You do realise the climate change 'movement' has nothing to do with controlling the climate. And everything to do with controlling you?

When I first started opining on climate change - I've been following the issue quite closely for more than ten years now - it was really based on my mild skepticism that we (mankind) really thought we could control the earth's temperature; that actually the sun has very little to do with our climate and that human activity is really - and permenantly - changing the planet's climate given that we've been here for about 15 minues if one equates the existence of the planet in terms of the span of a year.

I felt that these issues were divergent from my limited understanding of science (I am not a qualified scientist), but also from what seemed to me to make any kind of sense. It also struck me, increasingly, that any kind of debate or questioning of this issue was being 'discouraged' (to put it laughingly mildly) by government, the main stream media (MSM) and the scientific community. There was a whif of dead rodent in the air it seemed to me, and so I started looking a bit more cloesly at the issues.

How could the sun possibly influence our climate? 

What I learned surprised and frankly scared me: that people we are brought up to hold in high regard, to trust and to look up to, are actually involved in a global conspiracy that has very little to do with controlling the climate, and a great deal to do with controlling our lives - all of us.

Let's start with (and get out of the way) the science of 'man-made global warming'. Actually the campaigners seem recently to have dropped the term AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) and instead have started using 'Climate Change' in all correspondence, media etc. So they've dropped the 'warming' thing, and also the 'man-made' thing. Erm, so if it's not warming and not man-made, what the fuck (technical scientific term) are they campaigning about? And what the fuck do they think we can do about it if we are not causing the problem and, anyway, the problem doesn't exist?

Where we are now in terms of the science is that the surface temperature of the planet has not been warming for at least 17 years and 10 months. Some scientists put the fiigure at 19 years which, if accurate, would mean that the earth hasn't been warming (and has in fact been marginally cooling) for about the same amount of time as it was previously warming (1977 - 1997) in it's entirely predictable and cyclical way, which is driven by the activity of the sun - sun-spots, solar flares etc.

In either scenario, the fact is that by the time Mr Gore was creating his mockumentary An inconvenient truth in 2006, the same year that our very own Lord (Nicholas) Stern produced his doom-laden Stern Review the planet had in fact not been warming since 1997. And yet Mr Blair was persuaded to describe AGW as 'the biggest threat facing our planet today' and we have latterly (Mr Miliband as Energy Secretary in 2008) committed the UK to cutting levels of CO2 output to 1990 levels by 2020 - or by 80% in real terms. Still neither man has ever been in the slightest bit worried about facts getting in the way of policy.

Despite a continued rise in levels of CO2 in the atmosphere - the gas that is a building block of life on the planet as it is 'plant food', but also, accordning to President Obama in a speech made yesterday, 'pollution' - temperatures have not been rising. And the dire predictions made from 2006 onwards, about ice caps melting, polar bears dying out, sea levels rising, increased incidence of extreme weather events simply haven't arisen. Gore predicted that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013.

The thing is these predictions were (and have been ever since), based on the use of computer models to predict what would happen on the planet. Models designed to come up with a pre-ordained result and which make use only of CO2 as a driver, ignoring all of the other factors and influencers on our highly complex planet and eco-system. The reality, in the form of real evidence, measurements of what is really happening, as opposed to what these AGW-funded scientists have been predicting, simply does not match up the theory with the reality.

To the extent that I don't really feel the need to carry on with this denunciation of the completely discredited climate science community. This is almost an accepted 'result' these days and whilst a few, within the industry and the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) still maintain their dreary old rubbish, most people in the world have woken up to the reality and, frankly, have moved on. You can read much more on the science (by me but with links to real scientists) here if you need more detail.

And yet, and yet. At this week's New York Climate Change summit, this discredited pseudo science is not only being celebrated and pushed down our throats, it is actually being used to try to force governments around the world to change their energy policy (and therefore industrial and development policies) as if the AGW science was correct and proven beyond doubt (when the exact opposite is true). There have been well-attended climate marches around the world - which always makes me shake my head and smile ruefully - this movement has been so powerful as to get people to attend marches to promote a campaign that will give governments more control over their lives and see them paying considerably more of their hard-earned money in taxes. That is quite an achievement I have to say.

