Patch poem

She would have been 22 today. Instead we buried her last Friday surrounded by hundreds of people who loved her.

It was a desperately sad occasion, but she is now at peace, released from the constant mental pain that was with her every day - a burden that she fought and despite which she still managed to achieve so much, to shine so brightly and to have a massive positive impact on so many people. And she is in a beautiful place - Anne and I went to see her today.

We had literally hundreds of tributes to Patch sent by email and on facebook and by post. They were a massive help to us.

The students in St Andrews held a lantern flight celebration and tribute to Patch last week, on the beach.

 We celebrated her life in our own village hall - a place where she spent so much time over the years at play-groups and Brownies and appearing in the annual village show for so many years. It was such a comfort for us to be surrounded by so many people who knew and loved Patch. Her uncle Russell, brother Angus, cousin Erin and best friend Grace spoke wonderfully, warmly and movingly about her place in their lives and what she meant to us all.

And people took away with them a card - just images - that showed some of her many characters and many self-reinventions over the years.

One of her favourite phrases was: 'I am a leaf on the wind... watch how I soar.

 I am a leaf on the wind.. watch how I soar..

I am a little girl
See how I play
I am the May-Queen
the Goddess of the May

I am the bright and clever child
A source of endless pride
I am my mother's hopes and dreams
She sometimes helps me hide

I am in need of canine help
From Crush and Roops and Gee
And Lupin and from Pretty Bear
who we just call 'PB'

I am the fount of endless joy
A bright spark in your life
I am the 'fun' in 'funny'
A queen in Kingdom Fife

I am the love that wraps you up
The one you sought to find
The one who helps you through the days
And brings peace to your mind

I am the source of endless hope
I'll help your dreams to hatch
My name is Maddy Conway
But you can call me Patch

I am the one who cares for you
I am your faithful friend
I will inspire set hearts on fire
and love you in the end

I will burn bright and in the night
I'll leave you wanting more
I am a leaf upon the wind
Watch how I soar


Sleep well my darling girl.

Love Dad xxx

6 Graphics that explain climate change - BBC

The world has not been getting warmer for 18 years and 7 months. According to RSS data - see here. 

This is why the very subject itself has been renamed even by the warmist media & IPCC; first from CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) to AGW (same terms) and now simply to 'Climate Change'. Because there has been no warming, catastrophic or otherwise and the predictions that climate is driven by the activity of humans ('Anthropogenic') has now been almost definitively disproved by real measurements rather than computer models which were programmed to 'prove' that AGW was real. 

These predictions, based on computerised climate models which make the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere the sole driver of global warming (rather than taking account of the many other elements that influence earth's temperature and climate) have been shown to be utterly incorrect. Neither surface temperatures nor ocean temperatures have been rising at a rate that suggests that CO2 is the driver. That is a simple fact.

And nor, despite the way that the MSM jumps upon any evidence to the contrary, has there been an increase in 'extreme' weather events since 1950, which is the date at which most of the 'records began' calculations come from. Indeed the reverse is true, there have been fewer extreme weather events globally since 1950 than occurred before that date.

So how come 13 of the 14 hottest years since records began have occurred in the C21st? Well it's simply not true. Unless one refers as they do, to records for this issue in particular beginning in 2000. 

And the amount that they claim 2015 is warmer than 2014 is less than the variability in the data. This is being spun and is not accurate in any way.

Here's the RSS data and above the black 'real' temperature line is the IPCC prediction data in pale blue.

Does 2015 look like the warmest year on record to you?

So the BBC's next explanation:

It is not happening. Yes CO2 levels are rising - man-made CO2 accounts for a vanishingly small percentage of overall CO2 on the planet. 

And CO2 has existed on the planet in much greater quantities in the past without driving global temperatures. Cutting our CO2 emissions is an entirely futile exercise that is much more about controlling people and collecting more 'green taxes' than 'saving the planet'. Yes we should be looking to develop the next generation of sustainable energy supply, but the notion that cutting man-made CO2 emissions will enable us to control the climate is risible.

Rising levels of CO2 is causing the 'greening' of the planet, particularly in Asia but elsewhere too as plants thrive in a more productive atmosphere. CO2 is plant food. Without it we would not exist. And the rise in recent decades, from 374 parts per million (ppm) to today's 400 ppm is an increase the size of a ping-pong ball in the Albert Hall. And yet we're potentially doomed because of it. Madness.

And so the next BBC scare story:

Well here's the data:

Sea ice extent in the Arctic has declined in the past 20 years but not in a way that could be described as catastrophic. And at the other end of the globe, the Antarctic sea ice extent was at record levels in 2014. In the north the Polar Bear population is thriving and growing and healthy. There are some melting glaciers around the world, but there are as many growing glaciers and the net extent of glacial content on the planet is not in decline. One would expect that it would be in serious decline if 'global warming' were real.

And the 4th:

'Complicated'. Probably all you need to know, but there has not been an increase in 'extreme weather events' over the past 50 years and there is simply no evidence that (non-existent) global warming is driving more extreme weather. It's all about stats in the end and not about reality. Some warmists point out the stats that the global cost of repairing the damage caused by extreme weather is rising. If you don't understand the fallacy of this argument, you're wasting your time reading this blog.

And fifthly..:

The UK emits about 1.7% of global CO2 by the way.

These emitters of CO2 (man-made emissions which are, remember, the square root of fuck all in terms of overall global CO2 which is not driving any warming anyway) are not going to bind themselves to any sort of real action. China is building a new coal-fired power station a week at the moment as it's industrial and economic development continues apace. The warmists are championing the fact that China has agreed to begin to reduce its emissions. By 2030. And, when we reach that date, what exactly is the world going to do if China then reneges on that commitment? India will turn up at COP21 hoping that it can screw some money out of the UN to 'help' it's 'greening process' but it will not be making any sort of contribution.

If we in the UK cut our CO2 emissions to zero, having, in order to do so, virtually eliminated any kind of wealth generation or industry in our land, our saving would be rendered meaningless on a planetary scale by China's growth in CO2 emissions in about 6 months. Think on that.

