him and it is right that his funding be looked into. But there is really no hard evidence at this point, or indeed any evidence at all, that Russian cash was involved.
In every election where the lefty establishment is threatened or beaten they now play the Russia card. And they do so without any evidence at all. In the case of Trump the smear is based on a clearly very dodgy dossier paid for - it has now emerged - by his opponent, crooked Hillary. In the case of Brexit there is not even a dodgy dossier. There is just nothing but assertion without evidence. But if Carole and the Guardian wish to write articles pretending otherwise for their dwindling readership that is something they should have every right to do without threat.
On today's Marr Show on the BBC, the guest lefty was the load mouth Guardian columnist Owen Jones whose bon mot was on the matter of abortion. His horror was at the "violence" of denying a woman a right to have an abortion. Words almost fail me.
But Jones believes that the ultimate right is that of the mother and that abortions of babies that are sufficiently developed to be viable outside the womb are legitimate. To me that is plain murder. And the ultimate violence is surely in sticking a needle into such a being to snuff out its life. For various reasons Jones has not gone through the heartache of losing a child before it is born. He can have no idea of how precious that life would have been. That is not his fault not to have suffered that agony and misery, it is his blessing, but is he unaware of how hurtful his comments are to those who have suffered such an experience?
To see the denial of the right of a woman to murder a viable entity as somehow being violence when not seeing the act of murder itself as violent is the product of a degenerate mind. But Jones is part of a metropolitan elite who sees everything in terms of rights for adults and nothing in terms of our responsibilities to others. In today's world Michael Gove makes an unfunny joke and is lambasted, Owen Jones expresses outrage at the denial of a right to murder and will no doubt be applauded.
Another day, another reason to want to leave a degenerate place like Britain as fast as I can.
The British liberal media are still wiping themselves down having been unable to contain their excitement as crooked Hillary Clinton allowed them to the chance to give fawning interviews as she plugged her Godawful book "What Happened?" As such they seem unable to report the big stories in US politics like Hillary's collusion with the Russians. Instead we are treated to Jon Snow on Channel 4 and the various BBC libtards telling us that the Republican Party has had enough of Trump as two senior senators line up to attack him. The truth is that Jeff Flake of Arizona an d Bob Corker of Tennessee are the sort of Country club Republicans who backed Romney and McCain enthusiastically but did not really mind that Obama won since they agreed with President Hopey Change on most things.
Realising that they could not win a GOP Primary let alone a Senate race next time around they are quitting ahead of defeat. They are out of tune with their party and out of tune with America. Pathetically Jon Snow stated that losing two senators when the Senate was splay 552-48 for the GOP showed what trouble Trump was in. The fact that Corker and Flake usually side with the Dems but will be replaced by Republicans who really are Republicans is actually a gain for Trump. Either Snow does not understand that point in which case the old fool is useless or he does but is so intent on Trump bashing that he carries on regardless.
Then came the Trump Dossier. This document is the basis for all the claims made against Donald Trump that showed him having links to Russia, colluding with it and being capable olf blackmail by the KGB. This dossier was leaked just months before the poll. Throw in the claim that it was Russia who hacked the DNC and you have a good old story to tell.
Of course Wikileaks has made it clear that the DNC dump did not come from Russia. And after almost a year investigating the Trump dossier it has been found to be either total fantasy or utterly unproven. The shock bombshell this week is the revelation of who paid millions of dollars for Fusion GPS ( a body with very close links to Russia) to compile the dossier. The answer came this week and it is Hillary Clinton.
Senior Dems are rapidly distancing themselves from the crooked one. Paying a company with close links to Russia to make up smears against Trump then leaking it is really very bad indeed. Throw in Uranium One and the Russian spies and the Russia scandal becomes utterly toxic for crooked Hillary. If "lock her up" was said tongue in cheek in 2016 surely it now becomes a very serious option. Like her husband before her she may end up facing a special prosecutor and she won't even have got a cute female intern to go down on her for her pains.
Of course, for the liberal media which has, without any evidence other than Hillary's discredited dossier, been banging on about Trump and Russia for the past year whilst fawning over Hillary this is all a bit embarrassing too. And maybe that explains the silence on this matter of the BBC, the Guardian, C4 and the rest of the fake news wolfpack?
As she plugs her tawdry lie packed book "How I lost the election even though I was a brilliant candidate and it was everyone else's fault but I won really" Crooked Hillary Clinton tells every fawning liberal media interviewer in turn that the Russians worked hand in hand with Donald Trump to rig the poll and cheat her out of victory. After nine months of exhaustive investigations and any number of lurid smears not one shred of evidence has been produced to justify this assertion made to and by unquestioning MSM "journalists" . Indeed even the emails coming from the DNC and published by Wikileaks did not come from Russian hacking as Hillary asserts. But this is not the real Russian scandal.
That has broken this week with news that for six years the FRBI has been investigating how Russian businessmen, like Bill Clinton's fellow rapist and campaigner for women's rights Harvey Weinstein, made vast donations to the Clinton Foundation at a time when Lady MacBeth was Secretary of State. She then enforced a policy U-turn which allowed the Russians to buy 20% of all US uranium reserves.
This is, of course, a total coincidence.But it is not one that the liberal media is bothering to report to their ever reducing number of readers and viewers who actually enjoy consuming fake news. If a Trump associate is asked by the FBI if he has ever tasted Russian vodka, the Feds leak it and it is all over the New York Times, WashPo or CNN within minutes. The FBI has kept this story very quiet as it might have been electoral dynamite a years or so ago.
Incidentally, you may argue, as the mainstream press does when excusing the crooked one for not returning Weinstein's cash, that the Clinton Foundation does valuable work for good causes with donations as well as funding the $3 million wedding of the brat Chelsea. Well up to a point. The New York Post puts this in context:
The Clinton family's mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid. The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.
Chelsea not only had her wedding paid for by the Charity but was on the payroll too. This is a fake charity. And now we see what sort of favour donors got in return for their generosity. The real Russian scandal of the 2016 election is a Clinton one. Now when do you expect the BBC, The Guardian, C4 and the rest to get around to reporting this one? Don't hold your breath.
Meanwhile may I remind President Trump of a campaign pledge that inspired so many of us "Lock Her Up!" Mr President: What the hell are you waiting for?
The OECD, aka a think tank run by and for the vested interests of the 1%, the global elite, has today urged Britain to hold a second referendum on Brexit and to vote the right way. Naturally the BBC and the rest of the liberal media is loving it and not bothering to point out one little inconvenient truth, that the OECD is a proven Brexit liar.
The OECD says today that a new referendum or a change of government leading to the UK staying within the EU would have a "significant" positive impact on growth. It also warned "no deal" would see investment seize up, the pound hit new lows and the UK's credit rating cut.
Hmmm. Now here is a quote from the BBC's sister paper the Guardian from before the referendum
Analysis by the OECD found that the UK economy would be just under 1.5 percentage points smaller in 2018 after Brexit than it would be if the country voted to stay in the EU on 23 June.
Within three months it was admitting that this forecast was completely wrong as UK economic growth surged ahead. Now if its big call of 2016 was proved to be complete and utter bollocks why would anyone take its latest outburst seriously? Unless of course you are diehard remoaners at the BBC in which case you just publish the latest dire warnings without mentioning the fact that the OECD's track record on this matter is more Mystic Meg than Nostradamus.
Grossly overpaid Nick Robinson of the State Funded fake news broadcaster has taken to the BBC's sister paper, the Guardian, to bleat on about "guerrilla attacks" on the Beeb from nasty internet sites. Ah diddums. Poor baby.
Nick argues that these attacks corrode trust in the State broadcaster and picks one example from the left wing Canary website, which almost prides itself on not checking facts as that is what old style journalists do, to make his case. He seems to miss the point that as this story from the Canary was debunked as have been so many of its other made up pieces, no-one in their right mind takes it seriously.
But at least we plebs are not forced by threat of jail to pay a poll tax to support the Canary. As such, we plebs have no right to quiz its staff on how much they are paid and it does not really matter if it puts out fake news or shows utter editorial bias. But the BBC is state funded. The salaries of its staff, like Nick, are obscene and are not driven by market forces - as the BBC claims - when such a vast state subsidised operator dominates the market.
Moreover, the BBC is time and time again shown to be running with an implicit bias or simply to be broadcasting fake news. Since we taxpayers fund this shite we have every right to critique it whether we do so in the pub or by posting examples of the BBC's failings on websites as I do about three times a week HERE.
And if this upsets the overpaid and cossetted stars of the BBC I make no apology. Folks such as precious Nick should remember that they work for me (the taxpayer) not the other way round.
Today;s Guardian celebrates news that global carbon emissions stood still in 2016 which, it says, "is a welcome sign of progress in the battle against global warming." There is in fact rater better news, an admission from leading scientists writing in Nature Geoscience that between 1998 and 2013 the world had only got warmer by a smidgeon. Many of us have been pointing this out for years but now, even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admits, there has been a "pause."
So despite carbon emissions going up year on year the world did not get much warmer. In fact the rate of increase was far less than between, say 1919 to 1934 a year when, incidentally, the world was a lot hotter than it was any year this decade.
My critique of the global warming nutters has always been that the data of global climate patterns bore no correlation to man made carbon emissions going back thousands of years. I may not be a scientist on a fat grant from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change but I do understand data and and that allows a fact based observation that there is no correlation between global temperatures and carbon emissions man made or otherwise.
Those in the liberal media who have sought to no platform we dissenters labelling us flat earthers or comparing us to holocaust deniers also claim that their arguments are fact based. They are not. The climate alarmists base their case not on what has happened but on what will happen, predictions. Now it is a fact that scientists have produced detailed computer models to support those predictions but what we can now also say is that it is a fact that the models have been wrong to date. They predicted warming that has just not happened.
Rather pathetically, the IPCC and others now say that just because the models have been wrong for the first 20 years that does not invalidate their long term predictions. In any proper field of science such an assertion would be ridiculed but folks like the Guardian and the BBC and, of course, St Bono believe in this bogus religion and so do not raise an eyebrow.
The great global warming scam has made men like Al Gore incredibly rich. Via green taxes and expensive regulatory measures vast wealth has been transferred from the many to the few. At what point do you think this farce will end?
The Guardian newspaper recently produced a list of folks, statues of whom it thought suitable to replace that of Lord Nelson in Trafalgar Square. Nelson may have saved the nation, given his life for his country but a speech in favour of slavery in the House of Lords means he is toast. The only question is who is next for the fascist liberal left to erase from history? I suggest George Washington, he may have founded a nation and all that but - like all his peers - he was also a slave owner. That will be his undoing. So who replaces Nelson?
You will not have heard of most of the list which is overwhelmingly female, non-white or gay or usually at least two of three. Diversity Guardian style means no straight, white men. One non straight white male nominated is the heroic gay rights and free speech campaigner Peter Tatchell. As a republican Tatch has several times turned down CBE,s etc. I hope he'd argue against a statue on similar grounds.
Of the non-entities nominated by the Guardian, Tatch would get my vote. I somehow doubt that 100 years after Tatch goes to a better place a future heroic President of South Africa and man who did more to fight racism than all the Guardian's editorial team, will be named Tatchell but Peter, though no Nelson, is, at least, a contemporary hero. Today he tweets on gay rights in Africa and is half right.
Of course, for Africa to be liberated and free that must encompass full equality and liberty for the LGBTI community. On that we can agree. But then Tatch goes for a bit of Imperialist Britisher bashing. Yes the anti LGBTI laws in some African countries went on the statute as those were the laws in Britain at the time. But before we evil Britishers arrived were these places gay friendly paradises? Of course not.
There would not have been laws in a written statute against homosexuality before the evil British arrived as there were no written statutes on anything but you can bet your bottom dollar that Greek love was not only not tolerated but was dealt with in a far more brutal manner than it was back in Blighty.
The idea that we imposed our mores on the otherwise enlightened Africans is laughable. The fact that 50 years after Silverman and the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Britain, gays are still prosecuted in Africa is a result of innate cultural prejudices in Africa that were there before the evil Britishers and are still there decades after we left. Tatch is on this occasion just a colonial with a chip on his shoulder.
You may not remember the name but surely you remember the wall to wall coverage in late August 2016 when a Polish man was "murdered" in Harlow, Essex. On the state Broadcaster Pravda Daniel Sandford led the main news bulletins claiming this was a ‘frenzied’ race-hate murder by feral youths, triggered by Brexit. Ramming home this core message we had comments supporting that agenda from the local MP and a Polish diplomat. There was no question of "waiting for the facts" as we are all urged to to after each terror attack - though we all know that it was not Colonel Mustard wth the bucket bomb in the library. The liberal media had an agenda and Mr Jozwik's corpse would support that agenda.
The BBC's sister paper the Guardian was worse. Its lead opinion piece on September 5 was headlined "The killing of a Polish man exposes the reality of post-referendum racism". It continued "Arkadiusz Jóźwik died after an attack in Harlow. The government must not allow xenophobes to set the tone since the Brexit vote"
Over on the BBC's flagship fake news programme John Sweeney carried an interview in which a friend of the dead man suggested that Nigel Farage ‘now has blood on his hands’. There was no challenge to that then as the rest of Sweeney's piece followed the same theme.
The liberal press reported gushingly on protest marches against Brexit racism spurred on by the dead pole. Mr Jozwik's killer has now been tried and convicted of manslaughter. Here is what actually happened. There was no feral gang of racist youths in Harlow last August 31. One 15 year old lad, said to be a ‘shrimp’ little more than five feet tall was convicted of manslaughter. He floored Jozwik with one ‘superman’ punch from behind but it was not the punch that killed but Jozwik hitting the street. The CPS admitted that the punch was not intended to kill but was a reaction.
To what you ask? It seems that Mr Joswik (a large man) and a pal had been out drinking and Mr Joswik was - according to numerous witness statements - hammered. He was not quite the sober, gentle quiet giant we had been told he was by the liberal media last year.
It gets better. The Poles made a stream of racist remarks to "the shrimp" and his pals inviting the smaller Brits to have a go. So it was drunk Poles who made racist remarks and incited violence. What followed was bad and sad but the whole truth exposes the complete tissue of reported lies and agenda driven fake news of the Guardian, the BBC and the rest of the liberal MSM as sheer fantasy. Again. And again, when caught with their pants down there is no apology or retraction let alone an enquiry into how such shoddy journalism could have been allowed.
You may remember that last December, shortly after the US election The mainstream media was filled with reports of hate crimes against immigrants and muslims in particular surging across America. The highest profile victim whose plight the BBC , the Guardian etc reported enthusiastically without verifying was Yasmin Seweid. She was an international cause celebre.
She claimed that several Trump supporters verbally assaulted her while she was on the New York City Subway. On her Facebook page she posted, “Three white racists yelled such disgusting slurs at me, I was so helpless and felt defenseless.” She claimed that these Trump supporters said, “Look it’s a f-king terrorist”, “go back to your country, you don’t belong here” and directed other racial slurs toward her.
Fabbo said the liberal media, not concerned that while Yasmin said the subway car was packed there were no witnesses and - amazingly - no-one filming on their mobile. Who cares about checking facts? We are fake news and this shows Trump supporters are racist scumbags.
Last week Yasmin pleaded guilty to falsely reporting an incident and disorderly conduct. She admitted that she wasted valuable police resources. A pathetic liberal judge sentenced her to six months of counselling and three days of community service.And what sort signal will that send out about committing such a crime? Thankfully there were no good ol' boys from Alabama wearing MAGA baseball caps on Yasmin's train. But imagine what would have happened had there been as the cops pulled them in for questioning with the liberal media wolfpack, Jesse Jackson and thousands of virtue signalling millennials on new media all baying for blood. Imagine such an ordeal Yasmin - as liberals often forget actions do have consequences.
Anyhow the poster girl for the wave of - alleged - Trump inspired hate crime is convicted as a fraud and a liar. So where is the mass coverage of this real news on outlets such as Channel 4 Fake News to balance their lazy, unverified, agenda driven fake news of eight months ago?
"The grooming of girls in Newcastle is not an issue of race – it’s about misogyny" says Labour MP Chi Onwurha in today's Guardian. She continues "What’s worse, rape or racism? I found myself posing that question after the Operation Sanctuary investigation was finally made public, revealing horrific abuse of girls and vulnerable young women in Newcastle." What follows defies belief.
As you may remember the rapists in Newcastle were nearly all Muslims and all either Asian and Middle East in origin. The victims were all white working class girls. The "racism" to which the Labour MP and the Guardian refers is that of those they deem to be far right because they have stated that there is a problem with mainly Muslim Asian gangs raping young, nearly all, white girls on an industrial scale in Cities across, mainly Northern, England.
But facts are facts. To deny the ethnicity of the victims and also the perpetrators is not going to make what is clearly a problem go away. Indeed it is clear that in Rotherham and elsewhere Police failed to tackle this issue early on precisely because of the ethnicity of those doing the raping, because they feared being branded racists by folks such as Chi Unwurha and thue Guardian.
Yet statements made by some of those convicted suggest that there was a racist element to the crime. One member of the Newcastle gang, Badrul Hussain, had claimed “white women are only good for one thing." And thus his gang raped or assaulted 700 girls nearly all of whom were white. Lord MacDonald a Lib Dem peer and former Director of Public Prosecutions has stated the actions of the Newcastle gang were a "profoundly racist” crime. He added that there was “a major problem in particular communities” of men viewing young white girls as “trash regarded as available for sex”.
Folks like Lord Macdonald and the Labour MP for Rotherham Sarah Champion are hardly neo Nazis seeking to make political capital. They are just decent folks who accept that there is a real problem and want to see the most vulnerable in society, the "white trash" of our inner cities gain basic protection. But for Chi and the Guardian such words are racism which is worse than rape.
That is the moral bankruptcy of the left in Britain today, the abandonment of the traditional working class by a metropolitan elite who actually despise those they are meant to represent. Nothing could be worse than the rape of teenage girls on an industrial scale. Nothing at all and certainly not faux racism.
Chi says that the Newcastle gang was driven by misogyny. So we are meant to think that the real issue here is with the attitude of men towards women. But is that all me Chi or just some men? If it is all men then your point is just ridiculous since 99.9% of we men are not involved in industrial rape gangs. But if it is just some men involved in such gangs what tends to be the common thread? Or do you not dare to spell it out?
The choice here in this part of Greece, if one wants an English language newspaper, is not a great one: The Daily Mail or the New York Times. The Mrs was planning a rest day while Joshua and I went on another road trip so bought both. On my return I tucked in.
The Daily Mail was, as ever, jam packed with articles about how immigrants give you cancer, social workers have caused house prices to collapse and how the late Princess Diana was a modern day saint. After about five minutes I could stand it no more and so to the NY Times which is America's Guardian, only worse. Every story is about the evils of Donald Trump expect when it it is about global warming which, as you know, is being made worse by Donald Trump.
But I write in praise of the NY Times not as an organ of truth for it is fake news to the core but as a commercial enterprise. The NYT has recognised what British papers have been slow to note, that news is a commodity which is available for free everywhere. Therefore the idea of a "newspaper" is redundant. Why should folks pay for a 24 hour old rehash of what they have watched on TV or on the web already? Of course they are ever more reluctant to do so and, hence, the traditional newspaper is doomed.
What folks will pay for is opinion or analysis which adds value to their lives or which, they perceive adds value. And thus the Times is packed with opinion articles - flagged up as such - from the front page to the back. Folks will pay for that.
The Times goes a step further in that it makes its news pieces so utterly slanted that they are almost opinion too. Take this front page article on North Korea and the POTUS. I quote:
The world's attention has understandably focused on Mt Trump's saber rattling threats against Mr Kim - most dramatically, his promise to rain "fire and fury" on North Korea if Mr Kim fired ballistic missiles at US territory"
Ends. Now there was I thinking that the UN Security Council was this week discussing how North Korea had fired a missile over Japan and that this is where the world's attention was focused. But no, for a US liberal this is all down to evil Mr Trump. The phrase sabre rattling does indeed refer to someone who threatens military action. but it is invariably used in the context of aggressive, proactive action. Trump's "fire and fury" comment was a clear warning that IF the US was attacked it would retaliate in a most brutal manner.
Sabre rattling is a term that is used in a negative sense, it is a bad thing. But until now it has not been used to describe someone discussing how they would react IF they were attacked. The NY Times ignores convention so to present Trump in a bad light. Would it really prefer it if POTUS had said "if North Korea fires missiles on US territory we will all go on a march, light candles, say we stand together and that we will not allow this to change our lives." maybe the NY Times has not learned the lessons of the 1930s when dealing with rogue states run by crackpots. Thankfully Mr Trump has.
So even the "news" in the New York Times is really fake news, it is at best opinion. In making this paper a news free zone the Times is being smart in a commercial sense. There is a ready audience of rich liberals on the US coasts who are happy to read a broadsheet that they perceive as adding value since its opinion pieces and fake news/disguised opinion articles confirm their own particular world view. As they sip fair trade semi skinned organic lattes in coffee bars on the Upper East Side or in Park Slope the metropolitan elite can agree with each other that the dreadful Trump's sabre rattling is causing tensions out East. They know its true because the Times said it was true in a "news" piece and stated that the whole world knew it was true. okay it is not true but the liberal readers of the NYT do not want to hear that. So by publishing as it dies the NY Times ensures its survival.
But it cannot argue that the NY Times is in any way a trusted source of real news, what used to be termed a newspaper. Subjective opinion and fake news in a broadsheet is something else, i am just not sure what the term should be. A Viewspaper perhaps?
Natch, the same as last year: grief. Of course I jest. The Mrs says that she has a treat lined up for me when we return to the UK. I am more organised and on our fourth anniversary have arranged a real treat for her in Kalamata. It involves olive oil but there is no need to furnish you with the full details. In a way, our bigger celebration, is 15 days later - the first birthday of young Joshua Patrick.
He is developing fast. One of his endearing little tricks is to smile and wave his hand to say goodbye as anyone leaves his presence. Last night the boy would not go to sleep and so for a while he was allowed out of his cot and into his parents' bed. At a certain stage I stood up to attempt to return him to the cot. He sat up smiled and waved goodbye to me from what was now his bed. I had to laugh. Eventually he was persuaded to head back to the cot and for five hours we have all slept peacefully.
But back to the Mrs, a woman who first picked me up at Gatwick airport and on an Easyjet flight that followed. Using the chat up line "have you read this article in the Guardian" she somehow won my heart. Like every marriage there are bumps in the road but come Friday we will both really be celebrating four years of wedded bliss.
General Robert Lee was a good man, devout, honourable and widely admired. But he fought for "the wrong side" in the US Civil war so while most Americans disagree, his statue must come down. Overnight in Baltimore a 225 year old statue of Christopher Columbus was destroyed. On this one probably about 98% of Americans would support keeping the ancient monument standing, although in the liberal media bubble the numbers will be the other way round..
The protesters reckon that Columbus was a racist, imperialist, blah, blah,. blah. He probably did not allow any transexuals on the Santa Maria either but his list of crimes is long enough already so he must go. Another part of America's heritage is destroyed as it looks to a bright new future.
So who is next? This madness is not confined to the other side of the Atlantic. You will remember how in Oxford, a student there on a Rhodes Scholarship led a campaign to remove a statue of ....Cecil Rhodes. The man who ensured that a vile imperialist nation that engaged in wholesale war crimes ( the Zulus) was replaced by a far more civilised bunch of Imperialists (the evil Britishers) was, in the simple analysis of 2017, a racist imperialist just like Columbus. Although Rhodes was gay that was not enough to save him from the ire of the mob, the angry minority.
Next in line is Lord Nelson. We honour this man because he gave his ;life for his country and led our naval forces to stop France from invading us and conquering all of Europe. So Nelson was clearly a good egg. Oh no. We now discover in the loathsome Guardian newspaper that in the House of Lords he spoke out against the efforts of my forebear William Wilberforce and others to end slavery. Nelson was - like most of the US founding fathers - a supporter of slavery. And thus the campaign is underway to remove him from his column and erase him from history. It matters not a jot that we honour him for saving our nation or for making the ultimate sacrifice, he is found wanting on another matter and that is that.
The BBC, Channel 4, the Guardian and the rest of the liberal media on both sides of the Atlantic have been gagging to interview Nobel Prize winning former US Vice President Al Gore about his latest film. But at the Box Office, An Inconvenient Sequel Truth to Power is bombing. The liberal elitists may love but the great unwashed is turned off. Why? Perhaps it is because Al Gore's net worth has soared to $200 million thanks to his work, jetting across the world to fight man made global warming. Or perhaps it is because the facts show clearly that his first opus magnus, An Inconvenient Truth, was just plain wrong.
You will remember Gore's warnings of how the world was getting warmer thanks to our carbon emissions. The polar bear was his icon. They would die out because of what we were doing. In fact there were 7,000 polar bears left the year Al Gore was born. Today there are only 30,000. And the number is increasing. And guess what the world is not getting warmer as Gore predicted. He explicitly stated we had to act NOW back in 2006 as the change was already afoot. Here we are 11 years on and the graph below tells its own tale.
We plebs, we ordinary deplorables have footed the bill for this mega scam via higher energy prices and taxes. And folks like Al Gore have grown rich at our expense. The media/political groupthink does not dare question this patently bogus "science". The facts are an inconvenient truth that the elites opt to ignore as we foot soldiers pick up the tab. Of course there is one politician who dares to challenge this insanity, Donald Trump. But of course the fake news media insist that, as with his condemnation of desecrating war memorials, POTUS is out of touch and causing outrage.
We, the people, the 99%, know otherwise. That is why, however many glowing write-ups it gets in the Guardian and the New York Times, however many fawning interviews Gore is offered on CNN or the BBC, the new Gore film is proving to be such a box office disaster.
Of all of the liberal media harpies covering the US election, beltway Kylie Morris of Channel 4 fake News was the most openly partisan as I exposed time and again HERE. Her crowning glory was to make up words for Donald Trump to smear him as a racist HERE. Like her fake news colleagues Kylie cannot get over the defeat of crooked Hillary so she fights on, twisting the truth to smear POTUS. The pulling down of Confederate staues and war memorials has been one of her finest hours.
To recap, President Trump condemned such acts. He did not say that they were morally equivalent to the Neo Nazis on the march, he made it clear that the latter were far worse. Trump is not - as the Guardian and BBC have falsely stated - any any way an apologist for the fascists. But he attacks those tearing down memorials to brave men who fought and died with their neighbours to, as they saw it, protect their homelands.
Kylie and her fake news colleagues as well as the liberal luvvies from Hollywood and the metropolitan elites smeared Trump as an apologist for Nazis but also said that there was outrage in America at his comments. The conclusion - it was POTUS that was out of touch.
I found that impossible to believe. Most Americans are good decent folks who would find the real outage being the desecration of a war memorial to their fellow Americans. And blow me down with a feather, polls out yesterday showed that I was right. A YouGov poll showed that of those with an opinion 39.5% of all Americans approved of taking down a statue of General Robert Lee in North Carolina but 61.5% disapproved. Marist conducted a poll about all Confederate monuments not just the Lee statue and the scores of those with a view were 30.3% for removal and 69.7% for staying up.
Hell's teeth among black voters the split on the latter poll was - among those with a firm view - 52.4% versus 47.6%. By the way that is in favour of keeping the monuments up!
Trump again tweeted that the statues should stay up which prompted Kylie to say that he was a) just playing to the polls and b) risking dividing America.
That is a shocking distortion of the truth. Trump has maintained his consistent position throughout. And it is clear that his stance is one that reflects a clear majority view and an overwhelming majority view in America. The outrage that C4 fake News and the rest of the liberal media has been reporting on for two weeks is not an outrage across America but an outrage of a minority of folks who backed the losing side on November 8 and, unable to accept that it is their party that is out of touch not Trump, just cannot help themselves.
As for the assertion that Trump's comments risk dividing America, how on earth can that be justified in the face of poll numbers which show that, once again, POTUS holds views that reflect those of most Americans, though they may be alien to those in the degenerate liberal media bubble in which Kylie lives.
The liberal media might think that dishonouring brave Americans who died in a horrible war. But however much they bully us into thinking that it their way is the moral way, to anyone with a shred of decency - including it seems 70% of Americans - their views are quite simply loathsome. And the more they and the Dems on Capitol Hill spout such views, the more certain a Trump win in 2020 becomes.
Reading the Guardian letters page is not an ordeal I can bring myself to suffer even in the interests of research into the far reaches of the deranged mentality of public sector working, virtue signalling, elitist, money tree worshipping thought. Or what goes for it. But my father, a closet reactionary, is a loyal Guardian reader.
He puts himself through this daily ordeal in memory of my late step mother who had a range of cranky left wing views in the way that many folks born into wealth can afford to but also to appease my public sector working, etc, etc etc sisters. As a result at least five times a week he calls me up incensed by some utter piffle in his rag of choice.
You may remember that my father was a univesity lecturer in the days when very few folks got a Geoff, 2:1s were less common than Desmonds and it was actually not uncommon to get a Douglas. Indeed it was possible to fail in his era. Of course it is all different now and that produced this letter today:
Reading Jonathan Wolff and Andrew Adonis (One-man summer Twitter storm, 8 August), one might be misled into thinking that the senior staff of our universities are a bunch of greedy and unprincipled opportunists. Far from it. Look at their results: in the last decade the number of students achieving first-class degrees has doubled and the number achieving upper-seconds has surged. Let’s not grudge a few extra hundred thousands to the men and women who have brought about an improvement in our national brilliance that is surely unparalleled in history.
My father asks if this is irony? I point out that lefty Guardian readers have no sense of humour at all and moreover that the views expressed are mainstream Guardian reading nonsense. He is forced to agree on both points.
At my wife's university the Vice Chancellor has just quit her £350,000 a year job. Natch it is bringing in talent like that that has caused such a leap in standards. As with A levels, it is nothing whatsoever to do with grade inflation is it and anyone who dares suggest otherwise is a heretic who, if it did not cause global warming, should be burned at the stake.
If course not. Praise the great money tree. Pay rises all round.
When Donald Trump spoke to the USA about his priorities for America, folks outside the liberal metropolitan hotpots of the coasts loved it. Crooked Hillary's waffle and re-hashing of ideas that have failed ordinary Americans did not wash and so Trump won. The liberal elites of the media still cannot accept it and so now simply content themselves with smearing POTUS at every opportunity. The more the Russia smears fail the more desperate they become and the more real Americans see through them. As the MSM tries to label Trump a Nazi, those of us who supported him in November look forward to an inevitable win in four years time. Truly the liberal left is pathetic. I start with the State funded UK broadcaster the BBC.
On its flagship Radio 4 show Today this morning the headlines were read. Trump has condemned the Neo Nazi protesters in Charlotte. Former KKK leader David Duke has supported Trump's words.
What the hell is that all about? More or less all Americans from across the spectrum might support Trump in condemning the Nazis. Why does the BBC opt for weirdo Duke a man whose past crimes include endorsing crooked Hillary in one election. Natch that was never brought up time and again as bad for her - she did not ask for his support. But if he ever agrees with Trump the media spin it as if the two are joined at the hip. Trump does not want the backing of the fruitcake Duke.
But the read through of The BBC coverage is that even when Trump is attacking Nazis he is actually backed by Nazis. It is not alone. Its sister publication the Guardian ran this headline today which claims that Trump is a Neo Nazi sympathiser. Starting in Hollywood there is a twitter campaign #ImpeachTrump for being a Nazi. Hell's teeth.
Trump's crime is to say that the actions of some of those who have protested against the Nazis but also against relics of the Confederate forces (the South) from the Civil war are disgusting too. He is not saying they are equivalent. Trump is clear that the Nazi marchers are the really bad guys. But he is 100% correct to say that those marching/ rioting. destroying property on the other side are not always Angels.
Attacking cops and looting shops is never justified. Attacking memorials to ordinary soldiers who died in any war is just wrong and offensive. The grunts of the Confederate Army were brave men fighting alongside their neighbours to protect where they lived, or at least that is how they saw it. I guess Mellennials and media luvvies do not study history so just assume that soldiers in the "rebel army" just fought becuase they hated black folks. It was a bit more complex than that, this was about States Rights versus a Federal Government on a range of issues. But for the grunts it was just about defending your homeland. Moreover,, it was very hard to opt out of the Confederate army and by the end mere boys and okd men were being thrown into the conflict. Should we not honour them, their bravey and their sacrifice?
I have spent some time in German military graveyards in Crete, Greece and Italy. There is no doubt that the men buried there were fighting for a bad cause and were on the wrong side. But they did so as folks were just enlisted and most Germans fought bravely and did not commit war crimes. I honour such men. The only folks dishonouring brave men from the US Civil War are the "anti fascists". Trump is right. Their actions are wrong.
What about pulling down statues of Southern Generals like Lee or the Johnston's? Before the civil war most of the upper ranks of the US army were filled by Southerners. So these men were trained soldiers and fought wars according to standards of their time. They were from the South and so when the call came they fought alongside their neighbours. Back in 1861 that is what folks did, they did not make an ideological decision as to whether they'd back Dixie or the forces of Lincoln. Generally they behaved with honour throughout.
Indeed, if we are to seek out those who committed war crimes against civilians it would be the Northern troops and their commanders who behaved quite appallingly after the war ended as they rampaged through the South. Snowflake protesters who know nothing of American history should perhaps do a google search for "carpetbagger"
Yet across the South today we see statues pulled down and desecrated, folks delighting in breaking them up in a way reminiscent of the way statues of Saddam were defiled after his fall. But it is not locals pulling down statues in the South but Yankees.
Let's be clear Trump believes the villains of the current peace are the Nazis, the neo-fascists. But he raises very valid questions about some of those protesting against them while making it clear there is no equivalence. Trump is right in his analysis. Folks like the Guardian, CNN and the rest of the liberal press are wilfully misinterpreting and smearing him. And ordinary folks across America can see through these increasingly desperate and laughable smears.
As I have noted so many times before, if you call everyone a Nazi then the term ceases to have a meaning. The Guardian's loathsome smears are an insult to the memories of those who died or suffered at the hands of real Nazis.
Even my metropolitan elitist colleague Darren Atwater falls into this cheap and lazy mindset. When loading the Guardian image for me he puts the headline on the piece "Trumpenfuhrer." Of course he thinks that is hilarious as will all bearded hipsters in Central London and probably the liberal multi millionaires of Hollywood too. Two of my daughter's godparents saw nearly all of their families turned into soap at Auschwitz. Maybe Darren wants to explain to them why a man who - rightly - condemns Nazis is viewed as a modern day Hitler and why that is funny?
The headline from the Guardian, below, says it all. Former chancellor Nigel Lawson's Thought Crime is not believing in mad made global warming. The BBC had the timerity to allow him on one of its numerous features on climate change in the interests of balance. Its sister paper says it should erase Lawson from history and show no balance at all when covering climate change.
The liberal left argues that man made carbon emissions is causing global warming or, as it is known when it is wet or cold, climate change. It argues this is fact. It cannot be a fact since facts, derived from the latin factum, are things that have happened. Thde suggestion that if we belch out more carbon the world gets hotter is a thesis not a fact.
The Guardian argues that the case is 100% proven so there is no need for balance. But back in 1973 scientists were universally agreed that the world faced a new ice age. Fifteen years ago scientists argued that we needed to subsidise diesel to save the planet. On both we have seen complete volte faces.
Twenty or thirty years ago the benefits of multiculturalism were just unarguable for most of the left. Anywone who questioned this was denounced as a racist and debate was shut down. Now even the racist-finder General himself Trevor Phillips admits he was wrong.
It is becuase the experts can, and often do, get it horribly wrong that debate is vital. But across the media, and on campuses across the West there is an othodoxy and challenging that is just not allowed. We are on the right may disagree with almost every opinon carried in the Guardian but we would fight for the right of Owen Jones, Polly Toynbee, George Monbiot and all the other crazies to speak out. The left, on the other hand, sees the crushing of dissent as a positive virtue.
This morning Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee is in full hypocrite mode warp factor 11. It is not that La Toynbee (Badminton School & Oxford) rails against public schools or privilege. Nor that the offspring of a well known and affluent family rails against inherited wealth. Nor on £300,000 a year paid for by a paper that uses offshore trusts to dodge tax, is she ranting against inequality or tax evasion. Polly has done even better that in her attempt to retain the title of hypocrite of the year for the 24th year running.
This time she urges the Government to take action against those who have the nerve to spend their taxed income on buying more than one residence. Bloody hell - how outrageous. The State MUST take action to tell folks how to spend their money. They might start with those who own THREE residences including a Tuscan retreat.. Step forward Polly Toynbee.
Of course in the world of Toynbee and her metropolitan elitist comrades at The Guardian some are just more equal than others.
In her Guardian column today arch remoaner Polly Toynbee took time out from tending to her Tuscan castle to bash Brexit because it will hit British farmers so badly as they lose subsidies from the Common Agricultural Policy. Natch, the BBC took time out from the month long LGBT-fest to make way to report this breaking news from its sister publication and thus Toynbee opined on Radio 4's Today Programme. It was classic Toynbee and I am so glad my late grandfather Sir John Winnifrith, a true socialist and friend of Tony Benn and a campaigner for No! in 1975 was not around to hear it. He would be incandescent as he really did believe in "for the many not the few."
As ever, Toynbee started off by patronising we ignorant Brexiteers by telling us why we voted as we did. Apparently we voted for Brexit to preserve the British Countryside. Jeepers. And there was I thinking we voted for Brexit because we were all racists or just plain stupid. It is so good of Polly to let me know why I really voted as I did.
Toynbee went on to say that the end of CAP subsidies will see many British farmers go bust. Of course we put more into the EU than we take out so it would be very simple for the UK to carry on subsidising our farmers but just not have to pay to subsidise those in France, Germany, Italy etc. No British subsidies for Tuscany but more for the Shires...one can see why Toynbee's neighbours are so angry about it all.
But then Toynbee played her trump card saying that Liam Fox and the wicked Tories were trying to open up the UK to new markets which would allow more cheap food to enter Britain from outside the EU. Food prices would go down so some British farmers would go bust.
Now what was that that Mr Corbyn said about for the many not the few? The Mrs said "but is it not good for us to have locally produced food?" Of course for folks like this household and Ms Toynbee, when she is in genteel leafy North London as opposed to Tuscany, paying more for your food is not really an issue. We can afford it. But we are the few. So too are the farmers. The many are those who are struggling to make ends meet and for whom cheaper food would be great news.
