If information is power, twitter poses the biggest threat to our governments yet seen. Good

I bet the establishment hates the way that social media and in particular twitter has grown in recent years.

They saw it as a one-way communication tool that they could use to communicate 'at' us. Delivering their messages to us without for a moment understanding that it could become a two-way street - and one where we would become as powerful as they are, because we have the same information.

'Because we say so: because we have considered the issue and our 'experts' have concluded thus, so we have made this decision, it's right, don't worry your pretty heads about it', has become 'bullshit'.

They have effectively opened themselves up to massive scrutiny and have been found wanting. In spades.

Information is power and whilst our establishment still controls the levers, twitter has evened things up massively. 

The rise of UKIP is not about immigration, it's about information. Or rather about the disinformation that we've been fed - and accepted - for decades.

'We're 'for the people' they are our bosses,' they say (every 5 years of so, ignoring us in the meantime). This is complete bullshit. And we're slowly waking up to this fact based on the recent (for some people) realisation that actually we're being conned at every turn.

I don't need to reel off examples here do I? You know that what I say is true in your heart of hearts. You know that what you want, what you believed to be right and fair is completely ignored by our so-called 'representatives' in government.

Well the thing is that we are now equally, often better, informed than they are. And, Mr and Mrs Politician, we're coming for you.

twitter doesn't do 'smug'. It doesn't do 'patronising'. It demands that you have a view and that you stick to your promises. It explores the background to your decisions. It follows the money.

It (we) know if you are being influenced by self interest. It knows that 'you work for us' not the other way around.

It must be a right royal pain in the arse for you politicians. It will fundamentally change the way you operate. Is already doing so.

If you don't 'get it' you're toast. If you do, you might have a future as our representative, but you will have to be just that. Our views not your own, and certainly not your smug party politics.

Happy days. Not here yet, but coming soon.

Thanks for reading.
 

Wow, meanwhile..

If everyone in the Eurozone is in decline, even Germany, who IS keeping the whole thing afloat economically?

So Germany is about to go into recession. France is bankrupt and has been for years. Italy is in terminal decline. The unemployment rate for 16-24 year-olds in southern Europe is 43%. Spain is a basket case, Greece has been in recession for almost a decade. Holland is on the brink of collapse.

24 European banks have (yesterday) failed the European Bank Authority 'stress test' which gives them 9 months to shore up or be shut down. They're on the verge of collapse.

The Eurozone as a whole is about to go into its third recession in six years. The Economist calls it (The Eurozone) the world's biggest economic problem. Here.

So just who is keeping this entire busted flush afloat?

It's not the UK even though we pay in a net £28 million a day. That's chicken feed. But we are throwing good money after bad in this regard. It's not Germany, the economic powerhouse around which the EU has been designed for the benefit of Germany. It is receiving £804 million in the latest shuffling of the money around the EU bollocks that is seeing Cyprus and Greece paying in!

So who is it? Who is keeping Europe economically afloat in these difficult times?

Wonga.

Only with interest rates that Wonga would blush at.

We have this EU citadel in the sky where money is no object, where 10,000 people are earning more than our Prime Minister (£180k ish); where they'd sell their own countries for a lobster terrine and a glass of Montrachet.

But there is absolutely no connection between them and reality. They are living high on the hog, while real people in the countries they are supposed to be representing are suffering, struggling to put food on the table. Existing at all.

These people are effectively fucking everyone else and creating a massive depression here in Europe and sneering at us the voters whom they should be representing. And the price for any economy doing the right thing, cutting the deficit, creating jobs, investing in infrastructure instead of either pissing it up the wall or pursuing crazy socialist economic models that eschew any kind of industry or wealth creation, is to be punished with demands for an additional contribution of about 15% of our annual net contribution.

The emperor has no clothes. There are no economic benefits for the UK staying in the EU - and more importantly there are no benefits for other EU members staying in other than the bail-outs that just postpone economic disaster whilst perpetuating the gnawing, soul-destroying decline in opportunity or prospects for success. They were all sold a pup. Prosperity forever, free money. The world doesn't work like that. They're now fucked (technical term) and the EU say's all's well?

It's a sham. I feel for our friends in Europe but it's up to them to find a way out. As far as the UK is concerned, we need to leave now. And let them fend for themselves in the short term. We've rescued Europe many times, and our leaving will almost certainly actually achieve the same thing again: If, as I truly believe, it results in the failure of the socialist EU for the benefit of Europe as a whole, and allows countries in southern Europe in particular to devalue their currencies, rebalance their economies and begin to have some chance of optimism and prosperity again.

If the EU carries on as it is there is simply no prospect of any kind of recovery in southern Europe. If it (the EU) fails because the second biggest net contributor (UK) leaves, then Spain, Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Portugal and others have a chance to free themselves from what is already becoming not just a recession, but a lingering depression which is already giving rise to extremist political parties of all hues and growing civil unrest.

And if it does fail, the French economy will almost immediately disappear via the 'U-bend'. I wonder how French politicians (not the people) will sneer at us 'Rosbeefs' then? I'm sure they'll find a way.

Thanks for reading.

Didn't the Labour party watch Question time on the 16th October?

Ian Lavery MP tweeted this earlier today:

 

 And later on @LabourUK tweeted this:

to which was attached this survey:

Just so you can decide what you do feel about this issue, here is the transcript of what Lord Freud actually said in response to a question from a Tory councillor who was concerned about some disabled people in his constituency who wanted to work for reasons of self esteem but were currently finding it very difficult to find employers willing to take them on:

It is crystal clear that Lord Freud was responding in a way which explained that he did recognise the issue, understood it, didn't think there was a system in place now that could help, but that he would go away and have a look at it and that he understood the issue of some seriously disabled people wanting to work for their self esteem and that such a system could be topped up by the government in order to help these particular disabled people to get what they wanted, which is to work.

Yes he used the word 'worth' in shorthand, to a colleague. That was clumsy, but it was not nasty or malicious just explaining that he understood what was meant by the question. The fact is that many employers who may be sympathetic, simply cannot justify employing some severely disabled people on the NMW but if it were to be topped up by government then they might be able to help. So these unfortunate people wouldn't be working for £2 an hour but a 'topped up' amount that would be at least the National Minimum Wage.

Essentially Lord Freud was trying to help disabled people. And by pursuing this again today, Labour are effectively trying to stop this help being provided to severely disabled people.

If you really don't understand this from reading the above, then I'm sorry to say this, but you are a moron. I'll leave it for you to decide about Mr Lavery and the Labour Party.

When Angela Eagle raised the issue on #BBCQT she was roundly dismissed by most of the panelists and the audience applauded long and loud when she was called out about it. You can watch it here if you'd like to. It starts at 47.49. Isabel Oakshott effectively nails this debate.