And the BBC, the MSM and our government still maintain that 'the science is settled' and will brook no counter argument or entertain any kind of debate on 'the biggest issue facing our planet today'. If nothing else rings alarm bells in your mind, this certainly should.

In one of my first blog pieces on AGW (here) I looked at the issue in terms of following the money - always a good place to start on almost any major issue I find. And all roads led back to the 1992 UN Conference on the Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro, also known as the 'Earth Summit'. This was preceded by the Earth Summit (1972) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) (1973), the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I) (1976), and the World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Commission) (1983). All of which were about environment, land ownership etc, but it was Rio in 1992 where the real nature of the UN-backed concept started coming to the fore.

All of these events and programmes were and are designed to enable greater control by governments of their populations and were created by the UN when it was facing an existential crisis - what was it for? What it became for (following the fall of the Berlin wall and an end to the cold war) was to try to establish a single world government - an initiative which has since become known as Agenda 21 - literally an agenda for the 21st century to create a single world government.

In order to take forward their aims, the UN needed a single issue that affects everyone on the planet and could provide a means of raising taxes, exerting more control over people's behaviour and which would lead, eventually, to an essentially socialist world in which private land-ownership, food production,where people live and how they behave, could be controlled by a single global organisation. The issue they chose was 'climate'.

When I first identified Agenda 21 I was somewhat hesitant to make too much of it as it smacks of 'conspiracy theorist' - the desperate mantra used by some to dismiss anyone who holds opposing or questioning views. And very effective it has been over the years. But I think those days are now over. People are, thanks largely to social media (let's face it if we had to rely on the MSM or our elected representatives we'd still be in the dark about this) becoming more and more aware of Agenda 21 and its campaigns which are often run under the heading of 'Sustainability' - a term with which is hard to disagree at face value, but which actually hides a multitude of highly sinister policies.

Sustainability is about land ownership, population centres (where people are effectively 'coralled to live), food production (making use, in particular of GM foods), energy and use of resources. All big issues as the world's population increases of course, but ones that are being addressed behind our backs rather than in an open and honest way. You have to wonder why that is?

Every US president since 1992 has signed up to Agenda 21: The European Union is a major player in the movement and our own government is also a fully paid up advocate, even though they do not make this clear to us in any way. On the ground, organisations like ICLIE (Local Government for Sustainability) founded in 1990 is now active across the globe, albeit in a clandestine way, recruiting government and local authorities to its sustainability agenda.

There are well over 100 UK authorities that are now signatories - and financial contributors - to the ICLIE organisation - more on ICLIE here if you're interested.

In addition organisations/movements including 'Common Core' in the US and 'Common Purpose' here are also key delivery vehicles in the Agenda 21 / ICLIE sustainability agenda. Both of these organisations train leaders of the future to lead, as they put it 'beyond authority' snd through 'behavioural modification'. Or as I would translate it, beyond the law and beyond the agreement of the populations they should be serving.

So the inconvenient truth for the sustainability (man-mad climate change) peddlars is that the science no longer supports their 'mission'. It no longer gives any credence to the pseudo science for which they have been paying very handsomely for decades now (which is why most scientists who expressed a preference agree that AGW is real - because they are paid to find that result from 'models' instead of considering the facts and the real science of the issue).

Despite the science being a busted flush, the UN is too far down its single world government pathway to stop now. So even when the tools of control - the over-stated threat of climate change and the frankly ridiculous notion that man can control the earth's climate - there still seems to be no way of stopping this frankly Marxist future that is being prepared for us.

Call-me-Dave is a Common Purpose 'Graduate' as were most of the leaders of Rotherham Council and it's local police force. Before the latest scandal arose in Rotherham, the people who stopped UKIP supporters from fostering children in the city, but subsequently ignored the hideous child sexual grooming activities going on on an industrial scale, were Common Purpose Graduates. 