That was what concerned my Grandfather in 1975. No longer being the senior Civil Servant (at MAFF) he could speak out. He warned that being in the EU meant external tariffs on non European food which would increase the cost of food. That was a bad thing. Though my grandfather had, via scholarship, gone to Westminster and Oxford he was all too aware that his father was a country vicar descended from blacksmiths and labourers. His mother was illegitimate, her mother a servant. My grandfather, though wrong on most things, cared deeply about those Toynbee pretends to care about, the poor and the working classes. But Toynbee never actually meets such folk and her outburst today shows that she really does not care at all.
As an evil right winger I believe in no subsidies. If British farming cannot compete with cheap food from abroad then so be it. Turn the countryside into theme parks for foreign tourists. Create real jobs and give our citizens cheap food. Do not expect profitable industries to be throttled by taxes needed to support the unviable. That is in no-one's interest. I would not expect La Toynbee to agree with that analysis, nor would my grandfather have supported it. But my solution offers a lower tax burden ( so helping the poor), real sustainable jobs not bought unsustainable jobs (so helping the poor) and cheaper food. What is so dreadful about that grandpa?
It was off to the cinema today with Joshua for a mother and baby screening at the Watershed cinema in Bristol. This is the uber PC movie theatre which is oft praised by the Guardian and likes to show the sort of utterly shite films that the Guardian loves but which would make any right minded person either puke or fall asleep or both. Remember The Lobster - the worst film of 2015? Watershed audiences loved it.
The Mrs came too and, to be fair, today's offering, The Big Sick was jolly entertaining. It is the story of a mixed race couple in the USA. A fearsome Asian mother-in-law who is keen on arranged marriages and strongly disapproves of her offspring's choice of partner. Hmmmmm, now why does that ring a bell? I really do recommend the Big Sick.
As i wandered back from the screen I spotted a new feature " The inclusive lavatory". We already have men's women's and lavs where you can change a baby nappy. But now we are offered an Inclusive Lavatory. All you have to do to use it is be either disabled or trans-sexual. I am sure both the disabled and the trans community are delighted to be able to exclude the rest of us from their inclusive lavatory but do they feel happy been included in the same tent?
The joys of life in 2017 Britain are never ending.
Abi Wilkinson is a freelance journalist based in London writing about politics, inequality, gender, popular culture, and anything else that takes her fancy. She normally writes in the Guardian which likes articles about gender ( fluid, natch) and politics as long as they involve money tree worshipping and or/smashing the even half rich. Abi's latest piece really is peak stupidity in thus summer of left wing madness. Abi reckons that what we need is a 100% inheritance tax.
Of course Abi admits that she opposed the Tories wicked and evil dementia tax plan. The idea that folks who have money should pay for their own care was appalling and shows what bastards the Tories are. Everyone should be cared for from cradle to grave in the world of Abi it is just that at the graveside all that they have worked for and paid taxes on one time around should be taken away by the State to feed the money tree.
Abi notes that £77 billion is passed on each year by those going to the great worker's hall in the sky and she is sure that the number is actually higher but some rich bastards are engaging in tax avoidance. And that could easily pay for the NHS to have all the money it wants, a flourishing welfare state and all the other things that the Money Tree needs to support. So, in Abi land, there is a moral case for inheritance tax, the second tax on money that has already been taxed, being raised to 100%.
Abi says why should the heirs of the deceased get their hard earn savings as they have no moral claim to it? Well surely the wishes of the deceased count for something? Not for Abi for ultimately she thinks the State knows better how cash should be spent than those who actually earned ( and paid tax) on that cash and so the moral choice id for the state to take that cash and hand it out to those dependent on the Money Tree for survival.
A starting point in pointing out the insanity of Abi's plans is that relative;ly little is raised by IHT as things stand. The £650,000 threshold means that outside the property bubble of London and the South East relatively few folks have to pay any IHT at all. Those with the biggest estates - the super rich who pay the vast majority of income tax - often use legal tax planning to avoid this double dip on the fruits of their labour. So it is only middle class folk in the South East who actually pay a cent.
In short Abi is right that the system does not work well. I go further: it is unfair since it is a double dip that only hits some folks. The logical conclusion is thus that IHT should be scrapped altogether but those with far lower savings than £650,000 should have no access to the state pension, free bus passes and should have to pay for their own care. Let's bring in a dementia tax now. Welfare and the NHS should be a safety net not a way for the rich to pass on even more at the expense of lower earning taxpayers!
Back to Abi's crazy world. A 100% IHT would raise nowhere near £77 billion. Instead of just the super rich looking to minimise their exposure almost everyone would. Let's all move to Greece, France, Spain, anywhere to spend our declining years. Why now? Not only would the State lose its IHT it would lose years of income tax as well and the economy would lose some valuable customers. Those who don't like the sun would just start transferring wealth at an early stage, use trusts and other legal routes to dodge the taxman. Those who hate their kids would spend even more on wine, women and Viking River Cruises.
In her naivete Abi reckons that some folks will want to spend even more time on the post retirement wine, women and Viking River Cruises phase of their life so will retire early so "creating a job" for a young person which is a good thing. Only someone who has never seen how a small business works but who has spent their short adult life prattling to other members of the middle classes imagines that the world works that way.
For many of us when we have had enough we just shut down our business. That is something that will probably add to young folks without not work, not reduce it. Of course there will be some one in one out job switches but Abi's view on this and on the whole matter of how life really works is just simplistic.
100% IHT will raise nowhere near £77 billion. It will however see income tax and VAT receipts slashed. It is not only an immoral suggestion but just a mad and bad one that will just not work.
It will be no secret that I shall delight when the falling circulation of the tax dodging Guardian newspaper makes it uneconomic and it closes. Until then it continues to pump out the most odious fake news and spiteful virtue signalling junk on a daily basis. But is the article and headline below a contender for its most appalling effort in history? I think we all now accept that Muslim gangs in places such as Rochdale, Bradford and Oxford have been responsible for the rape and abuse of thousands of young girls. that is a fact. One reason they got away with it for so long was virtue signalling by rich liberals such as the Guardian's Libby Brooks who would, of course, never be affected by what actually goes on in deprived working class communities. Oh no...Guardian writers don't actually mix with the workers but they are very righteous are they not? Read on and feel angry and disgusted...
James Delingpole tweeted yesterday: Never thought I'd say this but Theresa May's Conservatives are so uninspiring it almost makes you yearn for the useless Dave. Rod Liddle asked "Is this the worst Tory Campaign ever?" I am not sure I know the answer Rod but as I go to vote in a seat the Tories should be gaining from Labour I do so almost not caring who wins.
The Tory manifesto was a disaster in that its dementia tax pissed off those Labour voters it was trying to woo while all its chatter of workers rights and laws to make business better really infuriated Tories like me. I bet those wonks & career politicians who cobbled this together have never risked a cent of their own capital to create a business. They just have no bloody idea of how hard and painful it is. Of how it is you who will be up until 3 AM to keep the thing afloat as your employees snore in bed.
The enlargement of the nanny state was at the heart of a Manifest presented by an array of folks who indeed made the loathsome Dave and ghastly Osborne look like political titans. Former stockmarket spiv Amber Rudd is just the most useless of an array of talentless bores but Hammond, Fallon even May herself are just dreary and intellectually weak - at heart they all want to manage the Growth of the state, not shrink it.
I think of those chaps I knew at Oxford now sitting on the Tory benches. They never had any ambition other than to climb the greasy pole. They despise ordinary people though they hide it well. Do I really enthuse about seeing them in power for another five years?
And yet I looked at my ballot paper below and there was really only one option. Last time Labour were 4,000 votes ahead of the Tories here in Bristol East but UKIP got 7,500 votes while the Lib Dems got sod all and the Greens did not stand. Our Labour MP, Kerry Mccarthy, is a cold and unloveable woman who happens to be as mad as a nest of snakes. If the UKIP vote shifts as it should and the Greens pinch more from Labour than from Cons - which they will - then the Tory candidate Theo Clarke will win. But she is a posh cow from London who pops in here only at election time - she would not actually want to live among the oiks in this part of Bristol. To be fair neither do any of the other candidates, Bristol East is far too down at heal.
After Manchester they pretty much all spouted the same platitudes. The British people were dying for one party to say "if folks fight for ISIS or are shown to support ISIS they lose their passport and are booted out without a lengthy taxpayer funded trial encompassing reams of European Human Rights leglislation - just kick the bastards out." Instead all parties thought that quoting Liam Gallagher, not looking back in hanger and warning about a rise in hate crime was the answer. They can all go stock their candles and their twibbons up their arses, for all I care.
Or maybe not. The Mrs urges me to show my disgust by not voting. I did not vote for our new regional Mayor as I regarded this as another unneeded layer of Government funded by plebs taxpayers like me and created by a political class creating more jobs for themselves. So I had set a precedent of abstention a few weeks ago, the Mrs - a Guardian reading, Sociology lecturer who is a card carrying member of the Labour Party - thinks I should continue in that vein.
I imagined the look on her face if Labour wins. I thought how her colleagues, who bleat about workplace stress as they trouser £45k for doing four hours teaching a week when not on long vacations, will cheer a Labour win with bumper pay rises for public sector workers all round. I thought of how the Guardian, the BBC, Owen Jones, Polly Toynbee, Jon Snow and the C4 Team, my state employed sisters on their 18 hour and 20 hour working weeks would shout for joy if Kerry McCarthy wins Bristol East and if Corbyn heads to Number 10. If folks who are wrong about every issue are so enthusiastic for one side, I knew I had no choice in how I voted.
At almost every level I don't care who wins. As I think of Jezza walking into Number 10, I think of the sunlight dancing on a blue sea near a small house on a very small Greek island with the Mrs , Joshua and I just heading off for a day of fishing. I can hack it. But then I think of the legions of the wrong. These folks have backed every lost cause, every muddle headed idea of the past thirty years. And they are backing Labour with enthusiasm. My vote is below and was posted this week.
That we have to pay for the Guardian's sister outlet, the BBC via a poll tax is bad enough. Its output is low grade and often biased. But now the BBC wants to get you fired if it does not like your views. Hey George Orwell you missed this one in 1984...
In its new privacy and cookies policy HERE, Pravda explains how it will get stacks of data on you. It then states:
If you post or send offensive, inappropriate or objectionable content anywhere on or to BBC websites or otherwise engage in any disruptive behaviour on any BBC service, the BBC may use your personal information to stop such behaviour.
Where the BBC reasonably believes that you are or may be in breach of any applicable laws (e.g. because content you have posted may be defamatory), the BBC may use your personal information to inform relevant third parties such as your employer, school email/internet provider or law enforcement agencies about the content and your behaviour.
So, for instance, I think that allowing transgender guys to use women's bathrooms before they have the op is wrong. And like that well known reactionary Germaine Greer I do not think transgender males can claim to be part of the feminist struggle in the same way as a woman can. There you have it.
If I wanted to I could post that on the BBC website under some news story on Transgender issues. Under the UK's daft hate crime laws if some bloke in a skirt feels offended by this he can report me to the old Bill but also to the BBC which can then report me to my employer and kick up a fuss. Do I really trust the BBC to make a sensible decision on hot PC issues such as this?
Luckily I work for myself so I can't say I am quivering but most folks do not. Do you really want to go spend an hour with HR and have it on your record because some PC stormtrooper at the BBC responded to a complaint by some "aggrieved minority?"
Moral of the story, don't post what you think on the BBC website. Another nail in the coffin for free speech in Airstrip One. What is worse is that it is our taxes that are funding this Orwellian nonsense.
As you know I measure my fluctuating weight by the waist size of the trousers that best fit. 32 inches and I am back where i was at 18 when Abbe Aronson broke my heart, something that still traumatises me to this day. I was also at 32 when the Guardian newspaper, in a very rare moment of vision, described me as "the housewife's favourite" as I presented SMTM on Channel 4. 44 ( or was it 46) was my bloated peak. I started this holiday in 36 inch jeans.
Meanwhile the Mrs had Fedexed out some strips for my British blood testing machine. I am monitoring my readings on the Greek machine as I take this type 2 diabetes very seriously. Today they have fluctuated from 215 to just 119, the latter after I managed to run 2.77km in 24 minutes. I have discovered on the interweb that this is 12.4 and 6.6 in English money and the latter is "within range" for we diabetics.
Of course that reading is spooked by vigorous exercise and my medication is strong so this does not mean that i am in any way cured. But all the symptoms, which a Gentleman does not discuss in public, are disappearing. So I feel more sure every day that this battle will be won, if not for a few months yet.
It appears that the health of Martin McGuinness, the former commander of the IRA in Londonderry or, as he prefers to be known, former deputy first minister of Northern Ireland, is deteriorating fast. His date with the grim reaper is almost upon him. Can I honestly say that i am sorry about this?
I wish death upon no-one but there are just a few folk who make me think long and hard about the issue and McGuinness is one of them. While the BBC and the Guardian are already now doubt planning an obituary praising the great peacemaker and statesman, they will have to gloss over an awful lot of blood on the hands of old Martin as the praise the blood soaked old bastard.
As a active commander in Londonderry it is almost certain that Martin killed people himself. Without doubt he ordered many more deaths across Ulster over many years as he rose to the top of the IRA. He has failed to fully acknowledge, accept, let alone apologise for, his role in those deaths. While everyone else involved in "The Troubles" is expected to come clean, this murderous old Fenian has refused to say how many times he pulled a trigger to end a life. And he has never said sorry for the times he killed people.
Worse still he has pushed - as "a peacemaker" - for a double standard.
I would concede, as would most folks, that during "the troubles" there were acts committed by all participants which were quite simply war crimes. It is an anniversary this week of the murders of three IRA members in Gibraltar by the British Army. that was a state sanctioned execution and was wrong. Both the IRA and Loyalist gunmen funded their wars by flooding the poorest estates of Northern Ireland with drugs. They ran the drugs trade, killing their own folks, to buy weapons to kill the other lot. Can we really overlook this and the role of McGuinness in a business he must have sanctioned?
The British Army, Loyalist killers and the IRA all, rightly, stand accused of far too many things for which there can be no defence. But evil Martin McGuinness cannot accept that, so demands endless enquiry after endless enquiry into bad things done by the Brits but has insisted on no enquiries and full amnesties for IRA combatants. That approach is morally repugnant and, worse still, it is divisive.
The BBC will undoubtedly laud McGuinness the peacemaker but encouraging division as he has done is not an act I can praise. Martin McGuinness has not repented for his undoubted sins and he has sinned not least in breaking the sixth commandment on a number of occasions. Showing no penitence he has then created more hatred with his divisive approach to others who broke the sixth commandment.
And it is for those two reasons that Martin Mcguinness troubles me with regard to his impending demise. Do I wish death upon him? No. We all have to die sometime and it appears that Martin will enjoy a quick death with minimal suffering and in that respect he is lucky. Luckier perhaps than some IRA victims whose death only came after prolonged torture.
In due course Mr McGuinness will find himself wandering up to the Pearly Gates to meet St Peter. We will, of course, all be found wanting on that great day of judgement. But, I rather suspect, that in many respects Mr McGuinness will be found more wanting than most. As he approaches death I do hope that this is something that, at last, is starting to trouble him greatly.
Since 1947 The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists have once a year recalibrated an imaginary Doomsday Clock tracking how close we are to midnight, the point at which man destroys the planet. To mark the election of Donald Trump the clock was pushed forward 30 seconds to two and a half minutes to midnight. How the Guardian, Channel 4 and the BBC loved it "He's going to kill us all". Did any of these screaming hysterical liberals watch the last episode of the current series of Endeavour?
It started in 1962 and the radio is playing coverage of the Cuban missile crisis. The Russian foreign minister has just announced that if Soviet ships sailing to Cuba are intercepted by the Americans - as JFK had pledged to do - this will start a global thermonuclear war. Folks who were alive in 1962 tell me that they felt terrified.
As a boy when Russia invaded Afghanistan and Reagan and Thatcher stood up to the original Evil Empire I felt scared. The Government distributed leaflets to every British household "Protect & Survive" showing how in a manner of which Blue Peter would have been proud we could all make our own bomb shelters if the sirens went off. Demand for proper bomb shelters went through the roof. That was scary.
Donald Trump says he wants to work with Russia and get along with President Putin. The Ideological divide ended with the fall of the Berlin wall. These days Russia and America have far more in common and, unlike Obama, Trump recognises that and wants Jaw Jaw not (cold) War War? So why is he a threat?
The Bulletin states that: "the United States and Russia, are currently at odds in a variety of theaters, from Syria to Ukraine to the borders of NATO". On Syria it seems that Obama was at odds, backing Al Qaeda supporting rebels, with Russia which did not back terrorists. It seems as if Mr Trump wants to join Russia in clearing terrorists from Syria. It was the former US regime that racked up tensions in the Ukraine encouraging a revolution to oust a democratically elected President and replace him with a regime which within 24 hours had made ethnic Russians feel like second class citizens, by ceasing to recognise Russia as a language. Go back to WW2 and what happened in the Ukraine for a history lesson. Did President Obama know on whose side the grandfathers of many of those he is backing fought? And what atrocities they committed. Trump wants to talk to Putin to find a solution.
The logic of the Atomic scientists is flawed, the clock should be nowhere near midnight and under Trump it should be moving backwards not forwards. Aha, but these "peer group selected scientists" have another agenda. Back in 1947 this clock was about nukes. Today the report also cites "the lack of immediate progress in fighting climate change". Aha Trump is a denier. So what if the arctic icecaps are getting bigger and global land temperatures are falling at a record pace this winter, Trump does not believe in global warming and so the world is going to burn up soon. There is no room to debate those who believe in this false religion for they act in a post fact era.
Meanwhile for the liberal media establishment it was a day to celebrate. Report the headline but do not ask is the world really so close to wipeout and so much closer than in 1962 or 1983? Of course it is not but when you pedal fake news every day what do you care about facts?
Once upon a time, on both sides of the Atlantic, those on the liberal left believed in free speech and liberty. Back in the era of Mccarthy it was we on the right who were, correctly slammed, for stifling debate. I like to think that was an glitch in that for most of us who believe in a small state, freedom of expression is a given, it is part of the DNA of our thought set. It is the Big State loving left that wants to decide what the little people should think and say.
In recent years barely a week has gone by without some University no platforming not only good conservatives like Ann Coulter or Mark Steyn but also mad lefties such as Germaine Greer or Peter Tatchell because on some issue or another they are not quite mad enough. And holding the wrong view means that, for many on the left, you must just be silenced. And then abused by the Guardian, the BBC, the Washington post and pitiful CNN.
The intolerant left has had a cracking start to 2017. First came the revelation that Oxford Physics Don Joshua Silver had reported useless Home Secretary Amber Rudd for a "hate crime" for her Tory conference speech with some very silly proposals on immigration. That Rudd is an airhead with daft and unworkable and pointless ideas is a given. But to say this is a hate crime is surely insanity, particularly when, like Professor Silver, you did not actually listen to the speech.
At least it added to the stats showing a post Brexit rise in hate crimes which can all be blamed on Nigel Farage and it also wasted Police time and will perhaps deter others from even discussing immigration. For folks like Prof Silver there is no need to debate immigration - what is there to debate?
Trumping the insanity from Oxford came news that Opera star Andrea Bocelli had backed out of singing at the inauguration of Donald Trump after he received death threats. The liberal press thinks that it is very brave of Meryl Streep to stand up in a room full of millionaire liberals and say how Hollywood actors (ie millionaire liberals) are threatened by the Trump regime, singled out for attack.
it seems Trump's main crime in this regard is pointing out how American voters ignored the ludicrous threats made by the Hollywood elite about how America had to vote for crooked Hillary or they would all move to Canada. At the last count not one luvvie has headed to the frozen North. A celeb I admire is anyone brave enough to shrug off the abuse and threats from his or her fellow "artistes" and who will join most Americans in celebrating inauguration day on Friday.
Has Meryl Streep condemned those who posted death threats to Mr Bocelli yet? Or does she, like the rest of the left, not think that conservatives have any right to free speech?
Among the dozens of Christmas cards that my father has hanging across the beams and above the aga and on the mantlepiece here in Shipston ,is the one pictured below from The Guardian. It thanks him for being a loyal reader in 2016 as he has the BBC's sister publication delivered every day.
My father, being a man of faith, takes a dim view of cards that fail to reflect the story of the nativity on the front cover. A robin scores less highly than a picture of the three kings. But at least the two robin cards I have counted mention the C word inside. The Guardian, natch, avoids that altogether, sticking to Festive Greetings. Yes but what Festival you godless fucking liberals? Come on you can use the C word if you try. But they won't as that would be some sort of "ist"
And so, although the Guardian's card hangs next to the aga, my father is cross. He also notes that almost every articlein the loathsome paper, refers to Brexit and, though he voted the wrong way, he at least has moved on. Then there is George Michael. My father had vaguely heard of Saint George but having seen the Guardian devote six pages to the man, decided he did not want to know any more. The picture of Saint George in a crucifixation pose on the front page was perhaps a little too close to the bone at this time of year. Owen Jones's eulogy to George as a champion of cottaging really pushed my father too far.
Indeed, there have been more and more complaints in recent weeks about the self righteous rubbish that the Guardian publishes. A lifelong sinner repenteth, we should rejoice as there are plans to switch to The Times in the New Year. That is one more nail in the coffin of the heavily loss making rag.
But what about Cyril? Cyril is the rabbit of my incredibly earnest sister N - the one who gave her even more earnest husband membership of the Labour Party as a Christmas present. N has been using Dad's used Guardians to line Cyril's hutch. Will she tolerate Cyril sitting on top of a Murdoch owned paper? Such are the appalling dilemnas that deluded lefties must face in 2017.
As for Cyril he has my admiration as the one being in the UK who has successfuly shat on Polly Toynbee & Owen Jones for a whole year. Nice One Cyril, nice one son.
When Lady Thatcher died many on the left could not hide their delight. The BBC and the liberal media went out of their way to cover street parties by sick individuals celebrating the demise of a fellow human being. The liberal media failed to show the widespread sense of loss many of us felt. Maggie had made ordinary Briton's far better off, turned a country that had been bankrupt in 1976 into an economic powerhouse, had restored a sense of national pride but left wing intellectuals and the liberal media did not care about such things. It just hated her all the more. And in doing so it showed how out of touch they were then, as they are now, with how ordinary men and women actually feel.
And so today the evil bastard Fidel Castro of Cuba has died. His country was a prosperous place before he seized power. But it has been a poor place ever since. GDP per person in Cuba in 1970 - there is no older data - was $653.233 - by 2013 ( the last data) it was $6,789.85. No doubt the left will argue that this shows what a success Fidel was but of course they fail to take account of inflation.
Just look at the same GDP per person data over the same period for countries in the same region. Costa Rica $532.665 to $10,461.578, Mexico $683.102 to $10,197.445. And it goes on an on. Castro's rule inflicted grinding poverty on his people, their purchasing power diminishing year on year as across the region others prospered.
And it was rule enforced with terror and oppression. It was terror, and thus death, he also endeavoured to export, wasting what resources Cuba had on sending her young men to die in foreign fields to support a global revolution that nobody wanted.
Not surprisingly vast numbers of Cubans fled every year to America, rising their lives on rubber boats or whatever might float in the search of freedom, liberty and a chance to work hard for a decent standard of living.
That is the true legacy of this evil bastard.
I celebrate the death of no-one as we are all humans. However, the Guardian is this morning praising a "statesman." No doubt Comrade Corbyn is weaping into his muesli. Again the liberal elite and left wing intellectuals, an affluent class for whom there is no JAM existence, will be shown not to care in the slightest about oppressive poverty inflicted on poor people. For the elites and the state funded establishment of the public sector white collar classes, ideological dogma trumps all.
After the Socialist MP Joe Cox was murdered by a mentally ill man the left wing Guardian Newspaper was quick to blame and condemn right wing Brexit campaigners who it claimed - with no evidence at all - had prompted this act. So what is its take on the tweet yesterday from Monisha Rajesh,a writer on travel matters who the Guardian uses regularly. She thinks that President elect Donald Trump should be assassinated.
Monisha has now deleted her tweet and protected her account but the screenshots are out there as you can see below. Will the Guardian show consistency and fire Ms Rajesh? Or does it think that it is okay to suggest that killing politicians, who have just picked up 59 million votes in a free and fair election, is acceptable if they happen to be right wing?
Free speech is something one should fight for but ihcitement to murder is not acceptable. Come on Polly Toynbee you remember what you wrote after Jo Cox died don't you? Now, how about 400 words on why Monisha must be fired?
I am with my father in Shipston and the old fool is still delighting in ordering the awful Guardian newspaper. Indeed it gives the deluded lefty real pleasure in torturing me by reading out articles which even he accepts are complete and utter nonsense. Let's start with today's front page splash: "May told to act to calm Brexit "mob" anger. Hmmm.
The only problem with the headline is that Mrs May was not told that at all. One former Tory (just about) minister Dominic Grieve is quoted as saying "I think there is a danger of a sort of mob psyche developing". Well that is not what the headline says at all. Grieve then goes on to lose all credibility by saying that reading the Brexit coverage in the Mail and Telegraph "started to make one think that one was living in Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe."
Mr Grieve I know journalists who live in Mugabe's Zimbabwe. In that land politicians do not merely express their view about what a free press should or should not say - as you and the Guardian do - but they beat up and imprison jounalists for what they write. Your analogy is a silly one that demeans your argument and when politcians start telling the press what they should or should not write it is time to replace those politicians.
As for the Guardian with its made up headlines....nothing surprises me.
But on the left the Mail is being pillories with folks asking why it cannot be closed down. Close down the paper that brought the killers of Stephen Lawrence to justice? Really? Not everything in the Mail is awful although I concede that much of what is there is pretty dreadful.
But we on the right do not demand that the Guardian be closed down. We disagree with nearly everything it suggests and on grounds of common decency object to the way it branded we Brexiteers as having blood on our hands after the murder of Jo Cox and allowed Polly Toynbee to say she is glad that certain folks have died (Auberon Waugh). We on the right don't like the way the Guardian dodges tax but insists that we little people pay more. But we do not suggest that it be closed down.
In due course if it keeps burning cash as it does market forces will act as the grim reaper for the Guardian but that is another matter. We on the right tend to believe in free speech. The intolerance of the left, as displayed on campuses across the UK on a weekly basis, is truly frightening. When did the left stop supporting a free and diverse press?
Back in 2004 the Guardian identified Clark County Ohio as a swing district in th4e swing state of Ohio. History shows if you win Ohio you win the White House and Clark was an uber-marginal district. So the Guardian got its readers back in the UK to call up folks in Clark. You can guess what happened next.
"Hello my good man this is Jasper from Islington and that Bush fellow is a racist who does not understand why LGBT issues and global warming are the big issues in Ohio today please vote for John Kerry. There's a good chap. Power to the workers."
Sound of silence as American from flyover state wonders who this posh British tosser is and why he is talking total rubbish.
There was a 1600 vote swing to Bush in Clark giving him a landslide win in the district and helping him to land Ohio comfortably.
It is not too late for The Guardian to get its readers on the phone before November 8. Ohio looks safe for the Donald so how about the Grauniad readers work their magic in Florida or Pennsylvania? But in this new media era there is already an effort underway from Avaaz, the online grouping fighting for every duff cause on this planet. Remember Brexit?
On June 22nd Avaaz emailed its database of dim millennials urging everyone to vote Remain. It warned that if we voted leave it would mean this for the country:
It can turn away from Great Britain to become little England: small, weak, and white. But that has never been the dream of the English, or the British. It is not now the dream of any of Britain's major political parties or leaders. It is only the dream of a few populist xenophobes, buoyed by a few small minded newspaper editors and owners of the Mail and the Sun, especially Trump-loving American Rupert Murdoch, who have whipped up anti-government and anti-immigrant hysteria with lies and propaganda."
Well that was balanced and fact based. With an Avaaz campaign in overdrive in the final days of the campaign the polls did indeed move. Much to everyone's shock, Britain voted to leave.
And so to Trump, okay most Avaaz folks are in Europe but we can still help the great cause. So Avaaz warns it millenial readers of what a Trump win means. It starts with the BIG ISSUE
Trump wants to tear up the Paris climate deal, and that's just the start of his horrifying plans! But now there's a way we can all help stop him, just by texting.
Then onto the other Trump issues...
Trump and the racist, sexist, anti-climate, isolationist message he peddles is a threat to the entire world, to everything we fight for as a community. And connecting with young Americans who also care about saving our planet, and ensuring they have all the information they need to vote, can be enough to secure a vote against Trump.
So what to do: starting texting! Over to Avaaz
Tests show that one of us can make a voting plan with 30 people who share our values in just an hour -- there's no get out the vote program anywhere that has that kind of success rate!
You’ll get everything you need to jump right in through progressive group NextGen Climate -- a thorough training, a community, a support team in a chat room, and a contact list when you’re ready to get started. And because the tool doesn't use any text messages on your plan -- you send them through a web page -- you can recruit tons and tons of people at no extra cost (make sure you're super comfortable writing in fluent English though!).
Please explain to the poor kids in the inner cities and the south who will be the next lot in the front line for the army why isolationism is so much worse than sending young folks overseas to die in numerous pointless wars, the Clinton doctrine.
Go for it...Clark County goes national with the proven vote winners of Avaaz.
Bristol is the sort of left leaning City where the patronising middle classes agree with Matt Frei that ALL Trump supporterrs are racists. They agree with Hillary Clinton that anyone voting for the GOP is a "deplorable". Naturally we Brexit voters were also termed ignorant racists by the bien pensants of the South West. Put it this way: I really don't feel as if I am in my ideologocal home here.
I want to stand shoulder to shoulder with my Brexit supporting comrades in Gateshead who do not think that loving your country and wanting it to be free is something to be ashamed of. I want to link arms with God fearing, hard working, tax paying, gun owning patriots in the flyeover states as they seek to take back their country from the coastal liberal elites who have presided over a mass trabnsfer of wealth from the 99% to the 1%. And so I want to wear my Hillary for Prison T-shirt with pride.
Until today, doing so here in Bristol risked a lynching because, if the effete Bristolians looked up from their organic latte's as they read the Guardian, and saw a Trump supporter they could not hide their contempt for a "deplorable."
But as someone who wears the tag deplorable with pride I wonder if on this day, as it now seems just possible that, thanks to the heroic FBI, Hillary will indeed go to prison, is it right to "come out" as a Trumpster? Perhaps the bien pensants will accept that we deplorables were right all along and now join me in a choris of "lock her up! lock her up!"
I doubt it. So distorted are the values of the liberal elite that they would rather vote for a criminal than a conservative.
The Guardian reports that "The number of homophobic attacks more than doubled in the three months after the Brexit vote, with toxicity fostered by the EU referendum debate spreading beyond race and religion, new figures suggest. Hate crimes against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people increased 147% during July, August and September compared to the same period last year, according to the LGBT anti-violence charity Galop." Unfortuanately this is just utterly bogus as the Guardian article itself makes clear.
The Guardian also states in the same laughable article: "Galop gave support to 187 LGBT people who had suffered hate crimes in the three months that followed the referendum vote, compared with 72 in the same period in 2015. The rise is proportionately higher than other hate crime rises in the wake of Brexit ."
So in fact all those comments by Boris & Prit has seen we wicked remainers lashing out at the pooftahs even more than we bashed the immigrants? Nope - read the sentence above again. The 147% figure is the number of hate crimes reported to GALOP not those reported to the police and that number is likely to be a very small sample and a skewed one. To extrapolate from that that there has been a 147% increase in overall hate crime against LGBT folks since Brexit is sheer nonsense as will become abundantly clear when the full data from the rozzers finally comes out.
I quote from the 2016 GALOP report on hate crime:
At least 7,016 homophobic and transphobic hate crimes were recorded by UK police during 2014/15. That was an increase from at least 6,409 the previous year.
So those served by GALOP appear to be c4% of the total number of gays suffering hate crimes. I am sure hate crime against LGBT folks has also risen in 2016 - it is a long term Europewide trend, and invonveniently for the Guardian, a dispropotionate number of those carrying out LGBT hate crimes are from another minority grouping.
Instinctively we know the Guardian is talking nonsense. I simply do not believe that Brexit has caused LGB folks to suffer a disproportionate increase in hate crimes. It just sounds implausible. Are wicked remainers really leaving off the Poles to seek out gay men to attack?
Moreover you will see that "hate crimes" have been increasing rapidly across Britain for several years, in large part down to new definitions of what is a hate crime. They have also been surging across the rest orf the EU for several years.
Naturally the Guardian knows that this is all down to Boris, Priti and the other 17 million of us who voted for Brexit. The logical flaws in this coverage are just breathtaking.
The BBC, like the rest of the liberal media, has not held back in its anger directed towards those who have used cunning wheezes to avoid paying "their fair share" of taxes like the rest of us. Whether it be a wicked capitalist like Phil Green or an evil mega corporation such as Starbucks, the BBC has vented its wrath. So it will no doubt applaud the HMRC which seems to have netted a haul of more than 100 folks earning six figure salaries who have been dodging tax. I refer of course to many of the big names at er....the BBC.
The rank hypocrisy of the left is unbelievable. The BBC stars channelled their bloated earnings through Personal Service Companies which they owned. The effect was to reduce tax rates from 45% to 20%. If you work for many employers, you are a freelancer, using a PSC is legit but folks such as Fiona Bruce, Joanna Gosling, Emily Maitlis, Gavin Esler and Tim Willcox worked only for the BBC. By day they lead the peasants army, seeking to insult and attack the tax avoiders. By night they channelled their mega salaries through a PSC to slash their tax rate. Do they not see for a second how revolting their hypocrisy appears?
They do not. The BBCs sister publication The Guardian is even more pious on the subject of tax dodging notwithstanding the fact that it uses offshore wheezes to ensure that it never pays a cent in UK tax. It makes Starbucks and Google seem like generous donors to the Treasury.
The HMRC enquiry is in full swing. Should BBC stars be forced to repay tax I would hope that this would not be the end of the matter. If some poor wretched welfare dependent single mum on a slum estate can be prosecuted and jailed for a spot of benefits theft surely rich media stars who contrived to avoid tax should also be put before the beak? At the very least their employer - which of course colluded in this defrauding of the Treasury - should show where it stands and sack all of those involved.
Will it happen? Of course not. Whatever Theresa May says it is one rule for the privileged elite and one for the rest of us. If Mrs May really means what she says about changing that perhaps should might insist that the BBC sends out a P45 to all involved. Over to you Theresa....
So Scott uses the BBC as his primary news source. Why does that not surprise me.
In Scott's view the great unwashed just don't know what is good for them. Of course they don't Scott. Their hard work without 15 weeks leave per annum and with no gold plated pension, pays your bloody salary but that does not mean that plebs driving white vans should have a say in public policy.
Only those folks in the top 10% of wage earners (like senior lecturers once you add in the pension benefit), folks who read the Guardian and who do not need to be told about eating five a day know what is best for society. The working classes are just fucking stupid. They just let emotions like racism, or not wanting to forgive mass murderers, or resentment of widespread de-industrialisation get in the way of making the "right choice". Right on Scott, pass the Focaccia and lets sneer at common people again.
Here is another patronising bastard from academia telling 17 million Britons that they did not understand what they needed to do to make a rational choice on June 23 and so allowed silly thoughts to get in the way. Why didn't the great unwashed read Polly Toynbee and Owen Jones in the Guardian and so vote the right way?
How Scott views the Republican primaries is even more telling. You will note that he makes no judgement about how Democrats voted in their primaries but it is only Trump (who secured 60% of the GOP vote) who is where he is as the result of emotion not logic. Most folks in the West think that selecting candidates via primaries ( that is among all supporters of a party in a given area) is a good thing. Party activists tend to be more extreme (left wing for Labour & the Dems, right wing for the Tories and the GOP) than party voters. So a primary rather than a caucus gets more mainstream candidates. The third alternative, party leaders picking a crony candidate in a smoke filled room is surely the least desirable selection method on offer.
Yet such is Scott's contempt for the ordinary voter now that he or she is voting the "wrong way", that he or she is prepared to tell the establishment where to stick it, that our comrade from Durham views a primary as a plebiscite and wants to move away from such a system. Scott wants to take power from the many ( who he despises) and give it to the few, to folks like him.
I am afraid that Donald and Caroline hold views that are far from isolated in academia today. My wife is an academic in a social studies discipline and when I listen to her friends I hear the same views. "How can the Tories have won the election, I don't know anyone who votes for them" said one in 2015. My wife, a woman of colour, has not dared say how she voted on June 23rd given the slew of facebook posts from her friends branding all Brexit supporters as racist or stupid or both. It does not cross their closed minds for a second that my wife might have voted for Brexit, as indeed she did.
Academia has no tolerance for those outside a narrow Group Think. Worse still, there is now no pretence that it does not openly despise those of us who dare to think differently. We must, by definition, be stupid to disagree with a consensus which is enforced with Stalinist brutality.
I simply offer up two quotes. One is an opinion of what will happen based on fiction, one is a statement of fact, hard data. The subject is global warming.
One of the world's leading ice experts has predicted the final collapse of Arctic sea ice in summer months within four years. In what he calls a "global disaster" now unfolding in northern latitudes as the sea area that freezes and melts each year shrinks to its lowest extent ever recorded, Prof Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University calls for "urgent" consideration of new ideas to reduce global temperatures. --John Vidal, The Guardian, 17 September 2012
Note the year! What is interesting is that other experts were wheeled out by the BBC just last week to make the same sort of claims. It is just that the four years has been...er delayed.
Since hitting its earliest minimum extent since 1997, Arctic sea ice has been expanding at a phenomenal rate. Already it is greater than at the same date in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2015. Put another way, it is the fourth highest extent in the last ten years. Even more remarkably, ice growth since the start of the month is actually the greatest on record, since daily figures started to be kept in 1987.
And here is the chart from the blog Not A Lot of People Know That.
I would say "discuss" but if you are in a University "Safe Space" I would not since you will almost certainly be accused of offending some precious millennial and promptly face an exclusion order.
Surely after Brexit, when almost every celebrity in Britain told the great unwashed to vote to stay, a call that was completely ignored, even the Guardian realises that celeb endorsements count for nothing. Keira Knightley can lecture me from her multi million pound mansion about why I really want to pay more taxes, have more EU diktat's ruining my life and why I should wet my pants over global warming but I just don't care. I have bills to pay and rather resent someone with no such concerns telling me how to live my life.