Where do they get this shit from? The IPCC's own current predictions - and bear in mind that the IPCC derives it's massive funding from being at the extreme end of this whole business, is for warming of 1.7 degrees centigrade per century. That prediction does not factor in cuts in CO2 emissions globally, so the 4.5, 3.6 and even the lowest 2.7 degree predictions are wildly above what even the alarmists are now saying.

But 97% of scientists agree - is often the argument. My guess is that most real, genuine scientists are utterly embarrassed by this whole faux science idiocy. This climate change issue is not about science. It is about controlling people, screwing more 'green' taxes out of them on the 'difficult to dispute' basis that it's all about saving the planet.

The 97% figure is derived from a survey of 79 scientists who were not actually asked about their beliefs but whose articles were assumed to mean that they were 'on board'. Several have since refuted this assumption. You can read more here, but it is abundantly clear that the figure of 97% is utter bullshit.

So what do I conclude about the Paris Climate Change summit? In plain terms it has nothing to do with saving the planet and everything to do with controlling the population. It is an initiative that came out of the UN in the late 1980s when, following the breaking down of the Berlin Wall and the failure of communism and The Soviet Union, the UN faced an existential crisis - what was it for, how could it retain some influence on the world (before terrorism had replaced the Cold War and given it a new lease of life).

It came up with a plan for a New World Order, a single world government and it called it Agenda 21 - an agenda for achieving a new world order in the 21st Century. And in order to achieve this it needed to focus on an issue that affected everyone on the planet in order to get them signed up for this new order and in order to get them cooperating on a planetary level. Unsurprisingly it chose climate and unsurprisingly it didn't set out to say that 'the world achieves climate equilibrium over time so we're all OK'. That wouldn't have grabbed the world's attention now would it? Instead, via the IPCC, the UN 'created' the story that a changing climate is a massive threat to us all so we must do whatever it takes to save the planet. And at the time (post 1977) the world's temperature was actually on one of its regular upward spirals, so the concept of global warming was born.

The above graph is essentially where we are - we have a world whose temperature rises and falls on a cyclical basis and has done, and will do forever. Sometimes the peaks and troughs will be higher and lower but not by much. What we have now is global energy - and more importantly tax - policy being formulated on where we were in the above graph in 1997, when actually we are now in 2015 on a downward curve. There is absolutely no indication that there is any kind of warming that is outside the parameters of the above long-term trend. Indeed, we are now in a prolonged period of cooling which may well be exacerbated by reduced solar activity. 

And of course the curve will rise again in due course - God help us when that happens because then we will be presented with 'Global warming' as fact rather than as part of a completely natural long term trend with ups and downs.

Interestingly, just a few years before the UN / IPCC came up with its Catastrophic man-made global warming theory, many of the same people who are now 'convinced' that AGW is real, were predicting a new ice age.

And so the global warming concept was created and the systems and bodies were set up (mainly the IPCC) to prove that it was real. It isn't. How do I know this? Because we're here. Because the planet achieves equilibrium over time. Because we exist. If the planet did not achieve equilibrium over time, we would not exist. It really is that simple.

And this whole initiative has now spun out of control and become tantamount to a religion. An issue that relies more on belief and faith than it does on science.

And week by week the claims of the alarmists diminish as the facts emerge. Almost nothing that the IPCC has predicted has come to pass. We were told that the polar ice caps would be gone by now. We were told that there would be 10 million climate refugees by now. We were told that low lying islands in the Pacific would be under water by now. None of this has happened.

If this was real science the IPCC would have been ridiculed and thrown out of town by real scientists by now. But this has the support of the UN and, in particular the USA and it has endless budgets to spend because the end goal - a  New World Order and a new way of controlling the world's population, is much more important than whether the science is real or not.

And the science is not real. Palpably not real, palpably fabricated and reproduced by the mainstream media for some reason. Because money talks would be my guess. And very little mention of Agenda 21 which is the driver behind this whole scam. If a New World Order is so necessary, and so good, why aren't we being told about it?

You can make up your own mind about this of course, perhaps do some research - I'm not making any of this up. But what I am telling you is that AGW or 'climate change' is a total scam, and it is one that is being perpetuated by Prime Ministers and Presidents around the world who all care much more about controlling the people than saving the planet.

Just so you know, before you go on a march and make a complete idiot of yourself.

You can read more about the origins of this climate change scam here. And more about the long-term geology that warmists must absolutely hate, here. 

Thanks for reading.

The bottom line in Paris climate talks

Serious people - elected Prime Ministers and Presidents and 'experts' from all over the world, will converge on Paris, this week to talk about how we - man - can control the climate on our planet.

The media will take this seriously and will, mostly, be supportive of what these people are trying to achieve.

They will, to a man and woman, ignore the facts that don't support their contention that climate change is the most pressing issue facing humanity.

They will, in short, put forward their view that we can control our climate.

And they will do so based on the belief that CO2 is a pollutant; that it is a gas that is causing catastrophic man-made global warming.

 CO2. Without which there would simply be no life on earth. A trace gas - 400 parts per million in our atmosphere - a gas that means plants can grow and thrive and upon which we, therefore, all depend for life.

This is the king Cnut conference. The 'we can control the tides and the waves and the climate' conference.

It is, quite simply, the most ridiculous notion and the most ridiculous conference that humans have ever organised.

Because King Cnut was clearly an idiot. Uninformed by modern science. His belief was guided by religion. He thought that he could control the tides by his will.

The people converging on Paris next week are in exactly the same position.

And they will be judged in decades to come in exactly the same way as we judge King Cnut.

If it wasn't so serious this would be just too funny.

Thanks for reading.

 

Why are women at the forefront of campaigning to help migrants whose views are so misogynistic?

The Qu'ran is a book and the basis of a religion that is so misogynistic, so anti women, that most modern people (men and women) would find it completely unfathomable. And yet we seem not to be hearing anything from women's groups because their fervour is reserved for 'helping' refugees and migrants. There is no noticeable condemnation of FGM or child brides or polygamy from women's groups. Why is this?