What's happened since, it seems to me is that Labour thinks we'll all have forgotten about this shameful debacle and that they can now have another go. It's just being nasty and vindictive towards someone who was trying to help. It is also true to say that Mencap, who criticised Lord Freud on the day, proposed a very similar policy and solution in 2000.

Nasty party? Don't know about you but I'd suggest candidacy for this sobriquet ought not to be based on who shouts it loudest and longest but upon what it (the party) actually does. If the UK population as a whole was able to do this I know who would be seen as the nasty party. The one that effectively fucks the country every single time it is in power, that encourages unskilled immigration in a way which can only undermine British workers demonstrating, quite clearly that they don't really give a toss about the workers for whom they're supposed to be the party of choice.

And which uses this kind of underhand recording activity in order to try to distract people from hearing about good news for the country whatever the reality of what was actually being discussed.

Thanks for reading.

Whilst the EU seems bent on punnishing economic progress what chance does Dave have of securing reforms?

It is inconceivable to me that Dave could go into a UK General Election in 2015 without telling us what powers he'd want back from the EU as part of his much touted 'renegotiation' of the UK's membership.

UKIP has done a fine job in getting the EU issue much higher on our agenda - albeit on the back of immigration which should not be the biggest driver of our concerns but sadly probably will be, allowing all the tired old 'racist' bullshit to be wheeled out again and again.

Here's what Dave has said already:

It's a start: Unrealistic in my view, but at least we're starting to get a picture of what Dave will want to renegotiate.

Here's Frau Merkel in tomorrow's Sunday Times for example:

For the record, I am fundamentally against our membership of the EU - not because I am in any way anti Europe, just anti this ridiculous monolithic organisation which is frankly out of control and ruining many areas of our continent for generations to come. For me, the only way is a complete Brexit which would allow us to stand on our own two feet again and trade with the whole world including Europe without having to adhere to the ridiculous red tape that we currently (and always seem to) comply with, unlike many other EU members when it is inconvenient for them.

So what Dave says here (above) whilst being attractive as far as the UK is concerned, does not solve the much wider problems facing Europe. But if we go, the EU will almost certainly fail and that would solve many of the huge problems being faced by the ordinary people of Europe: France is bankrupt and has been for years, Germany is in decline having squandered the recent boom years built on its massively advantageous exchange rate courtesy of the Euro; Italy & Spain are basket cases, Holland is on the brink of collapse - and they're the better performing European economies.

A piece on Italy's terminal decline from today's Spectator here.

And by being tied to the Euro, with no ability to devalue their currencies and rebalance their economies, the only prospect the under-performing members of the Eurozone face, is unrelenting economic failure for decades to come. A terrifying prospect not just for the young people of southern Europe, but for us all as this situation will almost certainly give rise to conflict, violent protest and civil unrest - it is already doing so.

We've just had a £1.7 billion bill from the EU because we're doing relatively well economically. When did doing the right thing become punishable? And, by the way, how bad are their economies in Germany and France that the Greeks and Cypriots are having, effectively, to bail them out?

And when most members of the Eurozone aren't even complying with the criteria of the Maastricht Treaty for membership, why should be be complying with their nonsensical financial claims upon us?

Our own ratio of debt to GDP is pretty close to France (about 90%) but we have a growing economy because we haven't instigated the crazy socialist policies of Monsieur Hollande and have a better outlook, for which the proposal is we should now be punished. A strange way of encouraging economic success by the EU.

But what are the chances of Dave actually securing any of his wish-list items? The EU has publicly stated its intention to go for ever closer union, plans are in place for an EU army, it has a flag and an anthem, it wants to complete the single European act as soon as possible. It wants a federal, 'United States of Europe'. All of which is fundamentally incompatible with Dave's planned renegotiations.

So will his renegotiations be successful? He'd need support from France, Germany, Italy and the senior Eurocrats in Brussels. I think that's quite unlikely. As in 'it's quite unlikely' that I'll jump over the moon in a single bound tomorrow morning.

It simply ain't gonna happen.

Which means Dave will lose face and credibility massively and his only credible option, having been denied his fundamental requirements, would be to support a UK exit at the proposed referendum. Effectively they would have called his bluff and said 'so, what you got Dave?' And that my friends would be a massive game-changer if he had the balls and the courage of his convictions which, I accept, is probably questionnable.

If he did pursure this logical line, it would probably win him the next election for a start, making the referendum inevitable (which it certainly is not at the current time whatever the Tories tell you - 'only we can deliver a referendum').

It would also make Brexit much more likely if not inevitable - it will certainly be a dirty fight with the EU and its paid supporters amongst our main stream media (MSM) including the BBC, fighting for the EU's very survival, but if the Tories were campaigning for Brexit it would be likely to happen.

So Dave's 'red lines' on renegotiations are critically important, as is our then holding his 'feet to the fire' so he has no alternative but to campaign for 'out'. He knows this of course which is why we need to be vigilant to ensure that this renegotiation cannot be some sort of fudge that allows him the room to campaign for 'in' when (if) the time comes.

I don't think he can credibly go into the next election without telling us what his red lines are - UKIP and the steady rise of the EU issue on our agenda has put paid to that in my view - and Dave cannot, therefore, fudge the issue when the EU tells him 'non'.

It's time, therefore, for vigilance and for taking all this forward on a step by step basis. Sooner or later (I think sooner) he'll run out of wriggle room and that could change everything for the UK, Europe and the prospect of a much more prosperous future for everyone on the continent and here at home.

IPSOS Mori produced a poll earlier this week which found that 56% of Britons would currently vote to stay in.I'd have to say that this is a very surprising result given the growing popularity of UKIP and also the relatively high numbers of Tories who also want out. Still IPSOS Mori is a reputable organisation. Which gets most of its work from government. This fight might already have started.

What is clear to me is that there seems to be a dangerous lack of understanding of the threats to the UK's - and Europe's - future prosperity that the current, inflexible and frankly failed, direction of the European Union poses to us all. There is much work to be done to turn this around, but progress is being made in my opinion.

Thanks for reading.

A tax on your home

Forget this 'Mansion tax' bollocks. A tax on Oligarchs who pay £millions for London property and pay no taxes. This has nothing to do with them. £3 grand a year? It's not even small change to them.

What it is about is charging everyone who has done 'the right thing' and saved and scrimped and bought their own home. It's about penalising people who have saved for their retirement, done the right thing and having done so are denied a free bus pass or the Winter fuel allowance because they have some money available. They have paid for these things in their taxes over the years but they're denied these 'products' that they've paid for, because they can afford a bit more?

When did 'doing the right thing' become a bad thing? On what planet is that 'fair'?

What is the point in doing the right thing?