But the Guardian has not twigged that. After all its senior staffers in the media elite go to the same parties as Alan Bennett and the same charity bashes as Becks, Keira and Gary Lineker so they think the views of the celebs actually matter. The Guardian backed laws to stop the press exposing the hypocrisy of such celebs by exposing double standards in their private lives. It is part of an utterly out of touch liberal establishment
And thus the Guardian splashes with the news that the singer Bruce Springsteen is backing Hillary Clinton and thinks that Donald Trump is a "moron". Well there is a shock. Bruce backs the Dems every single time. Back in the days when I actually attended a couple of his shows on the Born in the USA Tour he was tearing into old Ronnie Reagan. Bruce told Americans to back Walter Mondale in the 1984 contest. You will remember that Mondale lost every state bar his home state of Minnesota and even there he won by the tiniest of margins. In terms of electoral college votes Bruce's man managed the worst showing in history. But Bruce did not mind that the rest of America was backing Reagan, at the height of his own popularity he insisted that folks should vote Dem and lambasted Reagan's America. And everyone ignored him.
So draft dodging Bruce, a lifelong liberal is voting Democrat. Knock me down with a feather. And for the next shock Guardian headline "Bill Clinton is voting for Hillary Clinton." That is after he's finished knocking off his latest bimbo who's on the Clinton Foundation payroll.
As for the moron comment, by implication the multi millionaire Springsteen is questioning the intelligence of those who might vote for a moron. Just like folks like Keira reckon we are thick for voting for Brexit....
PS. The song below by Bruce still makes it into my top 50 all time play list. I don't agree with Bruce's solutions to the problems of de-industrialisation and the impoverishment of the rust belt working classes it describes. My solution is capitalism and Trump. His solution, a bigger State, is no solution. I love the music of Bruce but that is not going to make me follow him in backing yet another Dem loser for President.
Britain has splashed out £350 million and won a stack of medals at the Olympics. naturally the Guardian's lesson from this is that we should spunk billions picking industrial winners and we will all be rich. Gold medals for all. Jeepers do folks like Martin Kettle never read history books?
Putting money into backing Olympic winners is not rocket science but there is a scientific element to it in that you pick the fastest/strongest/most proven in international competition few in each sport and train them intensively. If one starts to slow you drop him and if a new talent emerges you include him and you train really hard and we are all sing along to God Save the Queen as Team GB triumphs again.
Picking industrial winners is rather tougher. Who knows how the dynamics of an industry wll change. What makes a good manager to back? Even legendary private investors get that wrong sometimes but since they are playing with their own money not other people's - as is the State - their track record is better than that of Government stock pickers. The private sector always tends to invest in the prize picks anyway. The state is left with the best of the rest. If Mr Kettle wants to see State stock and sector picking at its worst he needs only look at the massive capital misallocation in China since 2008. And that is not exactly panning out well is it?
In a capitalist economy there is no need for the state to spunk cash on the winners as they are normally fully funded by wicked capitalists unless of course the State meddles so much in industry/makes taxation so prohibitive that evil capitalists move elsewhere.
Inevitably when politicians have to pick winners they end up picking losers who employ lots of people in order to "buy" those votes. So taxpayer cash is spent for an electoral rather than an economic return. In the end duff businesses go bust however much the taxpayer wastes on propping them up. Think British Leyland. Or De Lorean. But pro tem votes are bought using taxpayer's cash.
The state - in the UK and across the world - has a very poor record as an investor in businesses. One does not think of many Treasury Ministers in the same way as one thinks of Warren Buffett for example.
The Guardian's Kettle concludes:
May and her new business secretary, Greg Clark, will need to get serious about the industries that Britain can’t do without and those it needs to develop once politics resumes in the autumn. But they could hardly have a more pressing incentive. In the post-Brexit world, they may have little alternative.
Where to start? That would be the post Brexit UK where despite dire warnings from folks like Martin Kettle employment is surging. So in this world Kettle wants the Government to spend even more borrowed money on supporting industries Britain "cannot do without". Would that be firms the Government picks to generate an economic return or just industries that are losing money. It appears it is the latter. Maybe Mr Kettle should google search British Leyland before his next column?
It is no surprise that the £300,000 a year Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee views yesterday's obesity proposals as a wicked Tory attack on thre poor. In Toynbee's socialist paradise the State would intervene with taxes and advertising bans and every instrument of its control to make poor people less fat. The failure of the Tories to do this clearly shows they want poor people to be fat and to die early. Only someone writing from the rarified airs of a North London mansion or a Tuscan castle could write such tosh. This is vintage Toynbee. She opines:
Reports suggest the poor find it harder to afford fresh fruit and vegetables, home cooking, and of course swimming pool and gym fees, ballet and judo lessons for their children. All true, but that’s only part of the story. As some smug middle-class people remind us, well-educated penurious families can feed their children well on lentils, but that’s irrelevant to life at the bottom of the social heap.
Words fail me. Naturally all kids want to do ballet just like their parents want to go to the opera - these are indeed the pastimes the poor reach out to do and are only deprived by the wicked Tories. Out in the real world kids used to kick soccer balls around on the streets for exercise. "Working out" does not need to involve expensive ballet or judo lessons. Incidentally heavy state subsidies of ballet ( supported by Toynbee) have benefited only the middle classes, folks like Toynbee, it is still out of the reach for most folks to watch. I assume Toynbee would solve that with more subsidies from the Money Tree.
La Toynbee says that "reports suggest that the poor find it harder to afford fresh fruit and vegetables". Jeepers has this ghastly creature never been to a supermarket, an emporium where she might actually mix with poor people. Toynbee seems to think that it is a three way choice on food: fresh veg ( rich people), processed junk food ( cheap and for poor folks) and lentils (cheap but for middle class folks). If Polly got off her fat arse and checked out a supermarket she's see that it is actually cheaper to buy and prepare a range of fresh foods rather than to fill your trolley with processed crap.
So that is why many poor folks are, in fact, not eating junk food but proper meals. One third of kids may be obese but two thirds are not. That implies that it is not poverty driving the food intake of kids but the choices made by their parents.
Parents who buy junk food do so as a choice. There are too many poor folks and some middle class folk ( Diane Abbott, Polly Toynbee for instance) who are fat. They too are fat through choice. Polly do some exercise and cut down on the calories, it is simple enough.
It does not, for a second, cross the mind of Toynbee that some folks are just not very clever so they earn less than others and so are defined in Toynbee terms as poor, that is to say in relative terms although in absolute terms of purchasing power they are far better off ( i.e. richer) than their skinnier peers of 100 years ago. And being not very bright they opt to feed unhealthy rubbish to themselves and their offspring. However much the State intervenes in the lives of folks who Toynbee clearly never mixes with none of this is going to change.
Toynbee also notes:
To be obese signifies being poor and out of control, because people who feel they have no control over their own lives give up. What is there to struggle for if there is no chance ever of a job that will pay beyond bare subsistence? With no prospects, drinking, smoking and eating the wrong things become small compensations in lives with very little else. Being out of control becomes a mindset ever harder to climb out of. Why defer small gratifications when there is no greater reward on offer?
A woman who has spent her life ensuring that the client state of the left are denied opportunities for self improvement, by pushing to close down grammar schools, to deny the right to buy, by supporting labour and immigration policies that have pushed down wages for the lower paid now tells us that she knows the despair that poverty brings.
The Toynbee thesis is that the obese, the smokers and the drinkers do so because they are poor. The presence of a good number of fat, smoking drinkers among the middle classes but, more importantly of many thin, well nourished clean living working class folks shows this to be hogwash. Polly please explain why two thirds of kids are NOT obese if poverty is the sole driver. She cannot. Toynbee fails to consider any other factor that might explain a link between lower household incomes and weight gain.
In part that is because other than those who serve her in restaurants or tend her properties she rarely meets anyone who is not middle class. That is why she was so stunned that working folks voted for Brexit and why the last election result came as such as shock to her - Toynbee and her Guardian colleagues never meet the plebs and just do not understand the world on the other side of the tracks.
But, in part Toynbee pumps out this piffle simply because she enjoys telling her rapidly falling readership that the Tories want to kill poor people.
For the third day, despite receiving clear instructions to deliver the loathsome Guardian Newspaper to my father here in Shipston and despite promising to do so, the Newsagent has failed. And that means that I must again head down to the shop in a few minutes to pick up the rag.
I shall explain loudly that it is not for me but for my deluded lefty of a father lest anyone in the store recognise me. And naturally I shall be wearing my Hillary for Prison T-shirt. But it is still really embarrassing and also makes me feel just dirty having to pick up the awful publication and carry it home along Sheep Street.
My father has always said that he heads to the White Bear only to read the Telegraph "for balance" Since he is - pro tem - unable to walk to the boozer, I have suggested that he achieve that balance by ordering that the Torygraph or Mail be delivered here (or not as the case may be) along with the Guardian. He appears to think that an unnecessary expenditure.
Thus his "balanced" media commentary is now the BBC, its sister publication The Guardian and for added militancy ghastly Channel 4 news - we watch at least five news programmes a day. Thank heavens he has me here to counter such a barrage of lies but think of me today, humiliated again at the Newsagent and then subjected to a 24 hour assault by the dreadful liberal media elite. This is true filial devotion.
Yet again the British media was last night pumping out more stories about Donald Trump gaffes. The beltway classes think that what he says is big news and has The Donald sunk in the Presidential Race. By my calculations that is about the 9,784th time that the BBC, Channel 4, the Guardian and the liberal press pack have written the Trump political obituary. One day they will be right. But so far they have been wrong 9,783 times with no apology. The bigger stories which they are not reporting are the growing scandals surrounding crooked Hillary.
Offered the choice between a nutty maverick or a crooked lying career politician many Americans will go for the former whatever lies CNN and its liberal media pals pump out. The media elite is so deeply in bed with the political elite, metaphorically not in a Bill Clinton forcing himself on interns manner, that the press pack just cannot understand that.
So what's the latest on crooked Hillary? The word is that multiple FBI investigations are now underway involving potential corruption charges against the Clinton Foundation. The investigation centers on New York City, where the Clinton Foundation has its main offices - up in Harlem, and the NY probe is led by Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. Bharara’s work has resulted in a large number of convictions of banks, hedge funds and Wall Street crooks. Preet seems like a tough bastard and Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and the giant money making machine that is the Foundation are now the quarry.
The Clinton foundation will take money from just about any scoundrel on this planet and hands it out to whoever Bill is screwing at the time, that is to say not Hillary. It also gives money to "good causes". It is a vast organisation and Hillary is deeply involved as she has been in most of the Clinton scandals back to Whitewater and beyond.
It is now less than 90 days to polling, this investigation will move fast, there will be press leaks and it will play badly for crooked Hillary. Most Americans don't trust her but by the fall no-one will. As I have noted many times, in every campaign Hillary has ever fought her poll ratings only head one way. The more folks learn about her the less they like her or, more importantly, trust her.
In Britain we seem happy with the idea of big Government. In the US there is an inherent mistrust of Big Government, of corrupt men and women with their fingers in the pork barrel. Hillary Clinton is the epitomy of that world inside the beltway. And folks think she is corrupt and untrustworthy. There will be growing evidence coming out of the Foundation and more leaked emails to support that view all the way until polling day.
All that the Donald needs to do is put his foot in his mouth just that little bit less often and Crooked Hillary will gift him the keys to the White House.
Clint Eastwood is today smeared by the Guardian and the rest of the liberal press as an apologist for racism. His real crime in the eyes of the metropolitan elite is, of course, that not only is he a Republican but that he says he will vote for Donald Trump over crooked Hillary Clinton in November. If you are guilty of such a crime, being an evil conservative, all else flows naturally including, in the liberal mind, a good chance that you are a racist.
The Guardian leads with the headline "Clint Eastwood defends Trump's 'racist' remarks: 'Just get over it' Note where the 'quote' marks are.
On the subject of Clint's racism it quotes from a passage in an interview Clint gave this week in Esquire Magazine. The tax dodging Guardian states:
“He’s said a lot of dumb things,” the actor and director said of the man who has pilloried Mexicans, Muslims, immigrants, women, and the list goes on and on. “So have all of them. Both sides. But everybody – the press and everybody’s going, ‘Oh, well, that’s racist’, and they’re making a big hoodoo out of it”. Eastwood’s advice to America: “Just fucking get over it. It’s a sad time in history”
Now let's read what Clint actually said, in the interview, in its full context. The way the Guardian quotes selectively at the top of the story does not read that well for Clint. But the actual section in Esquire runs:
ESQ: What do you think Trump is onto? CE: What Trump is onto is he's just saying what's on his mind. And sometimes it's not so good. And sometimes it's … I mean, I can understand where he's coming from, but I don't always agree with it. ESQ: So you're not endorsing him? CE: I haven't endorsed anybody. I haven't talked to Trump. I haven't talked to anybody. You know, he's a racist now because he's talked about this judge. And yeah, it's a dumb thing to say. I mean, to predicate your opinion on the fact that the guy was born to Mexican parents or something. He's said a lot of dumb things. So have all of them. Both sides. But everybody—the press and everybody's going, "Oh, well, that's racist," and they're making a big hoodoo out of it. Just fucking get over it. It's a sad time in history.
That is a bit different is it not. The now closed Trump University faced a fraud charge. The Judge was Mexican. Trump stated that he felt that given his comments on Mexican immigratiomn the judge might not be impartial. Clint thinks that was dumb (he's correct) but racist? It is not racist, it is not viewing Mexican Americans as inferior or differently it is just a dumb comment about judicial impartiality. One might note that when liberals make similar comments - notably in applauding the way OJ Simpson wanted his murder trial in an area where most jurors would be black - that is NOT racist or dumb at all.
The Guardian headline would have you believe that everyone (including Clint) acccepts that Trump's remarks are racist. Clint is not discussing all the controversial remarks Trump has made - the Guardian injects that into the narrative but does it so smoothly that it suggests Clint brings it in. And Clint is not, as the Guardian headline implies, either accepting that the one remark he discusses on race matters in the interview was racist and he is not, in fact, defending it at all.
As such the Guardian headline and editorial on this matter is grossly misleading and unfair on poor old Clint. As to why Clint backs Trump the quotes are clear: Eastwood told Esquire that if he had to pick between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump,
“I’d have to go for Trump." “You know, 'cause she's declared that she's gonna follow in Obama's footsteps. There's been just too much funny business on both sides of the aisle. She's made a lot of dough out of being a politician." “He's just saying what's on his mind,” Eastwood told Esquire. "And sometimes it's not so good. And sometimes it's … I mean, I can understand where he's coming from, but I don't always agree with it." “Secretly everybody's getting tired of political correctness, kissing up. That's the kiss-ass generation we're in right now. Everybody’s walking on eggshells. We see people accusing people of being racist and all kinds of stuff. When I grew up, those things weren't called racist."
Leaving the grotesque slander on Clint and the deceptive way the Guardian filters its own words into Clint's quotes which really is appallingly unprofessional, who do you think most ordinary Americans will agree with?
That is if they see the full interview, rather than the slanted smears of the liberal press, will they back Clint or some ivy league educated privileged rich coast living liberal journalist?
Every morning at around 6 AM I hear a sound at the front door, here at my father's house in Shipston, as a little man pushes a copy of the Guardian through the letter box. My father can hear the same sound from upstairs and emits a grunt of approval and prepares to start his day with a mug of coffee prepared by me and a dose of poisonous lies from Polly Toynbee and her mates. The paper is written by middle class lefties who are filled with hate for so many things but mainly the value set of the working classes a group they claim to support but clearly despise and just never meet. Each day there is stiff competition for the nastiest and most inaccurate article. Monday's winner on both counts was a classic from Joris Luyendijk "After Brexit, a game plan for the EU, unleash Project Pain"
Joris wants the EU to be as horrible to Britain as possible, to make the lives of British people as miserable as possible to "stop other arsonists and help reinvest British democracy". On the off chance that the EU could trainwreck our economy it would not be middle class lefties like Joris who suffer but the poor and vulnerable. But so what? Lefties do not really care for the sans culottes, they just pretend to care about what is their "client state". The poor are cannon fodder for Joris and co. The point here is that the British need to "reinvent democracy" because Joris does not like the result of the largest democratic exercise in our history. And any other nation in the EU tempted to allow its own people to decide their own futures must be deterred. Democratic expression of the will of other peoples in Europe is arson if it endangers that anti-democratic edifice, worshipped by the Guardian, the EU.
Joris reckons the EU owes the UK no favours. He lists the nasty things we have done to the EU. The most laughable of these is "when France was trying to reduce inequality by increasing taxes on the rich and the UK Government sadistically rolled out the carpet for French millionaires". Jeepers where do you start?
France hiked the top tax rate to 75% in order to punish the rich. President Hollande, like Joris and other mad lefties, thinks that this reduces the gap between rich and poor which is a policy goal in its own right. We on the right care not a jot about that gap we just want the poor to be less poor in absolute terms. That is why we are actually the friend of the poor and Joris and his Guardian pals are not. Britain did nothing sadistic in response but hundreds of thousands of Froggies, many of whom were not millionaires but just hard working and well off, used EU freedom of movement rules to move to London to pay 45% tax. It was a nil brainer.
In today's world many of us can opt to work where we want, register our companies where we want and if one country whacks us with punitive taxes it will see an exodus. Post Brexit the UK will continue to welcome hard working Froggies who want to live here and pay 45% tax not 75%. Naturally France saw its tax take from the 75% class plunge and so its State finances weakened. Meanwhile those rich Froggies were spending their ( enhanced) post tax earnings in London not Paris so the French economy weakened. The big losers from Hollande's madness were thus in every way the French poor. The big winners the British poor. C'est la vie.
How is Joris going to trash the British economy? He says "it must become nearly impossible for multinationals from outside the EU to have their European HQs in Britain". Hmmm so Joris is going to force them to relocate to higher tax zones. How? It gets better. He wants the EU to sink the UK economy by getting EU universities to offer much higher wages so that British academics flock to abandon UK universities and to work overseas. Joris wants to stuff the workers of the EU with higher taxes so that middle class Guardian reading Brits can trouser it big time. One suspects that having a few less tossers filling the heads of British young people with daft left wing ideology will not exactly kill off UK PLC. Since when were the campuses a hot bed of entrepreneurial talent anyway? Meanwhile in EU land it will just see the workers even more pissed off at their masters.
More taxes for the workers so that University Lecturers can have more money. I guess that is how Owen Smith thinks Labour can reconnect with the working classes so Joris is not the only delusional lefty on this score.
The plans of Joris wont wreck Britain. They are silly. His arguments and assertions are nonsense driven by hate. But what he appears to hate the most is democracy, the idea that ordinary, smelly, white van driving men and women across the EU ( whose views, aspirations and wants he despises) are sick of the rubbish that folks like him and the EU law-makers have forced upon them and are now daring to say "no" via the ballot box.
Having done their best to cover up the gang rapes and sex attacks in Cologne on New Year's Eve, I cannot see why anyone believes a word the German rozzers have to say on anything. After Ansbach I am going to double up on that assertion. One thing the German Plod is good at is ordering us not to speculate. It sends out tweets after each atrocity ordering us not to be so reckless. Good Germans obey orders, but the Police are keen to do the opposite and speculate about anything other than what we all knew to be the truth in the first place.
And so with the Ansbach suicide bomb we progressed thus: gas explosion, bomb, victim a Moslem immigrant, suicide bomb, killer (still a victim at the BBC) not an islamist just had psychiatric issues and happened by pure chance to be a Moslem, not an islamist just happened to be a Moslem but a lone wolf and then...today it turns out that he had pledged allegiance to ISIS after all.
Finally Plod admits the ghastly truth. Up to a few hours before we got to stage three the BBC could happily say it was not terrorism and could even speculate about right wing extremists. Now we have confirmed as the truth what most folks suspected all along about Ansbach . Now we can ask fair questions about the culprit was let into Germany and why - having had his asylum claims rejected, he was not booted out. After four acts of terror in Germany in less than a week, all committed by Moslems, is there a common link we might examine? Er.....
Will the BBC, the German rozzers, the Guardian and other deluded lefties finally accept that the statement below is not a racist remark but a statement of fact:
"Almost all Moslems will never wish to commit an act of terror in Europe. Almost all acts of terror in Europe are being committed by Moslems."
The liberal media are normally keen on immigrants who work hard and get ahead. That is unless they happen to be one of the various woman who at one time or another has been or is married to Donald Trump. And so last week the BBC, The Guardian and the rest of the beltway insiders stuck it to Slovenian born Melania Trump in a big way. Once again I am pretty sure they misjudged America which will warm greatly to Mrs Trump in the coming months and which is almost certainly now rooting for her against the beltway chatterers.
The liberal media had it in for the immigrant Melania on two grounds. Firstly she is married to that son of an immigrant, Donald who is best known for hating immigrants. Or at least that is the stick with which the Beltway classes beat this year's GOP nominee for the White House. Secondly Melania is blessed with good looks and used to take some or all of her closes off as a model. As we know, feminists think that women who gain economic self-empowerment by modelling are bad. Being ugly and on welfare is far better.
And while politics is showbusiness for ugly people, liberal politics is show business for people who's hatred makes them very ugly indeed. Women on stage at conventions are meant to look like crooked Hillary Clinton not Melania and to know every inch of policy minutiae rather than to know about the real world having worked there. Woman who are there to support their husbands are just to be dismissed as lightweights, unless, of course, they are there to say that the intern their husband was banging was a slut who asked for it.
Melania's speech writer allowed 1% of her speech to be lifted from Michelle Obama. The liberal media went for the jugular. As the total non scandal broke a woman who did not deserve ridicule received a media torture session. "Perhaps the silly woman did not realise what she was doing as she was too stupid and can't even speak proper English". How the liberals sneered in the most unpleasant and patronising way possible..
Out in real America I sense most folks saw a woman who had, like them or their forebears, come to America speaking little no English. A woman who did what she had to to make a better life, even if it involved doing some things which a Wellesley educated middle class woman would not have had to contemplate. A woman who smiled a pleasant smile and radiated a belief in her husband. Those are the values of most folks in America although not those of the sneering liberal media elite. As they heaped more pious disapproval on poor Melania, more and more Americans will have put a metaphorical arm around Mrs Trump to show their support and understanding. The media just do not get it.
The Clintons are members of the political establishment through and through. Melania could not be more different. And out in real America that contrast is noticed and appreciated.
Last week's mauling of Melania by the media will have won her tens if not hundreds of thousands of new friends.
Munich, Nice, Norfolk, 9/11, Charlie Hebdo the attacks are all horrible. And there is a fairly obvious common thread. It is nothing to do with ISIS, Al-Qaeda or Islam, it is how the deluded lefty reacts as he or she prays that it is a right wing crazy.
1. Tweet a call for a ban on guns #Munich. Okay gun laws were among the tightest in the world where the attack happened. Irrelevant. The attackers used a plane/axe or lorry. Irrelevant. Guns kill. Nothing to do with humans. Ban guns.
2. Add a flag of whatever country the outrage is happening in to your twitter account.
3. Say Je Suis German or Ich bin French on twitter. By now the terrorists are terrified by your wit, bravery and resolve.
4. Tweet out "prayforINSERTPLACENAME. This call to prayer is a bit of an oddity. As a liberal you don't go to Church and regard the religious as sad stupid people clinging to the old ways.
5. Go to facebook and like an article in the Guardian saying how Brexit has made us less safe.
6. Tweet again prayforINSERTPLACENAME and then tweet that the attack has nothing to do with religion
8. If the attacker is a Moslem, post comments on facebook expressing your concerns that Moslems will suffer a backlash and saying how they are the real victims of this outrage.
9. If the attacker is a Moslem, like a tweet where Polly Toynbee says how Donald Trump's comments about Moslems are causing more victims of racism to flock to terror.
10. If the attacker is a right wing fanatic, make sure everyone knows that he was incited by Boris, farage, Trump, Le Pen and in fact anyone who has ever questioned immigration. Please note that ring wing murderers are not mad, they are just normal right wingers driven to murder by politicians who dare to question matters such as multiculturalism.
11. Meet your friends for a semi skimmed organic fair trade latte - together you show bravery and solidarity against terror as you discuss next week's demonstration calling for another vote on Brexit.
In days gone by it was perfectly respectable to be a Eurosceptic and a lefty. Great socialists such as Tony Benn, Peter Shore and Barbara Castle lead the battle to get out of the EU in 1975. But gradually most on the left have abandoned that position. That they have done so while working people and the old, young and sick across Europe have been screwed by the EU might be rather surprising.
And thus while Greek Pensioners have to live on £9 a day, find hospitals starved of drugs and while employment in Greece among Greek youngsters is sub 15%, the left generally stands shoulder to shoulder with the banksters at Goldman Sachs, the CBI and the media elite in support of the EU. How odd. In Britain, immigration holds down wage rates for the working poor so is a tax on the less well off while reducing the cost for the rich of hiring cleaners, plumbers and of dining out. The EU works as a tax on the poor to benefit the rich.
Yet for liberals like film maker Inigo Gilmore a long time contributor to the Guardian and Channel 4 News it is an article of faith that only those on the far right are Eurosceptic. And thus Inigo ran a film on Channel 4 this week making that point. Among the far right MEPs at Brussels there are some fruitcakes. The German who thought Hitler was a great statesman, the Pole who seem to think war was a normal part of life were odd. Although they were made odder by the Gilmore spin. Thus the Pole was described as "wanting war" which is clearly not what he wanted at all. But Gilmore did show that among the far right of MEPs there were a good few fascists and fruitcakes who applauded Brexit. I could, of course, find a good few "Remainers" with odd views. Islamic hate-preacher and ISIS supporter Anjem Choudary was a keen Remainer for instance.
But whilst I would not make the philosophical leap of saying "some Remainers support chucking gays off high buildings so Remainers are usually homophobes" Mr Gilmore seems to think that he can demonstrate " some supporters of Brexit are fascists therefore Brexiteers tend to be right wing extremists".
Gilmore cannot make that leap at all. He strengthened his case by bringing in Churchill " the dream of Churchill was of a Europe of peace and prosperity". Well we would all like that. It is a shame that the EU's crackpot socialist economic policies make such a dream unattainable. The implication, of course, is that Churchill, a moderate right winger would have supported the EU. There is much evidence is that he would have not and at best the question is a matter of debate. But Gilmore slips in the assertion so that we do not really question it.
The reality is that working folk across Europe feel that the EU is for the few, the banksters, big businesses, the political and media elite it is not for Joe or Josephine Public. And it is not. The popular mood not just in Britain but across the EU is increasingly hostile to the Evil Empire but that does not mean that Europe is shifting to the right. In Greece Eurocsepticism found an outlet in a left wing party, Syriza, before its leaders sold the people out in order to maintain the trappings of power.
An angry people could vote left if only the leaders of the left were not now almost entirely in bed with the banksters and their media patsies like Indigo defending the Status Quo
My lefty sister N is the one who gave her husband, the kraut, membership of the Labour Party as a Christmas present. Jesting with her about the current woes of the People's Party is therefore not something that boosts family unity. But there is a new tease from my father.
The old man has for the past 28 years humoured my late step mother by reading the Guardian every day. Global warming, LGBT oppression, the beloved EU, those poor polar bears, he knows it is all rubbish but devotedly he read it anyway. As the Grauniad argued that poor oppressed and overworked university lecturers needed to be even more overpaid he thought back to his bone idle colleagues at the University of Warwick, and his anger boiled up but he suppressed that in front of my step mother by toddling off to the White Bear to read the Daily Telegraph whose world view was far more acceptable.
During the past three days my father has been in Bristol and sometimes he listened to my podcasts being recorded, at the end of which he pretends to be a lefty by muttering "fascist filth". Most of the time has been spent reading Niall Ferguson (Empire), Melanie Phillips (All Must have Prizes) and that Peter Hitchens book about the decline of Britain. He nodded with approval throughout all three tomes concluding that he could find little to fault in any of them. And then, he joined the Conservative Club too, noting its cheap cider. Heck: Dad that is the joy of capitalism, market forces and all that.
And so, on our return, sister N phoned to ask how Dad had enjoyed Bristol. For N, Ferguson, Phillips and Hitchens are devils of the right, wicked awful folks who support everything that she opposes. And of course they all do so with a cracking sense of humour. It is N who expresses the view that "if Uncle Chris (Booker) supports something it must be wrong". You and I know that on all issues bar one ( Israel) C Booker is bang on the money. For N the horseman of the conservative apocalypse are Hitchens, Phillips, Ferguson, Booker (who Dad reads every week) and perhaps these days Rod Liddle. Maybe I shall give her a book by Mark Steyn or perhaps Demonic ( how the Liberal mob is endangering America) by the wonderful Ann Coulter, to broaden her sense of outrage.
Anyhow last night Dad fessed up to his reading matter and how much he had agreed with Mel in particular. I guess that was his "coming out" moment.
Nottinghamshire Police Force ,led by the admirable Sue Fish, and working with the Nottingham Women's Centre has become the first UK police force to classify sexual harassment as a "hate crime" but what the Nottingham Rozzers define as harassment is terrifying. As the Mother-in-Law lives in Nottingham I must now steer well clear of her because I am - in that County - now guilty, on a regular basis, of acts which can constitute hate crime.
The Rozzers state:
Misogyny hate crime, in addition to the general hate crime definition, may be understood as incidents against women that are motivated by an attitude of a man towards a woman, and includes behaviour targeted towards a woman by men simply because they are a woman.
Examples of this may include unwanted or uninvited sexual advances; physical or verbal assault; unwanted or uninvited physical or verbal contact or engagement; use of mobile devices to send unwanted or uninvited messages or take photographs without consent or permission."
The joy of our Orwellian hate crime laws in Airstrip One is that it is not the Rozzers or the law that defines whether an action is a hate crime. Here I quote the bible of authoritarian Britain, the Guardian newspaper:
Police record as a hate crime any offence perceived to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on any of five protected characteristics: race, religion, sexual orientation, disability and transgender identity. It is open to police to add another category – such as gender – if they notice a trend...It is enough for a victim to say they believe the offence targeted at them was motivated by hate because of their disability, sexual orientation, race, religion or transgender status for it to be recorded as a hate crime.
Please remember the use of the word trend for later.
More importantly, I hope that you now understand the sinister way that a hate crime is not a hate crime because a specific action has been taken but merely becuase the "victim" feels that an action has been taken which is hate crime. Wolf whistling at women is something I have never been able to do, I just can't work out how to.
But I would not wolf whistle at a women in Nottinghamshire or anywhere in the North as it is an unpleasant act per se and - as I have noted many times before - in the Northern welfare safaris most women seem to be obese, tattooed monsters, allergic to hard work and less intelligent than your average sparrow.
So the chances of me wolf whistling at a woman in Nottingham are very low but if I was to transgress would it really be a crime let alone a hate crime? In Nottinghamshire it is now both if the bird who is whistled at thinks that it is. Oh fuck I used the word "bird" to refer to a woman.
Apparently that is so demeaning that it can also be classified as a hate crime if some stroppy cow with PMT thinks so. I fear that had I accused a specific woman of being a stroppy cow with PMT I might again be in the soup were I in Nottingham.
I am now writing from Warwickshire where the rozzers say they have no plans to make sexual harrassment a hate crime. Phew. I can therefore use the phrase PR bird or PR bimbo in my writings withour risking arrest. But were I to be writing from the house of my mother-in-law I could theoretically face a vist from Sue Fish's finest, investigating my hate crimes for using such phrases.
Orwell would be terribly proud of Sue Fish and her colleagues in the Nottinghamshire filth not least because, I suspect they cannot prove a "trend" of sexual harassment and thus actually have no rights whatsoever to implement this law but are just seizing the powers anyway. The releases from Nottinghamshire Police give no hard data to substantiate the claim of trend, indeed the issue is not even mentioned.
Meanwhile when should I explain to the Mrs that to ensure my liberty I cannot risk any more visits to the in-laws?
Controversial journalist Rod Liddle gave a speech last week at a libertarian bash which was quite simply fantastic. I just read it to my father who, though a lefty, could not argue with a word of it. It is funny, to the point and a totally depressing analysis of what is so ghastly about Britain today. It is quite utterly brilliant. Read on...
Many thanks for inviting me here tonight. I have been told that I was picked to deliver this address from among a very large list of people, solely because I have children and am a mother. This gives me great empathy and understanding and also the right to amend my CV whenever the feeling takes me. That was a star which rose and fell rather speedily, wasn’t it? Before we even learned how to pronounce her name.
We live in interesting times, do we not? It is quite possible that within a few months England’s most long standing political leader will be a man called Tim Farron. I heard Tim on Any Questions last week and he spoke with great uncertainty and anxiety, like a man who fears that he may have left the gas oven on at home and is contemplating calling the emergency services. Soon we will have to regard him as a titan of politics, a colossus. And then there is my party, Labour, which is fine fettle, no? There will be a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn’s sane and rational leadership from a woman called Angela Eagle – swoop, swoop. She is the sister of the former cabinet minister Maria Eagle, which prompted one MP to say that Angela was the lesser of two eagles. And also that she wasn’t even the best politician in her own family. Not even the best … Well, who could imagine Labour making that sort of mistake?
Angela is also a lesbian, which is fine by me. But this is presumably the next stage in the lesbian takeover of British politics. Both the Scottish Labour Party and the Scottish conservatives are led by lesbians. I don’t know the sexual preferences of Leanne Wood, the leader of Plaid Cymru – any port in a storm, I would guess. But this is all very commendable, especially as I read recently that lesbians are actually much scarcer than is popularly thought; almost endangered and that we should perhaps consider a reintroduction policy in selected areas, much as has been accomplished with red kites in the Chilterns. It will be a fine sight to see lesbians once again soaring on outstretched wings across Beaconsfield and Henley, gimlet eyes scouring the terrain for carrion. But rumours of their scarcity have clearly been exaggerated.
All of this is keeping Labour from its most important work, which is kicking me out of the party. I was suspended a month or so ago for the crime of having suggested that adherents of Islam were not always entirely kindly disposed towards Jewish people. I know, it beggars belief how I could possibly reached this conclusion. I’d probably had too much to drink. Anyway, I got an email shortly after from a man called Harry who said I was suspended but could present my case at a quotes fact finding hearing. I would be allowed to take a friend with me, but the friend wouldn’t be allowed to speak. I suggested that suspending me before the initial fact finding hearing had a slightly, how can I put it, Soviet ring to it. And Harry replied that my suspension was a “neutral” act. I would have thought a neutral act would have been to NOT suspend me but there we are.
Anyway, this was all part of Labour’s frankly hilarious investigation in anti-Semitism which gave the party a nice clean bill of health and was presided over by a woman who presides over all of us, Shami Chakrabarti. Shami is also Chancellor of Essex Univerrsity, visiting fellow at Nuffield College Oxford and an honorary fellow at Mansfield College, master of the bench of the Middle Temple, governor of the British Film Institutue and holds honorary degrees from three more universities. It’s nice she was able to squeeze Labour’s Jew-bashing into her packed schedule. Indeed so prolific is Shami within publicly funded bodies, quangos, the third sector and education that I was able to create a parlour game called Six Degrees. Basically choose any arts council, charity or quango, look down the list of trustees and you’ll be able to get to Shami within an absolute minimum of six moves and more usually two.
This is because it is a very small pool of people who run all this stuff and they are all chosen for the same reason – they share precisely the same bien pensant opinions. And, usually, affluent background. This is the new establishment, the people who in a sense govern our country. People who are appointed to stuff, who are on the boards of all of our universities, who run the arts programmes, the charities, everything which costs the taxpayer money. Always appointed – no interview needed. The same names, over and over again. The new great and the good. Gramsci would have been proud of this march through the institutions. When you dig away at each name it’s not easy to find a reason why they’ve been appointed. I was rooting through the names on the BBC Board of Governors a while back and came across a woman of whom I’ve never heard. So I searched out her biography to find out her backstory. All it said was Mahmuda has spent her career upholding standards in public life. You can imagine meeting her at a party, can’t you?
This stuff has a point right now. You will probably be aware of the sort of weirdo authoritarian censoriousness currently gripping our students. The banning of speakers from left and right because they transgress some fatuous shibboleth these cossetted and mollycoddled idiots think of as sacred. Feminists banned from campuses because they’re not sure about transgendered people. Islamists banned because they’re not mad on feminism. Jews banned because they’re not sure about Muslims. Sombreros banned because they might offend Mexicans. The idea is to create a safe space where these people – supposedly our intellectual elite – can exist without anything, ever, challenging their world view. As if they have a right not to be contradicted or offended. As if what they believe is it, and there’s an end to it.
We sometimes portray this hilarious – but genuinely totalitarian tendency – as being an affliction of youth. I’ve written about this and said much the same thing. But it’s not, really. The universities in which these kids are taught are scarcely better. The same political and cultural hegemony applies, a suffocating refusal to allow freedom of speech and dissenting views. It’s there in all of those quangos and third sector bodies I mentioned before – an absolute refusal to tolerate dissent from the approved socially liberal views. It’s there in the BBC. You can see it in the Guardian which has recently started denying readers the right to comment on articles which it thinks might be controversial – the site called, with exquisite irony, Comment is Free. Its writers were miffed when people started posting opinions which ran counter to their own. So they banned the comments, all of them.
And more than anything it is there in the deranged and apoplectic response from some Remainers to our vote on June 23. It is not enough that they may disagree with the decision to withdraw from the EU. I can understand that: it was a close call for me. But the screaming tantrums and the bedwettings, the toys thrown out of the pram, the tears before bedtime and the stamped feet! The demands that because working class people were allowed to vote the whole thing should be run again ……………………………. Oh DO f— off.
And you are left with the same conclusion you reach with those students. That these people are utterly unused to being contradicted. They have no experience of being gainsaid, of being told that they might be wrong, of being on the wrong side of the argument. And so they react with an incandescent fury and a sense of outrage and also, in this particular instance, with the massed ovine bleat of raaaacccist, like lobotomised sheep. Very angry lobotomised sheep. And they gather in Parliament Square and they sign petitions which somehow they think is more democratic than the actual vote. They are deranged, I think, these people.
Still, we are out. And while for the next two years stuff will procede as normal for you people as we are still beholden to European Union directives which insist that those of you in the tobacco industry and the sugar industry and the fast food industry are basically agents of Satan tempting a gullible and cretinous public with evil. No more so than with cigarettes, of course. I think I was slightly angrier with Tony Blair for banning smoking in public than I was with him for invading Iraq, which is a rather selfish way of looking at the world. But one adapts as a loyal consumer, much I have done with the packaging issue. These days I always ask the tobacconist for a packet of cigarettes that has that chap with an enormous tumour growing out of his throat. I much prefer that to the one which shows inadequate semen.