This is not some background, ineffectual shady organisation. It is shady yes, but it is having a significant impact on real people's lives and this will only grow if it is left unchecked.

I don't know how we stop this unwelcome situation; how we might regain some level of control of, or representation by,
these people who should be working for us but are in fact pursuing their own agenda 'beyond authority'.

I do however think that the more people know about it, and the greater the numbers of people who can be informed and encouraged to wake up to what I think is a massive threat to our freedoms, the better.

Which is why I'd like to finish by saying:

Thanks for reading and please share if you feel the urge.

'Mansion Tax?' - or state-sponsored theft?

Adopting a policy put forward by the morally bankrupt and principle-free zone that is the Liberal Democrats seems to be something of a gamble for Labour but on the basis that it panders to the politics of envy and would, in effect, be free money for the government, the 'Mansion Tax' looks like being a central plank of Labour policy as we head towards the General Election of 2015.

Indeed, just like the bankers' bonus tax, the Mansion Tax seems to be Labour's Utopian solution - it penalises wealthy people and is therefore likely to be very popular with those who are less well off, and it seems that it can be used to pay for all manner of expensive ticket items including the NHS, the £75billion deficit (cut by the Tories from £157 billion in the last 4 years), and reintroducing the 10p tax rate.

So what exactly is the Mansion Tax? It's (proposed to be) a levy, charged annually to the owners of properties worth over £2 million at a rate of 1%. So if you live in a property worth £2.5 million you would be billed £5,000 annually (1% of £500,000) for having the gall to have worked hard, invested wisely, perhaps been the beneficiary of hereditary largess and to live where you do. £2 million, sounds a lot, but it would affect 55,000 homes in the UK, a figure which would rise to 140,000 in less than 10 years. Some 10% of London properties worth more than £2 million are actually one or two-bedroomed flats and, in order to achieve Labour's target of raising £2 billion in revenue from this 'scheme', the actual property value threshold would have to be lowered to less than £1.5 million. 

Spot the mansion:

All of them would be subject to the so-called mansion tax.

Yes there will be extremes - overseas property buyers paying £ tens of millions for a residence in London (for example) and paying virtually zero tax, but the vast majority of owners of homes worth over £2 million will (either themselves of their predecessors) have worked hard, paid their taxes, paid into the system, probably created jobs for others and also, probably, have had to stretch themselves in order to be able to live where they do.

And their reward for this ambitious, aspirational, positive, independent, entrepreneurial approach to life, is to be charged for the privilege. Having probably paid more tax than most, created more jobs than most, made more of a contribution to society and the country than most, these people having bought something quite legitimately, will, in this scenario, now be retrospectively taxed - every year - for having done so. And remember that this additional tax would be over and above the higher council tax already paid by owners of higher value homes (whether they use the local library or not).

It's like buying a nice, expensive car and then the government, envious of your 'wheels' turning around and forcing you to pay them an annual 'ownership' tax on it, over and above the road tax, fuel duty etc that you already pay. After you have bought and paid for it, and without knowing that this would be the case.

What next? 'You had a nice piece of fillet steak a few weeks' ago sir, we have decided that that is a luxury, only available to people who work hard, so we have decided to steal some money from your wallet to give to people who can't afford to eat that well'?

Or: 'You seem to have £100 worth of disposable income this month sir, that is not acceptable when some people don't so we're going to take it off you and give it to someone less well off than you'.

It's just a fucking envy-driven communist stance to penalise people who do their best. Ultimately to ensure that there's no point in striving and working towards a good standard of living because these people want everyone - except themselves obviously (they being 'more equal' than the rest of us) to have a uniformly shit life, like everyone else who invariably votes Labour. And, having done so for generations they still don't realise that living the Labour dream ensures perpetual mediocrity and miserable lives based on the lowest non-aspirational, demotivated common denominator and a perpetual anger driven by this state-sponsored envy of others. An outlook which has created a client state, has trapped young people on benefits and has encouraged people to expect - nay demand - to be given the same rewards as savers and strivers for doing fuck all.