These women's groups seem to want to bring in more people to the UK who will ultimately treat them (women) as second class humans. But at the same time they will throw themselves into any passing campaign that contains any kind of sleight or promotion of inequality in the workplace or anywhere else against women. Any kind of sleight - or imagined sleight is jumped on by Jack Monroe, or La Mensch, or Caroline Criado-Perez, and yet there is nothing about Islam? Which is fundamentally anti women.

It just doesn't add up.

I will never understand this.

Thanks for reading. Puts on tin hat. 

France is rounding up the 'on the radar' jihadists. We should be doing the same thing. And now.

France has long been at the forefront of the multiculturalism issue. It's approach has largely been to try to integrate people into its communities and way of life by being tough on the Islamic policies that do not fit in with French beliefs and way of life. They banned the burka. Their schools are entirely secular, they have been much stronger than the UK on banning things like FGM, polygamy, child brides and the like.

But France's liberté which tends not to welcome CCTV or draconian surveillance measures is, for this reason, a softer touch for terrorism than we are in the UK. But it is only a matter of time before the terrorists get lucky in the UK. We are not immune to this threat.

In my opinion France has tried to do the right thing - to integrate people into its society instead of creating enclaves for incomers who don't agree with its laws, whereas we have turned a blind eye, for decades, to Muslim practises that are abhorrent to our beliefs.

Neither of us has - or will - see(n) the benefit of these approaches. The outcome, in the end will be exactly the same. Why? Because these people are not trying to achieve some sort of compromise, they are not trying to garner our sympathy or respect or to have us accept some of their religious beliefs. Their only goal is to force us to accept Sharia law and to worship - and live our lives - according to the Qu'ran.

But the same people who are now blaming the security forces for not having arrested the terrorists who were 'on their radar' are also the ones saying that we should not be taking draconian measures against 'peaceful people'.

You can't have it both ways. The current situation is one in which we need to find them and stop them. And by the way, there is absolutely no way we can negotiate with these people. The 'human beings' argument simply does not hold any kind of sway with these people. They are animals and they would kill you as soon as look at you if it furthered their cause.

We need to round them up and if they are not on our side, we need to get rid of them. Our civility will ensure that we do this by deporting them. One could argue that getting rid means just that, but we are not yet as evil as they are, so we'll give them the benefit of the doubt, probably in a way that we'll ultimately regret.

Thanks for reading.

The next steps with Radical Islam: It is, quite literally, them or us.

I blogged last night here about how we should treat the atrocity in Paris as if it had occurred in London, or Birmingham or Manchester.

Essentially my view was (and is) that if it had been in the UK and not in the great city of Paris, the event would have concentrated our minds here in the UK in a way which would force us to get on with a proper response. Instead of which the chances are that we'll view this as a problem that has not touched us; that is a problem for France rather than an existential threat to all of us in the West.

My suggestion was that we should engage with our Muslim communities and ask the question 'whose side are you on?' - that is obviously short hand for asking the question about where their loyalties lie - to the laws of their homeland or to the teachings of the Qu'ran. And this is important because if it's the latter then we have a massive problem. But by asking the question we would at least be admitting to and identifying the problem, rather than continuing to ignore it which is what seems to be happening at the moment - a position that is largely being led by our national broadcaster for reasons that entirely escape me.

I was taken to task about my suggestions for a way forward by two valued twitter friends who were cogent - and most probably correct - in their view that such a move would create offence and possibly conflict in our society and would possibly exacerbate the problem.

I disagree with that assessment but I also understand the view. My suggestions were made on the basis of the 'fact' (I believe) that we cannot carry on simply appeasing Muslims in our society and expect a different outcome.

I didn't mention the following in my previous blog but I think I will do here. Because you see by appeasing our Muslim communities and turning a blind eye to some of their religious-driven behaviours we have actually achieved the opposite of what we set out to do which is to integrate these people into our country and our communities.  Female genital mutilation, honour killings, polygamy, child brides, the sexual grooming of young 'white trash' girls, the attempted take-over of schools to teach Islamic views, electoral corruption and the radicalisation of young Muslims to go and fight for ISIS, are things that have been allowed to happen in our society because we have turned a blind eye to them for fear of offending British Muslims.

I'm sorry but if we don't enforce our long-established laws - the laws upon which all Brits agree and live their lives, for fear of offending a small percentage of our population, then we will never be able to integrate these people into our society. Because they will believe that their own ways (which we find abhorrent) will not be stamped out. And we will then just create a divided society in which some laws are just not upheld - and that is a recipe for disaster and conflict and backlash.

But let me now cut to the bottom line - the 'next steps' as it were, following on from my blog of last evening. And please allow me to look at this from a slightly different angle in order to make my original point from that blog differently but with the same ultimate end-game.

It seems to me that 'the West' faces a serious, some might say existential threat form Radical Islam. These people are not seeking some sort of compromise or allowance from us but for our total subjugation. There is absolutely no room for any sort of compromise or agreement in this situation. The solution will be either that we are taken over and forced to live under Islamic law or we fight for our freedoms and eliminate the threat of Islam by eliminating it's Radical followers - those who believe in what Dave called a 'death cult' today.

There is no other possible solution. It is, quite literally a fight between us and them and there can be no compromise on either side.

And so here is the situation as it relates to the UK: We simply cannot give in to these people if we are to retain our modern, civilised way of life. There is no middle ground. And the threat is real and deadly as we have seen around the world in recent months and years. And killing ISIS in the Middle East is no longer a guarantee of our safety because they clearly have fighters embedded in our own countries.

So do we continue to turn a blind eye to breaches of our laws? Do we continue to ignore their Qu'ran or Sharia-justified practises, or do we - as I am advocating - engage with these people, tell them what is required if they are to be welcomed into our civilised society and ask them whose side they're on?

You see we face an extremely serious threat to our way of life. This is a time for 'Brits' to gather round, to agree on what is important to us and to our country and to identify what our fundamental values are. To gather round our supporters - people who value our British and 'Western' way of life so that we can unite in our opposition to Radical Islam.