The argument has always been – from the same neck of the woods as those people I’ve mentioned before – that you are, to quote a smug and complacent phrase they often use, on the wrong side of history. That in essence freedom of choice, like freedom of speech, is actually a tyranny rather than benediction. They think it is not a freedom at all, because other people – never themselves – are somehow oppressed by it, oppressed by freedom. And so they demand ever greater restrictions on your products, more regulations and, best of all, price hikes – so that it is the poor who really cop it. They are the ones who suffer through paying more for their treats – the smokes, the burgers, the alcohol. Because they are the stupid ones whose lives need to be regulated. Other people. It is always other people who binge drink, isn’t it? We just have three or four rather agreeable bottles of Sancerre. That’s not binge drinking. Cheap cider is binge drinking.
And they do all this because of course they know best. And like the students with their safe spaces and the Guardian restricting free speech for other people, and like the howls of outrage from the anti-Brexit mob, they cannot bear to gainsaid. You’re on the wrong side of history. Ah, well. As we have seen, one can be on the wrong side of history until history suddenly and rather capriciously switches sides – as it did on June 23 this year. The other people, particularly the poor, became sick of being told what to do. And they rebelled. It may not seem so to some of you Remainers worrying about your overseas contracts right now, but in the end that rebellion is good for you too. It was a vote for freedom of choice.
Somehow I managed to work out how to tune my father's TV onto the BBC News Channel. Newsnight had been too busy bashing the Tories to give more than a brief mention to a story that broke before it went on air and which now leaves almost 80 people lying dead in France. Sof dozens of dead froggies, lets remind ourselves again how across the world liberal media pundits think Boris Johnson is frightful. The interweb was miles ahead of the Beeb's flagship show once again but over on the news channel there was now full coverage.
I went to sleep at 1.30 AM by which time the BBC had at least accepted that it was not an accident ( circa midnight) and was most definitely a terrorist attack. Jeepers you don't say. One Belgian terrorism expert had stated the bleeding obvious that it was an attack by ISIS but the BBC itself was making no such claims instead insisting that we have no idea who was responsible.
Hmmm. The wicked Jews? a crazed member of the American Religious Right inspired by Donald Trump and assisted by US gun laws? Boris Johnson and some Brexit whacko? We know who the BBC must have wanted it to be and I am sure some liberals will find some way of linking in the parties named above and blaming them in some way. But surely even round at Pravda they must have known at once that the killers were from the self styled "Religion of Peace".
The statement "the vast majority of Moslems are nothing to do with acts of mass terror committed in the World today but the vast majority of acts of mass terror committed in the world today are by Moslems" is a statement of fact. It is simply the truth and in stating it one does not become anti Moslem one just shows that you can accept the sad reality that a tiny percentage of Moslems are following a twisted bastardised form of their religion which would horrify Muhammad and involves wholesale butchery of the innocents.
But it is a statement that folks round at the BBC or the Guardian cannot accept as being true because in some crazy way they think it makes them sound racist. And that can make the news coverage that the liberal left serves up just toe curlingly inadequate and embarrassing. Re-running interviews with a chap who happened to be near the scene which really were not that interesting the first time let alone on the the fifth take or showing the same video footage eight times as if it was fresh each time, is no substitute for analysis which is prepared to accept an inevitable truth.
It was Friday at noon and for some reason logistics had become muddled and my father and I were at a loose end. There was only one solution: the White Bear and two pints of cider. As we headed down Sheep Street with my father leaning on his strollator being overtaken by tortoises and little old ladies on their strollators, the old boy piped up with "Its Big Issue day, I can buy a copy off the Bulgarian lady."
About ten minutes later as we turned the corner into the main Square my father looked down to outside the Co-Op where the Bulgarian hassles passers by with a mildly intimidating sales pitch but the lady was nowhere to be seen. As a devoted son I offered a useful suggestion: "Don't worry Dad there is a drain over there just chuck three quid down it and you will be fine."
My father insisted that the Big Issue has a Sudoku which he finds a bit more challenging than that in the Guardian and it is this as well as his view that he is helping the poor and oppressed that prompts him to buy at ;least three issues a month. Not surprisingly the Bulgarian lady greets him warmly for he is her best patsy, ooops I meant customer.
The idea of the Big Issue is that folks without work sell it for a while so that they do not need to beg so they can feed themselves and get accommodation until they have a proper job. In that it is really laudable. But the Bulgarian lady has made a career of selling Big Issues to deluded lefties in South Warwickshire. For many years she has come to Shipston one day week and then spends at least a couple of days in Stratford - for I have seen her there outside M&S. I would assume she pursues her vocation in Alcester or somewhere else another day. She is good at it.
Selling the Big Issue earns this lady more than she could hope to earn even as a professional back home in Bulgaria. I do not blame her for making the carer change. But is this what the Big Issue was set up to achieve? And is this free movement of labour what those who opposed Brexit regard as a real benefit of our membership of the EU?
I tried to put those points to my father as we headed off to the White Bear and he mumbled something more about Sudoku and speculated that the poor woman had fled the country fearing the mass pogroms of Europeans, that the Guardian insinuates are planned by UKIP and Andrea Leadsom.
I left the pub earlier than my father as step brother T arrived for a pint. But I had to rush back quickly with good news from outside the Co-Op. The Bulgarian was back in action, she has yet to be burned out by vile racist Brexiteers as those on MarchforEurope threaten will happen. Good news Dad, you can show your solidarity with the Europeans: perhaps you might buy two Big Issues this week?
I picked up yesterday on the fact that Andrea Leadsom views gay folks as different to straight folks in terms of their rights to suffer the miserty of marriage. So she is a social conservative which will chime with many Tory party members and I've no problem with her coming out in this respect. These days, some leading Tory seems to come out as something or other about once a week. What is nauseating about Leadsom is that she lies about this issue. She says she believes in equality and then smailes inanely. Yet her stated views make it clear that she does not believe in equality. In the world of Leadsom it is one rule for the shirt lifters and one rule for the rest of us. Time to smile inanely again Andrea.
My biggest problem with Leadsom is thus not that she is a bigot, although she is, but that she cannot tell the truth about her bigotry on the issue of the pooftahs. And in seeking to hide that she digs herself deeper and deeper into whichever hole she has stumbled.
And thus we now know that her CV about her banking career was quite simply not true. She exaggerated her claims about what she did. Yet in an infamous interview wih the Times yesterday we read:
After explaining that, as a former banker, she understands “how the economy works and can really focus on turning it around” — unlike, by implication, the home secretary.
Andrea Leadsom managed the recruitment of teams of banksters. She was a manager of people. Theresa May manages a far bigger team at the Home Office. Neither means that they understand finance so well they can turn round the economy. Leadsom was a banker in the same way that May is a Policewoman.
What arrogance of Leadsom to claim that she can turn round the economy, especially when her CV (truthful version) shows no reason to back up the claim of specialist knowledge. And anyhow did not the banksters sort of help to get us into the mess of 2008 in the first place?
Leadsom goes on: back to The Times:
— she stresses that she is a “member of a huge family and that’s important to me. My kids are a huge part of my life, my sisters and my two half brothers are very close so I am very grounded and normal.” Mrs May, of course, has spoken of her heartbreak at realising that she could not have children. In case the contrast is not clear enough, Mrs Leadsom goes on: “I am sure Theresa will be really sad she doesn’t have children so I don’t want this to be ‘Andrea has children, Theresa hasn’t’ because I think that would be really horrible, but genuinely I feel that being a mum means you have a very real stake in the future of our country, a tangible stake. She possibly has nieces, nephews, lots of people, but I have children who are going to have children who will directly be a part of what happens next.” There is also an empathy that comes from motherhood, she suggests, “when you are thinking about the issues that other people have: you worry about your kids’ exam results, what direction their careers are taking, what we are going to eat on Sunday”.
This is loathsome. It is vile. It is beneath contempt. There is no evidence for Mrs Leadsom's claims. Lady Thatcher had (awful) kids and was a brilliant PM. Mrs Gandhi also had kids and was a total disaster for India in every way. There is no data set to support the Leadsom claims it is just horrible comment from a horrible woman who wishes to rebrand the Tories as the "nasty party" once again.
Leadsom has now taken to twitter saying she was misquoted. But, sadly for her, the transcript of the interview has emerged and she was not misquoted at all. Accusing respected journalists of making up quotes just marks Leadsom out as the sort of silly bint who would sex up her CV. Leadsom is not fit for high office or indeed to be an MP at all.
Again my over-riding problem with Leadsom is not that she is a nasty person ( though she is) but that she is not telling the truth. Again.
About the only thing that can be said for Leadsom is the arrogance and patronising piffle written about her by the lefty, "Remainer" liberal media elite. If folks like Simon Scharma loathe her maybe she is not so bad after all? Scharma's patronising comment of yesterday is below:
@simon_schama Isnt the real point that if she really cared abt her kids or anyone else's future Leadsom wouldnt have switched from proEU to Leave
That tweet was "liked" by hundreds of latte sipping London members of the comfortable affluent in crowd. They like patronising we thicko Brexiteers.
Gosh it is a tough contest to take sides on. Reading folks like Scharma, the Guardian Editorial Team and the most ghastly Tory in Britain, Amber Rudd MP tell us that it has to be May I think back about how the insurgents, including Leadson, won the vote on June 23rd. And May was on the other side with the establishment with folks like Scharma, ghastly Rudd, her brother Roland Rat and Polly Toynbee. The supporters of May drive me into the arms of Leadsom.
But on the other hand could I trust a woman who is happy to be so nasty, whose views on issues that I care about mark her out as a bigot and who above all - just seems, even by the standards of politicians, to have a real problem with just not telling the truth? The biggest reason to vote May, and it is becoming almost a compelling reason, is, quite simply, that the only alternative is Andrea Leadsom.
The Sad Truth: Theresa May is bad, but the others are worse is the headline in the main opinion article in yesterday's Guardian. Author Rafael Behr urges Tory members to vote for May. His qualification for offering such advice is that he is a screaming lefty. A cat offers mice advice on personal safety. Behr is a star of the Guradin in that he is not only wrong on most issues, deriving his conclusions from prejudice as opposed to fact, but he is also a pretentious twat to boot. Thus he starts his piece on why Tories should vote for May on Europe, a subject where May disagrees with the vast majority of Tory party members and voters and 52% of the wider electorate
"Imagine Britain's membership of the European Union as a cat. The cat is seated in a box with an unstable radioactive element, "article 50". At some point the toxicity of A50 will kill the cat - an outcome that is confirmed by opening the box. But as long as the box is sealed, moggy is simultaneously dead and alive. This state is known as Schrodinger's EU membership after the Austrian physicist who desscribed something similar in 1935 to elucidate the mysteries of quantum mechanics".
At this point we are expected to say that Rafael is fecking brainy to know all about Schrodinger and his cat. You know Guardian writers are all fecking genii. After all not only did most of them go to posh public schools and Oxbridge but they all voted for Remain and as we know Remainers were clever while those of us who voted for Brexit were just thick and often racist as well. And so as night follows day, Article 50, the way the UK leaves the EU is seen as toxic and something that will kill Britain. That in Guardian la la land is just a given.
Back in the real world we see that, amid a new banking crisis in Italy, Europe's largest bank (Deutsche from Germany) is also teetering today. Economic growth in the Eurozone has been negative to negligible for months before Brexit was an issue. It is an ageing economic zombie, run by a corrupt political, media and business class which is loathed by ordinary folks across Europe. We, the plebs, are tired of a project which empowers and enriches the elite - including our posh well paid lefty comrades at the Guardian - but sees ordinary folks gain little or, in places such as Greece, Portugal and Spain, get utterly screwed.
And so back to the cat. Surely A50 is they key to a box which has itself become contaminated by radioactive and toxic elements. The cat has just taken a decision of its own free will and has used the key to do as it wishes and escape. How it fares on the oustide is not that it will be certain to be dead as Behr states. There are no facts and certainties here. The cat may thrive outside the box or it may not thrive, there is no certainty about what will happen to Britain outside the EU, only opinions. I concede my opinion may be wrong. Behr cannot see that possibility.
I would suggest that Tory voters who find themselves reading the dreadful Guardian should ignore advice from this loathsome rag and from Mr Behr on how to vote as he really does not have your best interests at heart. Moreover his dismal Schrodinger analogy showns him to be a pretentious fool. No wonder he has done so well at the Guardian.
The Guardian has not been delivered today. I have enquired at the Newsagents and apparently no copies of the loathsome left wing rag have arrived in Shipston. Maybe Guardian writers feel that like the other lazy, overpaid, greedy left wing bastards, the junior Doctors, University Lecturers and School Teachers they should go on strike. If that is the case one must only hope that it is a prolonged dispute. But the absence of the rag causes my father some consternation.
What will he take into the hospice for my step mother to read today? What indeed will he read? Yesterday he took great delight in reading out passages from the Guardian which he knew to be rubbish but which he knew would annoy me greatly. It was not just the piffle from Polly Toynbee, the paper was bulging with obvious tripe.
And so as a treat I have bought him a copy of the Daily Mail. We can safely assume that he will not be taking it in to give to my step mother who would view it as political pornography but the closet reactionary is gripped.
There is an article about UKIP's leader and he remarks about how he knows all three of UKIP's peers. This gives him a chance for snobbish boasting as well as showing his reactionary links. The Guardian would not offer such sport. Maybe having called and amended the car insurance of Mr Tom Winnifrith (him) yesterday I should change Mr Winnifrith's order with the newsagent?
Though not a great fan of the spectacularly unsuccessful Home Secretary Mrs Theresa May, anyone who is attacked by the loathsome child of privilege the Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee, cannot be all bad. And thus in her column today La Toynbee starts with the words "If Theresa May is the answer, what is the Question?" Perhaps you would care to answer that one.
How about: "who is Home Secretary of the party that won the last election as opposed to the one Polly Toynbee told folks to vote for?"
Or "can you name someone who does not tell the workers that they are ignorant racists while writing from her castle in Tuscany?"
Or "can you name someone whose views on immigration, Europe, Welfare Reform and Patriotism are not utterly alien to hose of core working class Labour voters in the way that those of Polly Toynbee are?"
Or " can you name a woman who has had a successful career without trading off a well known family name and growing up in wealthy North London?"
The first big shock was when our car pulled up outside my father's house in Shipston. Up ambled by step brother T who greeted us warmly and then up strode a rather sexy looking woman who I did not recognise at all. Had T found a new wife and not told us? The old rogue. These teachers: we know what they get up to in all their vast amounts of spare time and holidays. Reading weeks my arse. So who was this stranger?
It was only when she started speaking that I realised it was my step sister L. Shockingly she has not only cut her long hair but also stopped dying it brown and is now - like her mother and brother completely grey. It is odd how that change of hair colour and style acts as a total disguise. I must remember that, the next time the FCA tries to stitch me up and forces me to go on the run.
The was not the real shock though. It was just over three weeks ago that my father and step mother were with me in Greece. He is pretty immobile and so my step mother was the driver and his carer. But during that trip her illness worsened and she was barely able to keep any food down. Things have now deteriorated to the extent that last week she moved into a hospice just down the road from my old school in Warwick.
We visited yesterday with my father and a woman who'd been walking, swimming, drivimng and chatting three weeks ago was thin, quiet and visibly tired huddled under a blanket staring out onto a communal lawn. Everything has changed.
Today she is coming back to Shipston for a few hours to, in her words, say goodbye to friends, the garden and the vile cat Obie who hates everyone in the world bar my father and step mother. Pro tem I will stay up here with my father and the miserable Obie until the weekend. Though siblings and step siblings communicate constsantly by email it is rather hard to plan more than a few days ahead.
The Guardian has just dropped through the front door. My father makes a point of taking the loathsome rag in for my step mother to read. I ask is she not suffering enough? My father, of course, needs to get a balanced view so - as has been the case for years - will have to go to the pub just to read the Telegraph in the interests of balance.
It is not as if he wants to go to the pub you understand, it is all about balance. That daily ritual is not something that changes although with his stroller it takes an eternity for him to walk to and from the White Bear.
Baroness Warsi is an unelected Tory politician with a track record of dodgy business dealings who says the most appalling things to gain publicity. Today she has announced that she is leaving the "Leave" campaign on Brexit and joining "Remain" because of all the racism, xenophobia and bigotry of folks like Priti patel and Gisela Stuart. The BBC laps it up as a major blow for Brexit. The only problem is that the silly cow Warsi never actually joined the Leave campaign.
Please don't let that stop Project Fear treating this as news but it is all bogus. On twitter the derision is palpable. Among the best tweets are:
BREXIT 23.06.2016 @OffencePolice 2h2 hours ago Baroness Warsi has also announced she has asked Claudio Ranieri for a transfer from Leicester City, where she was last year's star striker Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1 2h2 hours ago BREAKING: Baroness Warsi has announced that she will no longer be headlining at Glastonbury. Raheem Kassam @RaheemKassam 2h2 hours ago BREAKING: Baroness Warsi is set to give a lecture on what it was like to be the first man on the moon Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1 2h2 hours ago BREAKING: Baroness Warsi announces that she will no longer be competing for Team GB in the 100metre sprint at the Rio Olympics Marcher Lord @MarcherLord1 32m32 minutes ago Using Baroness Warsi's logic, I have just emailed Warren Gatland to let him know that I've now officially retired from international rugby Ken Sampson @sampson_ken 5m5 minutes ago @StrongerIn Breaking news - Baroness Warsi has just announced she is leaving the Labour Party and becoming a Tory.
But watch the BBC, the Guardian, lyin' David Cameron et all treat this is major news. The narrative of the last few days from Project Fear will be Brexit, racist, don't talk about immigration, Jo Cox dedicated campaigner for the EU, the politics of hate, right wing murderers, etc.
They lost the argument but I fear they are winning the smears.
Most of the national press is now reporting responsibly on the sad death of Jo Cox MP yesterday. Any life cut short is a tragedy. A murder of any sort leaves one feeling appalled. Ms Cox was obviously a principled and pleasant woman and one only imagine how her husband and kids feel. But the reaction of far too many supporters of the "in" campaign does need comment for it was disgusting. I reported earlier of how I received one tweet saying that as a pro-Brexit writer I had blood on my hands, as you can see HERE.
One witness claimed that the killer, Thomas Mair, shouted Britain First as he murdered Jo Cox. That is the name of a tiny Fascist grouping. On twitter we were assured that Britain First were keen supporters of Brexit. Others saw this as a cry for Brexit. The only trouble is that the killer was not a member of Britain First or any political grouping. He had no links at all with it in fact. He had once subscribed to a South African magazine which supported apartheid but a long while ago and friends are quoted as saying he had no interest in politics or the referendum. He, however, had a keen interest in cleaning himself all over every day with Brillo pads.
And worse was to come for Project Smear as no no other witnesses came forward to say they heard the words Britain First.It soon transpired that the main witness was on record saying he heard no such words.
In his grief, the husband of the late Ms Cox said his wife was "killed by hate" and vowed to fight the forces of hate. That is laudable but as things stand the evidence is that Brendan Cox is incorrect in his assessment. His wife was killed by a man with a severe mental illness who had only just been released from psychiatric care. I have written before about mental illness. My mother killed herself. We do not, in this country, discuss many issues relating to mental illness at all seriously. We trivialise and insult those with mental health problems. Perhaps now we might take a different approach and that might just be the legacy this killing deserves.
But not to let the facts get away in the way of an opportunity for political gain various folks linked this murder directly with Brexit. Either as Mr Mair was a supporter of Brexit ( which he appears not to be), or that he supported Britain First which supports Brexit (but it appears he had no links at all with the fascists) or because folks like me writing about Brexit stirred him up ( which we did not and this is simply an attempt to gag debate).
EU Commissioner for migration Dimitris Avramopoulos was an early entrant in the tweet smear noting "Jo Cox murdered for her dedication to European democracy and humanity. Extremism divides and nourishes hatred. Solidarity with her beloved".
Dimitris must by now know that what he tweeted was just untrue. Has he apologised? Nope. hard on his heels from overseas came crooked Hillary Clinton who claimed that this was a "violent act of political intolerance." No Hillary it was not, how about you apologise too? Back in the UK few could trump the loathsome Daily Star whose front page is below although the Guardian is this morning still not challenging the Britain First link and stands by its thesis that this may be linked to political extremism.
Labour MP Neil Coyle when commenting on Ms Cox's murder started talking about campaign material from Vote Leave saying that this inspired folks on the far right. He was making a direct link. He again does an immense disservice to a rational debate on mental health as - at the same time - engaging in the the most loathsome of smears.
Words almost fail me. Will the Star, Ms Clinton, Mr Coyle, Dimitris and all those folks who somehow linked the actions of a man suffering severe mental illness with Brexit and with those who campaign for Brexit apologise? They will not. They hope they have planted the seeds of doubt of smear in the minds of the electorate and if they get the result they hope for next Thursday they will not care how they won that victory. It is an episode of shame for them but they have no sense of shame, their words and actions make that all too clear.
I would hope that for once Britain can have a proper mature debate on mental illness and how we care for those who are mentally ill. But far too many in Project Fear do not care about that debate and are happy to trivialise mental health issues. All they care about is a vote happening next week. Shame on the lot of them.
The first time I encountered the woman who is now known as the Mrs but was formerly "The Deluded lefty" she made her views known by passing me her copy of The Guardian saying there was an article in it that I might find interesting. Since I fancied her big time, and still do, I did not respond "you must be kidding you daft lefty" but dutifully read the complete and utter piffle and feigned interest. On our second date I did not hold back as we had a big row over affirmative action.
But our relationship has survived. Her pals who are even more deluded than the Mrs quickly branded me as "the fascist boyfriend" for thought crimes like going to Lady Thatcher's funeral rather than having a party, for voting Tory and for believing in capitalism, Israel, freedom etc, etc.
The Mrs is this morning cheered by hearing news that the University Lecturers - greedy and lazy bastards - are going on strike to get even more money for doing sod all work. They better hurry up as pretty soon their 10 week summer vacation starts and they might actually have to cut into their Tuscany break to head back to Britain to man ( sorry, person) a picket line.
As a sociology lecturer, the Mrs has mad left views hard-coded into her DNA. She has never voted anything other than Labour. Until today.
As it happens our Tory candidates are hard working local chaps while the incumbent Labour councilors are just Middle Class lefties who live miles away in a more affluent part of town and take victory among the plebs where we live for granted.
I am not saying that the Mrs has been converted to the cause of capitalism, free markets and freedom but it is a small step. One step at a time. For now I can celebrate that she has started on the road to redemption. I have offered to take her to the Conservative Club tonight so that she can meet with her new comrades but that seems to be a step too far.
As the greatest ever Prime Minister said on the occasion of the recapture of South Georgia from the Argies, "just rejoice at that news." Boy is this a video to make you proud
What is there that the mad lefties who run the Guardian, the BBC, Channel 4 News and all the State supported quangos celebrating IWD 2016, could not see in a woman who was an illegal immigrant ( overstaying a visitor's visa), an ethnic minority (Jewish), an atheist and whose writings are so influential that she is seen as the driving force of a major school of thought?
Surely on International Women's Day we should be holding a woman - whose family were persecuted when she was just 12, losing their homes and facing starvation - and who herself was booted out of University for not adhering to the line of an oppressive regime, up as a role model for our daughters? This woman achieved so much despite all the odds being stacked against her.
So as we celebrate Great Women today why won't the lefties tell our daughters about Ayn Rand?
Er.. perhaps it is because she opted to flee the Soviet Union, the society that persecuted her, and to find freedom in the USA. Rand lived the America Dream, something that lefties just do not believe in although wave after wave of immigrant has found it to be very real.
Rand's influence is on libertarianism, a belief set not based on quotas or on the State tinkering with society but on freedom, on the idea that, unshackled, the individual can achieve anything however much the odds are stacked against them. As they were for Ayn Rand herself.
Mr Jeffries, a grammar school boy, seems convinced that many rugger players are toffs and thus manages to get in several paragraphs about Eton. The only minor issue with this approach is that because of the Wall Game and rowing, rugger is a relatively minor sport at Eton. To lambast rugger as a game which most public schools in England play would be accurate if rather pointless but to single out the one major public school where rugger does not dominate the winter term, is just the Guardian way. Never let facts get in the way of a spot of Eton bashing with a dose of Call Me Dave abuse thrown in for good measure.
For the record I am no particular fan of Eton or of Call Me Dave but facts do matter.
And that brings me to the author's insistence that at his grim North Midlands grammar school, as a Number 8, he was forced to bind onto the two second rows by sticking his hand between their legs, rubbing past their testicles and grabbing their shirt. At length he describes the homo-erotic nature of this encounter.
My father was a No 8 and at one point in my career, as a just over 35 member of a veterans team where the scrum had an average age of almost 60, I also played across the back row for my (relative) speed. The problem with the Guardian article is that what it says is just not true. A number 8 sticks his head between the two inside legs of the second row players and his shoulders push them forward at buttock level. He will bind by reaching his arms around their waist to grab the shirt. This means he is holding the scrum together and applying forward momentum.
The Guardian binding method would see the No 8 pulling the second rows down and would also prevent them from pushing forward for obvious reasons. And so this is complete fiction. I can only assume that Mr Jeffries is suffering some sort of partial memory loss as he endeavours to re-write a childhood spent in the grim frozen welfare safaris, or possibly that his coach at his North Midlands grammar was a predatory nonce. Or perhaps the Guardian just seeks to give cheap thrills to its many readers who would never have dreamed of playing rugger themselves but rather fancy the idea of a muscular man sticking his thick forearm between their legs?
It is my father who draws my attention to this Guardian article which - as a Number 8 but also, at one brief stage, head of rugby coaching at Eton College -annoyed him greatly. I do not read the Guardian at all and did so on this occassion simply as a service to you dear readers. For it is an appalling publication and I celebrate news yesterday that 100 of its employees are to be fired this week.
As to my father, I would have thought that by now, aged 78, that he would have learned that at the BBC's sister publication, truth is a rare commodity and that every page is bad for the blood pressure. Surely, it is time for one ageing No 8 to come out of the closet and admit it...the Daily Telegraph really is his partner of choice.
First it was Donald Trump who I started warming too. Now it is Lord Howard, the ex Tory leader now a NED at Watchstone, the company once known as Quindell or Quenron. It is true I really am starting to rather like the man.
With Trump it was very much your enemy's enemy is your friend. If the Guardian, C4 News and BBC loathe someone he really can't be all that bad can he?
The Offline Indy is dead. Pampered, patronising journalists are going to be fired. Hip Hip Hooray. Fleet Street is starting to pay the price of its corruption, and face up to unhelpful demographics, operational gearing and the end of subsidy as I explain in this podcast. I pray that the frightful Guardian is next to go.
I despise Donald Trump for many of the things that he has said. I also explian why I believe he will not win the Republican nomination let alone the US General Election. But those who seek to deny him access to the UK are free speech deniers and are wrong. Meanwhile the coverage of this fascist attack on free speech and the 500,000 name petition (and non coverage of another 500,000 name petition) by the BBC and The Guardian and other elements of the press is shameful
I found myself watching the BBC News this week and it was horrible in an Orwellian way. The biased BBC has a clear political agenda and it lies to its viewers by act and omission and by deliberately misleading them. On the public sector vs private sector wage issue the sleight of hand was obscene. On the migrants it just lied. The BBC should be privatized and lets see how many of us will actually pay to watch The Guardian on screen.
Step brother Tom is like all of my family (bar enlightened little step sister Felicity) a Guardian reading lefty and so sends me an article by lunatic global warming evangelist George Monbiot from the rag of choice of public sector workers arguing that Britain is very corrupt. Moonbat makes a couple of points which I agree with but on others he is either wrong or selective. I think Britain is incredibly corrupt but my analysis is rather different to that of Moonbat. And more honest to boot.
Like Lazarus, rising from the dead, Page 3 birds have returned to The Sun. Good. A small minority of the liberal elite who never read the paper anyway attempted to dictate a change of editorial policy. They have failed.
The liberal elite do not like Page three birds. They would not like their daughters showing their tits. But then their daughters go to nice private schools in North London, a good university and have nice respectable careers. A check-out position at Tesco is not their career choice.
The liberal elite are happy to deny the poor the opportunity for financial freedom because the poor are the client state of the liberal left. And while they mouth platitudes about freedom of speech or expression that is only until something is said which they find distasteful.
I find The Guardian objectionable and distasteful. So I do not buy it. But I have no right to stop it publishing opinions on a daily basis which I find loathsome. But then I do not pretend to be part of the liberal left: I actually DO believe in freedom and in allowing those less privileged than I the chance of a better life.
Vive Le Sun. Vive les Page Three Birds. I shall continue not to buy it as it is generally an intolerant rag full of rubbish but I am delighted that it will continue to stay that way.
Back in Bristol and the cats are in disgrace for weeing on the doormat and the temperature is minus something. The Mrs is not sympathetic and I am back in the garage at my desk wearing a thick coat, hugging my heater and still freezing. I suggested to the Mrs that the cats be forced to join me as punishment but she said that would be cruel. And so I suffer alone.
At the tobacconists the Daily Express warns of snowfall across the country and of freezing conditions. I point this out to the Mrs on my return but she thinks this is just right wing propaganda and I must continue to work in the garage.
The Daily Telegraph warns its readers who are elderly (i.e. nearly all of them) to wrap up warm. Up in Shipston in Warwickshire my deluded lefty step mother does not allow the Telegraph in the house and so my father must enjoy it only as a secret pleasure at the White Bear. The paper of choice for my step mother is, needless to say, the Guardian and so she is still preparing for global warming.
In case my father has not made it to the pub yet I have called him urging him to switch the heating on. The normal pattern is that it is not switched on – in order to fight global warming – with my parents trousering the non means tested winter fuel allowance to pay for another luxury cruise which of course does not cause global warming as a dose of warm air in Sheep Street Shipston would.
Not being utterly convinced about this global warming business and noting that there is already snow on the hills, the old man agrees that it might be prudent to turn up the heating a bit. As I tap away in the garage, while the urinating cats are rewarded for bad behaviour by being allowed to lie on the bed with the Mrs in a nice warm house, I think that I am somehow getting a bit of a raw deal.
I was starting to panic. My journey to Greece starts next Wednesday when I leave Bristol and until this morning the passport I ordered a few weeks ago had not arrived. Worse still, when I used the Passport Office auto-tracking forms it appeared that our friends in Cardiff had no record of me at all. But the panic is over, a brand new passport has arrived, with no record of my visits to Israel or the USA and so I could now go to Kurdistan to meet Gulf Keystone (GKP) if I wanted to. I don’t.
And so in a week’s time I must kiss goodbye to the cats and head to London. The Mrs joins me on the 3rd for her birthday. Naturally I shall not reveal which birthday it is. But your clues are that it is a round number, she is younger than me and although I thought she was in her late twenties when she first chatted me up by showing me an interesting article in the Guardian, she appears younger than she is.
I have been panned for criticising Bob Crow who died today. In that vein I apologise for that piece and have amended my original piece with the change in italics. See below.
You are not meant to say bad things about those who have just died…but for fat hypocritical selfish bastards like Bob Crow, the head of the tube driver’s union, the RMT, one can make an exception. Crow died of a heart attack this morning.
Crow lived the high life as a Union boss. He was paid a huge wage and his expenses bill for fine wining and dining was a disgrace. His lifestyle did not exactly show solidarity with the workers.
Moreover under his leadership, the tube drivers have held Londoners to ransom for years, blocking change when change was needed and negotiating wages which are thoroughly unjustifiable. By 2015 a tube driver ( who takes just six weeks to learn his or her trade) will, for a 35 hour week with generous holidays be getting a package worth £52,000 a year. That is just shocking and cannot be justified.
Crow has extracted such a package by regularly holding Londoners to ransom with strike action which causes misery for us all. And then of course he also launched strike action for purely political purposes, often on days when England were playing a soccer match, so the drivers could see the game.
While trousering £150,000 a year plus grotesque expenses Comrade Crow lived in a council house paying a trivial rent. That meant he was even richer and a really poor person was deprived of social housing. In practice, such was the solidarity this fat, selfish, greedy arsehole showed with the working classes. I apologise for omitting this fact from my earlier piece.
Britain is better off without this blackmailing bastard who grew fat thanks to inflicting misery on the rest of us. While his family may miss him and have my sympathies I would be a hypocrite if did not say that I – and 99% of the population – will not miss him at all.
PS I see that uber-scumbag George Galloway is to write a glowing tribute to Comrade Crow in the Guardian later today. That says it all.
Naturally I rather hope that events in the Ukraine do not spiral into World War Three as I rather sense that this really would be the war to end all wars. And everything else. But always seeking solace of a silver lining in every nuclear cloud here are my ten looking on the bright side reasons for cheer.
I do not have to worry about being on the hook for alimony for the next thirty years and any more sniping letters from lawyers.
We can stop panicking about where to house the cats when we go on holiday this summer
I will die vindicated in the belief that all that money the Government spends telling me that smoking will kill me was utterly wasted.
As the planet goes into nuclear winter even the BBC and its sister paper, The Guardian, will stop banging on about global warming caused by man-made carbon emissions.
My debate with the tax man over my 2013 tax return will draw to a close
I will never again have to worry about West Ham getting relegated.
Never again will I have to listen to arsehole England supporters singing “Swing Low” after the old enemy has defeated Ireland.
Roy Hodgson will at last have a credible excuse for England not winning the World Cup.
Nigel Farage will not be appearing on TV every five minutes to warn about how we are being swamped with welfare scrounging immigrants from Eastern Europe.
As we wait for the final close I can scoff the last box of Christmas chocolates and drink a great bottle of Valpolicello that I have been saving without worrying about my blood sugar levels and the long term risks to my health.
It’s easy, I could think of another ten reasons to look on the Bright Side pretty quickly. Naturally I would rather that I did not have to.
Mr Björn Kjellström, the head of the UK office of the European Parliament has written to journalists asking us to remind our readers that most laws made today are made not in Westminster but by the Evil Empire. I am happy to assist Bjorn old boy.
Many on the Euro-poodle wing of the British Press (step forward ghastly old Guardian harridan Polly Toynbee) have for years insisted that most laws are still made in Westminster. Well Polly it looks like even your Evil Empire pals reckon that you were wrong and we Eurosceptics were right all along.
Bjorn states: "Clearly not all citizens are aware that possibly a majority of the laws that have an impact on their daily lives are decided on by MEPs in the European Parliament. That is a democratic problem, and you and other journalists are better placed than anyone to explain what the European Parliament and the European elections are all about."
No Bjorn it is an anti-democratic problem as the EU Parliament just does not reflect the views of most folks in this country.
Anyhow, little people you have been told.
I imagine Bjorn is right now being added to the Christmas card list of Nigel Farage and UKIP
No folks there is no mistake in the headline. And no, I have not been infected with the mad lefty virus following my brief visit to the Socialist benefits paradise that is Wales. You read it here first: The Guardian has on one issue got it bang on the money, the British Chambers of Commerce is just wrong. The issue is youth unemployment.
I start with the pantomime villains, or should that be clowns, that is the small business organisation. Youth unemployment is officially 700,000 with another couple of hundred thousands doing worthless courses at joke new universities so merely postponing the inevitable. The Chambers reckons that the answer is for the Government to spend £100 million bribing small businesses to take on apprentices. Aaaaagh.
There is no Money Tree – we want to cut the deficit don’t we fellows?
A £1000 bribe will simply mean those firms that want to hire will, those who don’t won’t. Taking on a worker new to the workplace is a pain it costs you a lot more in the first few months than £1000 in training and also in accepting that some will not work out and you have to start all over again.
Not everyone can become an apprentice. The reality is that many young folks can only hope to work in unskilled labour. The reality is that they refuse to do so.
And so to the Guardian. It recognises that the real problem is the expectations we have created among young folks. The cold reality is that if you have a 2:1 in cultural studies from a new university or 6 A* GCSE’s those qualifications are not worth the paper they are written on and moreover they do not qualify you to actually be a worker. Getting your hands dirty, being nice to customers and turning up on time are not skills you can learn in academia.
We have created a society that believes it has a “right” to work in a job that suits and a “right” to live on welfare until that job arrives. There is no such right to live off the sweat of others. Work is a way for us to all pay our bills, the reality is that few folks adore their work it is just something you have to do.
Youth unemployment in Britain would be dramatically lower if young Brits were prepared to work in Café Nero or as waitresses at Real Man Pizza Company. They are not and thus all my waitresses are non Brits. All three have degrees (one has two) but they will work hard, will turn up on time, will be nice to customers and will not sit on welfare in Barcelona or Tallinn waiting for the right job. They got off their arses went to London and took work that young Brits refuse to do.
The solution: slash welfare payments and increase the tax threshold to £20,000. Then British youth unemployment would fall sharply and you might just hear an English accent when you order a latte.
The secondary point is that we must stop kidding young people that getting a degree in a liberal arts subject from a “new university” will get them on the ladder to a great career. It will not. God sprinkles out the talents in a random way. Some of us have good looks, some of us have sporting prowess, some of us are intelligent and some are entrepreneurial. This is God’s joke on us. Some of us will not be oil paintings, can’t run fast and are not that bright. For those folks an unskilled job is THE ONLY way forward. It is a cruel aspect of God’s joke but that is the way he operates and of how society operates. The Chambers and others are simply pretending otherwise. It is a cruel pretence.
The Guardian article puts it well. I never thought I would do this but over to Laura Kay:
Recently while working a nine-hour shift in a busy cafe in Sheffield, I jokingly offered a job to a student waiting in the queue who'd remarked on how busy we were. "Oh no," he scoffed, looking embarrassed for me. "I'm over-qualified''. Obviously, because I am a consummate professional and had my hands slightly full with a lowly sandwich, I couldn't run home and grab my master's certificate to shove in his face, or sob incoherently about my dreams and ask why, oh why, hadn't I done dentistry?
In the current climate, it seems that what you're qualified for has much less correlation with what you actually do, as more British people than ever are filling low-skilled jobs, despite what Ukip might tell you. I am qualified to write essays about a very specific period in American history. There is surprisingly little call for this at the moment, or indeed ever, so instead I find myself increasingly proficient in food preparation and trying not to pour coffee over myself. As employment minister Esther McVey helpfully pointed out, us young people have got to be willing to take jobs at Costa Coffee and not just expect to walk into our dream profession. Well, there is no danger of that, not in the north of England during a recession.
In fact, graduates are likely to get a real shock when entering the world of employment, realising those loans weren't just free wine money and that there are thousands of people applying for just 300 jobs at a new Asda. It turns out that minimum wage jobs are actually gold dust.