It's state-sponsored theft. Plain and simple. Taking yet more money from people who are likely to have contributed most already, to give to people who haven't.

Now I'm not saying that poorer/unemployed people shouldn't have a safety net, that they shouldn't, in our civilised, C21st society expect not to starve, expect to have decent accommodation, heating, lighting, water and waste services and access to good services including health and education, but these things should be paid for, by government as part of our agreed remit, out of lifetime working tax and tax on purchases, not retrospective government theft.

Take Labour's proposed removal of the winter fuel allowance for better off pensioners for example. Why would they want to do that? Have these pensioners not paid in during their lifetimes? I'd suggest they're likely to have paid more in, and just like any other product, if you have paid for it, no matter that you are better off than other people, you should be entitled to get it. If you buy a book, you aren't charged more for it because you happen to be able to afford more; you are charged the price of that book. And they don't take out the last chapter because you're a bit better off. The state pension is exactly the same, if you've paid for it you should get it, including the winter fuel allowance and free bus pass, since you have already, previously paid for it, irrespective of whether you really need it or not.

Or are we now looking at a world in which one cannot buy a bottle of bubbly for a family celebration because 'well you don't really need this do you?' That is fucking madness. 

This politics of envy does my head in. It is state-sponsored theft by any reasonable definition. Retrospectively stealing money from people who have legitimately paid for something just because they seem to be a bit better off. Hasn't the basis of our historical success as a nation been aspiration? How does this envy tax - which is being ear-marked to be spent about four times over already - encourage endeavour, hard work or striving for success?

Ed Balls talked about a 'race to the top' yesterday in his credibility and charisma-free Labour Party Conference speech: When has voting in a Labour government ever been anything other than a headlong race to the bottom for every aspect of our nation, from education standards to healthcare cover-ups, economic success to military legitimacy and credibility.

In 1997 Labour inherited a strong, well-balanced, prosperous, thriving economy (not perfect by any means but compared to 1979 when we were the 'sick man of Europe' it was pretty much Utopian): In 2010 when they left office, Labour left the UK and much of the world as a basket case. And now they want to steal money from ordinary people to pay for more profligacy.

The second word you're looking for is 'off'.

Thanks for reading.

New York Climate summit next week. Expect more bullshit.

Here is a link to a website about the upcoming climate summit in New York next week. Another attempt by Obama, Dave, the UN and it's poodle the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) to breathe new life into this farcical global control initiative that is now being largely discredited not by 'science', but by the reality of no global warming happening on the ground.

The 'climate scientists' have simply no explanation for the current pause in global warming (man-made or otherwise) which, at 17 years and 10 months is now almost as long as the previous cyclical, and entirely predictable warming period (1977-1997) upon which Al Gore based his ludicrously unscientific Inconvenient Truth mockumentary.

You'll note that the world's biggest emitters of CO2, China and India are not attending and nor are the independent-thinking first world nations of Canada and Australia, both of which have woken up to this global scam which is much more about the UN's Agenda 21 single world government initiative than any kind of real science or real threat to the planet. 

Meanwhile Obama, Ed Miliband (who introduced the Climate Change Act in the UK in 2008), our totally inept Energy Minister Ed Davey and even, sadly Mr Cameron continue to advocate hamstringing developing countries and making our own industries uncompetitive by denying them access to cheap reliable fuel sources. Literally tilting at windmills.

The UK under Ed Davey seems to think that reducing our emissions at massive cost will save the planet. To put that in perspective, we emit around 1.7% of global CO2 annually - a figure that is dwarfed by the year-on-year increase in output by China. Madness.

The web-page has a video at the bottom which is a real 'Janet and John' and patronising take on the issue. Below are my responses to the points made in the video.