This so-called Mansion tax will become, in very short order, a tax on your property. Whether it's valued at £2million or £200,000. That made you think didn't it? Labour says it will raise £1.2 billion a year. Figures from Knight Frank & the Tax Payers Alliance suggest £414 million. Here. So the shortfall? Will be paid by other property owners as, effectively, 'rent' on property you already own. Except under this scheme you don't actually own it do you? If you can be charged more just for living there?

Of course it will. As night follows day. It's an 'envy tax' and it will be brought down by degree until it includes the value of your home. It is another way in which the government can levy a tax on you. They take it out of your pocket in terms of income tax - two day's a week working for Dave (if you're lucky), more is taken for national insurance, more on VAT, more on fuel and fags and drink and pleasure. When will it end. These fuckers are supposed to work for us! They're working for themselves.

Only it's not 'working' it's simply 'taking'. 'Theft' by any meaningful definition. And because the 'left' (sadly) have nothing, nothing to lose and nothing to care about in terms of passing anything on to their state sponsored children, they will leap at the chance to have another go at people who act responsibly, do the right thing and provide for their needs. It's pure envy and it's completely wrong.

The poor left applaud because it's taking from the 'haves'. But it's not really giving to the 'have nots' as they would like. It's giving to the government who will piss it up the wall on foreign aid and stupid projects like HS2. When, in the past 50 years, has taking from the rich actually made your lives better? When has it delivered uplift to your lives or your communities? When has returning another Labour MP actually made a positive difference to you?

They're taking you for fools. And frankly you deserve it.

So support this 'envy tax' secure in the knowledge that some people are getting a bigger kicking than you are. But what's it for? It's ultimately so that government has more control over you; can force you to become a bi-pedal working unit in their system, because you have to pay your way. You might have done the right thing and paid for the freehold on your property, but you'll now have to pay rent on it too. To the government. If you're happy about that you're a moron.

Thanks for reading.

Well we're off to live in a foreign country. 'Don't forget the agenda darling, we'll need that'

It may be just me - I don't think so for a minute - but if I was to choose to go and live elsewhere in the world, I'd choose the location based on what it had to offer in terms of lifestyle, culture and amenities. Healthcare would be an issue in my declining years but more important would be good food, good community values, interesting places to visit. Freedom would be quite high on my list - I wouldn't want to go and live somewhere where I was controlled by the state.

I'd go there because it was, right now, in line with my thinking and my aspirations in terms of lifestyle, what I can afford, and the general outlook of the place. I wouldn't go there planning to change it to my way of thinking or in any way with the motive of trying to create what I'd left behind. Otherwise why would I move in the first place? If I was happy where I was, why would I want to go and live somewhere else?

My choice, right now, would be France, particularly if I was going there to live and enjoy leisure time rather than to forge a career. Why? Because it has quiet roads; a traditional approach to life that I find reassuring. It would be a step back from the hustle and bustle of crowded old England where it seems to me that 'leisure time' is now more about scheduling it in and going to the Gym or having a personal trainer than walking in the countryside.

All, of which is a bit of a pipe dream. Idealistic. I tend not to do this in my blogs....

You knew this was coming though, be honest:

So tell me what is it with Muslims? The Poles don't do it. Nor do my fellow Paddies. They come here for work (and good for them) and I've seen some Polish supermarkets established in Leicester to meet their needs, but they don't want to change anything. They don't want the UK to become Poland. They just want a little bit of home to be available to them. It's like us shopping in France and hankering after some HP sauce or Branston pickle or PG tips on the shelves.

So why do 'some' Muslims want to import their culture, lifestyle and most importantly laws when they come to live here? Aren't they fleeing those same repressive laws in the countries they are leaving in order to have a better life here in the UK? Why don't they buy in to our lifestyle - it is after all what the UK has to offer. It's not unambiguous. It is quite clear what the UK has to offer (or at least it was until quite recently). It's freedom, Sunday lunches at the pub, terrible food and warm beer.

It's queueing in the rain. Delayed trains. Cricket on a Sunday afternoon. Countryside and changing seasons. Conkers, Harvest Festival. Evensong. Unevensong. Sitting in traffic on a grey wet Monday morning listening to fucking bright and breezy Chris Evans.

It's running a stall at a washed-out village féte. An 'early doors' pint in the pub on your way home.

A spectacular and warm summer's day drinking Pimms No 1 and lemonade in the garden with your family. The shipping forecast, the Archers. The Grand National, Wimbledon. The boat race.

What it is not, is Sharia law, fixing elections, grooming 'trash' white girls. What it is not, is imposing your religious laws upon a tolerant population who generously welcome you and sometimes pay for you to get by. 

What it is not is the establishment of closed communities where members of the indigenous population are not welcome in their own land. We respect the fact that you have different religious views and beliefs. We respect them. But we don't want them. And we certainly don't want them to be imposed upon us. Live and let live we say.

That's a key phrase in our Britishness. Live and let live. It's born out of our history and way of life. Above anything else we value fairness.

If you come here to be British, to share our values, to contribute to our success and to secure prosperity for yourself and your family, good healthcare, a good education, opportunity, you are very welcome.

If not, if you have brought with you an agenda designed at the behest of some sky fairy, then you are not. And at long last we should, as a society and a nation, politely tell you to fuck off. Probably over a cup of tea. But firmly nonetheless.

Thanks for reading. 

Politics? It's all about fashion really

I blogged, in May, posing the question Is UKIP the new Punk Rock? by which I meant that yes it's edgy, anti-establishment and different from the existing 'legacy' parties but, more importantly, that it was (is) popular, 'in fashion' as it were, which made its success in the European elections almost unstoppable.

 The two recent by-election results would suggest that it remains 'in fashion' and that far from addressing the undoubted problem this causes the other parties, attacking UKIP is actually pushing people into its arms.

Telling us young kids that Punk was horrible, nasty and wrong only made it more desirable, more popular. It added to our desire to be part of the 'movement' and to metaphorically put two fingers up to what we saw as the establishment, including our parents, teachers etc. 

UKIP has effectively won the argument on immigration and has been setting the political agenda for most of this year.


Heady days indeed for Mr Farage and his party. Why? Because they're 'in fashion', riding the wave and as the other parties are seeing to their cost, they're pretty much unstoppable at the moment amongst a significant grouping of the population and not just the 'right'.

Politics has always been thus: After 18 years of Maggie and John Major the Tories ran out of ideas, perhaps ran out of big past problems to fix (although there were as always many problems to be fixed) and Mr Blair came along and took advantage of this 'fashion for change' to get his hands on power. He subsequently span his way to staying in fashion to the point where there was almost nothing the Tories could do to turn public opinion against him in two subsequent general elections. Labour's use of Theresa May's ill-advised 'Nasty Party' comment (2002) still has considerable resonance across the country to this day.