Many of us who were brave/stupid enough to take arts and humanities degrees during an economic downturn have experienced rudeness at the hands of a certain type of student who looks down on such lower-skilled jobs. This is a student who has just entered the world of higher education and still sees a dreamy, high-flying future ahead of them. That bright future could exist but comes at a much higher price than before. It involves coming home from your paid job and getting out your laptop or sketchbook to start on the work you love and live for but for which no one is willing to pay you.
I have worked on and off at the same sandwich shop while completing internships, short-term contracts and freelance work, ever since finishing my master's in 2012. Although attitudes among graduates are certainly changing, as increasing numbers find themselves working in unexpected environments, there remains a feeling that when you finish university, you'll be different. I know because I thought this too. The real stigma of low-skilled work most often comes in the form of an "it's fine for them but not for me" mentality.
You can have the perfect A-levels, an arts degree from a Russell Group university and all the ambition in the world, but you also have to be willing to put in the graft – and perhaps not in your first choice of career. Graduates need to realise that in this economic climate we have to work twice as hard to get where we want to be. A "graduate job" may no longer be quite what it used to be but it doesn't mean that there isn't work out there. And students should learn to be nice to the people waiting on them – they could be doing the same in three years' time.
I do not understand why my father, the other Tom Winnifrith, puts himself through the torture of reading the Guardian since he admits that it is riddled with factual errors and that its opinions are generally idiotic. I think he does it at home to please my rather politically correct step mother before scuttling off to the White Bear to read the Daily Telegraph at leisure and with pleasure.
But in reading the Grauniad a few weeks ago my father could not help but spot some glaring errors in one of its daily articles lambasting Michael Gove (who naturally has the full support of my father). So my father penned a letter pointing out the basic factual errors in the Guardian diatribe. It goes without saying that the Guardian has neither printed the letter nor corrected the errors. Pravda!
My father’s letter reads:
Dear Sir or Madam,
In deriding the unfortunate Mr Gove Michael Rosen refers to Horatio in Lord Macaulay's poem. There seems a little difficulty about the name. Horatio is Hamlet's friend and the first name of Admiral Nelson of whom like Macaulay Michael Rosen presumably learned at school.
But Macaulay appears to have been studied less thoroughly. His Horatius is not "putting down rebellion" or "hacking away at insubordinate chiefs and their troops" and thus clearly bad like Macaulay putting down the Indian mutiny and those suppressing the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya.
These are Rosen's analogies but are not very accurate ones. Macaulay's Horatius was fighting the Roman tyrant Tarquin and his foreign Etruscan allies. Should he not have done so? And should not Mr Gove be entitled to defend the teaching of facts against the teaching of attitudes which then distort the facts as Michael Rosen has done.
Even the ranks of Guardian readers can scarce forbear to jeer not at Mr Gove but at Michael Rosen.
An early birthday present from Carlton Cole and Mark Noble sees West Ham out of the relegation zone but that will not change the fact that I am today 46, closer to 50 than 40.
I did not expect to be spending this Birthday living in Bristol, married to a Guardian reading Sociology Senior Lecturer or less than 18 months into running a new business. Life is full of surprises.
I have now been working for 25 years and in the old days would now be just 19 years from retirement. For the Mrs – who did a Post Grad - the figures are 16 and 26. So Maybe I shall call it a day at 58 and live off the State (via the Mrs). I suspect not, work is too much fun.
My father’s generation expected to retire at 65. My generation? It might be 58 it might be never. The one thing we do know is that it is not an automatic gold watch at 65.
“Do you want to come to my book launch?” Said the Mrs yesterday – “It is a week on Friday.” “Wow, of course I do” said I, aware that a book she had co-authored had been published but unaware that there was a full launch with free booze and food on offer. But naturally I am very proud of her for being published.
The Mrs insists that partners are invited but has suggested that I take a laptop in case it all gets a bit too much for me and I have to head off to a quiet room. She is, of course, absolutely right. The title of the book (an impressive tome) is Globalization and Work. I looked inside and spotted an early chapter on “Racism experienced by Indian call centre workers”. Hmmm, get the R word in early. I note that one of her co-authors is a Professor of “Women’s Employment.” I think I get the picture.
I rather sense that I will be the only libertarian capitalist present at this launch and that the correct strategy is to say hello as a supportive partner (partner, not husband since I appreciate that is a term associated with patriarchal exploitation) and then make my excuses and head off to tap out a few words of anarcho-capitalism. It is wiser to leave, undisturbed, the other guests to discuss the exciting leader article on how it was all Thatcher’s fault penned by Polly Toynbee in that day’s edition of The Guardian.
I am sure that for many readers of this blog there have been two highlights of the Christmas News Season. The first came from Call Me Dave Cameron who arranged a photo shoot with a foxy blonde lady who was one of the first to use taxpayers cash to buy a flat under the Government’s Help to Buy scheme (also known as lets bribe the fools with their own cash by inflating the housing bubble to win the election scheme).
It has since emerged that this bird (Ms Sharon Ray) did not need taxpayer’s cash at all since she drives a £33,000 sports car. Better still, the Estate Agent who pocketed a handy commission for selling the flat to the foxy bird was in fact the foxy bird herself. Great photo op Call Me Dave and I am delighted that my taxes are going to such a worthy cause.
Only one event trumps this triumph for the heir to Blair and it was the stranding in ice packs of the Russian research vessel Akademik Shokalskiy over Christmas. This ship was carrying 52 passengers (including research scientists and, naturally, reporters from the BBC and its sister paper The Guardian) and was travelling to the Antarctic to investigate how global warming was melting the ice packs.
I would have thought that they would have been more successful had they been trying to find a bunch of Shepherds, three wise men and a virgin in Cardiff City Centre. They would at least have found the shepherds. Antarctic ice is in fact at levels not seen since modern records began - it is growing fast. I know that the computer models on which the bogus science/quack religion of global warming is based predicted otherwise but the hard facts are an inconvenient truth for the global warming nutters.
Sadly for the global warming nutters the ship was not sailing through computer models but in the world of fact and thus it got trapped in the (record) ice on Christmas Eve. As the Guardian and BBC journalists sat down to their Christmas nut-roasts that must have been a bit of a pain. Luckily the passengers were rescued by helicopter (how frigging carbon neutral is that?) shortly after New Year but the ship remained stranded because…
The Chinese ice breaker sent to rescue it, the Xue Long, has now itself got trapped in (record) levels of pack ice. Another inconvenient truth. Clearly time to send in another ship to rescue the rescuers and then the first ship.
And so I offer you this second picture
For this New Year prize caption contest the deadline is Friday at 9 AM and post suitable captions for either picture in the comments section below.
For what it is worth my entries are:
Foxy Estate Parasite is saying “So, Dave you think you may need a new London house in the summer of 2015, I shall start looking.”
Penguin 1: “The man from the Guardian told me that it was all part of an American plot to drill for oil” Penguin 2” Oh, the man from the BBC said it was just Thatcher’s fault”
I am sure that you can do better. Post away… a 50% discount voucher at the New Real Man wine bar venture opening in February for the best entries.
Santa (aka the Mrs, formerly known as the Deluded Lefty) included in my stocking a book called “Chavs” by Owen Jones. The Mrs was not fully aware of quite how loathsome Mr Jones is but surely the fact that at the top of the back cover is a quote from Guardian Harridan Polly Toynbee about how wonderful this book is must have been a giveaway.
And so the book is dreadful. Mr Jones seems to think that quoting the opinion of some frightful lefty establishes what that frightful lefty believes as a matter of fact. That is even when it has been shown that the factual evidence shows that the views of the frightful lefty in question are just not borne out by hard reality.
I can understand when the students of the Mrs (studying sociology at a former Poly) cite the author of the Spirit Level to demonstrate the “fact” that inequality of wealth causes unhappiness all round. They are just 19 and are not a self-proclaimed one-person think tank for the Left. But when Owen Jones makes the same sort of claim you wonder what fuckwit offered to publish his book? Surely it would have been cheaper to have bought a few essays from her students off the Mrs and republished them?
Jones purports to show how the Middle Classes demonise all working class folks as chavs. His solutions to this perceived problem are, needless to say, big state and redistributionist. I rather sense that the world have moved on.
Those members of the working class who actually work would rather pay less tax and want to get on in life. The Middle Class does not despise them at all. But do we despise the feckless welfare-addicted portions of society posing as the “oppressed and despised working class?” We sure do. And what’s more the real working class despises them too.
And in the despisers camp we also despise Middle Class lefties like Master Jones who want to punish us for our hard work to reward the feckless and suggest that our reluctance to go along with the plans is driven by class hatred. Especially when their manifesto is such patent, wining teenage, incoherent tosh.
After his twice interrupted night the good Lord Christopher Patten, chairman of the BBC, was awakened by a gentle kiss on one of his many chins. Then came another and another. “Lavender” he mumbled but awoke to find that the good Lady Patten was still snoring gently beside him.
Instead Chow Mein’s now near senile successor, named - for some reason - by his staff in Hong Kong as Dim Sum, had managed to clamber onto the four poster bed to wish his master a Merry Christmas. Lord Patten took the hint and, after putting on his ermine dressing gown wandered downstairs, eagerly awaiting the delights of Christmas Day, starting with breakfast. Quoting to himself the old Chinese motto “a man who has a solid breakfast is built to grow”, Patten rubbed his tummies and thought hard about the first meal of the day.
Breakfast would, as always, be prepared by his faithful eighty year old manservant Cawkwell. For the good Lord was a man of habit. For him merely a “healthy man sized” portion or two of freshly prepared kedgeree made with line-caught haddock and Tuscan organic eggs from the Toynbee estate, followed by locally produced bread lightly toasted ( as only Cawkwell knew how) covered with Honey flown in from Argentina with a healthy bowl of porridge to finish off.
But Cawkwell, or for that matter his breakfast, was nowhere to be seen and so feeling rather peckish the chairman of the BBC wandered into his study where he had a hidden stash of mince pies. These had been craftily concealed from both Dim Sum and Lady Lavender under a stash of printed emails marked “Saville –URGENT action needed now 2009” which he was planning to start reading after Christmas.
Lord Patten looked at the 14 foot tree, decorated last night by Cawkwell while the family watched carols from Kings but something was not right. Rummaging at the foot of the pine (a present from the Russian state broadcaster to thank the BBC for showing the world how to cover news in a balanced fashion) there seemed lots of presents for Lady L and even a few for Dim Sum but none for himself. “Jeepers” muttered Patten to himself “what the blazes is…”
“Only those who have been good boys get presents from Father Christmas” said a deep voice from behind him and Patten spun faster than one of the 450 good people employed in the BBC public relations and brand enhancement department to see yet another grey figure lolling in the armchair next to his desk.
“Don’t tell me…you are the ghost of Christmases yet to come are you not?” Demanded Lord Patten. “Switch on the Television” said the ghost of Christmases yet to come, for it was indeed he.
Patten obeyed, conscious that the BBCs Christmas homage celebrating the birth of Nelson Mandela was set to start at any minute. BBC One thought Patten but he could not find it. Two? Three? Digital 5? CBBC? They were all nowhere to be found. Instead Patten found himself scrolling through a series of ITV and satellite channels most of which seemed to be run by Rupert Murdoch.
The News channels were leading with a story about how the new BBC Centre at Salford was opening its doors as an all-faith (except Christians) Community forum. Patten shouted angrily “but where is that beloved national treasure the Beeb, where has it gone?”
The ghost replied gravely: “It is 2019 and with no viewers at all the Government tried to privatize it but there were no takers so it was sold to the Guardian last Christmas for £1 to use for tax shelter and it has now closed it down.”
“Cripes” said Patten. “Can it be saved?” The ghost replied: “You could start providing impartial news, high quality content and stop pissing the license fee away on managers and programmes no-one wants, you could apologise for past errors and…”
But at that moment Patten heard the distinct sound of Cawkwell emerging from the Servants quarters and so interrupted the ghost:
“Look old fellow I will commission some consultants to look into it and we will hold a full internal enquiry and all that sort of thing but my tummy is rumbling and brekkie is on the way so can you be a good chap and just bugger off.”
I am yet to enjoy my formal interview at the local Conservative Club or indeed to find out whether they have fixed the Wi-Fi yet. But with snow forecast the Mrs may well have to grit her teeth again and visit the only boozer which is not down at the bottom of a slippery big hill.
The Mrs is convinced that the blue lights now in the windows of the Club (pictured below) are some sort of political statement. As a BBC watching Guardian reader she might have forgotten that Christmas was on its way. If course she has not! Only kidding.
My father (a deluded lefty) has already decided that faced with cheap beer and a short walk or expensive beer and a long walk he is quite willing to throw principle to the wind when visiting. But then if you have spent the past few years drinking at the White Bear with David Mills (Silvio Berlusconi’s friend and once again Tessa Jowell’s husband now that the old bag is quitting front line politics) you will drink with anybody.
Anyhow, are there any suitable captions for the picture of “my club” below
My effort is:
“The Mrs and her Guardian reading friends take a right turn and are horrified to find themselves in the same room as……members of the working classes”
Post your captions in the comments section below by next weekend. Jon Pickles, I bet you cannot get Prince Harry into this one!
Last week I asked for captions to this picture
And the joint winners are:
HappyTrucker::Can the members of the House of Commons please bring their pay rise back to mid ship please.
And, with one that stockmarket anoraks like me can really appreciate:
Marab (Bulletin Board genius of the year): It's never too late for a SEDA
a) Because Theresa May has cracked down on the UK’s insane asylum laws and so there is no problem
b) Becuase you have not read the sane Sunday press
c) Because you read the Guardian/Observer/Independent and think that our immigration/legal aid/welfare system is an unmitigated blessing so have not been told about Jumaa?
Ok, to the chase: Jumaa arrived in the UK illegally in 2004 in the back of a lorry. He cannot speak proper English. He has never worked. He has always lived on benefits. And he raped a 13 year old girl and two other minors. He is a paedophile.
So is the UK:
a) putting him in prison for a long time and then sending him back to Sudan because Theresa May has cracked down on the UK’s insane asylum laws? b) Sending him straight back to Sudan? c) having jailed him for just two years it is now paying him vast amounts of compensation for keeping him in prison longer as we tried to deport him and thus infringing his human rights?
Guess what? It is c. No kidding. Apparently Jumaa has cost the British taxpayer £350,000 since are arrived here. And Theresa May is useless. Well that second item won’t be news to you.
In honour of this case I ask you for captions to the picture below. Please post your entries in the comments section.
For what it is worth my caption is:
Idi takes a time machine and arrives in the UK in 2013 and Theresa May welcomes him saying: “Mr. Amin, we appreciate that if we sent you back to Uganda you would be persecuted for your cannibalism and so to protect your human rights please stay in Britain…now where would you like us to put you up?”
Last week I asked you for captions to this picture
The winner came via twitter from Peter McBride with:
I wonder if I could franchise the other lapel...?
Balir to a T. well done Peter.
I look forward to seeing the Amin capitions in the comments section below by Friday.
The highlight of the week was Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee, possibly the most annoying and stupid woman alive today, blaming the 2007 death of Baby P on the wicked Tories. I am sure you can spot the flaw in that pathetic smear.
With that in mind I have arrived in the Grim North, where Labour likes to keep folk poor so that they still support the People’s Party, for a weekend with the in-laws. It has rained solidly since we passed passport control in Leicestershire and so I have not ventured out to check out the poverty porn in great detail. But I guess that all those folks whose welfare payments won’t stretch to buying shoes will be feeling pretty cold, wet and miserable as they troop off to the local to blame everything on Thatcher and the bankers.
Since I am assured that no-one up here bothers getting up before midday I shall pop out tomorrow to have a look around. But in this vein, for this week’s caption contest I ask you to supply a witty few words for the picture below.
For what it is worth my own effort is: “Polly Toynbee explains that not only were the wicked Tories responsible for Baby P’s Death in 2007 but it was Thatcher who created the slums of Victorian England.”
Please post your entries in the comments section below.
Last week I asked you for captions to this picture
Though not funny, Happy Trucker gets 10 out of 10 for factual accuracy with this attempt:
The BBC new slogan. "Proud to be the only establishment able to waste more taxpayers money then the Government without going to war
And so the royal baby is born and I wonder do I really care? Do I understand the hysteria? I have to admit that I just cannot make up my mind on the monarchy although I respect the Old Queen greatly. But more on Peter Tatchell later.
As a meritocrat I can see no earthly reason why I should believe in monarchy. It is an anachronism. However when I consider who we would have had as a head of state had there been no monarch I quickly get out the bunting and start singing God Save The Queen. President Heath? President Kinnock? President Wicked Witch? I will stick with the current set up thank you.
If I am in any doubt as to where I stand I simply look at the terrible deluded and embittered lefties wheeled out by the BBC and The Guardian to celebrate the Royal Birth by saying we should abolish the monarchy. If Polly Toynbee et al stand for one thing then I just know that it is right to hold an opposing view.
As such I suppose that I am a Monarchist by default but that does not make me a terribly enthusiastic one. Peter Tatchell who is a republican tweeted yesterday that “The Royal Baby is one of thousands born the same day. Too much fuss. But good wishes to baby & parents” I take a pretty similar line.
But I note that unlike many on the left Tatchell shows a bit of decent humanity in his tweet. Good for him. While some on the left cannot hide their hatred for the Royals, Tatch recognizes that William and Kate are human beings going through the same emotions as any other couple facing childbirth.
On a whole range of views the gay rights campaigner is absolutely bonkers on a scale that makes Polly Toynbee seem almost sane. But for the way that he supports free speech even where he disagrees violently with what is being said (in a way that many on the left do not), for his incredibly brave campaigning on gay rights issues in places where homosexuals face real persecution (which has seen Tatch beaten up horribly over the years, so much that his body is broken), and for his basic sense of humanity, I am a great admirer of Tatchell.
I follow him on twitter, thankful that he has never had the power to implement some of his more ridiculous ideas but grateful that he is there as a constant force for change and spur to the collective conscience. Long live the Queen. In this context: both of them.
My comrade Brokerman Dan urges me to read an article in The Guardian about “The hidden Greece – the Cyclades” There are a number of reasons why I shall not do that. And the main one is that this is not the Real Hidden Greece
There is of course the obvious point that anything in the Guardian is by definition rubbish. I cannot think what a sensible fellow like Dan is doing polluting his mind in this way. But then there is the corruption of travel writing. The economics of travel supplements are thus:
1. Journalists are often flown out by a Tourist board to be taking on a lovely jolly. It is not in their interests to write bad things or they will get few invites so they usually write sycophantic crap.
2. Supplements make money by selling adverts. Any region which has a stack of people able to afford to advertise in the Guardian is by definition not hidden but developed.
As it happens the Cyclades are well work tourist destinations. So how about this as a “hidden Greece” trip:
Fly cheapo Easyjet to Corfu and get a bus (with ferry trip) ticket to Ioannina in Northern Greece where you hire a car and drive towards Arta (50 miles away). The road takes you through the mountains and your first stop is the Loutos Springs. These were one of many entrances to Hades and are the source of the stunning Loutos river which tumbles through the gorge as you drive down to Arta.
Next stop – Dodoni – a religious site started 2,600 BC where there is an amphitheatre (from much later) and many spending buildings remaining, totally ignored by the tourist.
After that a couple of days fishing for trout in the Loutos. As you then head towards Arta I spotted a semi-ruined Byzantine Church (6th Century?) – I know nothing of it but would like to investigate more. The area is dotted with such churches and monasteries. And finally to Arta and its splendid bridge (see here).
Give me a free week and I would be relaxed, stimulated and untroubled by other tourists. Perhaps the Ioannina Tourist Board would like to fix this up for me?
Over on the ADVFN Sefton thread it appears that one or two folks have a few bad things to say today about Jim Ellerton and Sefton Resources (SER) following Brokerman Dan’s shocking new revelations (which you can read here) and my own expose which you can read here.
But Sefton has its defenders. Jellyman 2 lashes out at one critic with this post:
To have contempt for je and sefton is fine, IF you are a holder and are loosing ££££'s. But to spout bollox and ridicule people for losing money shows what small minded, lowlife animal fuckers you really are!!!!!! and all because your gay lovers bmd and tw ARE too SCARED to post here.
Cripes. I think I am pretty open minded when it comes to sex. My partner is after all from the Grim North and is a Guardian reader. I mean how frigging tolerant does that make me?
But a gay threesome involving Dan Levi and some unnamed BB poster? Dan is a very nice fellow but there are limits to my metrosexual liberal open mindedness.
But what is it with BB Morons that they think that being gay is some sort of word of abuse? You will remember that some other BB Moron insisted that I spent my life in gay bath-houses (I have never been to one in my life, for the avoidance of doubt).
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It is not an insult. It is not something to be ashamed of. Now outing yourself as a Sefton shareholder on the other hand… yuk. But I suppose Sefton shareholders are adults who have consented to being financially buggered. If that’s what floats their boat…
I am not bright enough to understand exactly what the post entails but my deluded lefty partner had an interview on Monday and has secured a new job. Well sort of. She keeps half her old job and job shares on half a new job at the same institution of learning,
I did read the job description carefully but really cannot figure what it is all about but she is excited so I am happy for her and proud of her. I think the post is something to do with global citizenship awareness. Whatever.
Her existing line manager tried to suggest that it was not worth bagging the extra money because "what with a 40% tax rate and all of that it did not amount to much". One deluded lefty to another: “a high marginal tax rate discourages the drive to work hard, to get ahead and to be more productive.” Spot on.
Shall I send both the DL and her line manager an application for to join a political party that believes in lower taxes and details of how they can read the Mail online? Do they now accept that the Guardian and the party of Miliband just do not understand how an efficient and successful economy works?
For both her Damascene conversion to real world economics and for her new posting it is very well done to the deluded Lefty bird who should be arriving here in Greece in just over 60 hours’ time. I cannot wait.
I am terrified of falling asleep lest I wake up to discover that I have missed my 5.30 AM flight. But having said that I wish I was asleep if only to block out the sheer horror that is Gatwick Airport North Terminal.
Everything bar Costa Coffee is shut. If I have another one of its overpriced cups of poison I shall explode. The free newspaper it hands out is the Independent which these days is almost as unbearable as The Guardian.
It is a 600 yard walk to the nearest smoking zone (a tiny shelter which can fit about 12 people and appears to serve an entire terminal).
I can amuse myself by writing offensive articles for only so long. My next excitement is at 3.30 when the check in desk opens. Just 1 hour and 6 minutes to go. I might just have a cigarette as a treat in 33 minutes time, if only to give me something to look forward to.
And so this week George Osborne laid out his plans for how the Government will spend money it does not have over the next few years. The reactions were sadly predictable and the truth is, my friends, that they are all lying.
On the right there was praise for canny George who so cleverly snookered New Labour with populist pledges about tackling welfare scroungers and who is clearly a safe pair of hands to act as custodian of the nation’s finances. Middle England and the Bond markets are meant to be reassured.
On the left the BBC, its sister paper The Guardian and other associated loons continued the post 2010 narrative of wicked Tory cuts, back to the 1930s, blah, blah, blah.
Both sides are lying although it seems that the BBC/Guardian agenda has won as most folks do actually think that Government spending is being cut. It is not. In 2009-2010 (Labour’s last year in power), public expenditure was £671 billion. In 2015-16, according to the Chancellor’s figures it will be £745 billion. And George has form in getting his sums wrong so if I was offered a spread bet at £744-46 billion I’d be a big buyer. In absolute terms Government spending has risen year on year since 2010 with new records set each time. In inflation adjusted terms Government spending is down by less than 1%.
Of course some folks believe in the Money Tree. We, my friends, know that it does not exist. How has this Government largesse been funded? By issuing more debt. Government borrowing (ignoring off balance sheet items like PFI, bank bailouts and student loans that are bound to default) will have increased from c£1000 billion when Labour left office to £1,500 billion by the time of the next election. You thought Gordon Brown was useless? George Osborne is presiding over the largest increase in Government debts in history!
Of course there have been cuts. But the big cost-centres of Government: the NHS, Education and of course welfare and pensions have just carried on lapping up the fruits of the money tree. Osborne proposes minor tinkerings in 18 months’ time but he is nowhere close to closing the deficit as he promised he would do. And as the cost of borrowing increases ( as it must) the cost of servicing that ever greater debt will start to ramp up big time and eat into any trivial savings that pathetic George might be planning.
At some stage the bond markets (if not Middle England or the Guardian/BBC axis of evil) will wake up to the appalling state of the UK’s finances. It is happening already. At current rates by 2020 the UK Debt to GDP ratios will be close to where Greece was just before the balloons started to go up.
Yet still the left bleats on about wicked Tory cuts and the right thinks that cuts are being made. Truly some folks here in Bankrupt Britain live in a parallel universe.
The massively loss making Guardian Newspaper has now opened a (massively loss making) coffee shop in trendy Spitalfields cum Shoreditch. You can view webcontent there - The Guardian only natch. And sip away on fair trade coffee with your fellow members of the deluded lefty middle class. The mousemats have the Guardian logo as does the wallpaper.
At last I know that when I die where I will go. Dante's Inferno has nothing on this. I shall clearly spend eternity having to drink fair trade coffee with deluded folk tutting in sympathy as they read Polly Toynbee's latest outpourings. There would be nothing else to read forever...just the Guardian.
In this trendy neighbourhood the streets were buzzing. Everywhere was packed. Everywhere but....the Guardian coffee shop where I counted seven customers of whom one was less than one years old and so merely a victim of parental abuse. Natch I did not go inside to hand over any of my wicked capitalist dosh but stood outside to pay due respect.
I’d never buy The Independent. It is a sorry rag produced by folks at the heart of the Westminster media liberal bubble for an audience of public sector employed middle class deluded lefties. It is almost as loathsome as the Guardian. But the bloke in front of me on the plane is reading it and so I cannot but help marvel at its coverage of the Islamofascist atrocity in Woolwich.
The real victims? Natch it is Britain’s Muslim community “forced” to condemn the attack. No-one is forcing anyone to do anything but it strikes me that if leaders of a particular community find it hard to condemn what was a despicable act there is something badly wrong. It should be a natural reaction to condemn what happened. But heck we all know who the real victims have to be in liberal la la land. Forget the poor bloke hacked to death it is the entire Muslim community.
Nothing sums up how out of touch the liberal media classes are with the rest of us than a small diary story which notes that after News at Ten covered the attack the next commercial break featured an Army recruitment ad. The paper somehow thinks this was unfortunate and will not play well with potential recruits. But then it is not nice middle class Guardian/Indy reading lads who ever sign up to fight for their country. Most of the time such young men seem to support “the other side” or to believe that concepts of Country ( as opposed to EU Super state) are just terribly passé.
I would sense that among the portions of society who normally supply recruits to the army the determination not to be beaten by an evil enemy will have seen an increase in the number prepared to sign up to fight for Queen & Country.
For once I spent my Greek holiday not on the mainland but on an Island. It is not something I plan to make a habit of for reasons that I shall admit to – I guess that I am just an unreconstructed snob. It all started at Gatwick airport last weekend as I waited with my partner in the departure lounge for a flight to Zakynthos. As I surveyed my fellow passengers I noticed a large number who were young, had large numbers of tattoos and various bits of their body pierced, seemed to use the F word in every other sentence and who were loudly discussing how they were going for “the season.” My heart sank.
By the time the flight was passing over Dover my fellow passengers were already drinking. My heart sank some more.
And so to Zakynthos. My partner had cleverly arranged a taxi from the airport to a little place called Keri beach which had almost no houses and just a couple of tavernas and a couple of bars and being not yet “in season” it was more or less empty. It has another advantage. It is a place frequented by the Germans, Swiss and Scandinavians and not the British. And so we had a great time.
Keri was actually a strip of land between the sea and a freshwater lake. But between 1956 and 1972 the lake was the site of oil production and the wicked Yankee oilmen do not seem to have cleared up terribly well. As such the lake is now a brackish reed bed into which oil now seeps. Nature has adapted to this and the wildlife is varied and splendid and I would recommend the Pansion Limni (www.pansionlimni.com) run by the charming Martha to anyone. We ate wonderful vegetables from her garden and fresh fish from the sea and if we ate out it was standard but decent Greek fare.
In the bay is an island known generally as Turtle Island. It looks like a Turtle and that is where Turltes breed. I have actually seen Turtles copulating in the Galapagos and it is quite a sight. Perhaps I should not go into details. Actually the real name of the island is based on the Greek for wild dill which grows in abundance there
But back to the Brits. They were ALL heading for Laganas Beach. In a spirit of voyeurism my partner and I popped over to see it one evening. Being pre-season nothing was open but the shops and bars and cafes told us all we needed to know. The food is aimed at the English. The booze is cheap and plentiful. There are tattoo parlours a plenty. The accommodation cheap and cheerful. In short Laganas beach could be transplanted anywhere in the world, there is nothing remotely Greek about the place at all. And in a few weeks’ time it will be packed almost exclusively with Brits there to get absolutely shit-faced every night, to eat utter crap and if possible have sex with a drunken stranger.
The reputation of the English throughout the Greek islands is terrible. A nice German couple at Limni asked Martha if they could hire some motorbikes. “Don’t. The English hire bikes and get drunk – you are risking your lives.” As a nation, on the Greek Islands were are not associated with Lord Byron and the great classical scholars or even with earnest middle class tourists keen to see the wonders of the Ancient world but instead, 100% with Laganas beach behaviour and worse.
My partner – being a deluded lefty - has to be pushed to admit that she feels a bit superior to our compatriots at Laganas beach. I have no such qualms. The widespread acceptance of drunk driving, street brawls and worse seems to me pretty despicable. And it seems to me that to go on holiday and then behave exactly as you would on a Friday night back home but more so seems terribly dull. Surely folks have some element of their brain that wishes to learn about another culture? It appears not. And so does meeting such folk bring out the snob in me? Yes.
I know that I should not feel superior to these people and there is a bit of guilt that I feel as I look at their tattoos and wince. As such life is so much simpler for me if I stick to the mainland of Greece. Head off to Delphi or Mycenae and a) I am doing what I enjoy and b) I can do so in the happy knowledge that I will just not be encountering “those sort of English people.”
PS My partner has asked me to remove the word deluded in my description of her. That is the thing about lefties, they do not understand that they are all deluded. Maybe not having read the Guardian for more than a week she is suffering withdrawal symptoms and needs to mainline a bit of delusion to calm her down? He wrote patronisingly.
Romany Blythe ( pictured) is my age, 45, and her 15 minutes of fame have arrived thanks to her organising parties to celebrate the death of Margaret Thatcher. That in itself is horrible. But to understand why Romany is such a nasty piece of work look at the story of her adult life.
There is the fact that although she had a well-paid job as a teacher Islington Council gave her a council flat in a pleasant house – a nice mid terrace Victorian job. She took it. She earned more than my staff but they cannot get such housing as they are not defined as “key workers” – they are just scum from the private sector. We shall see how “key” Ms. Blythe is later.
In June 2006 Miss Blythe bought the leasehold of that flat from Islington Council for £141,000. To fork out that much she must have been earning a bob or two. So why the f**k did she get a Council flat in the first place? Just four years later she sold the North London property for £298,000. If she had sold it within three years she would have had to repay some cash to the council. Again she took.
A few years earlier Miss Blythe had a boob job on the NHS, again she took.
And now with her new (large) boobs and the money she trousered from the council flat sale she works as a drama teacher with a workshop company that is paid by daft local councils to visit secondary schools. She specialises in ‘facilitating workshops for young, excluded and potentially criminalised individuals and uses drama techniques she has developed to explore resolution of conflict and oppression.’ Sounds a bit different to the three Rs. Basically she poisons the minds of the young and fills their head with crap and the State pays her to do this. She takes again.
This ghastly creature has never generated a cent in wealth for society. She is the sort who believes that the “money tree” can fund a society where all have rights and no-one (except wicked bankers, evil Tories, disgusting capitalists, etc.) has obligations. She is the pin up girl for the parasite class.
The Romany Blythe’s of this world, Guardian reading members of the middle classes are tied at the hip to the Heather Frost’s – the trash who live as pure welfare parasites from cradle to grave. Both classes have continued to grow in size under this coalition leaving ever fewer folks out there to create the wealth and generate the taxes to pay for it all. Those who are treated most unfairly in this brave New World are the poor who work and pay tax. They fund folks who do not work ( or who do crap non jobs like Romany) and who then get so much in state hand-outs that they can live in better houses/have a greater disposable income etc. than the workers who pick up the tab.
Margaret Thatcher understood the inequity of this. The heir to Blair, Call Me Dave just does not get it.
I am still completely wiped out. It is incredibly draining doing presentation after presentation and half way through the post event celebrations I fell asleep (ok I had enjoyed a few drinks as well) but I still feel utterly drained. And so once I have ruined a few other weekends by breaking news of a planning oil company merger involving a well-known name I think I am off to sleep again.
Thanks for the many emails from folks who said that they enjoyed the show. On balance so did I. I thought that the talks were more interesting than for many a year. They have been put on video and so will start to go up from Tuesday in a variety of places. But suffice to say you should register now at www.shareprophets.com to catch many of them.
The location was not ideal. Not least that in order to feed my addiction I had to scrounge a spare packet of Marlboro Light from David Lenigas who had thoughtfully come well supplied. But ADVFN and I know enough now and the show was a success and so we are now planning for UKInvestor 2014. Watch this space – we will announce the date soon.
Highlights for me?
The young man who now writes tips appearing disguised in dark glasses to gain entry (not having booked a ticket). When spotted by Steve Moore, he claimed that he was at Excel to go to the International Cake show down the hall and made a swift exit.
Nick Leslau and Nigel Wray – optimistic about the UK economy and as a double act far more powerful than as individuals. A lot of wisdom was shared by the pair.
Losing the debate with Richard Poulden once again. I am now 3-2 down but I really will try to do slides next year and stage a comeback.
Mark Slater. The obligatory dirty joke but the quality of his analysis of the markets and of individual stocks (three of which have been tipped by myself and Steve) was incredible.
Nigel Farage – unscripted, lucid, funny and on most issues bang on the money. I had a good chat with him and Chris Booker after the event and he is a very funny and pleasant chap. C Booker’s Thatcher tribute was bang on the money and nailed a number of leftie canards.
Above all I really enjoyed meeting so many of you who attended (particularly, I should say, David from Oxford). Thanks for all the kind words and I hope that you enjoyed the day. On stage I had more fun than I have had for years. I can say what I like these days and I feel like a weight has been lifted from my shoulders. I actually enjoyed the day in a way that I have not enjoyed MI days for a long time. With the speakers, stand holders and the audience I felt far more at home than I can remember being for years.
The home team from RMPC & ADVFN staging our first show should be thanked, notably John W, Clem, Fiona and especially Mike Hodges and from our side Darren, Nigel, Sarah, Steve, Robert Sutherland Smith and Martha. It was their first run at this, the second time is always easier.
So thank you to all who attended. ADVFN and RMPC starts work on Monday on UK Investor 2014 which will be bigger and different. I hope to see even more of you there then.
PS I should mention one other highlight. The after show pool games. I defeated Andrew Bell of Red Rock. Zak Mir fluked a victory against me. And then it was the final: The UKIP volunteers against myself & Zak. They had been trying to persuade Zak to sign up to UKIP although he is obviously a bit too right wing for them. And so with the prize being that if Zak and I won they would allow him to become the party’s immigration spokesman (Zak’s views are unprintably stern on this matter, making Evil seem like a total Guardian reader) we played. The bad news for UKIP is that Zak and I won.
Unrepentant murderer Gerry Adams. Friend of extremists everywhere Ken Livingston. Friend of extremists everywhere and Cypriot property developer Derek Hatton. Workshy welfare funded scroungers having street parties in Brixton and Glasgow. Students at the NUS conference too young to remember Britain in 1979 (or even 1989) and too stupid and lazy to do their homework. Fat cat overpaid officials with unions with no members. Low-life MP (and friend of extremists everywhere) George Galloway. The Guardian Newspaper.
There will no doubt be wild celebrations in parts of Islington, Bristol and bastions of the Guardian reading Middle Classes tonight. After a long illness. Margaret Thatcher has died of a stroke today. This death will divide the nation.
I am watching the BBC’s coverage and it ignores her achievements totally. It is spiteful and worthless reporting. The left will blame her for all sorts of matters and will delight in her demise. Already I see tweets saying “the witch is dead.” Expect a torrent of tasteless and unpleasant comments and myth perpetuation over the coming days. Thatcher had that effect – she polarized opinion.
That the left hated her with such a passion was down to the fact that she delivered so much of what the left claims as its own ground. And so the left claims to represent “women” but Thatcher showed that a woman could rise to the top based on ability and without positive discrimination. The left claims to look after the poor. But whereas Milliband, Brown, Blair etc are all solidly working class, it is the Tories who have delivered the leaders from truly humble origins (Heath, Major and above all Thatcher).
The left keeps its client state poor. Thatcher gave opportunity to that client state to get a better life: to earn more based on work and ,merit by breaking Union power and abolishing collective bargaining; to own their own home via council house sales, to save more by cutting taxes. That was revolutionary and Britain needed a revolution because in 1979 after the Winter of Discontent, Margaret Thatcher took control of a country on its knees: bankrupt and with no sense of national pride. Thatcher faced opposition from a left determined to keep the poor poor and from patrician Tories who did not wish to upset the status quo. Bravely she drove through change in society by ensuring that the State did less not more.
She was not always right. In her early career it was she who did away with large numbers of grammar schools. I suspect she regretted that. She did not stand up to Mugabe in his early years when the mad old kook could have been stopped. Again, I sense that she regretted that. But on the big calls Maggie was right and that is why the Left cannot abide her.
All those Guardian readers celebrating today were, if my age or older, proudly wearing CND badges and trooping off to Greenham during the cold war. Folks like Tony Blair, Paddy Pantsdown and Baroness Ashton may pretend otherwise but the lefties were wrong about how to win the Cold War while Maggie Thatcher and Ronald Regan were right. Many of those same lefties would have caved into the Argies in 1982. Thatcher stood firm, although some of those around her wobbled. For her it was a matter of principle. Thatcher was right about the ERM and the Euro. She was branded an out of touch nationalist for her views but her views were based on pure economics and she was once again right. She was right. The deluded lefties were wrong. History is on squarely her side.
In parts of the North they say that they cannot forgive her for closing the coal mines and other State subsidised rust belt industries. But the same folk lambast today’s politicians for bailing out the banks. Thatcher understood that there is no such thing as the Government’s cash. There is money paid over by the taxpayer and that cash cannot be wasted. Subsidising an industry which just cannot make a profit, whatever the industry is waste. It is taking money from those who are creating wealth and paying it to others who are not. Whether the recipients are bankers or miners Thatcher understood that such an action was wrong.