6 common myths about climate change:

1.     The earth can’t be getting warmer because it’s cold out.

It’s not getting warmer, hasn’t been for 17 years and 10 months. It’s been cooling since 1997.

‘Some scientists think…’  Some, think? Where is the evidence? There isn’t any.

2.     The climate has changed before. This change must be normal too.

It is. Temperatures have been significantly higher and lower than they are now, overall the trend is very marginal. If you start from 10,000 years ago the planet’s surface temperature has been warming very marginally. If you start from 16,000 years ago, it has been cooling marginally. Nothing in today’s fluctuations is out of the norm of cyclical temperature changes.

There is no empirical evidence that humans are causing the bulk of climate change (rising or falling temperatures).  And to think that we can control the earth’s climate is arrogant in the extreme. The planet achieves equilibrium over time – if you need proof of this, it’s that you exist.

CO2 is at the highest level it has been in human history, but not in the history of the planet, not by a very long way.

3.     The Sun is responsible for global warming.

If the sun didn’t exist there would be no warmth on the planet at all. No life, no energy, no resources. The cooling of the past almost 2 decades coincides with reduced solar activity in a cyclical way that has been going on forever.

Scientists’ studies conclude the sun’s activity doesn't account for the current climate shift. What climate shift. Following a period of cooling up to 1974 when these ‘scientists were predicting a coming ice age, the warming period until 1997 has now been replaced, as per the ongoing cycle that has been going on forever, by a period of cooling that is still going on.

4.     Climate change is actually good for us

More people die each year from the cold than the heat, by a massive margin. Higher temperatures (even if they’re not happening) would mean longer growing seasons and more food production worldwide and less need for energy to keep us warm.

Flooding and drought episodes are not increasing globally; the opposite is happening.

'Especially the case if emissions aren’t reduced and temperatures increase at a rapid pace.' Emissions aren’t being reduced and temperatures are not increasing at all.

5.     CO2 can’t be dangerous because plants need it.

There has been a measurable ‘greening’ of the planet, particularly in Asia over the past 15 years – more, healthier plants, more food more wildlife.

‘Research has shown (what research?) that too much CO2 may cause plants to suffer and crops may become less nutritious’. ‘May’? Plants having more of the building blocks of life will become less healthy? Show me the data. This is utter bullshit.

6.     Scientists don’t agree about climate change.

The ‘scientists’ who derive their funding and income from ‘proving’ that man-made climate change is real do certainly agree about climate change. They’re paid to. But this isn’t science, it’s fitting the data via computer models, not even real observations about what is actually happening on the ground to try to ‘prove’ a pre-ordained result.

The figures for scientific agreement are entirely skewed by only measuring responses from scientists who derive their income from ‘climate science’.  

Some more date in support of my comments can be found here, here and here. The last one covers the 'scientific consensus issue. 

A broader piece on the background to this whole issue (by me), here and  looking at a geological timescale, can be found here.

And Berkeley professor Richard A Muller on the scientific consensus here. 

Thanks for reading, keep warm if you can as the earth cools.  

Surely if the Quran is the 'true word of God' He'd want it translated so we can all understand it & benefit from His teaching?

'Have you read the Quran?'

'Yes I have'.

'Really? You speak Arabic?'

'No but I've read a translation.'

'Ah, you have not read the Quran then - it can only, according to Islam, be truly understood in its original Arabic text. So unless you learn, and become fluent in Arabic, you cannot truly understand the Quran.'

All of which effectively means that the teachings of the 'one true God Allah', is in the hands of a relatively small group of people - not just 'Arabic' speakers, but speakers of just one of the many dialects of the language which includes the original Amararic language of 600AD.

So, effectively the true word of God, which was originally revealed to - and discarded by - the Jews, by the Angel Gabriel (remember him?) to Muhammad, an illiterate farmer, and then passed down by word of mouth for more than 200 years before being written down in any form, by many different groups of scholars and others, but remains the 'true word of God', is in the hands of a few mortal men.

And their interpretation of the book, inevitably in a way which suits their own ends, is effectively 'LAW' to 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide.