They (the Tories) had to bide their time until the fashion changed, until Blair was found out in many ways and until Gordon Brown showed us that Blair was a one-man party really in terms of connecting with the people, and so the fashion moved on again.

And now, despite Dave having rescued the economy to a significant extent - yes it's not a panacea in any way, but his starting point was extremely bleak - there seems to be enough 'stuff' out there in terms of the disconnect between Parliament and the people, to make an essentially anti-establishment ticket fashionable again.

Blair ruled without reference to parliament at all in many ways yet this popular penchant for change didn't arise on his watch. Smoke, mirrors, wars and spin probably account for this and he also did not face the increasingly powerful juggernaut that is 24-hour news and in particular social media that must be terrifying the establishment, more and more every day.

Dave seems to me to be bearing the brunt of a general dissatisfaction with UK politics - Labour voters are realising that the party has as many 'toffs' and career politicians on its benches as the Tories do and that it is no longer a party of 'the worker'. That returning Labour politicians, for decades, to represent them in Parliament has not delivered any kind of uplift to them or their locations.

Similarly the Tories' shift to the left and away from Thatcherism has left many (of us) disillusioned with the values we once held dear.

All of which leaves a gaping hole in our national politics and a hole that is not simply confined to the so-called 'right'. The 'straight-talking normal bloke' (as many see him) Farage is securing popularity amongst many traditional Labour voters as well as from the Tories.

And that's not speculation but fact - whether you think it's the right view or not doesn't really matter - it's about 'fashion' you see, not necessarily logic.

The question for UKIP is can it remain fashionable enough for long enough to gain a serious foothold in British politics? And that means until next May and beyond. The by-election in Rochester and Strood is therefore massive for UKIP and the Tories.

If they can win it, I think UKIP will gain enough momentum in the 'fashion' stakes to be a serious contender in May. And they could then effect real change in our politics. Given my views on the massive disconnect between our parliamentary representatives and us the voters, I think that would be a good thing. I'm not a 'kipper and may well not vote for them, but I do wish them well and who knows, like many millions of others who are fed up with being lied to and duped and only considered for six months every five years, I just might.

Thanks for reading.

The UK's influence on the world, better in or out of the EU?

Had an interesting conversation with a twitter friend last night about the EU and the merits or otherwise of our membership. It was interesting to me anyway. His view was that (regardless of the details and case studies we can all point to, pro and con, which we didn't discuss), we are better off in the EU because of the global power and influence that it affords us.

In a world where major trading blocs are seen to command power and influence - China, India, Russia, the US and the 300million strong (population) EU - his view is that we're better off inside the tent (pissing outwards) rather than outside (pissing in - my vulgar words not his, I hasten to add!).

Which got me thinking. I think his is a common view - common as in popular not 'common as muck' you understand ;). I started a blog entitled 'my mum thinks we should stay in' only last week, which was about a pervading acceptance of 'well we're in now, we may as well stay there and see what happens. It's not that bad.'

The thing is, it is not that bad now - pretty bloody awful if you're a young person in Southern Europe with zero prospects of having any kind of prosperous or productive life ahead of you - but it's not that bad in the UK. Why rock the boat?

But the EU is just getting started on its real agenda for a federal state of Europe in which all nations will be subsumed into a single bloc, with common tax laws, a common defence policy and army; and essentially a single government which will control almost all of our laws whether we want them (vote for them) or not. And if you think your vote doesn't count for much now, wait until it counts for absolutely nothing in 10 years' time if we go on down this essentially socialist route.

But the question at issue was about our influence on the world: Our ability to fight our corner and secure what's right and beneficial for the people of the UK. Are we better off inside the large trading bloc that is the EU, or outside, on our own as a relatively small global player.

If one puts it like that, one can understand my friend's views.

But it's not quite as simple as that.

However you want to slice it, the UK is the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world. I've heard it described as 'the big country' by people who live in much bigger (geographical) countries. And I'm not looking backwards to when 'the sun never sets' and all that crap, but forward from where we are now.

We're behind France, which economically speaking, is a basket case. Behind Germany which is very soon to reap the rewards of its economic blitzkrieg of southern Europe (and not in a good way); behind Japan which is still experiencing stagflation and behind the US which, in terms of debt and foreign ownership, is virtually owned by China these days.

And we're the fastest-growing economy in the G7 (or G8 depending on whether we're friendly towards Russia this week or not).

We're not in great financial shape thanks largely to Labour's last term in office, but we're still very much a 'player' on the world stage.

Within the EU we are about 8% of the vote. And that's important since that is the amount of influence we have on how the EU faces the world. And it's a diminishing figure as more countries join the EU for reasons of political and financial stability, which they don't currently enjoy, being mainly mired in corruption. Whereas we do have relative (to die for - and many are doing just that) financial stability and political freedoms. I wonder what benefit there will be to us in the UK from the accession to the EU of Albania for example?

So 8% influence. We're not leading Europe as we might think we should be after the last unpleasantness (WW2) but instead we're subservient to it. And unpopular to boot. How often are we sneered at by MEPs in Brussels? How often does France ridicule our input? How often does Italy promote our views on what should be done? How often do other EU countries abide by the rules of that organisation if they're inconvenient for them, while we always do? They just ignore EU rules if it suits them whilst we always comply.

France in particular will never allow us to lead the EU in terms of policy because it is a flawed and dying socialist state. It is like (but much bigger than) our own Labour party which hides inconvenient problems (economy, NHS, education, defence equipment, illegal wars, unsustainable welfare state) for someone else (the Tories) to pick up when it all turns to shit.

So we can't ever 'lead' in the EU. It's just never gonna happen.

So what is the alternative?

Outside the EU we would be able to establish our own trade deals with the rest of the world on our own terms. We would be able to trade on our own behalf with our many 'friends' around the world without being constricted by the abysmally slow machinery of the EU which requires 28 states to ratify anything.

That means we would be able, on our own behalf, to trade with countries with whom we have strong links and a good relationship. Like China. India. Russia. With our Commonwealth friends in Canada and Australia and several parts of Africa without needing the EU to approve it. The same EU which, by the way, is perpetuating the rape of Africa (a strong word I know but not too strong in this instance), by restricting trade with Africa and essentially stopping Africa from trading its way into the first world. Forget what you hear about UKIP, this restrictive EU approach to Africa is truly racist in nature.

So the question boils down to whether we are better off having next to no influence over a major trading bloc - the EU - which is, by the way, the only global trading bloc that is shrinking in terms of economic output - or whether we would be better off trading with existing friends in the world's other and much more successful trading blocs on our own behalf.