Today’s conservatives do not dare cut Government spending or taxes or foreign aid because they are afraid of being confrontational. They have forgotten what principle means. Thatcher never forgot principle and based every decision about it.
Margaret Thatcher was without doubt the bravest politician of the 20th century. She was without doubt the most principled politician of our lifetime. She was a truly amazing woman. And she was right about almost everything.
To celebrate any death shows that you have no heart. We should pity those who celebrate the passing of Margaret Thatcher. This woman shaped the lives of a generation. She saved the UK from the bankruptcy and humiliation of the 1970s. She engineered a renaissance of Britain which all of her successors have done their best to dissipate.
Our greatest leader, Margaret Thatcher 1925-2013 RIP
I am not sure how I stumbled across this but it is a very funny political comedy video from the US. And most of it applies very much to the UK as well. If you have ever had an argument with a Guardian reader you will know what I mean
And so I found my way to Oxford on Saturday to a party at the house of my sister Naomi to celebrate the 25th Wedding Anniversary of my father and step mother and also my father’s 75th birthday next week. My father and step mother are actually second cousins and eons ago when she was an undergraduate at Oxford and he a post graduate he took her to the Opera as a cousin-friendly gesture. 26 years ago they met for the first time in 20 years at the wedding of another mutual cousin. He took her to the opera again and within nine months they were getting married in Malmesbury, Wiltshire.
It was a lovely sunny and warm March day. Ireland won a six nations match that day and I mentioned that in my best man’s speech. After 25 years of global warming we gathered to celebrate that day as the snow fell heavily in Oxford. It was my father and Helen’s oldest friends (a group he refers to as the Coffin Dodgers) plus my sisters (and husbands) and my step sisters and brother, young Tom. I am middle Tom. My father is big Tom.
I was banned from mentioning certain subjects in a gathering where I suspect myself and step sister Flea (pictured below) were the only non-Guardian readers.
It was a deluded lefty hothouse. And so I bit my lip and did not say to everyone how many inches of global warming was falling in the garden or raise any other controversial issues like, er… everything I believe in. And so conversation was largely about non-controversial matters such as the new slide-rule that brother in law Nils had bought himself as a present and which seemed to fascinate him and young Tom. Given that it was poor Nils who received for Christmas a year’s membership of the Labour party from his wife (my sister Naomi) I guess a slide rule is a notch up on the excitement scale.
I am too young to have used such a device but apparently you can get instruction manuals very easily…on the internet and it is odd to think of folks using such a device in the pre-calculator age but also that the only way a new generation can understand how such a device works is by using the same technology that killed it off in the first place.
So no fights and a lovely day. Happy anniversary to my father and his uber deluded leftie but otherwise utterly commendable wife Helen.
Yesterday evening as I finished my work with my prime lawyer, I tried to restart my old friend. It just refused. It is now an ex-Computer. And I now tap away on a new machine. It uses Windows 8 which is bloody annoying and I keep being directed to screens in which I have no interest at all. I am even being encouraged by it to read articles from the frigging Guardian.
I am sure that I will get used to it but pro tem work is painfully slow. For that reason and for the day wasted by Sefton there is no midweek Tomograph this week. Normal service will resume at the weekend.
Austerity is for other people. Overpaid workers on generous pension schemes with long holidays and absenteeism rates you would never see in the private sector working in an inefficient way do not think that they have to suffer with the rest of us. Yup, staff at paedo central, the biased BBC are on strike today protesting about redundancies. This is an organisation that can often send three different news teams (radio, national TV and regional TV) to cover the same event but the bleating journalists say that paring back the payroll will compromise quality. Yeah …right.
So how has it affected your life today? For me:
1. Had I felt a craving for biased news coverage explaining all about wicked Tory cuts I would have been forced to go and buy a copy of the BBC’s sister publication the Guardian. Somehow I felt no such craving.
2. Had I tuned in I would have had to suffer even more repeats than normal. Again I resisted the urge.
3. Stephen Fry still appeared on about 90% of the programming it is just that some of those shows were repeats. The witty asides about 50 shades of lubricating jelly were probably no funnier the second time around.
4. Had I wanted my daily seven fixes of Polly Toynbee appearing on various BBC shows on various channels explaining how the Tories were so beastly to her comrades in the working classes I would have been disappointed as she showed solidarity by staying away from the BBC today. Since no other channel will give the old haridan airtime we have had a Toynbee free day on the small screen. I cannot say that I or the small screen was any the poorer for that.
On balance, why doesn’t the BBC just make all its staff redundant, save the taxpayer £4 billion a year and life can go on like this forever?
Imagine what the BBC or its sister paper The Guardian would say if a Tory or UKIP politician was seen next to a t-shirt looking forward to the death of an icon of the left: Tony Benn, Dennis Healey or perhaps Nelson Mandela. There would be immediate calls for resignations and public grovelling.
For those of us on the right, our iconic figure is Margaret Thatcher yet it is deemed perfectly acceptable in some quarters to look forward to her demise. The Labour candidate in the Eastleigh by-election has (shamefully) admitted that he was sorry that the IRA did not kill her in the Brighton bomb. And so this little snap of Labour leader Ed Miliband posing with a Labour supporter emerges.
Ed, I believe in free speech so this dickhead can wear what he likes. But just to clarify matters for me: do you look forward to the death of our greatest ever Prime Minister? Do you believe that those who admit to doing so publically have a place in the Labour party? Easy questions.
A twitpic is being sent out this morning by these wankers of the left @occupylocalgovernment – “ Poundland macht frei”
Arbeit macht frei was the sign above the doors of Auschwitz. More than a million Jews, gays and lefties were sent there either to be killed or to work as slaves until they died.
Poundland is a reference to Caitt Reilly, the geology student who thinks she has a right to sit on her fat arse on benefits until she finds a job of choice. The Government thought it better she work for benefits ( at Poundland) as this was a) fair and b) made her more her more employable ( she now has a job at Morrison’s. She was no slave, She did not face death. She was not persecuted on grounds of beliefs, sexual orientation or religion.
That @occupylocalgovernment believes that lardarses can sit on welfare declining jobs they do not like is their call. I disagree but believe in free speech. But to trivialise what happened at Auschwitz in this way is beneath contempt and show these folks for what they are: Vile loathsome bigots of the left.
If a Tory or UKIP official used Auschwitz imagery to make a political point the Guardian, the BBC and the left would be baying for blood. But for deluded lefties this is just seen by the bien pensants as clever artwork. I see it as the loathsome and offensive work of bigots with time on their hands.
My attention is drawn to a new website designed to assist those who read The Guardian and are stuck for suitable comments to post in its online section. This is obviously not a problem I’d ever face for two reasons but for the deluded middle class lefties in my family ( ie everyone bar myself and little step sister Kitty, I mean Flea) it could be invaluable. I offer you the first three random generated comments I got as a taster of what is on offer:
My holiday home in Provence is hardly a luxury! Why are the cis-sexual backlash movement intent on oppressing my right to fair-trade cocoa? Free Gaza now!
I was just the other day updating my blogroll on my iPad 4 when I realised. I would rather vote for the BNP than let my three year old eat anything sold in Asda! Unless we send out a clear message to the Bob Diamonds and Howard Schultz’s of this world they will never learn.
We were chatting over a coffee, simple filter, not Nescafe (baby-killers) and started to think out loud. The salt-of-the-earth type jobs some of my primary school classmates ended up in just don’t exist any more. It’s time for the working class to fight back
An excited email arrives from my deluded lefty step mother Helen (sister of Tory Toff Sir George Young) – Stratford Council in Warwickshire has tonight thrown out plans for a big Tesco on the edge of Shipston-on-Stour. The unholy alliance of deluded Middle class lefties and the Tory Toffs has won.
And so there will no new jobs created for the plebs on the council estates. The residents of Shipston will continue to be served by two Co-ops that are not that cheap and have a limited choice as well as by the two butchers where the Tory Toffs and my dad can buy pheasant, quail, expensive lamb and pork and not care about paying over the odds because they can afford it. The plebs who were hoping for a place to get a wide choice of cheap Turkey twizzlers will be disappointed.
So no jobs and no choice of cheap turkey twizzlers for the plebs. No planning gain which would have created some affordable and rented housing for the plebs. The articulate middle class lefties and Tory Toffs have won the debate and can still choose which butcher to buy their quail from and life goes on. The Tory Toffs are naturally wicked and hate the poor. We all know that. The deluded Middle class lefties are tonight celebrating preserving the “community” and “diversity” of this small market town. But it is a community that many folks are financially excluded from. It is a diversity the plebs cannot afford to enjoy.
It has made my step mother very happy. That makes me happy. But it was the wrong result for those at the bottom of the heap. Capitalism could have assisted them. When capitalism is blocked to preserve the vested interests of those who are affluent it always makes the poor poorer.
As a non Guardian reader I am not meant to care about the plebs. That is meant to be the preserve of deluded middle class lefties. But in reality….
If there are any readers of the tax dodging, paedophilia endorsing, Argie loving Guardian reading this blog they may enter this week’s caption contest if they wish. But I warn them now that entries such as “brave anti imperialist campaigner President Fernandez is awarded a prize for delivering economic success by following the teachings of Ed Balls” will not win.
I am sure that regular readings can come up with better captions to the picture below. The most apt caption will win a Piss off Argentina T-shirt.
For what it is worth my entry is: “ Following her successful implementation of an economic policy devised by the Greek Government Argentine President Fernandez is handed a one way plane ticket to a destination selected by her adoring public back home.”
I am sure you can do better. Post your entries in the comments section below.
Last week I asked you for suitable captions to a picture containing a photo of Britain’s two least wanted men.
I am afraid that in the continuing absence of Jon Pickles (presumably he could not weave Prince Harry into this one) the standard was not great and the impartial judge has thus awarded the prise to a pretty poor effort from me:
Brown: “ I’d like to replace the £9 billion I lost on bullion sales and you say you know Britain’s best gold digger – can you get Ms Mills’ telephone number for me?”
Let’s all do better this week. Post your worst here. Especially since Google Analytics shows that I appear to have a small but growing readership in Buenos Aires! Let the Argies know your thoughts.
I would scrap all Foreign Aid tomorrow as most of the cash is wasted, few poor folks benefit and Bankrupt Britain cannot afford to piss away £11 billion a year. In the greater scheme of pissing away cash £27 million is not a lot but to hand that money to the frigging Argies who are demanding that we hand over British Land lived in by British Citizens (viz the Falklands) just fills me with the despair.
Of the £27 million, £20 million is our slug of a£450 million loan from the IMF. That the Argies need an IMF bailout at tall shows why its demented President Fernandez is sabre rattling: because under her stewardship the economy has gone down the pan. But why Bankrupt Britain should have to bail the old trout out is beyond me. But it gets worse.
The other £7 million is our share of an annual EU aid programme which according to EU “Foreign Minister”, aka the Guardian reading former CND spokesperson and total nonentity Baroness Ashton is aimed at helping “people at the poorest end of the spectrum.” She can piss off too just like Argentina and its tax dodging pals at the Guardian. Giving aid to corrupt States which maintain an un-needed spending on military matters is per se wrong. The fact that it is the frigging Argies compounds this crime.
The EU (with the UK picking up 1/7 of the tab) is the World’s largest donor of foreign aid. The list of regimes it honours with its largesse is an open invitation to donate to UKIP.
The Argentine economy is going down the toilet. Inflation is 25%, growth is slowing fast and workers are protesting on the streets. In large part this is down to the misguided policies of the Botox-loving President Fernandez. In order to deflect attention from her own incompetence the silly cow is once again stoking up a row over the ownership of the Falkland Islands where a plebiscite this year will show that 99% of the sheep shaggers wish to stay British.
Her latest ruse is to waste Argie Government cash by taking out an advert in a British paper which makes huge operating losses from spouting piffle for its dwindling readership of ageing deluded lefties and whose (profitable) parent company is one of the smartest tax dodgers going. I refer, of course, to the Guardian. Both Argentina and the Guardian can piss right off.
Britons settled in the Falklands when they were deserted since the European political elite who rule the artificially created country that is Argentina were, at that time, too busy exterminating native Indians to worry about a few rocks in the middle of the Sea. The first settler arrived in 1834. No Argie had ever settled on the Islands although British ownership was briefly interrupted (militarily by the United Provinces of the River Plate, a forerunner of Argentina) in the 1820s.
The aggressive Argie claim on the Islands is a relatively recent phenomenon dating from the 1960s. But since the whole bloody world (other than the Argies and the tax-dodging Guardian) believes in the principle of self-determination the Argie claim has no moral basis as well as no historic basis.
But Guardian readers are so frigging deluded that in their determination to apologise for what the wrongly see as the evils of the British Empire they will hand whatever they can back to whoever they can as long the recipients are browner and poorer than we are. Thank to the South American sun and the policies of President Fernandez, the Argies tick both boxes.
So, like much of the money pissed away by the silly cow Fernandez, this cash will be wasted. Guardian readers agree with her already. She is preaching to the converted. But not many people read the Guardian. Most folks in Britain, and most readers of any other newspaper, believe that we should stand up for our fellow citizens in the South Atlantic and that the Argies can sod right off. It was Game Set and Match in 1982 and there is no chance of a replay.
You rather hope that any other paper in Britain would have told Fernandez where to stick her advert.
As it happens the headquarters of the BBC’s sister paper are not far from The Real Man Pizza Company where I shall be working (writing, not flipping pizzas) all day today. I feel it is a day to wear my Piss off Argentina T-shirt just in case any hacks from the rag walk past so that I can shout “Gotcha”.
If anyone else wishes to show how they feel on this issue by“snapping up a Piss off Argentina T-shirt or mug they can be ordered exclusively HERE at my online store.”:http://realmanpizzacompany.spreadshirt.co.uk/p2
Will Reading get relegated this season? Is paedophilia a national sport in Belgium? Do sheep get nervous when they cross the border into Wales? Is the Guardian a paper fit only for lighting fires with and using in the cat’s litter tray? Is the Pope a Catholic? Of course Reading (and QPR) are going down.
Both are on 10 points after 19 games. You might just be safe on 37 points. Of Reading’s remaining fixtures six are slam dunk nil pointers: Man U, Man City, Chelski, Arsenal, Spurs and West Ham away. That leaves 13 games to secure 27 points. For a side that has secured 10 points in its first 19 games that looks a very tall order – effectively Reading must win half of the 13 games and draw the other half. It just will not happen. If you are a Reading fan you might as well start checking out train times to Grim Northern Shit holes like Burnley, Blackburn and Bolton in preparation for next season.
That Reading are not good enough for the Premiership is thus a given. But West Ham has a nasty habit of losing games to weak teams when no-one expects it. You will note that Wigan are currently in the third relegation spot and we all know which side gifted Wigan its first home win of the season. But even if Reading win today they are going down.
West Ham is now on 23 points. I knew we’d lose to Everton. We always do. Win at Reading and on 26 points with QPR, Reading, Wigan and Norwich still to visit Upton park plus winnable trips to Fulham, Southampton and Villa and we really will find it hard to avoid staying up. Lose and my sense of nervousness will start to grow. 23 points plus 6 games we should win is 41 points. But we are bound to slip up somewhere and any team that loses to Reading deserves to struggle.
I have not been to an away game in years but I am travelling up the M4 to attend this one with a Reading fan. Let’s see. On paper West Ham should win but I have a bad feeling.
And that brings me to Fat Sam Allardyce. His contract is up in May. Yes, the Irons have played some blinding games (Chelski, City) but then we always do. It is always Same Old West Ham, always taking the piss. Because this season as per usual we then go and lose at Swansea, at Wigan (and also at home to Wigan in the Capital Cup) and get unimpressive draws against Stoke and Norwich. West Ham will finish in the bottom half of the league. Given who we face in the FA Cup Third Round (Man U) we will not see a cup run this year and that is after Fat Sam was given a massive transfer budget which he spent.
In League One, Paulo di Canio’s Swindon is back up to 5th. Having enjoyed cup glory this year, they will, I still believe, win promotion – they are five points off second place. That is good news for Reading fans as they get a nice M4 Derby game next season. But I stand by my view that come May, Fat Sam should be allowed to depart. And there is only one successor possible.
In the wake of the dreadful slaughter of the innocents at Newtown Connecticut the response of the liberal left has been to argue for tighter controls on gun ownership. In bankrupt Britain the usual suspects at the Guardian and BBC say “is it not time that America caught up with us and banned gun ownership as we did after Dunblane?” In the US, Obama and the other liberals want to go down the British route. They are all wrong. Guns save lives.
One can play whatever games you want with statistics. But here are a few. In Scotland (no guns) the murder rate is higher than in ten US states at 2.35. In the US the murder rate is falling in Scotland it is rising. Were it in a league table of US states Scotland would be zooming up the rankings. The England & Wales murder rate is greater than 4 US States and we are also climbing fast.
In Israel, where everyone has a gun the murder rate is 2.4 per 100,000. That would but it about 38th in the US. But if you strip out “honour killings” in Muslim families and murders committed by the EU’s pals at Hamas, the Israeli murder rate would be lower than any US State. So too would that of Switzerland which has very high gun ownership rates.
In the US those states where there is high gun ownership end to have lower murder rates than those where there is lower gun ownership.
There will always be mad folk and criminals intent on slaughter. Such folk will – because they are driven by insanity or greed somehow manage to obtain a weapon and probably a gun. The thing is that when you open fire in a “gun free zone” you tend to be able to kill a lot of folk but when you open fire in an area where there are folks with concealed weapons wandering around you get shot yourself before that many are dead.
The point is that folks like Obama have ensured that most US Schools are gun free. Which is exactly why the crazies go there to be crazy. And to kill.
Prohibition never works. In 1920s Chicago alcoholism increase and the criminals made a fortune when booze was banned. In Britain today it is estimated that 3.5 million (5% of the population) have used illegal drugs in the past year. So prohibition is clearly not working but the criminals who control that trade are very rich and 80% of petty crime is drug related. And with gun control, prohibition does not work. The criminally insane and the plain criminals will always be able to get their hands on firearms. It is just that the rest of us will then not be in a position to deter them, defend ourselves and, yes, if needed shoot them dead in order to save innocent lives.
I have never understood why the left hates guns. Maybe it is because they associate them with hunting toffs or in the US “redneck conservatives.” I suspect it is just that they appreciate that guns allow the citizen the liberty to protect himself, imposing lack of guns is a chance for the State to deny free men yet another liberty and to make us reliant on the State to protect us all. Not that it does a very good job of it.
The right to carry firearms is part of the US Constitution. It makes sense. It saves lives. America should not follow Britain. We should follow America.
And so it is suggested by some in the Tories that those on welfare should not get cash but a card which would allow them to buy anything they wanted except booze, cigarettes and Sky TV. Deluded lefties are bleating that this is demeaning for hardworking folks who are just temporarily out of work and that the Tories thus hate the working class. Bollocks.
If you are temporarily out of work you will get another job. You then get off welfare and then start paying taxes. At which point you will resent that cash going to folk on welfare who spend it on luxuries. Welfare is meant to be a safety net not a way of life. It is not a job.
If you plan on being unemployed for a long time or forever that is fine. Well it is not actually. But I cannot see why those of us who do work hard should pay for you to have anything other than the bare minimum.
If this change makes some on welfare go seek jobs so that they can carry on smoking, drinking and watching rubbish on Sky great. Perhaps then, when the Real Man Pizza Company advertises for a waitress in a City where several hundred thousand young women between 16 and 24 are claiming welfare, just one English speaking person might apply for that post.
Deluded middle class Guardian reading lefties have one world view. That might appeal to those who regard welfare as a job. To the vast majority of Britons (of whatever background) who work and pay taxes to fund this insanity that world view is indefensible. And that includes most members of the “working class.”
As it happens I suspect that the scheme will be shouted down by the Left and cowardly Dave Cameron who does not wish to be seen as nasty will not implement it in the end. And if he does it will be largely circumvented by a black market – welfare scroungers can be entrepreneurial if they want to be.
The truth is that at last it seems that some are conceding that welfare payments are more than sufficient to fund a lifestyle of Sky, booze and fags. If one concedes that point then surely one must accept that the real answer to this issue is simply to cut the level of welfare payments across the board for those who have been out of work for more than a couple of months and to channel the savings into dramatically increasing the threshold at which anyone pays tax. That is the logical solution to the problem the welfare card seeks to address.
But in bankrupt Britain, where we have to be nice to everyone, logic and common sense appear to have no role to play.
I am again engaged on family matters and so sitting in Shipston with my father. He is aware that i am about to report back on today’s deluded lefty activities from my family. They are (with the glorious exception of little step sister Flea) utterly deluded.
We will shortly light the fire here. It is freezing. My Dad trousers his pensioner’s winter fuel allowance but amid a heated debate about global warming the actual heating is never switched on. I have tweaked the dial without telling him. It is still freezing. And so yesterday’s Guardian will once again start its useful life in a few minutes with Toynbee’s gibberish and the rest going up in smoke.
But there is, I am proud to reveal, another useful purpose for the BBC’s sister publication. My step mother posts a few sheets of it on her windscreen at night and so has frost free vision in the morning. I knew that the Guardian could do some good. Sadly a frost bitten rag is no good on the fire so those sheets are placed carefully in whichever bin is the organic non food recycling depository.
Sister Naomi popped over to see my father and me today – step mother Helen being elsewhere. Whilst I slaved away at my PC and carried their organic live Christmas tree outside (apparently, and unbelievably, the tree finds it too hot here and so is being given a breather outside until next week) Dad and Naomi went off to the pub where they read the Sun and the Daily Telegraph respectively. This is clearly a guilty pleasure for such folk. Returning home my sister revealed the romantic Christmas present she has lined up for her husband this Christmas…..
A year’s membership of the Labour Party. Saints preserve me. Can I really be from the same gene pool?
My Guardian reading father is an incredibly generous contributor to Christian Aid. But still they want more. It is after all better to give than to receive and they are just helping to save his soul. And so once a week he gets a call asking him to up his contribution. Bad luck Christian aid. My father is at a funeral and so when you called today and asked for Mr T Winnifrith I replied truthfully that they were speaking to Mr T Winnifrith and…
As you may have noticed, Bankrupt Britain has today pledged yet more cash (£2 billion in total) to help poor countries tackle climate change. Sure the UK will have a balance sheet like that of Greece two years ago by 2020 but who cares? Just piss it all away. Well Christian Aid cares. It is not their cash anyway, just like it is not the Government’s cash. It is the taxpayer’s cash but no-one asked us.
Christian Aid’s senior climate change adviser Mohamed Adow said: ‘We welcome this new pledge by the UK to provide mid-term climate finance. It is an encouraging move and forces the hand of other developed countries. The UK must push them to make their own commitments.
‘If other developed countries continue to offer vague assurances rather than solid commitments, their claims about showing leadership in tackling climate change are like a mirage in the Qatari desert.
‘The UK has promised that half of the £1.8 billion will go towards helping countries adapt to climate change, which is also welcome. Previously, most climate finance has gone on mitigation efforts to reduce emissions. Given the terrifying impact of climate change already making itself felt, this is a step in the right direction.
Bollocks to you Mohamed and bollocks to Christian Aid.
a) The world has got colder for the past 16 years and so there is absolutely zero evidence linking carbon emissions to global warming
b) Britain is going bankrupt and cannot afford this.
c) Money is going to places like Uganda where £12 million of Irish money has recently just “gone missing” (i.e. gone to Swiss bank accounts) and where the President when not pushing through laws to make homosexuality punishable by death spent £25 million last year on his private Jet. Uganda spends a far greater percent of Government spending on defence & security than does, say, the UK.
And so I told Christian Aid that for welcoming plans to accelerate the bankruptcy of Britain by funding African crooks and spurious projects with taxpayer’s cash it was a disgrace. Mr T Winnifrith is freezing his contributions and if he is plagued with one more call will consider cancelling them altogether.
And it is all true. I did not lie. My personal contributions are frozen (at nil) and now it looks as if My Dad will not be plagued anymore and his efforts to win deluded left brownie points by handing over cash for despots will be frustrated.
The Guardian has announced that it is to sell the 50% of AutoTrader that it does not own for £600 million. This is the part of the group where revenues are growing, which makes profits, which people want to read and which could be described as the “family silver” as opposed to the newspaper itself where sales are falling , losses are made, where Polly Toynbee et al produce unreadable piffle and which can be described as “offensive crap.”
The Guardian is, as you know, very keen on evil capitalists, scumbag rich people, Tories and other untermenschen paying more and more tax. It also takes great steps to ensure that it pays as little tax as possible. So on this windfall gain of £600 million what rate of tax do you reckon the Grauniad will pay? Perhaps we should run a sweepstake? Bags I get 0%.
What the Guardian does to dodge tax is legal so perhaps the politicians should follow the Starbucks principle and encourage the Guardian to “donate” 23% of the £600 million to the taxman.
If he is to be consistent Lib Dem minister Danny Alexander should publically announce that he is stopping buying the Guardian and encourage his fellow deluded lefties to follow suit until it coughs up 23% of the £600 million as a “tax donation.”
Of course it will not happen. Starbucks are wicked American capitalists. The Guardian is…the sister paper of the BBC and thus beyond reproach.
So where does this leave the evil rag itself? Sadly probably it will be sitting on £800 million of cash. Circulation is – like that of all papers – falling although this is partly offset by growing online revenues. But still – and despite some cost cuts – the paper is happily losing £50-60 million a year. While it keeps the print edition going that will not change. And so sadly we probably still have another 13 years before the great day when this awful publication finally bites the dust. But as the cash pile dwindles the paper’s highly paid bosses might well decide to sacrifice the print edition. That at least would be something to celebrate.
So, Danny Alexander: have you started your boycott yet?
Thanks to my pin up girl Melanie Phillips for the lead on this. This is for those who argue that either Hamas wants peace or that it and Israel are morally equivalent. The truth is that Hamas wants a one state solution, a final solution. It wishes to destroy Israel which is why ship loads of rockets are currently on their way to Gaza from the Islamofascist Republic of Iran.
The last ceasefire started in January 2009, it took three years and thousands of rocket attacks on Israel before she retaliated.
Hamas are Jew haters bent on genocide. Watch top of the pops from the Hamas TV station Aqsa TV and please explain why I am wrong?
First up ( from before the ceasefire) is that little ditty:
‘Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah’.
Lyrics in this video included this charmer.
‘[Oh] lovers of the trigger: Killing the occupiers [Israelis] is worship that Allah made into law…’
Next up is one dedicated to the Qassam Brigades: “Brigades – we kidnap soldiers, Brigades – we kill Jews” which includes the delightful chorus line “‘Repeat in the name of your Jihad: Death to Israel!”
While the song was broadcast in Arabic, Hebrew words appeared on the screen addressing Israelis, while pictures of Israelis being attacked and of an Israeli funeral were shown:
“Your body parts are scattered everywhere”
“The cemeteries await you
Oh, but the apologists for these blood stained genocidal Jew haters at the Guardian, the BBC and in the liberal political elite ( notably that vile woman Clinton) argue that Hamas wants peace, has signed up to a ceasefire and so this has all changed. Yeah right. So here is TOTP 2 from AFTER the ceasefire.
A delightful little number: “Repeat in the name of your Jihad: Death to Israel!”
While showing footage of explosions and Hamas fighters firing rockets, this song called to “destroy” Israel – “the house of absolute evil” and “the enemies of humanity.”
Now I realise that Israeli pop music can be pretty offensive. If you have forgotten the Eurovision 1979 winner Milk & Honey I bring you a reminder. I should warn you that it really is a musical and fashion crime against humanity.
But in Israel, state run TV does NOT call for genocide, celebrate the death of Gaza residents or promise to sweep the Arabs into the sea.
Incidentally in the extensive coverage offered of the situation in Gaza by the BBC and others have you seen these sorts of videos ever mentioned? Er.. me neither.
Not only did my beloved West Ham lose at arch rivals Spurs but some of the travelling West Ham supporters engaged in patently anti-Semitic abuse. I think you know my views on Spurs ( intense dislike) but also on anti Semitism ( rabid dislike). My mind is filled with various thoughts.
I know what will have been said or rather hissed. There is a hissing noise mean to be reminiscent of the gas chambers. Adolf Hitler is Coming for you – a variant of Tottenham Hotspur we’re coming for you, will have been chanted. I remember hearing “There’s only one Adolf Hitler” being chanted at a Spurs game a long time. I cringed with shame.
Football has made great play of stamping racism out of the game. West Ham were the first top flight side to field a black player and most of the current side are black. But we have racist supporters just as every club does. There is no point in pretending otherwise. I rather sense that the show trial of the loathsome John Terry for racism set the cause of stamping racism out of football back in that it was so obviously a show trial. But notwithstanding that football is heading the right way.
The problem is that racism and anti-Semitism are viewed quite differently in Britain 2012. That the Guardian can run cartoons which are take-offs of Julian Streicher’s best depicting Bibi Netenyahu controlling Western leaders as a puppet master is appalling. Any article on Israel is met with a barrage of criticism of “the Jews” from folks who would never make a derogatory comment about a blacks or Asians. Stars of David are burned in demonstrations on our streets by those who would create hell fire if a Koran was burned but nothing is done about it. Anti-Semitism is a vile form of racism but such is the hatred of the Western liberal media and political elites of the State of Israel that it has almost become downgraded and acceptable.
I hope that those who offended yesterday are caught shamed and get life bans from football. But I suggest that the liberal elites need to think long and hard about some of the language and imagery they have used in recent years (and certainly in recent weeks) too. And about the indifference they have shown to some of those who have engaged in quite vile Jew bating. They have created a zeitgeist which treats ant-Semitism as a second class form of racism. They too have questions to answer.
My hope is that on Monday morning Joyce Thacker will be clearing her desk at Rotherham, fired without compensation for removing kids from foster parents just because those parents voted UKIP. My guess is that either she will not be fired at all or will resign with a vast payoff. That is the way the State sector operates. No responsibility just gravy all the way: success or failure.
Assuming that she is still at her desk I have sent her an email with my thoughts. I hope that every one of you does the same
Since they do not appear in the Guardian your might have missed them. I would not want you to miss out.
PS. If you do get a huge payoff as a reward for your utter failure and crass stupidity I suggest that you renivest £4.25 of it in a new e-book published yesterday on the increasingly authoritarian state of the UK today. It really is very funny and makes a good point or two. “Letters from the Chestnut Tree Cafe, Though crime in Britain and Greece, 1984 is finally here“ can be ordeerred direct from publisher Harriman House HERE.
I wonder how big Thacker’s email inbox will be by Monday?
Whether Rotherham Social Services is run by incredibly stupid folks or human beings created by genetically modifying former members of the Stasi with Guardian reader genes does not matter – either is a scandal. The case of the UKIP foster parents marks another sad landmark in the death of free England.
By way of background I have never been to Rotherham but I gather that this grim Northern town has suffered far more than its fair share of child abuse scandals. And so you would have thought that finding a pair of responsible foster parents would be a dream for its hard pressed social services department. Step forward an un-named couple in their late 50s who live in a neat detached house in a village in South Yorkshire. The husband was a Royal Navy reservist for more than 30 years and works with disabled people, while his wife is a qualified nursery nurse.
These are socially caring folk who for seven years have taken in kids of all races and been praised for being fantastic foster parents. Their record of work and service should provide the poor kids with role models and stability. They have had an exemplary record over 12 placements.
Until the other week they were looking after three kids, a baby girl, a boy and an older girl, who were all from an ethnic minority and a troubled family background. The three thrived. The baby put on weight and the older girl even began calling them “mum and dad”.
But then the Stasi arrived and said that they had received an anonymous tip-off that they were members of Ukip. One Stasi official said “Ukip have got racist policies…Ukip does not like European people and wants them all out of the country to be returned to their own countries.”
The Kids were removed.
The first thing that is so creepy is that a (Labour run) local authority operates on the basis of “anonymous tip offs about political beliefs.” That really is Orwellian. Does Rotherham Social Services remunerate its network of sneaks who report if Foster parents have unsuitable beliefs about the European Union, passive smoking, global warming or any other 2012 “Thought crime.” Or do the spies act for free because they just wish to show loyalty to Big Brother?
The second thing is that Rotherham Social services does not seem to know what UKIP policy is. Wishing to leave the Evil Empire does not equate to hating Europeans. UKIP has no policy of repatriation. This is just fantasy.
No doubt Big Brother (Rotherham branch) will blame this on a couple of errant employees but such a big call must have been discussed at departmental level. This is the official policy of Rotherham Social Services.
Nushra Mansuri, of the British Association of Social Workers, said: “My first question would be, does the local council have a clear equality policy so you can understand a bit more about the decision-making? Otherwise it’s very difficult to fathom.” No Nushra you are wrong. It does not matter what the “clear equality policy” of Rotherham Council is. This is a case where the State has decided that the 10% of its citizens who support UKIP have views which are unacceptable. Whether there is a “clear equality policy” or not this case is a disgrace.
I wonder. If the Conservative party was lead by a proper Tory and also came out in favour of quitting the Evil Empire, would Rotherham then start snatching kids from Tory voting foster parents. If indeed it can find anyone at all in this Northern shit-hole brave enough to vote Tory.
This is the State imposing an extreme dogma about what one can or cannot believe on its citizens even though it is patently not in the interests of those it is meant to be assisting ( the poor vulnerable kids). Another day in Airstrip One.
Tom Winnifrith’s new e-book “Letters from the Chestnut Tree Cafe, Thought crimes in Britain and Greece in 2012 (1984 is finally here) can be ordered from publisher Harriman House for £4.25 HERE.
Radio Four’s Today programme reported on Thursday morning that the “ceasefire in Gaza had largely held overnight.” Well what does it actually mean by that? On the Israeli side not a single shot was fired. Back in the Islamofascist state of Gaza the first rocket heading towards Israel went off exactly 34 minutes AFTER the breakout of peace in our time. By the time Radio 4 broadcast this canard, 15 rockets had landed on Israel. So by “largely held” what the biased BBC actually means is that the Israelis kept to their word but the Gazans fired only 15 rockets whereas they normally average about double that overnight.”
Just imagine how the BBC would have reported it had Hamas not fired any rockets but the Israelis had dropped a couple of bombs. Would it have been “largely held” or a rant about how the fucking Jews were war mongering bastards whose word could not be trusted and had no desire for peace? Next stop for Bibi Netanyahu a war crimes tribunal in the Hague. What do you think?
Before I turn to whether we really do have peace in our time I would add one point on the matter of statistics. As I have noted before, the Israeli’s launch any attack from a clearly defined military base (be it an airplane or missile launchers set in isolated desert spots specifically targeting Hamas military targets. Their aim is to protect Israeli citizens both from Hamas rocket attacks (by taking out the launchers or the men behind them) or from retaliatory attacks. In contrast, Hamas bases its rockets bang in the middle of Civilian areas. In other words it uses its citizens as human shields as it attacks other citizens (wicked Jews). This clear distinction is something the BBC and Guardian never makes.
In all the coverage of the Israeli attacks on Gaza we were constantly shown pictures of bloodied and dead civilians. Okay the BBC had to recycle dead Syrian babies, injured Israeli babies in order to make up numbers but we were constantly told that it was Gazan civilians who bore the brunt of the onslaught by the wicked Jews. Well here are the actual scores on the doors:
Deaths in Gaza as a result of Israeli attacks. 177. Military deaths 120. Civilian deaths 57. So actually those who bore the brunt of the attacks were , er … terrorists who were firing rockets on Israeli civilians. You did not really get that impression from the liberal Western press did you?
And on the subject of dead babies/children. Why did Hamas have to recycle dead or injured Syrian and Israeli babies/children for the BBC and its sister papers the Guardian and Independent to use as they portrayed this as a slaughter of the innocents? Because despite half the population of Gaza being under 18, only 22 minors were killed. Given that Hamas bases its rockets not only in residential areas but next to schools this seems a very low number implying that the Israelis might actually have been targeting military hits very very cleverly. As it happens the ratio of military to civilian deaths in Gaza was 2: 1. In Afghanistan during the invasion by, er us, the ratio was 1 to 3. In Iraq the West managed a 1 to 4 ratio. So the Israelis were actually targeting legitimate figures far more effectively than the US or UK has in recent years. Did the BBC mention that? Er… no. Thought not. As for the Hamas civilian to military kill ratio I think it was infinity since no military targets were hit because its rockets ONLY target civilians.
So having established that the Israeli Defence Forces are in fact far more humanitarian in its targeting than, say, the US or UK army let’s see how the BBC reports it.
“What has shocked me most over the last eight days – during which I have reported exclusively from Gaza, with BBC colleagues complementing in Israel – is the appallingly high number of children killed and injured.”
That is chief correspondent Wyre Davies. The usual impartial BBC take from him then. He will go far at Pravda.
So will we have peace in our time? Well of course not. For starters the naive Americans have given the task of supervising Hamas to Egypt which is now run by the Islamofascist Muslim Brotherhood. Yes that is the same Muslim Brotherhood that runs the tunnels into Gaze supplying Iranian weapons to Hamas. Frankly this is like asking the late Sir Jimmy Savile to look after your local nursery school unsupervised.
But Hamas and the people of Gaza want peace cries the BBC. Er no. Let us look back to January 18th 2009 when Israel’s Operation Cast Lead was halted by a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas. I leave Melanie Phillips to recount what happened next:
Two days later, residents of a kibbutz near Gaza ran for cover as an air raid siren sounded; an explosion was heard, but the government denied there had been an attack. On January 28 2009, Hamas fired a rocket towards Sderot, followed by another rocket the following day, and then another at Ashkelon.
Back to me. Thereafter the rocket attacks increased bit by bit. While Israel continued to ferry 200 tonnes of aid a month into Gaza (Egypt by the way sends none as its border is sealed, the only thing heading in is munitions via the MB’s tunnels) rockets landed on a daily basis in Israel. First it was one a day, then two. Over the past three years it has averaged about 3 a day but in the past six months it has averaged 50 a week, seven a day.
Following around 3000 rocket launches Israel finally struck back. I really doubt that any other Nation on this planet would have shown such restraint. Fed by a biased press with the BBC almost criminal in its intent and effect, the West has now forced Israel to pull back. Like most Israelis (70% in the biggest poll) I regret this as we all know what will happen next. The job of dismantling the military capability of Hamas is unfinished and as such Israeli civilians will die when, not if, Hamas starts firing rockets again.
But hang on, the BBC has an answer. Thank the good Lord. According to Pravda correspondent Kayta Adler, Hamas only started firing rockets at Israel becuase the wicked Jews imposed a naval blockade. She opines by twitter:
“Not clear if/when #Israel will lift #Gaza blockade. If daily life doesn’t improve in Gaza, pop support for rocket fire will likely return.