It is a time for us to be united in our opposition to the 'death cult' as a country. And everyone who lives in this country faces this threat. It is time, in my opinion, that we were sure of ourselves, sure of our beliefs and sure of our neighbours. We are, after all, in this fight together.

And this is why we need to engage with our Muslim neighbours, to enable them to be, visibly and publicly on our side. It's time that we all stood together in our rejection of this threat. And by 'all' I mean British people of all denominations and faiths including most particularly, Muslims.

And if some people are not prepared to stand with us against this threat, they are themselves a threat to us. And we should deal with them as such.

Not engaging with these people, not finding out whose side they're on, will mean, ultimately that we are just storing up a problem for the future and that what has happened in Paris this week, will be a constant threat in the UK as well.

Yes I know this process of engagement might cause offence, might radicalise some people, but the bottom line is that we need to know where we stand. And if they are not prepared to stand alongside us, they will have to take their chance standing alongside our opponents.

There is, as I say, no other outcome or possibility.

And here's the thing. If you are a British Muslim (who came here to escape the death cult) why would you be offended by our needing/wanting to confirm your loyalty in the face of this massive threat to your homeland? I'd have thought that you would welcome the chance to publicly support your new homeland. If the question offends you, doesn't that tell us something about where your loyalties lie?

I'm sorry but if we are not prepared to ask a simple question in order to safeguard our people then we are already irretrevably lost.

Thanks for reading.

For 'Paris' we should also read 'London' and get on with our response accordingly

The horrendous atrocities that took place in Paris last night are clearly still emotionally raw for everyone and my heart goes out to all of the families that have been terribly affected by the mindless and completely unjustifiable violence that has been visited on that great city.

Others have commented much more eloquently than I ever could about the horror and sheer despair for humanity that has occurred. And I'm not going to add to that sentiment here although I feel it very keenly too of course.

But two things strike me about the event and its aftermath - two things that we will need to - indeed must - consider and face in the coming days and weeks in my opinion.

First is that we should not consider the Paris atrocity as a problem just for France. It is clearly a problem and a tragedy for us all in Europe (and 'The West).

An obvious thing to say but my point is much stronger than this platitude. We must respond, as a nation and as a people, as if last night's events had taken place on the streets of London.

Think about that for a moment. Had this happened in London I think our response and our mind-set would be different. There would now be much more urgency in the UK to address the problem of Radical Islam.

I think Paris should not be considered as an atrocity and a disaster for France, but for us all. And I think we should see it as a very clear starting point for us to get on with our response and to properly start to tackle the problem in the UK in a pro-active rather than reactive way.

Because as night follows day, this is coming to the UK sometime soon. And the danger, in my opinion, is that we will wait, hoping this massive problem will somehow go away before it reaches us here in the UK. Sadly I see absolutely no chance of this happening so instead of waiting for British lives to be lost to these mindless, brainwashed idiots, we should have a mind-set, now, as if this had happened in London.

It is our problem, it is immediate, clear and present, and whilst we should of course be offering our support to France, we should also be getting on with our response right here in the UK.

And that might mean rounding up potential radicals. It might mean embarking on a highly visible public process in which we interview all Muslims in the UK and find out, in no uncertain terms, whose side they're on and whether the Qu'ran, Sharia law, or UK laws and values take precedence in their lives.

In short, as I have blogged about several times, we will, in the end, need to establish that Moderate British Muslims do exist and are on our side, for our own peace of mind and for the Muslims themselves to be able to declare their allegiance in a public way, which will ensure their own safety and acceptance when and if the backlash begins.

It is not an easy option of course, but the alternative, in the end will be continuing and damaging distrust taking root in our society and almost certainly escalating into violence in the near future if the issue is not properly addressed.

[Update: I have been taken to task for the 'simplicity' of this suggestion and the prospect that radicals would just lie in this situation. (Taqiyya). That is potentially true of course but honour and 'face' is extremely important to these Muslim people, particularly to the young men, which is why I say that this must be highly public. It should be broadcast, filmed and held in a public environment with their peers, families and neighbours in attendance. So that everyone can see them commit to upholding UK laws over and above the Qu'ran. Those that were not able do this would be, by definition, a threat to us and we would then have to decide what action we would take to protect ourselves from said threat.]

The second issue is related to this but is another major item on the UK government's 'to do' list if we are to properly address this issue.

We need to have an open, independent and credible evaluation of Islam. One which makes it clear what the religion actually stands for and what its followers actually believe.

Because - and this is clearly a deliberate ploy by those who use Islam to justify their barbaric actions - the uncertainty of where Islam and the Qu'ran really stands and what it really teaches its followers about beliefs, behaviours and how this relates to non-believers and followers of other religions, is an issue that we really do now need to be able to understand.

Worst case scenario is that believers in Islam do follow a religion that justifies and indeed encourages violent actions against non-believers. And if this is the case we need to find a way of either updating and modernising the 'book' so that it actually does allow a modern approach to religious belief that is generous and tolerant towards its followers and non-followers alike so that Muslims can practise their beliefs in a way which does not pose a threat to the rest of us.

Or, if that is not possible, we will at least know that we have a real and major problem that can only really be solved by separating followers of Islam from non-followers, physically and geographically.

Best case scenario would be finding that Islam actually does teach peace and tolerance and that Moderate Muslims do therefore have a world-view that can be peaceful and can positively contribute to our modern society. At the moment we don't really know the answers to these questions and I think we really do need to know as we go forward.

My personal opinion is that most Muslims who flee to 'the West' are doing so to get away from the barbaric interpretation of the Qu'ran and are seeking a better, freer and fairer life in which their humanity can shine through. I think that when they get here, many find themselves in thrall to established radicals in their new 'home country' who make use of their religious beliefs, twisting the words of the Qu'ran to force them into doing things - or standing by while these things are perpetrated - in a way which they do not want or expect.