And it cannot be questioned, examined or investigated in the light of our more modern world, unless one speaks an archaic language. That's some powerful gig I think you'll agree.

Christianity burned people at the stake for questioning its Bible, but eventually the reformation saw translation, accessibility and examination of the text. It effectively breached the closed shop of religious control and allowed people either to reject or embrace the teachings of Christianity. And just as the Bible can be used to justify almost anything, it also enabled people to justify non-belief, secularity, if they so chose.

I would argue that by enabling 'faith' it made Christianity stronger since it was then based on belief and commitment instead of the threat to comply or be punished. It certainly allowed the Christian 'word of God' to be much more widely broadcast and understood.

Far from undermining Christian religion, this translation and understanding made it stronger because it was based on belief rather than 'blind faith' imposed upon people at pain of death, quite literally. This strength - 'I believe, you cannot stop me' - also bred confidence in one's stance and an ability to accept ridicule and challenges. To laugh at 'unbelievers', to accept humorous attacks such as Life Of Brian, Dave Allen etc. Being able to laugh at oneself but retain one's belief is a sign of great strength and confidence, not weakness.

So compare and contrast that with Islam. Where a supposedly humorous cartoon can have hate mobs on the streets across the world protesting violently and threatening death?

It's not strength or confidence, it's weakness and fear that propels this action.

Do you really think that God, or Allah (which is essentially the same thing) would want 'His true words' to be controlled by a small number of people and inaccessible to most of the world? Or would He want his teachings to be spread and understood as widely as possible?

Is it 'God's teaching' or 'man's control of others' that is really at stake here?

It's time we took away the mystique of Islam and the Quran and gave it to the world's people instead of leaving it to be manipulated and controlled - and used to control people and make them do things that their basic humanity would abhor - by a few mortal men.

It's what Allah would want.

Thanks for reading.

Sorry to bang on about it but where are the 'vast majority' of 'moderate muslims'?

As a first generation immigrant myself I'm hardly one to be anti immigration, but there are rules in my opinion and they include adopting your new country as your 'home state' and that means adopting their laws, secular values, approach to fairness, some of the cultural values that that country has to offer. Yes one can maintain one's birth values to an extent, in terms of religion - so long as that remains a personal matter rather than being forced down the throats of your new hosts - and in terms of the cricket team you support when they play against England (just to quote a famous example of this issue).

Immigrants tend to congregate together in a new country - it's why my home town of Leicester has the largest Indian community in the UK. I don't have a problem with that so long as the members of that community are respectful of their neighbours, abide by the laws of the land, and don't seek to impose their religious laws on the rest of us - which, to a massive extent is the case in Leicester to the cultural benefit of all of us.

Dave has talked, in recent days about British values and the need for everyone in this country to respect and live by them. I completely agree with that sentiment but I have to say that I see very little evidence that it is universally the case in our country today.

I have commented about this on twitter and in other blogs and have been pointed towards a fatwa imposed by some Muslim Imams on Jihadists wanting to go to or return from fighting with ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

And that is very welcome, but is it a genuine representation of the Muslim community in the UK? Has it been made for reasons of political expediency or is it what the majority of so-called 'Moderate Muslims' really think?

I have Muslim friends - my kids have more than I do - and all are welcome in my home. I can't really say it any more fairly than that. I enjoy their company and culture and 'difference' from our Anglo Saxon heritage. I enjoy their food and music and clothes and colourfulness.

But I have some nagging doubts: Not about the individuals I know, even though they can be prickly when this subject comes up (which is rare), but about the 'mass' of the Muslim community: I would like nothing more than for this situation to be clarified so that we all know where we stand and so that we can be reassured that most Muslims are here to get on in life, offer better opportunities to their kids, enjoy better healthcare for themselves and their families, essentially, be British first and Muslim second, without having to give up on the latter if it is important to them. I simply don't see, in our modern largely secular society, how these two things cannot be compatible.