Aha. Simple. Except of course that the rockets started well before the blockade. It was imposed to stop rockets getting into Gaza, i.e. in response. The amount of aid that used to land by ship ( even if you count rockets as aid) is far less than the wicked Jews truck in each day. Sorry Kayta, you should check your facts. Ooops forgot. You work for the BBC. It is not facts that matter just getting the message across.
So becuase Israel backed off the rockets WILL start hitting Israeli civilians again. It is when not if.
But heck they are only fucking Jews. They don’t matter. On that basis the BBC will probably still report that the ceasefire has “largely held.”
PS For a take on how Israeli’s view the coverage of the BBC tune into this week’s excellent satyrical Latma TV show organised by the superstar Caroline Glick. The BBC spoof is about three minutes in but it is worth watching the bit before for a cracking Hilary Clinton joke. The latma show can be found HERE.
Remember a few years ago when the BBC and the newspapers were full of pictures of dry riverbeds across England? It was all down to global warming and was a foretaste of what was to come. Yup. Having come up to Warwickshire on unexpected family business I was this morning keen to make my escape to Bristol by train. But arriving at Moreton in the Marsh station I was told that flooding meant there were no trains from Worcester to Bristol or Swindon to Bristol.
As I waited for a lift back home, having missed the 10.45 to Worcester, a little man ran out and said that actually there were some trains. His computer was wrong and he had made phone calls. I could “chance my arm” and head off to Worcester but he could not guarantee that I would in fact get past Gloucester. More rain is on the way.
No offence to Gloucester which is, I am sure, a very nice place but the idea of spending 24 hours at its railway station while the waters subside does not float my boat. Or my ark.
And so I am back with my family of deluded lefties in Shipston. Of course they know the problem. The rain is all down to man made climate change. I am sure Thatcher has something to do with it as well. Another 24 hours in Guardian reading la la land beckons.
I am staying with my father for a few days looking after him as my step mother is off in London to see wicked Uncle George. As I have noted before my family (little step sister Flea excluded) are a bunch of deluded lefties and so the paper delivered here every day is The Guardian. Imagine my horror at seeing Polly Toynbee’s face staring at me across the breakfast table in the morning.
I have already had a lengthy discussion about Israel/Hamas (Dad and Step Mother support Hamas ‘natch) and various welfare issues (do not ask). My step mother’s return is delayed by intense flooding here in South Warwickshire which will no doubt be blamed by one and all on Global Warming and/or Thatcher!
But I have found that the Guardian can be useful in one way. My Dad has a great big fireplace and although the logs are damp the Guardian is very burnable. My father was worried that I might be using today’s edition before he had fully digested it. I suggested that he might have a clearer world view if he did indeed burn the Guardian every day BEFORE reading it. But in the end we managed to find some old Toynbee for the fire. He takes delight in the continuing roaring flames. I take delight in what started the roaring flames.
The Pallywood lies get better by the second. For today, lets go to Canada where the “Palestinian Association of Hamilton” (Ontario) held a rally to protest against the vile Israeli violence rained down on the peace loving people of Gaza. In order to attract supporters they sent out a flyer showing a picture of an innocent little Gazan kid covered in blood after the fucking Jews bombed his family home. You could cry. It was so touching.
The blurb on the flyer stated “ Israel has launched another offensive against the people of Gaza. In 2009 during “Operation Cast Lead” the Israelis killed more than 1400 Palestinian civilians of which a third were children. They appear determined on replicating that brutality.”
Naturally the deluded lefties of the Western press gave the rally widespread coverage buying the line about a one sided conflict.
Unfortunately, it has now emerged that “the innocent Palestinian baby” in is fact an innocent Israeli baby bloodily injured by Palestinian rockets in the Hamas attack on Kiryat Malachi.
Whoops a daisy. No apologies from the media that covered this lie. But it gets better still. Far, far better.
Confronted with this, er…blood libel the Palestinian Association of Hamilton knows who is to blame for their lie. It is all the fault of the fucking Jews anyway. Natch. In an official statement the Hamas lovers opine:
What does it matter whether the baby is Israeli or Palestinian? She was injured and perhaps died as a result of the overwhelming arrogance of Israeli PM Netanyahu who cynically wages war against defenceless Gazans to distract Israeli voters from their protests against austerity measures because he wants to be re-elected, who keeps the Gazans living in the world’s largest prison camp under siege, and who refuses to respect truces with Hamas.
The truces with Hamas, er… like the one that sees 200 rockets fired from Gaza each and every month and has done for a decade which the Israelis respond to by sending in 200 tonnes of aid each and every month? Yes that truce.
Unbelievably that aid continues. With 1 million Israelis now sleeping in bomb shelters – as they have been for the past month – well before the wicked fucking Jews had enough and tried to take out the rocket launchers and terror cells – the bloody Jews are still trying to send in aid ( as so widely reported by the BBC, The Guardian, etc. Not). There were 120 trucks waiting at the border 24 hours ago. The trouble is they cannot not get through as Hamas was firing at them.
I bet that is Bibi Netanyahu’s fault too. Fucking Jew.
On this website some posters who I respect greatly have suggested that Hamas and Israel are morally equivalent. That is, I think naive. Others like the BBC pretend that Israel is the “guilty party” which is just wicked. Let us be clear about is there are a number of clear differences between the actions and motives of the two sides.
1. Israel is committed to a two state solution. Hamas is committed to a final solution. A one state solution not involving Israel. Its charter states as much. Its leaders talk openly of sweeping the pesky Jews into the sea.
2. Israel fires rockets from clearly identified and isolated military positions (usually the sky) targeting military figures in order to protect its civilians. Hamas fires rockets targeting, in an utterly indiscriminant sense, Israeli civilians and using its own civilians as military shields.
3. Israel sends 200 tonnes of civilian aid to Gaza each month. Hamas sends no aid to Israel.
4. Hamas (which runs Gaza) consistently sends 200 rockets targeting Israeli civilians month on month. Israel only sends rockets back in response to eliminate those firing rockets. Weeks can go by with Israel sending no rockets over at all.
5. When you see a picture of a dead Israeli civilian killed by a rocket it is a dead Israeli civilian killed by a rocket. When you see a dead or injured Gazan killed or injured by a rocket it may well be a recycled dead or injured Syrian or indeed an utter fake.
Is that enough differences for now? That will do for starters. Why do the left in Britain, notably the BBC and the Guardian, hate the Israelis, the Jewish state, so openly? That is, regrettably, all too obvious.
For once the BBC and the Guardian do not stand in the dock alone. It seems as if the entire Western liberal elite and press corps are united in condemning the wicked Jews, oops they meant to say Israel, for taking out Ahmed Said Khalil al-Jabari today. Old Said was the head of the military wing of the Islamofascist Hamas organisation that runs the Gaza strip today and thanks to a precise strike from the Israeli Defence Forces he is now on a one way ticket to hell.
I support the brave IDF 100% and am this evening celebrating the death of this bigoted murderer. It seems that deluded lefties across the planet have a different view.
The BBC coverage stands out for its extreme bias. No surprises there. On its website today the lead story reports:
“The head of the military wing of the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas has been killed during Israeli air and naval strikes in the Gaza Strip. Ahmed Said Khalil al-Jabari and another Hamas official died when the car they were in was hit in Gaza City.
It follows a wave of rocket attacks against Israel from the territory. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the military was prepared to broaden its operation against Hamas targets in Gaza. Gaza’s health ministry said a further five Palestinians had died in the attacks across Gaza. Civilians injured in the air strikes were rushed to Gaza’s hospitals.”
Searching through the BBC website ( bloody hell I really do not know what I have done to deserve such torture) I find one report in recent days about how a few rockets fired from Gaza had landed in Israel killing no-one. Clearly this is heavy handed and disproportionate oppression by the wicked Jews, I mean Israelis.
Later on in the piece the BBC’s reporter notes: “Outside the hospital to which Mr Jabari’s body was taken, thousands of angry Gaza residents chanted “retaliation” and “We want you to hit Tel Aviv tonight”, according to the Associated Press news agency. Hamas spokesman Abu Zuhri said: “Israel will regret the moment they even thought of doing this.” A number of injured civilians, including a badly burned young child, were seen being taken to hospital in Gaza City.”
Ok, forget the spin, here are the facts. Something that you do not read about on the BBC website, in the Guardian or in fact more or less anywhere in the British press.
Gaza’s democratically elected Government is Hamas, an organisation whose charter is committed to ending the State of Israel. Forget about two state solutions. Hamas is committed to a one state final solution with those pesky Jews swept into the sea.
Between 1994 and 2011 the EU has handed over 5 billion Euros in aid to Gaza. That aid continued even after Hamas came to power. The BBC meekly reports that there were rocket attacks on Israel this weekend. You will note its phrase in its article about the terrorist being sent to hell “It follows a wave of rocket attacks against Israel from the territory.”
Try again. This is no one off wave. Month on month there are c200 rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza. That is not just one weekend of hell that Israel is responding to but an every day occurrence. Do you think that if 6 rockets a day landed in Islington the staff of the BBC/The Guardian would just sit there and take it?
If you live in an Israeli town within range of Gaza you have 48 seconds to react on average between when the alarm sounds and WHEN a rocket lands. 48 seconds to get you and your kids to a bunker. The rocket attacks are not precise strikes against military targets but random attacks on towns and villages. The rocket might land on a school, a playing field or a house. Hamas does not care. It just wants to kill Jews.
And what does Israel normally send back in return? Well, as it happens, Israel sends more aid into Gaza than the EU and all the Arab states put together. On average it is about 175,000 tonnes a month. Can you remember the BBC reporting that? Er, no me neither.
The Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) are now attempting to take out Hamas military leaders and other folks or equipment that may be used to rain death down on its civilian population in an indiscriminate manner. The IDF is doing its best to target its strikes. It has every right to act in self defence. That the EU continues to send your taxes to support such a murderous regime is an indictment of the Evil Empire.
That the British press cannot report what is going on without even pretending to offer balance is in a sense worse. At least I can choose not to buy the Guardian. Sadly I have no opt –out on the media PR wing of Hamas, the BBC.
I now raise a glass of red wine to Ahmed Said Khalil al-Jabari and to the Israeli Defence Forces. To the former: I am glad that you are dead. To the latter: well done.
What the hell is a Conservative Party MP doing writing in the Guardian? Surely he must be aware that sister paper of the BBC is the spawn of Beelzebub? Apparently Jake Berry, who represents Rossendale & Darwen ( where is that?) is happy to sup with the Devil and has published a long piece arguing that the Government should ensure that those living in Social housing get access to broadband at low – or even no – cost. Er….
So let me get this straight Jake: you and I work hard (well you are an MP but I will give you the benefit of the doubt) to earn money on which we pay tax so that folks living in housing subidised by those taxes, usually entirely dependent on benefits paid for by those taxes, now get to play computer games on the Internet all day thanks to my taxes as well. Fab. Sounds like a really great idea. Not.
The moronic Berry opines “we do need to recognise that tackling digital exclusion is now a key part of fighting deprivation by creating routes into work and out of poverty …the facts are stark: half of all people without internet access in the UK live in social housing.”
Hmm. Logic not your strong point is it mate. You show that half the folks without internet access live in social housing. You might also show that three quarters of those who buy turkey twizzlers live in social housing. But it is not the lack of internet access or the surfeit of turkey twizzlers that causes poverty. It is perhaps that being poor means you have to make choices about what you spend a limited budget: is it beer, cigarettes, SkyTV or broadband? They could always get off their arse, get a job and have fewer hard choices to make, I suppose.
What percentage of those in social housing who do not have broadband do spend cash on alcohol, SkyTV, the lottery or cigarettes? I think Jake will find that it is a meaningful one. What he is demanding is that those of us who work and who have to make choices between SkyTV and broadband will subsidise those who do not so that they get both.
Having demonstrated no evidence that being www non-enabled causes poverty this poltroon merely wishes to take a bit more from those 35% (and falling) of the population who are net givers to the state and hand it to the net takers. Stupid boy. I thought you were meant to be a Tory.
If Jake wishes to end poverty how about he pushes to: increase the threshold at which one starts paying tax to £20,000, scraps the minimum wage, abolishes employers NI contributions and removes welfare payments from those who are not actively seeking work. That would of course work but I guess such a column would not get published in the Guardian.
Under its super crackpot socialist loon of a New President Francois Hollande, France is going bust even more quickly than soon to be bankrupt Britain. As such, nothing the Froggies do should surprise you. In France government spending is already 56% of GDP (OECD average 46%) The debt to GDP ratio at the end of 2011 was 85.8% and with a whopping budget deficit it is rising fast. 90% is the point at which debt stifles growth – a point of no return. Pretty soon you get to 120% and you are Greece.
So faced with a country going bust and spending too much what does a Socialist President do? Yes, of course. He spends more. And he pays for it by a) borrowing, while he can and b) by imposing new taxes. And this brings us to the great Nutella tax. According to France 24, the latest wheeze from the loons comes in the form of an attempt to hike taxes by 300% on a key ingredient in Nutella. A bill to push through the tax was adopted by a Senate commission and heads to the National Assembly this week for review.
The key ingredient is palm oil which comprises about 20% of Nutella. So how do the Froggies justify this tax hike?
Apparently, they are doing it to be eco-friendly? Pardonnez Moi Monsieur socialist avec un tete plein de muesli, repetez vouz s’il vous plait? It seems that the widespread use of palm oil has also been criticised for leading to deforestation in countries like Indonesia and Malaysia.
No doubt the Froggies also reckon that it will encourage the people to eat more healthily.
Well here is what this actually means. If demand for palm oil is reduced that will hit commercial plantations across Asia and West Africa so depriving poor people of real, free market, unsubsidised jobs and income. But maybe the EU can just send out more foreign aid instead?
The cost of Nutella will go up as whoever produces this foul product passes on the hike. Middle class people do not use much Nutella anyway – we eat muesli and porridge for breakfast. Those Andrew Mitchell might describe as plebs, spread Nutella on anything. And so this will be a regressive tax. Like all “health taxes” it is the poor who get whacked the hardest which is odd as it is always socialists ( and Lib Dems) who are keenest on such taxes.
My guess is that the percentage of the cost of a jar of Nutella accounted for by raw material palm oil costs is (after everyone’s mark up) perhaps 5%. And so by imposing a 15% price raise and blaming the Government for the 300% Nutella tax the manufacturers will look like heroes but preserve margins. Poor folks will eat as much Nutella as before and just spend a bit less on turkey twizzlers or whatever.
And so to summarise the net effects.
1. Froggy politicians fiddle at the edges. Tough decisions about the fundamental issue (the State spending too much) are deferred – France is still going bust.
2. Working class/non-working class people eat as much Nutella as before but are worse off. They may eat fewer turkey twizzlers as a result. Their diet does not improve they are just poorer.
3. Some middle class realise how evil Nutella is and ditch it. They had generally healthy diets anyway so will still live to 90 demanding a full range of State benefits
4. A few jobs are lost in Africa and Asia. But the poor black people can celebrate that they are saying the environment as they either starve or, rather more probably, wait for the EU to increase its foreign budget to look after them. France and the rest of the EU inch a step closer to bankruptcy.
So it all makes perfect sense if you are a deluded lefty. It is only a matter of time before the Lib Dems, Harriet Harman, the BBC or the Guardian (or all four) calls for Britain to follow the enlightened lead of the Froggies on this critical issue of the day. Perhaps George Osborne might like to make a Nutella tax another “central” part of the Tory manifesto and we can all celebrate a beautiful political consensus?
Post the defeat of Romney it was inevitable that “modernisers” within the Tories would draw the conclusion that the way to win in 2015 is to be more socially liberal. And so today George Osborne insists that the “nice” Conservative Party will put gay marriage at the centre of its next election manifesto. Oh saints preserve me. I think I am emigrating.
As a social liberal I actually support gay marriage as well as legalising drugs and a whole raft of other measures which would horrify traditional Tories. If gays want to sign up for marriage with a one in three chance of an acrimonious divorce to follow why not allow them that right? But do I really regard it as a key issue? Does anyone outside certain metropolitan circles (where they are never going to vote Tory anyway) regard it as a key issue, one that should be central to a manifesto? I doubt it.
There are one or two matters that do concern me. Like 48% of voters I want to leave the EU (only 29% want to stay in). Yet while I am offered referendums on whether I want a Mayor, Police Commissioner, etc, etc I have no say in this matter. Indeed the Conservative Party promised me a vote on the Lisbon Treaty and lied about it.
I am also a bit worried that Britain has a deficit of £120 billion a year and will, at current rates be bankrupt by 2020. I do not like our young men and women being sent to die needlessly in pointless (and in some cases illegal) wars overseas. I am terrified by the increasing curbs on free speech and civil liberties. But really it is the economy and the EU that bother me most. Show me that the Tories are competent on the former and believe in democracy on the latter and Osborne might get my vote.
So far he scores about 0 out of ten on both – with New Labour on minus 10 out of ten. Gestures on gay rights and other ring issues from Osborne might just persuade the odd Guardian reader to vote Tory. But failures on the matters that concern most people will see far greater numbers of those left in Bankrupt Britain switching to UKIP, just not bothering to vote at all or checking out websites about emigration.
Before revealing his next bright idea I suggest George asks Nadine Dorries what she thinks. I reckon Nad is far more likely to come up with the right answer than he is.
We all know that the UK foreign aid budget is a costly disgrace this country cannot afford. Across Africa our money is allowing tyrants to rob their people with the aid we pump in a real disincentive to reform. We help no-one with our efforts but Call Me Dave is so desperate to be seen as “nice” that he keeps on writing cheques. Well Mr Cameron please explain Zimbabwe to me.
A report out today from Partnership Africa Canada, a member of the Kimberley Process, the world regulatory body on the diamond trade, says that Mugabe and his cronies have stolen $2 billion from the Marange diamond fields which lie within his country. That $2 billion has been looted over a period of six years so let’s call that $330 million a year. Funds from diamond sales of that order should have shown up in the State Treasury but have not. They have, of course, headed off to Switzerland. Mugabe says that the report is false. The authors of the report say that the $2 billion number is a “conservative estimate” and it appears that Hitler’s own finance minister Tendai Biti backs up the claims from PAC.
Now what does this tell us? Well first a quick word about Hollywood, deluded lefty celebs and the film Blood Diamond starring Leonardo di Caprio. This 2006 epic told how a wicked evil White South African (racist ‘natch) played by Leonardo realised the error of his ways and in so doing helped stopped the trade in Blood Diamonds. It is a “true story” and celebrates the Pretoria conference of 2000 which ensured that all diamonds bought today are ethically sourced. Er … I guess up to a point. That being a gunpoint. Well so much for the deluded lefties. If you think the diamond ring you got for your civil ceremony at Islington Town Hall is bound to be ethical you might as well stop reading this blog now and piss off back to cloud cuckoo land over at the Guardian.
And then to foreign aid. Britain this year has handed over £80 million via DFID (and a stack more via the EU) for various programmes helping the poor of Zimbabwe. Now forget that this country was once the “bread basket of Africa” feeding itself and exporting to seven countries around it (okay, yes that was when the “evil” UDI regime of Ian Smith was in power), forget about the fact that last year Mugabe and the pathetic Morgan Tsvangirai of the pathetic MDC opposition ( now in bed with Hitler) spent $45.5 million on their own foreign travel needs last year (1.2% of the national budget) while spending, er… nil on building and maintaining schools. The money from blood diamond thievery dwarfs even what Mugabe Inc steals from the national budget.
This is pretty simple. If Britain ( budget deficit £120 billion and heading towards bankruptcy by 2020) continues to send money it does not have to Zim, then we will pay for schools medicines, etc so allowing Mugabe to steal cash that is actually generated domestically. And with the basic assistance provided by the West the chances of the people forcing regime change recede. And that pattern is repeated across Africa. And it will do so ad infinitum until Western aid is stopped. That will force change within Africa. Aid prevents it.
Aid helps to appease the people but rarely enables them economically and never politically. But aid encourages regimes to do whatever they have to do in order to stay in power and continue the stealing – why waste Zim’s money on medicines when you can steal the cash? You know that Oxfam and Call Me Dave will send over the vaccines anyway. In fact, if regimes like that of Mugabe can keep their folks poor but stop them revolting, guilty Western liberals will send even more aid. Simple.
The only losers from the current set up are 99% of the folks in Zim and 99% of the folks in soon to be Bankrupt Britain. But the 1% winners (Mugabe and his cronies with their stealing and Cameron et al who “feel good/less guilty” about making up for slavery/the evils of Empire and are nice by helping poor black folks) get to call the shots.
With hard evidence of just how much Africa’s Hitler and his corrupt regime is stealing from Marange please can David Cameron explain in a few simple words why it is “nice” or even remotely justifiable to continue sending cash the UK cannot afford off to Zimbabwe? Over to you Dave.
The Greek General strike has come and gone. A few riots, a few more businesses closed than usual but no real change. Unemployment creeps up. The 4th Reich imposes more austerity and society falls apart. And so as the workers ( or in the case of Greece, non-workers) of the world unite who is next to strike? For a range of reasons I urge some of the lead candidates to go ahead – comrades I stand along side you.
Starting with the poor oppressed editorial team at The Guardian newspaper – average salary no idea but with some highly paid columnists (Polly Toynbee on £300,000) pushing up the mean. My guess is that most of the writers on the Guardian are on £50,000 plus and heck you do not get to live in Islington and Camden if you are on the minimum wage. The paper is losing £100,000 a day and management wants to cut costs. Naturally the poor Guardian workers think this is a monstrous suggestion and are planning a strike.
Obviously the BBC might have to come up with its own stories now but elsewhere I cannot see how this is going to hurt anyone. In North London they will have to struggle by with the Indy for a few days. Of course it is a pointless strike which will only hasten the demise of a loathsome publication. Basic economics dictate that if you produce a crap product no-one will pay for on the back of a bloated cost base you go bust. That is the Guardian to a T.
There will be free champagne ( English) on offer at The Real Man Pizza Company the day the Guardian closes for good. The strike hastens that day. So comrade journalists, I stand by your side.
Next up is Spain where a General strike has been called to protest against austerity imposed by the 4th Reich. See Greece above. This will only deepen the crisis, will not make a blind bit of difference to the gauleiters from Brussels and accelerate the breakdown of civil society in Spain. It will happen anyway but as Sun Tzu tells us a quick death is better than a slow death. In the end Spain is toast and so too will be the Euro. As such I stand with you comrade Spaniards, bring it on.
And finally, protesting against austerity at home and the miserly wages they suffer are London’s tube drivers. With annual leave of 43 days a year and on an average salary of £43,000 ( plus £4,000 in travel perks, plus pension) you might not assume that someone who needed just 16 weeks training to start work is exactly at the biting edge of the austerity programme. But comrade Bob Crowe wants his lads to walk out. Crowe is a perennial blackmailer.
One day ( why not now?) someone should call his bluff and sack all RMT workers walking out for no reason. Rehire, re-train and as new train drivers should get paid the same as a nurse (£30,000 average wage) with 20 days a year annual leave and no perks. A few weeks travel chaos but the blackmail has to end one day. In the hope that on this occasion Crowe’s bluff is called, comrade tube drivers I stand shoulder to shoulder with you.
In all three cases the strikes are pointless gestures by workers/non workers in places where the maths do not stack up. In the end the Guardian will go bust and so ( while it stays in the Euro) will Spain and the Tube will have to be reformed. Delay is painful. On that basis bring on the strikes, lets accelerate the process.
Workers of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your jobs. I mean chains.
A decent man asks me why I do not focus on cutting tax evasion to slash the deficit and save the UK from bankruptcy? Fair point. But I am afraid that the sums do not add up. If only life was that simple. Deluded lefties often confuse tax evasion with tax minimization and that is the problem. The former means breaking the law. It is wrong. The latter means using the system to your maximum advantage in order to pay as little tax as possible and it is neither illegal nor wrong. Why should you pay more tax than you should on money you earn?
So, for example, many folk minimise tax by using an ISA. It is legal and there is nothing wrong with it. If the Government wishes to change the rules and scrap ISAs it can do so. But there are good reasons not to do so.
Tax evasion normally comes from the “cash in hand” economy, the black economy. Frankly we have all paid workmen in cash to avoid VAT and we al know that there are folks out their working for cash and not appearing “on the books.” We know that a vast percentage of cigarettes sold in the UK are sold “outside the system” in order to dodge penal excise duty. If it were possible to control this black economy that would raise a material sum. Estimates suggest that the black economy is worth c 5.5% of GDP so call it £86 billion. Generate a blended tax rate of 25% on that and you might raise £20 billion. But it is almost impossible to shut down a black economy altogether even in a police state so the most that can be squeezed from the black economy is perhaps a few billion quid.
I remind you that the Government is running a budget deficit (if it hits revenue forecasts which it will not) of c£120 billion.
What my decent friend is getting at, I think, is not the tax system for the middle class or even squeezing the black economy but how some of the very rich and also multinational corporations minimise tax. Okay. The point is that such folks do so by employing very clever accountants to keep the tax they pay to the lowest legal level. It is not illegal to minimise your tax or to hire smart accountants. If the Government wishes to change the tax laws it can but can you really blame folks for using the current laws as they are to pay less tax? There is no moral obligation anywhere to pay more than you are legally obliged to. If you are such a deluded leftie that you feel that compulsion just go write a bonus cheque to HMRC. I am sure it would be accepted. So…
Let’s start with the super rich. Those earning more than £150,000. On an inflation adjusted basis in 1978-9 these folks received c 6% of UK national taxable incomes and paid 11% of income tax receipts. Today they receive 12.6% of UK taxable incomes but pay 29% of all income tax receipts. That is right just over 1% of the population pay almost a third of all income tax paid. And they are already paying a far greater percentage of income tax receipts than they did when Lady Thatcher came to power. The rich have already been soaked. Now I imagine that the rich could pay more if they wanted by not using clever accountants to trim their tax bill, but what they do is legal and – as you can see – they are paying their way.
The Government will constantly close loopholes to squeeze a bit more from the rich. And clever accountants will constantly find new loopholes. It is an ongoing battle. But at some stage some of the rich inevitably find it cheaper and easier just to leave. When you are stinking rich you can often be pretty mobile and there are many places a lot more tax friendly (and warmer) than Britain. And we are only talking about c350, 000 individuals in this top tax bracket so you do not need that many to leave to start making a big dent in tax receipts. The Laffer curve (something that the prize loon Hollande who now runs France) does not understand, dictates that at a certain point if you raise tax rates you see lower receipts. Folks just bugger off and emigrate. That is why cracking down on tax minimization for the rich is not likely to help close that deficit.
So what about Starbucks, my new pals at Google, The Guardian and those other big companies that avoid tax by using offshore trusts, technical headquarters in Luxembourg etc in order to avoid paying UK Corporation tax? It is the same battle between their bean counters and the UK Government’s bean counters at play. The Corporations are merely playing by the rules as they stand.
But let us just imagine that the Government managed to close all the Corporate loopholes and that all the companies mentioned above suddenly faced a 24% UK tax bill – what happens next? Well for those that are service companies it is an easy call. They would simply move their European headquarters from London to a lower tax zone in Europe (Dublin at 12.5%, Tirana at 10%, Warsaw at 19% would all be in the running). Firms do not need to have European HQs in London – it is nicer than Tirana but money is money. And so some firms would leave. You lose the 2% tax they do pay at a Corporation tax level. You lose thousands of jobs (which all contribute PAYE, NI etc).
What about those firms which actually do operate in the UK like Starbucks? When Starbucks decides where it opens its next ghastly outfit it looks at its Return on Investment. Its ROI on a new store in the UK is compared with the ROI on a new store in China or Albania. If Starbucks suddenly faces a 24% tax bills on its next UK store rather than 2% that ROI equation changes. There will be fewer stores opened (perhaps some closed) in the UK and more elsewhere. So fewer jobs paying NI, PAYE etc.
So with the corporate it is hard to see the Government bean counters being smart enough to outwit the corporate expensive accountants and pushing up the tax they do pay. But if they succeed there is no guarantee at all that the overall Government tax take will actually go up. It may go down.
And that is why the issue of the budget deficit can ONLY be addressed by cutting Government Spending. The fact is that UK Government debt (if you ignore what we lent the banks) is at 1,065 billion quid, 67% of GDP. GDP is increasing only very slowly (if at all). That debt is increasing at £120 billion a year. When you get to 90% debt/GDP it starts to send your economy ex-Growth. You start the death spiral. At 120% you cannot borrow money any more. You are Greece. At current rates the UK will be at 90% within five years. By 2020 we will be knocking on the door of being the next Greece (except that France, etc will get there first).
So we can delude ourselves and talk about squeezing the rich a bit more. But it will make no difference. We can delude ourselves and say that scrapping foreign aid (£11 billion) or EU contributions ( £20 billion) will solve the problems. It would help but it is not enough. The sort of cuts needed to stave off bankruptcy within 10 years are on a scale few are yet prepared to contemplate.
We carry adverts on this site and I’d like to thank those companies who back us. But we also applied to run ads via Google and right now Google has just said that they will not because our content is unacceptable on two grounds: gambling and adult content. So we are ranked with the porn sites. This is laughable and my express wish this morning is that the puritans at Google burn in hell. Here’s why this is such a joke.
In its email Google states that
Currently, only Google ads that we classify as family-safe are available through the AdSense program. We’ve found adult content on your site. This includes text or images that contain sexual, lewd or provocative content, and sites that require users to be at least 18, or that may not be safe for work. Therefore, we’re unable to display relevant ads on your site.
Okay so let us just say that I am running porn on this site (which I am not), Google says that anyone who is drawn to that sort of content should not be allowed to click on an advert by one of its customers? Or that perverts have to go order their credit cards via an advert on a nice safe site instead. I give up on the gambling matter as this site just has nothing about that at all. What exactly are the rules on what is deemed “adult content?”
Here is the list from Google:
Pornographic cartoons or anime (hentai)
Lewd or provocative images
Adult/sexual dating sites
Mail Order Brides / Escort sites
Crude or indecent language, including adult stories
Sexual tips or advice
Adult comment spam
Adult search results
Ads or links to external sites containing adult content
Sexual aids, devices and enhancers such as: vibrators, dildos, lubes, sex games, inflatable toys, penis and breast enlargements and sex instructional videos
Note: Sites that are selling sexual drugs such as Viagra will fall under the drug content policy, NOT adult content
I really am struggling on this one. Is it the women’s beach volleyball photo or that one of Cheryl Cole looking seductive lying on a bed? Perhaps it is the occasional use of the word fucked or buggered as in America’s economy is not in a very good state? Or perhaps I used the word shagging just a bit too often? Perhaps it was my suggestion that Peppa Pig’s younger brother should go work as a lapdancer to keep the EU onside that blew it for me?
I really have not got a fucking clue but am buggered if I am going to stop running that picture of the delightful Ms Cole. Another non Google advertiser has approached us today and we shall take its custom and the US giant can go to burn in hell with the other puritans who classify anything not toned in the language of the Guardian as unacceptable. Bollocks to you Google.
After 6 billion dollars and what seems like an eternity of evasion and unfulfillable promises America must decide today whether to re-elect President Obama or to replace him with Mitt Romney. What a god awful choice. It is just like Manchester United versus Chelski, you want both teams to lose. But after another evening with deluded lefties I think I have now decided who I want to lose less.
Rating the two men on a number of issues is a pretty thankless task but here goes on what matters to me.
1. The deficit. Neither has put forward plans which will deal with this issue. Obama is more profligate but Romney looks more competent at balancing the tax return for his dressage horse than at balancing America’s books. Both candidates would leave the US teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. On balance: a narrow win for Mitt.
2. The role of Government. Romney understands that business creates jobs. Obama reckons ( despite all the evidence to the contrary from his first term) that Government can create jobs. For the avoidance of doubt, cosy office jobs funded by the State inside the Beltway for liberal arts graduates are not real jobs. A clear win for Mitt.
3. Civil liberties, free speech and other social issues. I cannot say that Obama has impressed wildly on this matter. Hopey change has delivered little change in his first term. American still runs Guantanamo Bay, the patriot Act is still there, etc. But Obama’s heart is probably in the right place. Mitt is a social conservative and in hock to outright conservatives in his party. A clear win for Obama.
4. Foreign policy. Total disaster area all round. Both men seem committed to spending money America does not have, intervening where she is not wanted with predictably dire long term consequences. Massive Minus points for both candidates.
5. Israel. It matters to me. Obama has not stood up to the Islamofascists of Iran. I am not sure Mitt would either but he appears to have more of a commitment to the rights of Israel than the President does. A narrow win for Mitt.
6. Global warming. Obama believes in the pseudo science and will piss billions away on it. Romney appears to change his mind on a weekly basis. As such I suspect he’s carry on with the status quo. Nil points for either candidate.
7. Integrity and honesty. Romney’s tax returns will always haunt him. His policy flip flops ( see above) are pretty unimpressive. Having said that some of the places Obama’s Government has spent taxpayer’s cash, some of his campaign contributions and some of his past associations do not inspire much confidence either. On this one Obama is no Jimmy Carter ( although he is many other respects) and Romney is no George Bush (junior or senior). Nil points for both men.
8. Reforming the Fed and ending QE Ad infinitum. With Obama there is no chance of that. With Romney it depends on which day of the week it is and which speech you read. Ultimately he is no radical reformer. America is an addict hooked on QE. He will not risk cold turkey in his first term. I do not believe he will reform at all. No points for either man.
9. West Ham United. Obama claims to support West Ham. Romney has not disclosed his UK soccer allegiance but I bet it would be a big four team. He is just that sort of guy. A mammoth win for Obama.
10.Do I believe a word either says? No. Nil points for both men.
And so scoring that all up I have both men level at about minus 79 points out of ten. I really want both to lose and cannot see it making a blind bit of difference who wins. I cannot be bothered to stay up for the result but still expect Obama to win.
But, if really pressed, who do I want to win? In the absence of any other metric I go to the acid test. Which candidate is supported by Polly Toynbee, The Guardian editorial team, the biased BBC, Bono, all those ghastly Hollywood celebrities and deluded lefties across Europe? It is Obama. On the basis that the deluded collective are wrong on every issue, I know with 100% certainty who I am hoping will win.
Britain is one of the four largest contributors to the European Investment Bank, a bank owned by the EU itself which lends money to promote jobs and growth in EU countries and, bizarrely, to those just outside the EU borders as well. Those who think that increasing the amount the UK hands over to the Evil Empire each year need to read on as this tale is a disgrace.
Ford’s last UK factory near Southampton employs 500 folks who each year make 28,000 Transit vans. The UK market for Transit vans is c60,000 a year and from now onwards they will all be imported.
Ford also co-owns a factory in Turkey which produces 210,000 Transits a year. This factory at Kocaeli is apparently very profitable. And it wants to expand. Step forward the EIB which has handed over £80 million on an eight year loan with a two year repayment holiday and interest payable at 2%. Given that inflation in Turkey is running at 9% this is effectively free money. A commercial loan to this factory would be at 12% or more. The (profitable) Turkish factory will use the EU cash to expand output and hire workers and so by 2014 will be producing 290,000 Transits a year many of which will be shipped to Britain.
In case you missed the point here. Your taxes have been sent off by the Evil Empire via a dirt cheap loan to a country which is not even in the EU. That has allowed Ford to expand that factory creating jobs and wealth in a non EU state while closing a factory back in the UK so throwing 500 folks on the dole.
Had Ford funded the Turkish expansion itself and shut what was, I am sure, a high cost UK operation I could not have, as a believer in market forces, objected. One of the facts we must all face up to is that if the UK is to remain competitive in a global economy we will have to adjust to a reduced standard of living, i.e. lower wages. But this is not just about Ford cutting costs. It has been subsidised to make the move by cheap debt provided in large part by the very country where the jobs are being lost.
Hell’s teeth I wave the Irish Tricolour at a sporting event and so I am not sure why it upsets me when folks say that the Union Flag has only recently become acceptable. I think it is a matter of who says it but also that it is so patently wrong. Saturday saw another encounter with folks who are without doubt good people. Nice people. But also, utterly deluded academic lefties. And I lost my temper. The Union Flag has always been “acceptable” to most people in this country. Indeed for most folks it has been – quite rightly – a source of pride.
The thesis of the Guardian reading classes is that somewhere along the line the red, white and blue was high jacked by extreme right wingers of the National Front and BNP and thus became a flag that could not be flown with pride. It was only somewhere between Austin Powers and Cool Britannia (1997) and Mo Farah, the Queen’s Jubilee (2012) that it once again became universally acceptable.
On Saturday, the thesis of the left was pushed even further with a claim that the Windrush generation of immigrants experienced racism on arrival and could not associate with the Union Flag anyway because of post Imperial resentment and that for them it has taken until 2012 or whenever to start to associate with it. My blood was boiling at this stage.
Starting with the Windrush immigrants and other arrivals in the UK. All the evidence that I see is that many immigrants flocked to what they termed “the mother country” not because they hated the British because of our wicked imperialist ways but because they saw an opportunity to gain better employment and a better life in a country which had – via Empire – established systems of life, law, education and Government that they felt quite happy with. There was no seething resentment of the Flag in that generation. These are the same folk from the Colonies who volunteered (yes, bloody Guardian readers accept that fact, they signed up voluntarily) to fight for “King and Country” in two world wars. Just because they did not have a white skin, it did not stop them appreciating so much that was good about Britain. With his or her tainted world view, a Guardian reader finds that hard to believe but it happens to be a hard fact.
Those immigrants and those of prior waves (the Jews and Eastern Europeans who dominated the East End in the 1880s for instance) clearly did encounter some racial hostility. But within a few decades the Eastern European and Jewish communities of the East End had integrated, many had left the ghetto and were almost universally proud to be British. They died for King and Country just like 30th generation Brits did, fighting under the same flag.
They did not need Citizenship tests and neither did the Windrush generation. Look at photos of the Queen’s Silver Jubilee in 1977 from Notting Hill and you see thousands of happy Afro-Caribbean faces smiling in streets bedecked with Union Flags. They are, and were, proud to be British and proud of that flag. With a touch of green blood in me I too find some pride in standing alongside such folks as fellow Britons.
Nationalist parties waved the Union Flag in Britain just as Nationalist/Racist parties fly their national flags in other countries. But for fifty years or so the Union Flag has also remained a central part of other aspects of our lives. Dead servicemen coming back from Ulster, Iraq, the Falklands or wherever came back in a coffin draped in our National Flag. They fought under that Flag and sometimes died for it. The Flag flies wherever the Queen goes. The Flag flies on poles across the countryside. It always has.