Would we be better off working with China, India, the US, Canada, Australia, the Commonwealth, or with France and Italy who are (by far) the better EU economies (God help us).

As far as the EU is concerned, the UK is a one-way street. We're good for trade - we have a £46 billion a year trade deficit with the EU, making us by far their biggest customer. They simply cannot survive without us as a trading partner so the concept of them imposing trade tariffs on us is simply laughable.

In short the EU needs us more than we need them, to the tune of £46 billion a year. The EU cannot survive without the UK. It is not the other way around.

And it's time we recognised this; recognised that we're much better off outside but still trading with the EU, but on our own terms and with our own freedom to stand up, not as 8% of a failing bloc, but as the Great Britain we once were and can be again.

Thanks for reading.







 

The IPCC has effectively proved it's own theories to be wrong. Now that's funny

In its own AR5 report last year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated that it had a 95% certainty that human activity and rising CO2 levels were the cause of global warming. Here.

The trouble is that there hasn't been any global warming now for at least 18 years.

And no sea-level rise. And no extinction of polar bears whose population is thriving. And no increased incidence of major weather 'events'. The 50 million climate refugees we were promised would arrive by now, are taking their time.

Is it any wonder that they now seem to be dropping the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) mantra from their literature? They now just call it 'climate change'. Not 'man-made' not even a mention of 'warming'. Climate change. As it has been forever and will go on doing forever.

So if it's not 'man-made' and not 'warming' what the fuck are we trying to do by reducing our emissions at massive cost to everybody?

NASA, like The Met Office a major player in the scaremongering establishment, last week admitted that there's no evidence of heat being 'held' in the deep oceans. So where is it? In a box? The same one where a foetus might gestate (ref Life of Brian)? Report here.

The IPCC has effectively proved its own theories to be wrong. And I have a 100% certainty that this is incontrovertibly the case.

That is funny.

What is not so funny is that the AGW scam lobby continues to rumble on regardless and this pseudo 'science' is continuing to dictate international energy policy and the massive 'Green Taxes' we are being forced to pay.

Enough already.

Thanks for reading.

Immigration is a 'hot button' issue for UKIP & our EU membership, but it is not even close to being the biggest issue for either

I don't really blame UKIP for focusing on the issue of immigration, particularly in the build-up to the European elections in May. The lack of control over our own borders - one of the fist duties of any sovereign government - is lamentable and is due purely to our membership of the EU and its 'free movement' doctrine. They did make me wince a little though.

It is also an issue which gains profile as one side calls it 'racist' and the other laments the added pressure that immigrants put on our health, welfare and housing infrastructure as well as the job market where downward pressure on wages has been profound. And in gaining profile it stays in the news and has allowed UKIP to maintain a high profile which it has made good use of to attack the status quo and deliver its other messages.

And those who attack this so-called racist policy (it isn't at all) have largely been confined to talking about this single issue rather than combating the many other policies and ideas that this argument has allowed UKIP to bring forward. I don't think it's genius, it's accidental, but it has been almost entirely positive for UKIP in the grand scheme of things.

They (UKIP) have been seen to be becoming much more professional and having views on a variety of issues which resonate amongst British voters, whilst their opponents have been reduced to name-calling. I must say that reducing this name-calling to almost irrelevance has been a welcome development - the left in particular has relied upon stifling any kind of argument in recent years by playing the 'racist' or 'bigot' card - a tactic which has now been almost completely undermined. That's a good thing.

Actually encouraging people to come into the UK for party political reasons as was done by Labour in the last parliament - which they have since admitted and apologised for - is an entirely bad thing to do. As is the restriction of immigration purely to people from the Europe, which the EU does. Now that is clearly racist.

However immigration is not even close to being to most important element of the argument on our membership of the EU. It is largely a side-show: Immigration is generally a good thing for the UK economy, but unrestricted immigration is not. I think that's clear now to most people and it is also clear that UKIP has won that particular argument if one actually listens to what they are saying - which is advocating a points system for incomers akin to that employed in Australia and the USA. And not restricting immigration to 'Europeans, bet extending the opportunity to people from all over the world.

The danger for UKIP - and it is a danger which I think they are largely avoiding at the moment - is sticking to the immigration theme. It seems to me that they've won the argument - that won't be a popular thing for me to say, but I think it's true. While the other parties are fumbling around trying to 'catch up' with the populace on the issue: Dave trying to have some kind of handbrake in contravention of EU law; Labour laughably claiming that the real victims are the immigrants themselves and Nick Clegg, erm, well who knows or cares(?), UKIP is moving on.

As will I, and take UKIP out of this equation, since I share their anti-EU stance, but on my own account not necessarily as a 'kipper'.

I have blogged, some might say 'endlessly' about our membership of the EU and why it is a bad thing, and I have rarely mentioned immigration as an issue.

Why? Because it's a symptom, not the disease. Just as massive levels of youth unemployment in southern Europe is a symptom. Just as massive levels of waste and corruption both within the EU and in the 'projects' it funds around the continent are symptoms. Just as the continuing rape of Africa so that it cannot trade its way into the first world, because of protectionist EU tariffs are a symptom.

Just as Brussels taking over control of our lives, laws, culture, values, views and ability to have some local control and influence (such as it is) over how we're governed, is a symptom.

The EU is the biggest threat to our democracy - you know, the freedoms that our forefathers fought and died for quite recently - that exists for citizens not just of the UK but the whole of Europe. It is at the forefront of the politically correct world we now live in that has given us Rotherham and the 30 or so other towns and cities in the UK where the exact same crimes are happening. Not sure about that? It's happening in France, Germany and Sweden too, and probably everywhere else in Europe as well.

It's at the forefront of our crazy climate change laws and commitments that are costing us £billions to solve a problem that doesn't exist. It is trying to make the whole of Europe a single state. And that state will be much more akin to Germany than it will to Spain, Italy, Greece or good old Blighty. I love Spain, Italy, Greece, Blighty - and Germany - but as different, independent places with their own offer, history, food, music, culture, values etc.

These are not going to be left alone to thrive and to make Europe the amazingly diverse and culturally interesting place it is, under the increasingly controlling yoke of the EU.

It's time we tackled the disease and pulled the rug out from under these unqualified and unelected Muppets in Brussels and got on with living our own lives without 'superior' beings telling us what to do.

We should rename the EU as 'EUBOLA' and get on with eradicating both.

Thanks for reading.

How many times will the establishment say 'we get it' before they actually do?

It seems LibLabCon's cunning plan to address the UKIP problem that they all clearly face is to say 'we get it' - and then do nothing.

By now they must be starting to 'get' the fact that growing numbers of the population, who have voted for all three 'mainstream' parties in the past (I think 'mainstream might be a bit strong a term to use to describe the LIb Dems but hey ho), are turning away from the smug, cozy, self-serving status quo.