We need to free these people from this situation and we need, in my opinion, to do so in a clear, fair and above all credible and effective way. It's time we stopped shilly shallying on this issue. Time we got a proper grip on it and did something, once and for all that addresses the problem. And yes this process might offend many people, might stir up some anger and resentment, but the fact is that if we are to have peace of mind and the ability to share our country with Muslims, we need to know what the reality is and we need to know that we can trust them.

And if a few people are offended along the way, but the process saves the lives of British citizens, including British Muslims, so be it. We need to stop being embarrassed to ask these questions and actually get on with the process of asking them.

I think we would be prepared to do this if what happened in Paris last night had happened in London. My fear is that we will not do this, and will instead wait until a similar atrocity takes place on the streets of the UK before we actually get around to doing what we need to do and what we will have to do in the end. Why wait?

For 'Paris', read 'London', it's only a matter of time.

Thanks for reading.

Patch

My daughter Madeleine Françesca died yesterday morning. She was 22 days short of her 22nd birthday. She died by her own hand following a massive overdose of prescription medicines - the latest and final in a series of similar 'cries for help' from a truly brilliant but tragically flawed mind.

I had the dreaded policewoman at the door yesterday morning informing me that Maddy was in intensive care in A&E in Dundee and 'fighting for life'. We dropped everything packed a case and high-tailed it up the M1, to then receive a phone call on the way, from the doctor telling us she hadn't pulled through.

Lives shattered before mid-day on a Monday.

This blog won't receive any fan-fare or push, it'll just be there and I'm writing it as part of the grieving process. So it's really just for me and, more importantly for her because while we very rarely saw eye-to-eye on anything, didn't really get along very well at all, she did at least read my blog so maybe she'll find a way to read this one. Believe me if anyone could achieve such an unlikely thing, it would be Maddy.

She didn't read my blog out of any sense of agreement you understand, but really just for her to see how the 'other side', to her: 'the right wing idiots' were thinking on some issues. Well, 'Patch' (of which more later), this is what the other side was thinking, and still thinks, about you.

Maddy was always a brilliant but very difficult child. Her brain saw things that very few of us can see. She found it extremely difficult to be passive or just happy, her mind simply wouldn't let her kick back and just relax and enjoy life in its simplest form.

She was the sort of person who would get up in the morning, come down for breakfast and if there were no 'Wheaties' left (which was what she wanted for breakfast) she would kick up a major fuss and then go back to bed to 'start the day again', only this time, it was understood, that Wheaties would be available in abundance when she came down.

Funny perhaps at face value but for her this was extremely real. Everything had to be 'just so' for her in all things and from an amazingly early age. I once lifted her onto the toilet when she was small, when she'd wanted to climb up herself. She got down screaming at me that I'd done the wrong thing and didn't speak to me for three months. Three months as a two-year-old!

Her older brother Angus (who is devastated at her loss) was and is the epitome of cool. He could negotiate with terrorists and get his way in the end, by taking a step-by-step, friendly and logical approach. And they'd leave thanking him profusely.  Maddy on the other hand would commence negotiations having, in her head, already gone through the first three phases of the process (without them ever actually happening). This meant that her opening gambit was usually: 'Anyway(?) I want this and I want it now and I'll hate you forever if you don't agree!'

Which of course rarely worked and usually had the opposite effect to the one she wanted.

We thought this would work itself out over time as she grew and matured, but it never did.

She was diagnosed with Aspergers syndrome at age 15, but obviously had suffered with it always, which explained a great deal about her behaviour since she was very young. But she was at the very high achieving end of the spectrum. She had a photographic memory and set impossibly high standards for herself in everything she did - and fair play to her, she achieved these impossibly high standards in many, many cases.

Despite significant mental health issues and frequent home breaks from school, she got 11 A* grades at GCSE, teaching herself German because she'd had a terrible or non-existent teacher during her final year. She had no interest in the language really, but bought a book and got an A* because her attitude was: 'If I'm doing this I'll do it brilliantly'.

An admirable trait in many ways, but one which took its toll on every aspect of her life, for all of her short life and put massive stress and pressure on her, exerted by her own mind. It's difficult for most people to understand this concept, but believe me it is entirely true.

The Aspergers thing meant that she was brilliant academically but also found it impossible to empathise with other people. It was always all about 'her'. Nothing else mattered. And as you might imagine, this made living with her extremely difficult at times.

She got good A levels despite a number of mental health incidents including self-harming, eating disorders even gender issues in her late teens and got in to St Andrews University to study Computer Science. She didn't get the exact grades required because she'd only had half a year of study, but they liked her - on her visit day she won a robot programming competition having never programmed anything before, against some hardened 'geeks' and she stood out.

So they took her into the 'village' that is St Andrews and she truly enjoyed the happiest times of her short life there. Having done 6 months in the windowless darkened rooms that are the domain of computer scientists (not the best solution for Aspergers) and having got firsts in most of her assignments, she flunked out and came home. Switched to Geology and went from darkened rooms to outdoors and wellies for the next year. And then flunked out again, this time opting for film studies.

The irony of going from academic, science-based subjects to 'the arts' whose exponents she'd happily taken the piss out of hitherto, was not lost on her, but she'd always loved film and really fell in love with the subject.

She also, this year, got involved in journalism and wrote for the University magazine 'The Saint' - and wrote some really brilliant stuff - I'll link a couple of pieces here. I was so impressed Maddy - and I say that as someone who has made a living out of writing for my whole career.

She spent 3 months in a youth mental health facility aged 18 and was loved by staff and other patients alike. As usual she made a massive positive impact in the place.

Her history included not just the Aspergers but also self harm, eating disorders even gender issues. A brilliant academic mind, but completely flawed and out of control. She went on to be an ambassador for BEAT the eating disorder charity and spoke at a number of their conferences in front of hundreds of people. My little girl.

After we had found out the awful news of her death on Monday, we arrived in Dundee and were met by the local police whose job it is to ascertain cause of death and to go through the formalities. We were asked (required) to identify the body (of which more here) which was traumatic. And then we went to St Andrews where she was studying, stayed over and then met with the University Chaplain Donald, who was wonderful. A man of God but also a man of 'people'. She was vehemently anti God, but she would have liked him immensely.