That the liberal elite regarded it as a badge of shame or claimed that the Far Right had appropriated it was because it is never their sons who die for their country. They have no contact with that world. They would rather not think about Old fashioned institutions like the monarchy and regard the attitudes of country folks who kill poor little foxy woxy, fly the national flag and don’t regard same-sex marriage or electoral reform as the key pressing issues of the day, with undisguised contempt. So in their narrow world view the Far Right appropriated the Union Flag and thus it had to be shunned. Their world view was wrong. Maybe it took the Olympics or another Jubilee to show just how out of touch they were but for most folks in the United Kingdom the Union Flag was never a badge of shame.
Of course these days there is another Flag we see across England – the Cross of St George. The breakup of the Union and thus of our National Flag may happen. There are folks in Scotland who wish to break away. There are a lot of us in England who would rather welcome that for a range of reasons.
And so perhaps we feel less strongly about the Union Flag than we used to but most of us never regarded the Flag with shame. There was no need for guilt or post-imperial anger. Britain has always welcomed folks from the colonies – be it my father’s mother’s family retreating from Eire or the Windrush migrants and most people have always accepted that once here the new arrivals became British and enjoyed standing next to them underneath our country’s flag.
It is not just that the Guardian reading classes are wrong on every issue, it is that they seek to re-write history to justify a set of beliefs which are insulting to the way that the vast majority of folks live and think and have done so for generations.
Just a brief insight into the mindset of those who will ultimately destroy the West: the publication of a new book “How to Get Fired So You Can Collect Benefits.” This book is published by Revolutionary Books the firm that brought you such winners as A Pig Named Wall Street, and Confessions of an alcoholic who put down the bottle for revolution – a book that apparently contains the confessions of a citizen who overcame their alcoholism for the sake of the community, the people, the Revolution. If you are looking for further reading…
How about, The Anti Upper Class Fact Book. Apparently this book features 500 facts about the upper class. These facts will show the moral and psychological corruption of the wealthy.
One suspects that not included in those facts for deluded lefties are: “Rich people pay nearly all of the income tax collected in your country which goes to fund the welfare state and the feckless, lazy scumbag existence of the smelly Occupy types who read this crap.” I doubt that it also contains the fact “Capitalism is the best system going for raising the absolute wealth of the poorest in society.”
The premise of the latest book is that it contains 500 ways to get fired (so getting a payoff from wicked capitalists) so you can live on benefits funded by taxes paid by a) those wicked capitalists and those who choose not to get fired.
Education should of course start young so Revolutionary Books also offers up “The Banker who stole my home” This, apparently is a children’s book that looks at foreclosures through the eyes of a child. Who on earth would buy such a book for their kid’s Christmas stocking? It probably sells well at The Guardian online bookstore.
The winner of October’s Deluded Guardian Journalist of the Month was by universal acclaim David Leigh who argued that all internet users should pay a poll tax to subsidise loss making newspapers like, er…The Guardian. I am not waiting another 27 days to call November’s winner. Unless Polly Toynbee comes up with a real corker, the prize has to go to John Palmer who argues that the 6.8% budget increase for the EU is not enough. It needs to be more.. Saints preserve us.
In case you have forgotten Leigh’s classic application for the asylum my take on it is here
Now to this month’s winner. Palmer argues that the proposed EU budget amounts to barely 1% of the total economy. Clearly Government should be spending more of our money and Palmer ( who wants the EU budget quadrupled) thinks that the EU fails to recognise that:
“In the British domestic economic debate there is usually at least some reference to the vital role of the public budget in offsetting the crisis of growth and unemployment and also in spearheading investment in infrastructure and research vital in securing growth and jobs. Not so when it comes to the EU budget – even though it could be a very important means of reversing the deepening recession throughout Europe.”
He goes on:
“The current European Union budget – covering 27 (soon to be 28) member states – amounts to barely 1% of the total EU economy. Whatever the benefits that budget brings – for example to the poorer regions, to scientific research and to vital transport and energy networks – it is ridiculously small. As has been argued by economists across the EU, to make a significant impact on the European Union economies it should be increased by a factor of three or four and directed more specifically to overcoming the mounting obstacles in the way of sustainable growth and jobs.”
Oh please. As I understand it the Palmer thesis is thus:
Every EU member is running a budget deficit. Some now have such debts that they are already bust (Greece, Spain, Ireland). Others are running such vast deficits that within a few years they will also be bust (France, Britain, Belgium, Holland, Italy, etc, etc).
So running vast deficits in domestic economies has not created jobs (unemployment is rising across the continent) so what we must now do is run even bigger national budget deficits to hand money to the EU so it can allocate it back to individual nations to build roads, invest in R&D, blah, blah, blah.
There are two flaws in this thesis.
1. “Rich countries” like Britain, France and Germany will increase their deficits as net EU contributors. But the “benefits” will be felt as the cash is doled out to net taker countries. So from a British perspective this is insanity even if you are a Keynesian.
2. Running deficits is not creating jobs now, has not in the past and never will. Cutting deficits, cutting taxes allows folks to spend more of the money they earn and they tend to allocate it more wisely than Governments do. How many of you would be allocating 2% of your income to buying jets for African dictators as the British state does?
The fact is that the EU budget has grown massively in real terms over the past decade and this has achieved nothing other than employing 33,000 pen pushers in Brussels and making the EU the world’s largest contributor to foreign aid ( see jets for dictators above).
Palmer argues that the EU budget is too small because it is 1% of GDP in the Evil Empire. So what does he think is the right number? Would it not be more sensible to reference the budget to what the Evil Empire actually needs to spend rather than just plucking a number from the air? Of course it would but this is The Guardian.
Palmer continues…if you can bear it. He then equates opposition to more EU spending as “the most basic and ill-informed populism.” This reminds me of those who opposed Britain joining the Euro who were branded racist, xenophobic, and economically ill-informed. It is playing the man not the ball. Facts do not assist Palmer so he reverts to type: anyone who does not love all things EU is simply “ill-informed” and probably has nasty right wing tendencies that go down badly at Islington dinner parties.
So what ill-informed comments did we sceptics raise? Apparently some Labour MPs thought the Common Agricultural Policy wrong as it hands cash to some of the richest landowners in Britain. Naturally Palmer says this is true. What planet is he on? CAP hands some cash to British farmers but the UK is a huge net contributor to the Empire. CAP hands tens of billions to utterly inefficient lifestyle farmers in France, the PIIGS countries and Eastern Europe.
The real scandal of CAP (other than the endemic fraud) is that the EU is handing out tens of billions of Euros to subsidise inefficient farmers producing food that is not really needed and in doing so pushes up the cost of food across the EU. Scrap CAP and import blocks and food prices fall, poor African countries can get less poor by exporting food here and 27 countries most of which are hurtling towards bankruptcy (or are there already) can cut their deficits.
I am afraid that this is not the end of Palmer’s madness. To fund an EU budget of 640 billion Euro he wants to see not only increased national transfers (The UK writing a bigger blank cheque) but also far more EU imposed customs duties and levies starting, needless to say, with a financial transaction tax. In effect more tax on the few successful job creating industries in the EU so that the (super) State can allocate resources to support industries that cannot raise funds in the market. History shows that State picked industries are almost always losers in the end. So jobs will be lost in winning sectors in order to create jobs in losing ones which will be lost when the EU Government eventually runs out of other people’s money.
John Palmer, you win my November deluded Guardian Journalist of the Month award. I cannot see anyone trumping this effort unless David Leigh comes up with another complete brain wave.
No I did not lunch with a bearded, extremely right wing, Nicaraguan freedom fighter. But with a bearded, extremely right wing, English freedom fighter (living in France). I refer to the publisher of my forthcoming book “The wit and wisdom of Viagra man”, Stephen Eckett of Harriman House. Over for a short holiday Stephen took me to a delightful pub (the Crossed Guns) near where his parents live. The pub overlooks an aqueduct which carries the Kennet & Avon canal over both the River Avon and also the railway line – a bit of a quirk. After lunch a pleasant walk up the valley to catch a train back.
Eckett is delightfully right wing. I would pare down the BBC to its bare bones. He would scrap it altogether. I would pare back the Welfare State greatly, he would go er…rather further. When the disagreement is just how far one cuts it is unlikely to be a heated row. After a brief return to rural France, Eckett’s next stop is Nicaragua to hunt down Contra coffee.
You may remember that when the Nicaraguans overthrew General Samosa in 1979 he was replaced by a hard left regime – the Sandinistas. Samosa had one or two civil rights issues involving the use of Death Squads and there was little disagreement that he was a man who had to go. But the Sandinistas were a petty appalling lot too. Not only were they beloved by the Guardian, the BBC, Bianca Jagger, Polly Toynbee and all the other sort of people who are always wrong on every issue, but they had a few civil liberties issues of their own. Most notably was their desire to force farmers to give up private land and merge all their holdings into co-operatives.
So that “Fair Trade” coffee from Nicaragua that is so beloved in London N1 and no doubt drunk in Polly Toynbee’s Tuscan castle is actually produced on land stolen by the State and where labour is forced, not willing and free. A Nicaraguan co-operative is not a group of peasants getting together voluntarily in some happy socialist dream existence in the Sun in order to make a better life but a group of folks who – through their own hard toil had a better life but were forced together to become peasants by an oppressive State.
In the North of the country the hill farmers objected. And so there was a bit of a civil war with the Northern farmers supporting the Contras. These folk were a bit discredited since they included supporters of the former leader Samosa and also got involved with Ollie North, the CIA, guns and Iran. The war ended but the Northern farmers kept their arms and via a company in the US Mr Eckett, on principle, imported hugely expensive Contra Coffee for his personal consumption. This is free coffee produced by free men.
But a year or two ago, suddenly the Contra coffee stopped flowing over to Eckett Towers in France. He has been unable to find an explanation. And so he is off to the Nicaraguan hills to see what has happened to the farmers who made Contra Coffee. Have market forces (their product was expensive) taken their toll? Or have the hill farmers finally been forced into co-operatives? Or maybe they were just scamming everyone and have made so much cash that the have all retired to Miami? Eckett is on a mission to find out.
You and I know that hurricanes just happen. No-one is to blame and mankind just carries on. But out there in the twittersphere the left is already working out whom or what is to blame for Hurricane Sandy which is now battering New York. Just to help these simple folk along so that they can cut and paste away for the comments board on the Guardian, BBC, etc here are the top ten candidates for who or what is to blame.
1. George Bush Junior – he caused all that is evil on this planet.
2. Global Warming. I know Sandy is rather cold but it is all to do with Global Warming which was partly caused by George Bush ( see above)
3. The Bankers – they are greedy and had they not stolen so much money Big Government could have used it to stop hurricanes/stop global warming etc.
4. Margaret Thatcher. The fumes from all those babies she personally burned in Liverpool and the mining communities caused Global Warming. See point 2. Besides which she is also evil.
5. The Daily Mail and any newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch for running lies about 1-4, personally killing all those Liverpool fans at Hillsborough, etc.
6. Dick Cheney. Firms he is involved with will inevitably get clean up contracts so he must have started the hurricane personally. Just like he started the Iraq war personally for the same reason.
7. The State of Israel. Surely you do not believe that Mossad is not involved in starting this hurricane somehow?
8. Ann Coulter, Mark Steyn and also everyone at Fox News for organising lies and dissemination in order to cover up the direct involvement of the entire Republican establishment and the State of Israel in starting this hurricane.
9. Ronald Reagan. Yes he is dead but while still President he engaged Ollie North in a vast conspiracy to trade guns with someone in return for organising a hurricane to wipe out loads of Democrat voters on the East Coast a week before polling day in 2012.
10. George Bush Junior again. You just cannot underestimate how evil this man is.
I hope that helps. Now what is important is that Big Government writes an enormous cheque and takes responsibility for everything so that individuals do not have to lift a finger and everything will be rectified as soon as possible. And that just has to be a big Government led by President Obama who really can change everything including the weather.
Is this the last episode of Downton Abbey series three tonight? Maybe it is the penultimate one. But it is hard to see what shocks we could have left. After all it is 1920 so unless the IRA man takes time off from grieving to join the Irish Civil War or Lady Edith heads off to fight for Greece against Turkey it is hard to see what can go wrong. Bates is on his way out of prison. The ex prostitute is settling in well at the Crawley household. Predatory homosexual Thomas really must get his long awaited come uppance downstairs while simple but honest Mary the under-cook looks set to be handed the keys to a farm by the father of the man she married but did not love just before he died.
Non Downton lovers – in this show someone important has to die at least once a series. The pompous prig Matthew Crawley is trying to make himself more exciting by picking a fight with thicko Aristocrat the Earl of Grantham but he is failing. He and Lady Mary really need to emigrate.
In Dallas, the younger generation of John Ross, Chris, Elena and the mad wife of Chris are growing on me. News that Bobby/Patrick Duffy/The Man from Atlantis may be about to peg out can be handled because the younger generation are quite amusing. Although without JR or Maggie Smith both series would be holed beneath the waterline But without Lady Sybil (died two episodes ago) the younger generation at Downton is pretty weak. I am beginning to think that I can survive life without Downton and those bloody adverts for P&O Luxury Cruises.
Meanwhile as part of my drive to see a few more films I saw a pretty good alternative flick yesterday, Ginger & Rosa. Set in 1962 it is the story of two 17 year olds whose friendship is gradually torn apart by a) one going to a grammar school and the other a secondary modern, b) their attitudes and the stresses caused by the Cuban Missile Crisis and the ban the bomb marches and c) the father of one shagging the other. I think c) was the real blow.
I shall largely skip the point about schooling. It was all too artificial. Had both girls gone to an inner City comprehensive I am sure they would both have gone off the rails…the raw material for a derailment was all too obvious in both cases. Banning the bomb might have seemed like a good idea at the time but as it happens ( and naturally this was not reflected in the script which focussed on fascist policeman dragging away duffle coat wearing protesters) Kennedy was right to stand up to the Russians over Cuba. And moving forward 20 years those who would rather have been “red than dead” were wrong.
Thatcher & Reagan stood up to the Soviets and in the end a weak economy (i.e. a communist one) could not match the spending power of a strong one (i.e. a capitalist one). The strong stance taken by Maggie and Ron encouraged the good folk of Eastern Europe to rise up and throw off the shackles of Soviet oppression. The choice was not “red or dead.” The choice was “prolonging the Soviet system in Russia and the Russian occupation and suppression of human rights and democracy in Eastern Europe or freedom and life all round.” My step mum and her pals at Greenham Common , Michael Foot, Bruce Kent, the BBC/Guardian were all wrong. Thatcher and Reagan called it right. Thank God.
Having said all of that the film was a fast moving and vaguely plausible tale with a predictably miserable end. Timothy Spall and Annette Benning as two thirds of a lefty, gay, CND supporting terribly middle class household are excellent. The early 60s is an era that is well before my time but from all that I have read and watched about it, the movie captured the mood of the time well. I do not regret seeing it although the dishonesty of some elements of the script cannot avoid comment.
Hell’s teeth. By accident I find myself listening to the BBC for 30 minutes and I already deeply regret it. It was a mistake that I shall not repeat. My encounter is with the Today programme and first up was the Reverend John Bell from the Iona community who is just absolutely ghastly. He makes me dream once again of Scottish independence in the hope that this dreadful man would not then pollute the airwaves of a free Britain. Scottish independence or shutting down the BBC. Bell needs to come off air.
The whingeing Scot started with a preamble about how he opposed bipartisan politics. Yeah right. Within a few minutes he was off with a grandiose claim that Jesus came into this world to help the poor, sick, vulnerable and weak. Jesus tried to change their lot on this planet but was blocked by reactionary forces who were engaging in “partisan politics.” Shit. I guess they had wicked Tories back in 20 AD as well.
Bell had within 45 seconds of starting claimed (without evidence) Jesus as one of his own – a sandal wearing, Guardian reading, big State friend of the welfare classes. He was right about the sandals, I suspect, but there is no clear unequivocal case for the rest of it. For Bell, a partisan politician (bad thing) is not one who has any agenda just one who has an agenda that does not fit with his own deluded, typically Scottish, view of the world.
Chatting to Uncle Chris (Booker) afterwards on another matter I shall cover shortly I gather that Bell has form. It seems that Bell/Jesus are also keen supporters of the EU. And, rather like my deluded sister Tabby writing in her Parish magazine, Bell also believes that Jesus wants us to actively combat man made global warming. Tabby cannot help it. My entire family ( bar superstar step sister Flea) are deluded lefties. But at least she is not given a regular slot on taxpayer funded national radio to spout this tripe.
Another day and another daft PC missive from an organisation that you once respected. This time it is the Boy Scouts that makes one despair for Britain. The Scouts want to ban nicknames because that can lead to bullying. Oh please…
My brief foray into the Scouts saw some stern ex soldier take us for walks where we made “secret signs” with sticks so that only fellow Scouts could follow the trail. A few more years of that and I am sure that I too could have ended up like “Bear Grylls” who is apparently the Chief Scout today but must henceforth be known as Edward – for that is his real name. We would not want poor Bear to get put upon.
Apparently these days Scouts earn badges for things like recycling. All very twenty first century. And the Scouts now have a chief “safeguarding” officer Sam Marks who claims that
“Bullying can advance gradually and can start with something as simple as a nickname – Research and experience all highlight that name calling – whether it be nicknames or harmless taunting – is often the largest form of bullying. Many nicknames come from someone’s appearance to something they’ve done. We don’t have a black and white list of approved nicknames. “
Oops. Not very PC Mr Marks (or “wimp” as he was known as a lad). Black and white. You won’t be earning a Diversity awareness badge with language like that. But apparently nicknames which refer to a physical characteristic are especially bad. So “Ginger” is definately on the black list. Sorry unapproved list.
I guess that I am going to have to stop calling my ex-wife and the mother of Olivia “big nose” then. Actually it is a term of endearment but if it is banned what shall I do? How about “Welshie”. Maybe not. Sefton lackie
– I guess I shall settle for that.
The instructions about the use of nicknames between adults have been included in “anti bullying” sessions given to new leaders as well as “top up” courses given to serving leaders. In typically, Guardian reading administrator/HR language “wimp” Marks says that: “If we are asking adults to be positive role models to young people, then we should be making sure the way we talk to them and interact with them is positive.“
Maybe my next book should be 999 reasons to leave Britain. The only problem is how to whittle it down to such a short short-list.
I have just discussed whether page 3 girls should be banned with a feminist. She was quite reasonable about it. Others are not. It is a sign of the decadent decline of or political and media elite that they even regard this as a major issue to start with. Hell’s teeth the country is going bust, our relationship with the EU is utterly broken, we have 9 million economically inactive folks, etc, etc – and yet some insist on getting their knickers in a twist about THIS issue.
Perhaps the simplest way to look at this is to see who supports banning Page 3. Polly Toynbee, Harriet Harman, the Liberal Democrats etc. That should instinctively tell you which side to be on. The other one.
The Toynbee case is that Page 3 should be banned because a) it exploits women and b) it causes men to view women as sex objects/not treat them with respect. Let’s start with the exploitation issue because folks like Toynbee see everything in terms of exploitation. Capitalists give jobs to people who would otherwise not have jobs but because those who own the means of production earn more (or lose everything, Toynbee forgets that part) than the “workers” she sees that as exploitation.
Of course it is not. Capitalism is the best system going for increasing the absolute material wealth and living standards for the most people. And much to Toynbee’s dismay, the other system just did not work. Grudgingly the old trout therefore lives in a capitalist world.
For her and other privately educated members of the elite there is a choice about where you work. It is not the dole or Tesco’s. It is whichever loss making paper is prepared to pony up £300,000 a year for you to serve up lamentable tripe. On a wider scale, those of us lucky to have been born into middle class backgrounds do have some element of choice in determining our terms of trade and where we fit into the capitalist system. But for most folks there is no such choice.
Innate to capitalism (the system that is the most efficient at eliminating absolute poverty) is that most people have to accept jobs where they cannot dictate their terms of trade (i.e. pay) and frankly the jobs they do are the sort Toynbee et al would never consider doing. And so for Katie from Basildon the choice is, in Toynbee’s terms, a pretty grim one: be exploited by Tesco, by Asda or go on the dole. But there is a third way: get your tits out for the Sun. That route offers money, an escape from poverty, an escape from a 9-5 existence and possibly a break into a crap reality TV show. It is exploitation yes (as workers we are all exploited in Toynbee’s world view) but exploitation that offers money, escape from Basildon and possibly a fun lifestyle swilling champagne with moronic football players. Is the world really improved by stopping this?
And then to the second point – Page 3 changes the way men view women. Where is the hard evidence for this? If men wish to see women in a far greater state of undress than Katie from Basildon there are plenty of places to go. One might be any beach in Southern Europe. I spent a summer with topless women walking past me as I sat on the beach. Some looked like Toynbee and others looked like Katie from Basildon with others somewhere in between. In the world of 1970 naked breasts might have been thought rather risqué. Today we just accept them as a normal facet of life. I do not view birds any differently simply because some of them opt to pose topless in the Sun. Not that I read The Sun. Nor is there any evidence that those who do buy the paper view birds differently either.
I accept that some find pictures of topless women distasteful. I find some other things in the press distasteful. Pictures of Polly Toynbee with her kit on, Guardian Op Ed’s written by Hamas Jew hating killers, articles by anyone called Blair, Editorials from the Independent in 1992 explaining why anyone who thought the Euro was a bad idea was a xenophobe and a racist, do I have to go on? But a free society means tolerating that which we find distasteful. I am not forced to read the Guardian, not (as of yet) pay for it and Toynbee is not forced to read the Sun and the State should have no right to dictate what appears in either paper.
The Toynbee approach is one that (albeit in a trivial way) accepts that the State has the right to determine newspaper content. It is one that denies opportunity to folk less fortunate than herself, those who have far fewer choices about which role they play in a capitalist world and it does nothing for women, except consigning a few more of them to leading a life based on a career as a shop assistant at Tesco.
The Toynbee rule stands firm: if Polly supports a cause, that cause is a duff one.
My uncle Chris (Booker) is in India where my cousin Nick lives and so has missed the story of the year – the death of the global warming scam. As one of the bravest and fiercest critics of this costly farce he will be mortified. I am sure that when he arrives back in the UK on Wednesday he will be straight into battle. But data which has emerged from the Met Office ends this debate. Al Gore, Call Me Dave, Chris Huhne, the BBC, the Guardian etc – GOTCHA. It is all over for you now. How about you personally start paying back the gazillions taxpayers have pissed away on your fantasies at once.
The Met Office has always been a key supporter of Global Warming. Just check out this section of its website and you will realise that it sides with the BBC/Gore etc on the debate and not with we sceptics. If it has data which shows the world is warming it releases it with great fanfare – note all the hullaballoo about 2010 data (a very warm year) which was released amid a media blitz.
But there is other data which the Met collected and was snuck out the other day with no media fanfare. I wonder why?
Firstly just to recap the case made by the global warming nutters. It is simple. Man made carbon emissions have caused and will continue to cause a steady increase in the global climate so screwing up planet earth.
We sceptics have always argued that the earth gets warmer and cooler (note the medieval warm period) and does so by itself and did so in eras when there were no meaningful carbon emissions. We pointed out that the UAE emails showed that computer models were “tweaked” to show that the world was bound to get warmer.
And today we are vindicated. The Met office data shows that for the past 16 years the worlds has not in fact got hotter – it has stayed at the same temperature. In the prior 16 years it got hotter. In the preceding 40 years it got colder. Throughout this 72 year period carbon emissions have been steadily increasing. And so that causes, first cooling, then warming, then nothing. Well no it does not cause. There has been no causal link established at all. As David Hume (1711-1776) discusses in depth (I knew studying philosophy would help one day!) events can be conjoined but not connected. Hume was of course writing during one of the earth’s cold periods (nothing to do with carbon emissions).
This data from the Met Office comes from 3,000 data sampling points across the globe. Unlike the UAS computer models this is hard data. It is kosher. And it shows that a) those computer models are just plain wrong and b) that the world simply is not getting warmer. The global warming nutters will insist (they are today) that this is just a plateau before uplift in temperatures but:
a) since their models are now shown to be wrong there is just no evidence for this. It is no more than an assertion. It is as scientifically credible and watertight as my assertion that I am the greatest intellect on this planet. There is no evidence at all for either claim.
b) The world has now seen 70 years of straight line increases in carbon emissions on a scale never seen before. Yet temperatures have clearly not shown a straight line increase or decrease. There is now demonstrably no correlation at all between the two.
So what now? Apologies all round? The Nobel committee taking back Al Gore’s prize in order to preserve its own credibility? Oh, maybe not, a bit late for that after Friday. An immediate end to disastrous energy policies that will cost taxpayers gazillions and cause real power shortages? That is what should happen.
But can an entire political class bring itself to admit that it spent so recklessly on so little evidence and was just plain wrong? I doubt it.
Facebook (FB) is under attack today for paying just £238,000 in corporation tax last year. I am the last person to want to defend Mark Zuckerburg’s enterprise. The shares are grossly overvalued even after almost halving from May’s $38 IPO. I still reckon they will more than halve again. But on this occasion it is the left (MPs, the Independent, the BBC – and its sister publication the Guardian) that just does not get it.
If you want to read why Facebook is worth just $5 a share click HERE
Firstly it is estimated that Facebook generated revenues of £275 million in the UK. The Independent complains that it is paying just 0.136% tax on its earnings. No it is paying tax of 0.136% on its sales. That is a bit harsh. I know Zuckerburg is an easy target but most companies pay tax on profits and facebook should be treated the same as everyone else. But expecting a left to grasp basic economics is perhaps a bit of an ask.
The more damaging accusation is that while facebook is booking costs in the UK it books revenues through low tax Eire so that it pays more tax there and less in high tax Britain. Well it probably does. So does everyone else in the e-word as the Indy admits. Google, etc – they are all at it.
The fact is that it is very hard to show where revenue is generated in the internet world. I happen to live in the UK. This website is owned by an IOM company. Our server could be in the Ukraine. If I moved (and I serve up the content) to Albania (tax rate 10%) where do you think our revenues would be generated? Discuss.
And so it is with facebook etc. The UK has two choices. Keep tax high, pretend we are still in the 19th century where the means of production are tied to one location, and watch anyone with an international business and smart accountants pay a low rate of tax. Or make corporation tax competitive and watch tax receipts go up. Simple. For too simple for lefties to grasp.
Veteran Guardian journalist David Leigh has penned a piece that will make your blood boil. I shall not provide a link as I refuse to direct traffic to this despicable publication. But you need to know what these (already) state subsidised scroungers think. Leigh wants to tax each broadband user in the UK £2 a month. The £500 million raised will be doled out to all publications classed as newspapers in 1994 to allow them to support “high quality journalism”.
This cash is needed because their current business models do not work. The Guardian would trouser c£100 million a year from this plan which would be handy as it currently loses £76 million a year despite getting a vast subsidy from the taxpayer advertising public sector non-jobs (something that could be done in-house and online at a fraction of the cost). The whole proposal stinks as does the tone of the piece from this wretched old dinosaur.
Leigh’s opening phrase says it all about his attitude. “Having survived more than 40 years at the coalface of British journalism.” The coalface. It is an interesting image. To misquote another deluded part time Guardian columnist Billy Bragg “I was a miner, I was a docker, I was a journalist between the wars.” Leigh likes to think of himself standing shoulder to shoulder with the common man, the downtrodden working class who he and his ilk wish to protect by ensuring they eat muesli not nutella, do not smoke and generally better themselves. It is all bollocks. During his 40 year career journalism at places like the Grauniad has been a pampered existence. Job security, a decent wage, big pension, top it all up with fiddled expenses and buckets of red wine all round at The Eagle at lunchtime and El Vinos after work. Much though I’d like to see Leigh, Toynbee etc sent down a coalmine they just would not know how to exist in the real world.
I digress. Leigh continues. He is concerned that:
“the internet is killing off quality newspapers… According to conventional wisdom, print is doomed. Circulations are collapsing because readers can get everything they want on the internet. Not only do those readers dislike the idea of paying to read online, but the existence, among other sites, of the rival licence-fee-payer-funded BBC website guarantees that they will never actually need to pay for a supply of reliable day-to-day news. Paywalls will never really work in a UK context for that reason.
Yet when the day comes that the newspapers are forced to stop printing altogether, it will be a disaster for democracy. The lean pickings from web advertising on a free newspaper site will only pay for a fraction of the high-quality investigative journalism that commercial newspapers generate. We’ll just get the timid BBC on the one hand, and superficial junk on the other.”
His answer is that £2 tax and subsidy. Generously Leigh says that other newer news providers could apply for a share of that subsidy as long as they had at least 100,000 monthly users.
Of course he is wrong on so many counts. The internet is an alternative channel for distributing content to the dead tree press. It is cheaper and more efficient. No-one proposed subsidising carts and horses to fend off the wicked automobile. Not even the Grauniad was mad enough to demand subsidies for typewriter producers paid by everyone who bought a computer. This is just the same.
And good papers can make money as online publications via advertising or indeed by micro-payments. What Leigh fails to grasp is that the cost base of his industry is going to have to change. Printing is no longer viable. But he is not arguing that this should be subsidised so that is not a problem. Paying vast sums to have bureaus across the globe to provide basic news + your political spin is going to have to go. News is a commodity. No-one will pay a premium for a commodity. And of course overpaid columnists who no-one reads will also have to go. In the online era you can track who has a following and who does not. If it turns out that no-one reads the bilge Leigh or Polly Toynbee churn out then they will have to go or take a pay cut.
Leigh insists that Investigative journalism can only be entrusted to the professionals, the cosy media club who sup with the devil via the lobby and the PR networks and who thus do not make waves lest they be excluded and not served up “exclusives” and “scoops.” Indeed that is precisely the reason why Matt Drudge or Guido Fawkes outscoop the deadwood press on political scandals 9 times out of 10. They are not part of “the club.” In the financial world we could do with a financial Guido who points out when companies tell lies in official statements in order to get away share placings to fund boardroom excess. Now that’s an idea. There is a void. We know there is a demand. Maybe someone who does not give a damn about annoying PR firms will start to fill it by running just the sort of pieces that the deadwood press refuse to run. Any ideas on that one? Perhaps I will call my mate Jim Ellerton at Sefton Resources to see what he thinks.
What Leigh wants is a subsidy for the comfortable North London existence that the media class have always enjoyed. He can piss right off. Sticking £2 on my £14 broadband bill is a steep tax hike and I might actually use broadband not to read papers at all but only to play video games or watch porn ( I do neither as it happens) but why should poor kids or sad perverts have to subsidise the Islington rich?
One of the joys of the internet is that if an “event” happens there is on the spot coverage via twitter or blogs almost at once. That plus the big news agencies mean that you do not need newspapers for commodity news. And analysis/comment – well blogs offer that but I suspect that Leigh regards bloggers as “superficial junk.” And columnists who folks actually want to read will also survive newspapers going online.
Leigh’s assertion that only established providers of news would get a hand out sums this piece of work up to a tee. Young writers these days often start on small websites. It is these that are innovative and dare to challenge the establishment. Leigh does not care about that. He wishes you and I to preserve the cushy lifestyle of him and his media mates.
I happily write on the basis that what I earn is paid for by advertising (this blog soon), a direct correlation with page impressions (SeekingAlpha or ADVFN) or subscription ( watch this space). I have no problem with market forces since I know my content has an audience. Leigh just wants a cushy life paid for by you ( as if your subsidies to the bloody Guardian via those job ads was not enough).
The old dinosaur ends by promising that any party that proposes this crackpot idea will get his vote. Really? Would he vote BNP if Nick Griffin put this in his manifesto? Go on Nick, I dare you. We both know it would be madness but it would be hilarious to see a Guardian columnist explaining why he was voting for Nazi filth like the BNP. I suspect Leigh is kidding. He will vote Labour come what may. After all, he has to stand shoulder to shoulder with the other “workers” doesn’t he?
I am sure that you know my view on the overpaid poltroons who run the teachers unions in the UK. This is not an attack on teachers but on the union leaders. Their willingness to go on strike and defend grade inflation/declining standards is appalling. But today we hit a new low with a demand from the head of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) that the National curriculum be ripped up and replaced by lessons in walking. Well the ALT is half right.
Of course I’d rip up the National Curriculum and replace it with demanding standards based on RRR, our nation’s history etc. But walking? Taking a quote from the Guardian newspaper, Martin Johnson the acting general secretary of the ALT says:
“There’s a lot to learn about how to walk. If you were going out for a Sunday afternoon stroll you might walk one way. If you’re trying to catch a train you might walk in another way and if you are doing a cliff walk you might walk in another way.
If you are carrying a pack, there’s a technique in that. We need a nation of people who understand their bodies and can use their bodies effectively.“
Are you in despair already? Well read on. I lift this passage from the Guardian in its entirety:
“Mr Johnson branded the national curriculum “totalitarian” because it prioritised academic education over other types of knowledge.
Mr Johnson said: “For the state to suggest that some knowledge should be privileged over other knowledge is a bit totalitarian in a 21st century environment.”
The union suggested that instead of the current national curriculum, which focuses on core subjects such as maths, English and science, teachers should have the freedom to adapt lessons to reflect a curriculum that concentrated on life skills.
The new curriculum could include lessons in physical co-ordination, personal skills, thinking skills and ethics, he suggested.”
I am almost speechless with rage. The ALT says it stands by Johnson’s remarks so he is not an isolated loony. He is a mainstream loony. I give up.
On June 30th 2012 the Israeli Defence Forces (aka, according to the biased BBC and liberal Western media, child eating monsters) delivered 6,950 tonnes of aid to Gaza – that is food medicine, building materials, auto parts – everything. This was not a one off gesture to celebrate my daughter’s birthday the day before. 6 days a week the IDF delivers aid to Gaza – on average circa 170,000 tonnes a month. That is a lot for a small place like Gaza. So what does Gaza send back in return?
In the month of June the Hamas militia (the paramilitary outfit whose political wing now controls the Gazan State) sent back 163 rockets to towns and villages in Southern Israel. These rockets are aimed at a particular settlement but are not targeted precisely. So they might land on a soccer field or on a school or on a house. It is all pot luck. When you are in such a settlement you have 48 seconds to react from warning to explosion, to scuttle into a shelter. If you are tardy and unlucky? Boom. Bang. You are dead.
And so that is the exchange: the child eating monsters of the Israeli Defence Forces hand over 170,000 tonnes of humanitarian aid each month to improve the quality of life for Palestinians in Gaza and in return the heroic freedom fighters of Hamas make 163 attempts to murder innocent men women and children simply because they are Israeli.
Oddly enough the Biased BBC does not report this exchange. The Guardian is happy to give an op ed opportunity to the Jew hating Hamas scumbag who runs Gaza and who has a stated AM of driving all Israelis into the sea. But while it gives a platform to folks who want to see a “Final Solution” The Guardian, like the rest of the British Media fails to report this main exchange between the IDF and Hamas – an exchange which really does affect everyones lives on both sides of the border on a daily basis. Funny that.
The “drought” of Spring 2012 is just one of those things that happen. So was the drought of 1976. So were the ultra cold winters of 1947 and 1963. This is nothing whatsoever to do with global climate change let alone global warming. In fact the earth has actually been cooling for the past decade just as our leaders plan to trash our economy with new carbon taxes to tackle global warming. But any evidence of hotter weather is always trotted out by certain parties as evidence of global warming. Hence we turn to the drought of 2012 (remember that?)
Picking through the Guardian’s outpourings on the subject I found a Guardian Teacher guide for 7-11 year olds. Teachers who read the vile rag are encouraged to discuss drought with their pupils thus:
Create a mashed-up and cross cultural dance routine that reveals how water is important to different people across the world. Flash perform your dance somewhere they would least expect it!
Oh please. Heaven help me. My teachers when I was 7-11 may have been a mixed up bunch of closet homosexuals with a keen interest in ensuring we all took cold showers after rugby and ageing WW2 veterans who beat us senseless (as well as some lovely ladies like Mrs Fawcett, Mrs Fogg and Mrs Hobday) but at least we did not have our minds filled with this mumbo jumbo. I just do not know where to start with this piffle.
Perhaps I digress. My point is that we have now had a vast amount of rain. The rivers and reservoits are full to bursting. My garden is green and the plants are loving it. I see nothing unusual in stacks of rain. It happens now and again. This may well be the wettest summer since records began in Britain. That will in itself be wheeled out as evidence of climate change. But the third wettest was in 1789 – not a lot of carbon emitting jumbos and power stations around then. In other words there is no trend – you just sometimes have wet period and sometimes have dry periods.
At some stage this might just sink in, even among global warming fanatics. As the rain pours down again presumably they are amending their claims made just 3 months ago about drought/global warming. Of course they are not. Global warming is a religion not a science and so facts do not matter.
Lucian Miers wins the Master Investor DVD for answering the competition
correctly: North Devon 1979, Auberon Waugh and Rinka. I am not sure that Waugh was a terribly nice man but generally you do not stick the boot in just after someone dies. Rather famously, the loathsome Polly Toynbee did just that with a vile obit in 2001
My youngest sister, Naomi, ( named after a gorilla at Chester zoo) holds the view that if Uncle Chris (Christopher Booker) is opposed to something then by definition it is a cause worth supporting. Thus as someone who has worked her entire life in the public sector, reading the Guardian, she loves the EU, wind farms, regulation and thinks that global warming is a real threat. It is only on the issue of the Middle East where she and Chris find themselves in agreement and where my views diverge sharply from those of my Uncle. It is odd how so many from the traditional right as well as almost all of the new left both find joint cause these days in their loathing of Israel.
I apply Naomi’s Booker rule to Toynbee. Almost every word the vile old hag pens for the Guardian makes my blood boil. Only someone like her, born into privilege and earning vast sums in the state subsidized sector, totally immune to market forces can argue that we should “all pay a bit more” in tax. She can afford it. It might just mean one less trip a year to her Tuscan second home. Most of us cannot. If Toynbee supports a cause it is bound to be a misguided one worth opposing on principle.
And finally to something Toynbee no doubt has no interest in: cheap beer, football and patriotism. She would undoubtedly argue that such matters were just for the masses and are all beneath her. For the rest of us Euro 2012 kicks off tomorrow. All the games (Monday to Saturday only) will be shown at Real Man Pizza 91-95 Clerkenwell Road and while the games are on, the price of a Peroni or glass of wine is slashed to just £1.25. Cheers.
— Tom Winnifrith
Register here for The Tomograph
Tom's newsletter with original articles and a free share tip of the week, not found on this website.