That they (we) have had enough of being patronised, having laws passed and policies enacted that we never signed up for and that this massive disconnect between those who supposedly work for us (but only really bother to connect with us every five years), has become intolerable.

And unlike the past 40 years or so, there is now an alternative; a potential home for our votes when at issue is not a protest vote on a single issue, but a real vote for a comprehensive change. Not so much 'we disagree with your stance on (insert pet issue here - immigration, the welfare state, the NHS, defence, deomocracy, the EU), but the whole way in which we're being governed by career politicians who have not got a single clue about how the real world works, who have never had a proper job or faced any kind of financial struggle.

Time after time we hear: 'we get it', 'we're listening and will learn the lessons' and time after time nothing changes. I don't believe that the rumbling machinery of the establishment - the commons, Lords, civil service etc. - is capable of making the changes and delivering the reconnect between ordinary people and our governance that we now need. I talked about this disconnect in a blog some time ago - here. At the time I felt that the solution could even be a violent one such was the growing feeling I percieved amongst the ignored electorate, but I think UKIP is, thankfully, now offering a non-violent solution. Whether it (UKIP) is ultimately the beneficiary or not is really down to what the other mainstream parties now do in response to a clear message from the voter.

And in Nigel Farage we now have a serious politician who doesn't talk down to us, who doesn't patronise us, who hasn't yet had the opportunity to be caught out lying to us. For many people this 'let's give him a chance, he seems like a normal, straightforward bloke, particularly in comparison with the toffs and expenses fiddlers in all the other parties,' is gaining ground.

Left-leaning voters seem at last to be waking up to the fact that Labour doesn't really give a toss about them and has delivered almost no uplift to their lives (in Labour heartlands) for decades (if ever). Lib Dem voters who had the luxury of espousing lofty principles when there was zero chance of them having to be tested in power, have seen their party found utterly wanting when they had to step up to the plate.

Tories have realised that call-me-Dave is not a traditional Tory but an 'heir to Blair' who sadly doesn't have the balls or the negotiating skills to fight for the interests of this once great country. Of the three he is in a different league to the other mainstream leaders, but he's not strong enough in fighting our corner, particularly on what I believe to be the biggest issue we face - the EU.

And why is it the biggest issue? Because if we carry on the way we are (and the publicly-stated direction of travel that the EU is taking), it will be largely irrelevent which party we vote for in the UK in ten years' time, because the vast majority of our laws and policies will be decided in Brussels with almost no imput from us voters in the UK and without taking account of our interests, values and views.

Yes Dave wants a referendum but he'll be voting for us to stay in whatever the results of his renegotiations (which have a vanishingly small chance of being successful in any meaningful way). And if that is the case when (if) the time comes when we do get to vote, the machinery of the establishment and the European Union will almost certainly win the referendum. So making political capital out of offering a referendum, but having the policy of voting to stay in, is a hollow promise that is highly cynical at best.

'We get it'.

No you don't.

The only thing you are 'getting' at the moment is a sound kicking yes from UKIP, but more importantly, from the good people of the UK.

If UKIP wins the by-election in Rochester I think Mr Farage will be well on the way to achieving his 'earthquake' and I think that will be a good, possibly great, thing for the UK. And six months out from a General Election, couldn't be better timing.

Thanks for reading.

So what happens when ISIS supporters carry out a successful 'action' in the UK?

MI5 and the Met have foiled a plot to carry out a beheading on UK soil in support of ISIS in the past couple of days. That's what we're being told and we have no reason to question it. The use of such threats of 'terror' on our streets to enact ever more surveillance measures seems to me to have nowhere further to go. There is now one surveillance camera for every 11 people in the UK; they can access your phone records and internet usage at will it seems and will soon be putting tracking devices in cars and mobile phones so you can be tracked 24/7.

Remind me again who is winning this war on freedom?

But it seems that it is only a matter of time before some ISIS - or lets be clearer about this, Islamic extremist - terror is visited on the streets of the UK.

So what happens then?

What happened the last time this happened with Lee Rigby was that it was largely ignored by the establishment as a 'one off' and not something that represented the 'religion of peace'.

But next time? And sadly there will be a next time - I think that is inevitable now. What then?

'Inevitable' because when one is fighting an avowed enemy for whom martyrdom is glorious and comes with the promise of eternal paradise in the next world, and this is indoctrinated into people from a very young age, you have very little chance of preventing it.

And given that some 500 people have already left the UK to fight for ISIS and Islam in the Middle East, we're not just talking about 'foreign people in a far off land' but our own fellow citizens.

So what does happen next time?

It seems to me that our approach is a bit like the 'Jihadi John' bullshit that is being espoused: find him and kill him. He's just a single person amongst a groundswell of thousands of others. Killing him will send a message, but it will not solve the problem and by being specific, by wanting revenge, we are ignoring the much bigger issues and arguably playing into the hands of the people we want to eradicate.

We can't stop these nutters one at a time. We have to deal with them collectively and completely. And that does not just mean in the Middle East, but here at home too.

So how do we react when it happens in the UK - as it surely will?

In my view the Muslim community in the UK can either come out and let us know that there are 'Moderate Muslims' in our midst, people who share our values and views as Brits, and who abhor what is going on. Or they can continue to ignore the problem with trite bollocks like 'have you read the Quran?' or 'how many Muslims do you know; have you spoken to about this?'

It is not good enough now and nor will it be when this next atrocity happens. We do need to speak with Muslims in the UK, and soon. We need to know where their loyalties lie and that they are on the same side as us. I really don't think that this is clear enough at the moment and it needs to be.

For the benefit of British Muslims and those of us who are not followers of Islam.

The alternative is not pretty. For anyone. Not for Muslims who just want a quiet life in the UK but are being bullied into submission or quiescence by extremists in their own communities. It's time for them to stand up and be counted and to make their voice heard.

We are, as a nation, extremely tolerant and generous; slow to rile and slow to understand sometimes. But when pushed to our limit, which is close now, we tend not to fuck about. We tend to do what is right. And when that happens you're best advised to be on our side.

Thanks for reading.

A UKIP MP? They don't seem to be going away do they? That's a good thing

 If, as seems likely, Douglas Carswell is elected as the MP for Clacton this evening, he will become the first candidate to be elected after campaigning on the UKIP ticket. Following on from victory in the Euro elections in May, one would have to acknowledge that this is a remarkable achievement for UKIP and a not insignificant kick in the teeth for the main-stream parties and the main-stream media (MSM) whose campaigns against UKIP have been pretty vitriolic for the whole of this year.

Were the results in May an earthquake? I think not, but certainly a tremor. Will Carswell's election be a volcanic eruption? Again I think not, but given that UKIP has only been able to contest (realistically) these two set-piece electoral events, I'd have to say that they've done so impressively.