He was very kind and understanding and though it's his job, it is clearly much more than a job to him. I thank him for his humanity. We also met with the Director of Student Services, Chris, who was equally kind and helpful. And we learned some things that I was not previously aware of:

And they made me so proud of her.

When the news began to spread around the university, the Chaplain and Student Services teams went out to talk to and inform the groups with which Patch had been involved. And as a student who had taken three different courses but had not cut off but kept in touch with all of them, and as someone who had lived in three different places (two halls and one private flat) and someone who was involved with the student newspaper and the theatrical society, her 'tendrils' went through the whole place as Chris told us.

There was of course shock and disbelief. Patch had recently secured a paid internship to work for a department, had received some nomination for a writing award (I'm not sure of the details at this time) and had been performing with the theatrical society and writing pieces for the student newspaper.

At the time we heard the words but they didn't compute, but since then, they have become much more real. Chris and Donald both told us that they found that Patch was not some peripheral part of the many and varied groups that she was involved with, but actually at the hub and heart of them all. Students were not just saying 'that's awful' but saying: 'but she organised us, she made what we do happen, this cannot be true, we need her.'

Chris said that there will have to be a memorial service for Patch at some point in the future because the students she knew will demand it. She described Patch as a 'tour de force' as a big fish in the small pond that is St Andrews. As someone who stood out amongst 'stand-out' students. 'And if you stand out here, that's a big deal believe me. This place will be in meltdown at this news.'

The head boy wanted to talk to the parents (us) but it was decided (probably correctly) that this was inappropriate at this time. He apparently said he would not be doing so as a representative of the university, but as someone who considered Patch to be one of his closest friends. He said, 'I was probably not in her top 100 friends, but she was definitely one of my closest friends'.

That, it seems, was Patch all over. Life and soul, flamboyant, creative, making things happen. But untouchable. And yet she didn't drink, didn't smoke or do recreational drugs. Her personality lit up a room and made everyone there happy.

All of which is entirely true and eulogising of course, forgive me. But there was another side to her of course. The untouchable, Aspergers-dominated side. She was extremely difficult at times and could not help it. She could be extremely cruel at times too. She and I had a difficult relationship because I tried to instill normal behaviours in her and she was incapable of understanding the principles I was trying to instill. Obviously I realised and recognised this over time, but it was not an easy learn. And so we had considerable conflict over the years.

She changed her name from Maddy Conway to Patrick Reynolds partly because she knew that discarding my (our) family name would deliver most hurt to me. She told me I was not her father - or at least she did not consider me as such. We had periods of positive interaction and then I'd be blocked on twitter and facebook and get a message saying 'I don't want anything to do with you from now on'.

She was sometimes hard to like. And I'm sure I was too. But I continued to love her unreservedly. She was my daughter. I'd have died for her in an instant if it would help her or make her happy and contented. (Although it is perhaps a good thing that I never told her that because there were probably times when she would have called in that debt without hesitation).

If you're reading this Patch, that will have made you laugh.

Anyway all of the above is true, difficult but true. In the end Patch became a ticking time bomb. My wife Anne who was Patch's hero and guardian and carer and true friend and ally, who carried and cradled Patch throughout her life, knew that one day we would get the call. That one day Patch would not be able to cope with her demons any longer. We both knew this and we both knew that it was only a matter of time.

There were never any trigger signals. Patch could have gone out for a wonderful evening or had an amazing day and would then take an overdose, completely out of the blue. We knew (because she had said this specifically) that when Jeeves the dog (who she loved dearly) died, she would kill herself. She loved Jeeves and our new dog Rupert and our previous Yorkie 'Crusher' above all else in life.

She loved their innocent, no strings attached, love for her. And, I think she struggled to find a similar quality in people, other than from her mum, my wife Anne who was always on her side. But Anne's unquestioning love was not, in the end, enough.

She also loved her teddy bears Lupin and especially a bear bought for her at her Christening by her Godmother Bettina whom she named 'PB' or 'Pretty Bear'. She was never without them. This is getting difficult to write, sorry.

We wondered, having been through several - about 5 we think - episodes of her overdosing and going to hospital, only to be stomach pumped and restored to 'health' whether this was another similar scenario that had gone wrong. Whether actually it was a mistake and she had just given in to her demons briefly and then called an ambulance.

But there was a note this time. She was massively intelligent. She knew exactly what she was doing. She knew there was no coming back this time. And she didn't want to. And that, in the end, is what gives us solace. Because until we saw her letter, we were not sure about whether it was really her choice or not. And when you get a letter like that your initial thought is that it's all terrible. But she gave her reasons. She told us she loved us. But that every day was agony for her. That every day was a struggle.

That she couldn't go on with the pain and the anxiety, the depression, the charade. She was the life and soul of any party, but behind the façade she was scared, vulnerable, unhappy, in agony. She didn't want to live any more with the pain of being 'her'.

She once said: 'If you think it's bad living with me when I'm like this, just imagine what it's like being me. What it's like in my head'.

And so we're devastated as a family. Her parents (us), brother Angus, grandparents Louis and Christine (my mum and dad) Doris (Anne's mum), Russell and Adam (Anne's brother and partner), my sister Alison, her partner Steve and their daughter Erin who adored Patch and on hearing the news said: 'But I haven't spent nearly enough time with Patch yet".

But it's a relief too - and we both (all) - feel guilty about feeling this. And while we're devastated, Patch said in her note 'don't be sad, I can't do this any more', I think we all feel that she's now at peace and her deeply troubled mind is now at rest and that for her, it's for the best. And it was done - as was the whole of her life - on her terms. I have to cling to that.

It was her decision. And it was always going to be on her terms. 

And now the news is out on facebook and her tutors and friends are paying tribute and what they are saying is amazing. A side of her that we didn't fully realise. Her helping people and being truly inspirational for them. The love in which she was held by so many people - and I mean hundreds if not thousands of people who valued her and loved her.