But let's look at some of the facts that have merged in recent weeks:

It is difficult to separate the term 'Muslim' from 'Islam' so I won't try to do so here, I'll use 'Muslim'
and I apologise in advance if this might cause any offence but I think if you are generous and understanding, you'll understand where I'm coming from rather than nit-picking.

Here's a definition from t'internet:

"The words Islam and Muslim come from the same 3 letter root word (s,l and m) in Arabic. Islam by definition means surrender and submission only to the one true creator. A Muslim by definition means one who surrenders and submits to the laws of God. As almighty God is the creator of the heavens and the earth and the creation in it, nothing in the creation works at its own free will...that is it follows a law and nothing can break or change that law unless the almighty wills."

So what have we seen in recent weeks? (By the way I have been following this issue with interest and not a little concern for some years now, this is not a bandwagon jumping thing from me).

We have seen significant electoral corruption and fraud in Tower Hamlets (allegedly) as Lutfur Rahman seems to want to steal power by using intimidation and with undoubted connections to Muslim voters. That situation is subject to investigation but it seems fairly clear that it is a factor involving significant numbers of the Muslim community.

We have seen Muslims trying to take over the curriculum and religious agenda of a considerable number of schools in Birmingham and Bradford (and who knows where else) by Muslims. Using sneaky tactics and with the objective of imposing and installing their own religious doctrine in British schools. Does that tie in with adopting your new host country?

We have seen Muslim electoral power and influence being used on a local basis to cover up the sexual exploitation of young white, often underage British girls, in Rotherham and in probably another 20 towns and cities across the country - at least. Effectively controlling local authorities, the media and even the police through their political influence.

We have seen an explosion in the occurrence of FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) in the UK as well as forced marriages and girls of 8-11 being taken to Pakistan to be married during school holidays. That's not an allegation by me but a situation that has led to a change in government policy to try to stop it from happening.

Finally we have seen the kids of members of our Muslim communities travelling to Syria and Iraq to fight for ISIS against the West - the West which provides their home, protection, healthcare, welfare benefits, employment opportunities etc.

So seeing a few Imams condemning UK Muslims fighting for ISIS has something of a hollow ring to it doesn't it?

Dave said Islam is a peaceful religion, it's followers do daily good deeds all over the world. The vast majority are moderate and condemn what is happening in Syria and Iraq.

But what about closer to home? Where are they? They seem to come out onto our streets to protest at the drop of a hat if Mohammed is insulted in a cartoon. If the Qu'ran is questioned or insulted in any way.

So where are they when their fellow Muslims are accused of electoral fraud; found to be taking over schools in the name of Islam; found to be perpetrating horrific sexual crimes against white girls, conducting illegal FGM genital operations on their own kids, travelling to fight against our interests in the West?

Where are these 'Moderate Muslims'? Why are they not standing up in any real numbers against these atrocities?

Are they just being bullied? Dave tells us that they are the 'vast majority'. Are they being bullied by a small minority of extremists in their midst? Do they realise that bullies are never defeated by backing off?

Or are they secretly behind what is going on? Maybe not actively - although large numbers must be actively behind what is going on given the extent of it - but through turning a blind eye?

I think we need to know. And I think we need to ask the question now when the Muslim population makes up about 5% of the UK population rather than in 30 years when it will, according to the ONS, make up around 50%.

My hope is that there is a majority of 'Moderate Muslims' in the UK and that they will stand up and be counted and state that they are British first and meet the criteria we must stick to if British values are to have a future.

However I'm not sure that this is the case, based on the evidence cited above.

The Qu'ran is believed by Muslims to be the real word of God (a ludicrous proposition which is the subject of a forthcoming blog) and it clearly states that Islam must be expanded, spread and must take-over the world, through war and violence if necessary. It describes non-believers as kaffirs and 'unclean' and 'sub-human'.

If being a Muslim means taking the word of the Qu'ran as 'law' then I'm struggling to see how 'Moderate Muslims' can actually exist. Can you?

Thanks for reading.