They have very quickly changed from being a bit of a rag-tag group into a much more credible party with policies across a much wider area than the single issue upon which they were formed: They have recruited some very good people, secured some serious financial backing and in Nigel Farage they have a formidable debater and a strong, clear and effective leader (whether you agree with what he says or not).

I am vehemently anti EU. I see it as the biggest threat we (in the UK) face in the modern world and the biggest threat to the self determination, British aspiration and democracy we have faced since our recent ancestors fought and died for our freedoms and the freedoms of all nations in Europe.

Which is why I have advocated voting for UKIP (whilst not being a fully fledged 'Kipper') on several occasions now.

They have successfully got the issue of the EU much more firmly on the agenda and whilst the EU continues to put out soporific crap about straight bananas and vacuum cleaner power in order to make us switch off so that they can pass the serious stuff while we're asleep, people are now starting to take much more of an interest.

And that's a good - nay a great - thing because I'm convinced that when people realise what is really going on, they will understand why we do really need out of this monstrous and failing project that is bad for almost everyone in Europe - not just the UK.

I also think that the shaking up of the 'establishment' - you know these people who 'work for us' but who are actually are in it not together but for themselves, is also a major contribution that UKIP can take great credit for. It's time the LibLabCon recognised the need to reconnect with the people they supposedly represent.

UKIP has also clearly been helped enormously by the lack of leadership and charisma on offer from the other tired old parties. Dave, I would argue, has done a pretty good job on the economy following on from the utter shambles left by Labour (as always) at the last election, but he's for our staying in the EU and I simply cannot support him on that. Of the other parties, Ed is rightly now being seen as a complete liability by Labour - where do they find these people who have no humanity and no ability to relate to normal human beings? And Clegg is just an opportunist, lie through your teeth to gain influence at any cost, charlatan who is toast, and rightly so in my opinion.

It's not the strongest of fields for Mr Farage to fight against is it?

 To Obscurity and beyond.

Rapt attention, hanging on every word.

Liability.

Pro our staying in the EU regardless of renegotiations - which he will not secure in any case.








So UKIP will not form the next government. Despite consistently polling double what the Lib Dems get, they will probably win fewer seats at the General election on May 7th next year. But they do have momentum and I believe, after tonight, an MP elected by standing for UKIP's goals, ideas and stance.

I think that's a good thing for the UK and for our politics and democracy.

 Thanks for reading.

I think The Sun has a point..

Here's the full article by Nesrine Malik in today's Graun. She makes some interesting points with which I have some sympathy. My own views are contained in a blog I posted - and wrote - last night - here. A blog whose views are embarrassingly similar to those of the Sun front page article today, which is why I feel the need to comment or 'fisk' her piece.

Ms Malik, I think rightly, suggests that the Sun piece is really about Muslims and not about 'Brits of all faiths', needing to demonstrate their loyalty to the UK and, by inference, their opposition to ISIS.

I agree that this is a troubling development. But on the day after MI5 and the Metropolitan Police claim to have foiled the first ISIS-supporting acts of terrorism in London, calling the Sun's stance 'bigotry' and, by inference, 'racist', is at best to ignore and at worst to dismiss what is a clear issue facing the UK. Use of the word 'shady' is entirely unnecessary, but increasingly there seems to me to be a feeling that we might have an 'enemy within' - surely this could be a chance to disprove that feeling.

But the problem is, Ms Malik, that this has not been happening has it? Not even close. There is really very little evidence indeed that British Muslims do condemn ISIS. And given that fact, there seems to be growing tensions in our society, tensions that will only grow as this conflict goes on and we inevitably become more involved and, in my view equally inevitably, there does occur some ISIS-related terrorist acts on UK soil. Perhaps this is because they have not had a voice or the right communications vehicle with which to express their true views and values. Perhaps they are reluctant to do so in the face of bullying by extremists in their communities. Perhaps they haven't been trying very hard.

My blog was calling for UK Muslims to be given the chance to demonstrate that they are on the same side as the rest of us 'Brits' in this ideological, religious-driven conflict. I have seen people calling for internment of Muslims as we move further towards another war in the Middle East. I think that would be a terrible situation and completely unfair, but it is indicative of the growing tensions that are certainly arising in the UK. And this opportunity to declare where they stand - if as Ms Malik infers it is on the same side as the rest of us - then this would surely be a good way of putting the record straight, setting all our minds at rest and allowing British Muslims to publicly make that welcome statement?

Others do not have to meet these conditions because there is no doubt about where their loyalties lie. Sadly there are some doubts about this with regard to British Muslims - more than 500 'Brits' have travelled to Syria and Iraq to fight against 'us'; there seems to be a growing likelihood of that same terror being visited on home soil and other events of recent months are inevitably adding to our concerns: Electoral fraud in Tower Hamlets, the Trojan Horse Muslimification of the school curriculum in Birmingham and Bradford, the recognition and at long last legal condemnation of FGM and forced marriages of under-age girls; and the 'Pakistani-heritage' Muslim men grooming young white girls in Rotherham and across many other of our towns and cities are not exactly reassuring.

I think these are occurrences that make it even more desirable for British Muslims to have the opportunity to clearly state where their loyalties lie and that they are committed to the UK and to abiding by its laws and traditions. David Cameron said this a couple of weeks ago:

In conclusion Ms Malik says:

Given all of the above, I agree that this must be a terrible situation to face every day. But it is unlikely to go away any time soon. One way of putting it to bed, would be to give British Muslims a voice, a means of dispelling the suspicions that will inevitably arise unless they do so. Surely that would be a positive development for our cohesion in the UK and a welcome way of reducing tensions?

Please do read my piece from yesterday - here. I am not anti-Muslim but I am anti the flouting of UK laws and the undermining of our society that this entails. Tolerance must work both ways or it is at best pointless and at worst an invitation to take advantage with impunity. I am also very concerned about the power that the Quran wields over the every-day lives of Muslims world-wide. I do think it's time we asked some clear and civilised questions for the good of us all, British Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Thanks for reading

 

Why won't the UK Government just ask a couple of simple questions to put all our minds at rest?

It seems that the police and MI5 have today foiled the first ISIS plot to visit terror on the streets of the UK. Not via an invasion but via people who were already here. An 'enemy within' as it were. Telegraph article here.

As things stand, when we seem to be dealing with people for whom death in the name of 'extremist' Islam - killing non-believers - represents a glorious undertaking which brings its reward in 'heaven', it seems to me only a matter of time before the horrors we're seeing in the Middle East are happening here in the UK.