It makes me so proud of her. Everyone is special to someone. Everyone's child is special. It seems Patch was special to so many people. But not to herself. That's the tragedy here and it is heartbreaking.

Her writing illustrated an understanding of the human condition, of motivations, beliefs and values; of our understanding of people, that reminded me of Carson McCullers' The Heart is a Lonely Hunter novel written when she was a teenager which is just amazing. Patch had that. When we sometimes glimpse the futility of the world, when we sometimes glimpse the bad stuff that seems to be a growing thing in the world, Patch had that in her mind all the damn time.

And she fought against it and made others think in another more positive way, she couldn't, herself, believe in that more optimistic approach.

I will share the tributes to her that are now coming in and are truly humbling. But for now what I have to say in conclusion, Patch, if you're reading this, is that you know I love you. Sometimes I didn't like you much, but I would do anything in my power to have you back safe and sound, including swapping my life for yours. Because you have much more to offer and to give than I could ever do.

But I hope you're at peace now. You shone more brightly for 21 years than most humans do in an entire lifetime. And I'm so proud of you.

Dad xx

We'd like you to identify the body

Looking down upon the cold lifeless form of my only daughter, laid out on a trolley, is something that will remain with me for the rest of my life.

Black hair, chin stud, nose stud, cold - freezing cold - lifeless hand with the attached hospital identification bracelet. Slightly bloated face but instantly recognisable. At peace, at last, but at 22, with so much yet undone, unsaid, unachieved is truly gut wrenching and heart-breaking.

You want to scream 'go away' and let me embrace her, my child, my baby. Let me make her warm and safe. Let me take her home. Let me love her. Let me help her. Let my love bring her back to life. Take my life in return for hers. Let us swap places.

I need her home, safe and sound. I need her laughter. Her joy. Her innocence. Her embrace. Her argumentative put downs, her defiance. Her anger. Her haughty dismissal.

I need her. I love her. She's better than me and better than you. She is life. She's so brilliant, she has so much to do, so much to achieve.

She's left too big a gap to fill in our lives. We can't do it. We need her.

We always will.

Patrick (Pandora) Reynolds, aka Madeleine Françesca Conway. 1/12/1993 - 9/11/2015

Rest In Peace. And if you are surprised now that God has taken you in, don't worry, you'll be telling him where He went wrong in a few days. And He'll probably agree with you if He knows what's good for him. He certainly won't be able to better your arguments or the force of logic with which they're explained.

Sleep well my darling child. We should both have been better at communicating our love. But mainly me.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bright-student-who-championed-talking-6810936

Dave's renegotiations look like a signpost towards #brexit to me

Were these 'ambitions' for the reform of the UK's relationship with the EU worth waiting for? Do they actually mean anything? Will they be delivered upon in reality?

Let's take them one at a time:

Protection of the single market for non EZ countries? The EU cannot afford not to trade with the UK. It has a £46 billion annual trade deficit with the UK in favour of the EU. If Dave thinks we'll have to fight to continue to trade with the Eurozone when our not trading with the Eurozone would leave the EU as a basket case economy, he has a pretty bloody crazy view of international trade. This is completely a non-issue. The EU cannot impose tariffs against UK trade by international law and even if it changed the rules it would be committing economic suicide were it to do so. Brexit would make absolutely no difference to this position.

Boosting competitiveness? The EZ is fundamentally anti-competitive, insular and protectionist. It facilitates the continued 'rape' of Africa and stops Africa from trading its way into the first world. Brexit would eliminate EU red tape at a stroke and allow us to trade on fair terms with the rest of the world.

Exempting Britain from ever closer union? Is Dave saying here that if we stay in we'll lose the pound, have to take on the Euro and become part of the single state unless we secure a reform that says otherwise? If he is, we should be told about this. I don't think there is any possibility that we would acquiesce to these events, now or ever. So why do we need 'reform' in this area unless he's not telling us something? And the EU has publicly stated that ever closer Europe, a federal state with its own anthem, flag, army, financial arrangements is it's fundamental goal. Why are we trying to stay in to help pay for this when we absolutely do not want it to happen?

Restricting EU migrants' access to in-work benefits? What does 'restricting' mean? And no mention of our ability as a nation to protect ourselves from being overwhelmed by Angela's hordes? Restricting means reducing so that the UK is not such a welfare-driven open-door magnet for uncontrolled immigration from poorer EU countries. Saying 'we're not very nice, please don't come here'. And the response is, as always, 'you might not be very nice, but you're a hell of a lot nicer (much more benefits) than our countries of origin, we'll come anyway'. It does not add up, in any way, to control of our borders.

And that's it Dave?

Given that if we leave, the EU will crumble economically and financially (so you hold all the cards), this is all you can hope to achieve?

Every single one of these 'aspirations' for EU reform would be better delivered by brexit. And every single one of them will be fudged and at best partially achieved by some sort of bungled, nod and a wink reform process.

Really Dave these are not 'starting points' for renegotiation; they're all absolute worst case scenarios even if you actually achieve them in full.

None of them are anywhere near enough to justify an 'in' or 'remain' vote at the coming referendum. None of them deliver what the UK people need and none of them will be of any help to the countries that are currently suffering under the yoke of the current German-driven take-over of Europe.

If you think that we will see these minor and largely irrelevant measures as proper 'reform' or in the long-term interests of the UK, you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Thanks for reading.

'A reformed EU'. What does that mean, and how likely is it?

Everyone, politicians of all sides, commentators, economists have been talking for months (years even) about the UK staying within a 'reformed EU'.

But what does this actually mean?

On the face of it, I take it to mean a different EU;  a better EU for the whole of Europe. More democratic, more supportive of smaller member states, more active in securing global trade deals, more about trade and ensuring prosperity for all members.

An umbrella organisation with influence over environmental, employment, health and safety standards, with a remit to create a level trading playing field that is free from corruption and which enables incoming member states, many of whom are mired in corruption, to break those shackles and become truly members of the first world. With free and fair trading societies but without losing the good bits of their 'places' - their history, culture, democratic influence, nation statehood - the very things which make each of these places special with their own identities and a cultural contribution to make to the whole.