I think one would have to be very optimistic not to think that this is an increasingly likely scenario: We know that there are extremists already living in the UK - significant numbers of them have travelled to Syria and Iraq to fight for ISIS already. And whilst life is (sadly) considerably cheaper in that part of the world, imagine the effect that such terror in the UK would have in terms of this conflict as a whole? It would send shock-waves throughout the world - and similar events are also likely to occur in the US and other European countries.

Unless we act to prevent it. Quickly and comprehensively.

But how can we do that, in our 'don't offend anyone' PC-driven world.

I have had brief conversations on twitter in recent days with an Imam and a Muslim ambassador both of whom were responding to my concerns about the lack of condemnation of the ISIS beheading of Alan Henning.

Both responses are I think responsible and positive. But the thing is when I asked about actually creating dialogue between 'us' (by which I mean ordinary Brits) and the Muslim community, both of these people fell permanently silent. It suggests to me that they might have something to hide. Now I'm not making this accusation of these individuals, but it does suggest to me that they probably know that there is an issue here - in the UK rather than the Middle East - and that it is one which they are uncomfortable confronting.

I've heard people advocating internment as happened before and during WW2 in order to remove the threat that we (I think undoubtedly) face from some elements of the Muslim community as evidenced by people clearly supporting ISIIS in the UK. I think that would be draconian and we're dealing with families who are 'Brits' and have been for several generations. It is simply not going to happen and in my view nor should it.

But - and this is a big 'But' - I do now think that we need to talk to more Muslims and ask the question, in a civilised manner and, crucially, in a public environment, of some our fellow citizens as to how they view the world and where their loyalties lie.

I say 'publicly' because in my view this needs to be an open process that can be 'seen' not just by non-Muslim Brits (in order to reduce tensions), but also by Muslim Brits, some of whom are, I think, bullying their fellows into ignoring or indeed supporting stuff that we really don't want to see in our country.

And this 'stuff' is not just support of ISIS, but electoral fraud in Tower Hamlets, forced marriages, FGM, the grooming of 'white trash' girls in towns and cities across the country by Muslim men of Pakistani 'heritage'. All of which seems to me to be undermining the rule of law in our homeland with the assistance of our PC local authorities, police, the media and Central Government.

If we can, in this civilised manner ask the questions we need answers to, and those answers tell all of us that 'Moderate Muslims' do not support, accept or ignore these hideous crimes, then we might have a strong stance against the extremists in our country and one which can be used to undermine and drive them out.

If, on the other hand we cannot achieve this consensus - that some of the teachings of the Quran are not applicable in our modern world, at least then we will have identified the problem and can then address it as required. Whatever that means.

My concern (I have to say) is that Muslims follow Islam and Islam teaches that the Quran is the unalterable and unquestionable word of God (Allah). And the Quran says that non-believers are kaffirs, unclean, animals and should be forced either to convert to Islam or be killed, usually brutally and in a way which involves detaching their head from their bodies. Now I know that we would see this as a medieval approach, but it seems it is one which is alive and well in our modern world.

The Quran is 700 years younger than our Christian faith (which has some equally barbarous teachings but has also been translated and reinterpreted for modern times). 700 years ago we were burning witches at the stake and burning unbelievers alive. We're not exempt from criticism on that basis, but we do now live in a modern world where secularism is accepted and religious faith is based on personal choice, not enforcement upon pain of death. This does not seem to be the case with Islam in any way shape or form.

So if you are a believer in Islam and also consider yourself a 'moderate Muslim', is there a disconnect between some of the Quranic verses that your religion espouses or not? That is the question we need to ask of some of our fellow citizens, and given the threat we now face not just in the Middle East but here at home, we need, in my opinion, to do so as soon as possible.

If the answer is that there is not a disconnect between the teachings of the Quran and modern life in the UK, we have pretty serious problem in our country.

Thanks for reading.

Do we ignore genuine concerns in order not to offend some people?

There's a report in the Sunday Times tomorrow/today that suggests that the Rotherham child abuse scandal is being repeated in Manchester. And that the perpretrators are, once again Muslim men of Pakistania 'heritage' (was there ever a more stupid word 'heratige' to describe anything, ever?).

This shit has and is happening across large parts of our country - northern towns and cities but not exclusively in the north. It is a disease that has become an infestation in our country.

And I'm sorry to say this, but it has a Muslim origin to it. It has a religious origin. I don't think that there is any way to get away from this fact. It is the Muslim and Islamic belief that non believers are 'animals' that young white girls are 'trash' and of no worth, that is behind this epidemic.

We can of course go on ignoring this reality and telling ourselves that Islam is the religion of peace; that electoral fraud in Tower Hamlets is OK. That FGM is something to be ignored, that child marriage is not our problem, that taking over school curriculums in Birmingham and Bradford is just fine; that child abuse on a seemingly industrial scale is not our problem, that kids going off to fight for ISIS, against us, is OK.

I think we have an enemy within. I think we have a problem in our midst. We can bomb ISIS into oblivion of course, but are we really solving the problem that we face? It's already here.

And it's your call. Do we keep on ignoring this shit?

I think we'd be stupid to do so.

Thanks for reading.

Kennels

The small dog (Yorkie) called Jeeves, had to go into a kennel this weekend just for one night as we were at a (gay) family wedding.

The wedding was fantastic in every regard thanks. Members of our family, Brother in law, jigsaw doer extroadinare. Lovely people and lovely friends. And family from all corners, St Andrews, Falmouth, Brittany came over and we spent wonderful time with all of them. What life is and should be about.












But Jeeves had to go into kennels for the night. He's 10 going on 2. A puppy really, but with no teeth. A small dog with a massive personality, who needs to circulate and to announce his arrival in the pub on the way home. 'Hello I'm Jeeves, thanks for coming to this pub while I'm here. You can stroke me if you like.'

I dropped him off at the kennels yesterday. Now kennels are run by nice people but they are, by necessity secure units. 'Sorry we lost your dog' is not really an option. And this one in deepest Suffolk was just fine. But it was also a cage, a prison for Jeeves for the night. And when we went in there were lots of big dogs with deep voices. Jeeves got a bit smaller as we went in. He looked at me and said 'what the fuck is this?'

 Anyway this morning I picked him up and he was relieved but also part of the doggy community at the kennels. He'd been for a run with these other dogs; he hadn't eaten anything but he was OK. He'd been voted on to the esacpe committee and obviously become the boss overnight. That's Yorkies for you. His chucking and catching the baseball in his mit while in solitary was legendary. And he'd eaten 50 eggs obviously.

I took the piss as you do, saying 'and if you do that again, you'll be in solitary'. He shrugged but not convincingly.

I asked if he'd been on the chain gang, he didn't comment.

'Did you dig any tunnels?"

Nothing.

He was exceptionally happy to get home though and very affectionate today.

Good to have him home. ;)