Not all, but the vast majority of these things are about bringing new members into the first world. They are not about forcing the UK to have fair laws on health & safety or 'clean beaches': The UK, France, Germany, Scandinavia and the Low Countries are already 'there' in terms of most of these issues, it's largely about bringing up standards in other countries and, along the way, creating Europe-wide standards for every member state.

And, in theory, if this happens then the EU will have created a better, fairer, more equal trading area that will be better for us in the UK and everyone else in Europe. Which is partly why we seem happy to continue to pay £28 million a day (net) towards this ideological goal.

But the EU is doing very few, if any, of these things successfully. Ask any young person in southern Europe how the prosperity thing is going. Ask people who don't have a vested interest in the EU (i.e. are not paid by the EU) how their basket case economies are being helped by being in the Eurozone. And I'm not just talking about Greece here, but also Portugal, Poland, Eire, Spain, Italy, even France. None of these countries is prospering under the yolk of the EU.

So what reforms are we hoping to secure? That the EU will undergo some kind of 'reboot' and get back to its founding principles?

That is not going to happen. Indeed the EU's response to the endless crises that it is directly responsible for, is to go for more integration (cultural, political and financial) which will essentially create even more of the pain that it has been inflicting upon the vast majority of 'ordinary' people in Europe for the past 40 years.

It is now moving headlong towards a single federal state, with its own central government, anthem, flag, army, tax and employment system, retirement laws - a completely integrated single state, based on the German model. Yeah good luck with making Greeks or Spaniards or Italians 'German' in their outlook and behaviours. Let alone the citizens of incoming countries like Albania and potentially Turkey.

This federal, United States of Europe will never happen successfully or fairly in a way which benefits all members states, but the EU is now so bought-in to this federal process - and the Eurocrats have nowhere else to go if this project fails - that their policies and 'direction of travel' is now much more entrenched than it has ever been.

The plan is really about securing and maintaining their own cushy lifestyles and gold-plated pension schemes, as well as doing Germany's bidding - because Germany IS doing very well out of the whole process while everyone else is suffering. And it seems to me that the rest of Europe has become 'expendable'; with democratic processes and the will of the people being ignored - see Italy, Cyprus, Greece, Eire and, just this week, Portugal. And the financial quagmire into which they have all been lured by the 'free money' provided by the EU (Germany), is now being used to achieve their complete subjugation.

So there is simply no prospect of a 'reformed' EU. They have stated their goals and they don't seem to care how many people and countries fail, so long as the EU remains viable as an institution. And the old chestnut about the UK only being able to affect the direction of the EU 'from within' is utterly redundant: (Business for Britain)

And Dave obviously knows this and so, if they'd bother to spend any time thinking about it, does everyone else, including the media. It's just that they don't seem to want to face reality and are carrying on kicking the can down the road in the hope that something will turn up to get the whole place out of the utter mess that it finds itself in. Many, like Ken Clark, Heseltine, Mandelson, Blair, Clegg, etc., are so wedded to the EU via their own pension arrangements, that they're hardly likely to dissent. And the EU pays the BBC £millions a year to be 'on side' so don't expect any 'balanced reporting in line with the BBC's charter' there then.

So this 'campaign to remain in a reformed EU' is simply not credible. The EU is not going to be reformed.

What Dave et al are really talking about then, is a reformed relationship between the EU and the UK. It really is no more ambitious than that. They know there is not the slightest possibility of achieving any real reform of the EU. And actually, from a parochial (technical term approaching) UK point of view, so fucking what?

If these countries' governments are stupid enough to want to hand over all their powers to Germany (via the EU of course, snigger) then what business is that of ours? But we should not be helping Germany, to the tune of £28 million a day, to achieve what will effectively be a full-blown take-over of Europe.

The EU is set on a (federalist) course that we don't support. Except we are supporting it with massive amounts of British taxpayers' money. How mad is that? We could build a fully staffed and equipped NHS hospital every 2 weeks for the same money we're paying into the EU.

And why would anyone even want to try to reform a relationship with someone who has directly opposing views and takes absolutely no notice whatsoever of our concerns and wishes? Particularly when there are no meaningful benefits to our remaining in this dysfunctional relationship

Trade is always the argument isn't it? Would we be shut out by the EU if we were to leave? Would it be more difficult for us to trade in Europe if we were outside the EU?

Well consider this: The UK is the Eurozone's biggest customer in the world. Bigger than China and the US as far as the EU is concerned. Does anyone seriously think that the EU would make trading between itself and its biggest customer more difficult if we were to leave? Our trade deficit with the EZ is £46 billion a year, in their favour.

Making UK trade with the EU more difficult would be like a patient on life support flicking off the power to the machine that's keeping them alive.

And yet, and yet. Dave tells us that he'll be negotiating 'in Britain's interests'. If we leave, the EU will almost certainly be fatally wounded. It would seriously struggle to remain viable. Just think of the crisis that arose when net recipient Greece was in it's 5-yearly melt-down earlier this year. And then multiply that situation by a hundred-fold if the second or third (debatable because France is clearly getting more back than is currently being admitted) biggest contributor were to leave?

So Dave holds all the cards in this negotiating position, but he is reluctant (actually outright refusing) to play them. He's not negotiating in Britain's interests, he's trying to fudge the whole thing so that we stay in the EU for reasons that are bigger than we are being told about. They must be. I follow this very closely and I cannot fathom why Dave is still pro the UK's membership of the EU whether it's reformed or not. It makes no sense whatsoever.

He's selling us out in my opinion, and there is no earthly reason, if one looks at this with our own national interests in mind, for him to do so or to be behaving how he is.

All of which adds up to the fact that there will be no reformed EU and no meaningful reforms to our relationship with it. Which, in turn adds up to the fact that we should leave - on friendly terms of course - but leave nonetheless.

And then we should pay very close attention to the EU ministers/Eurocrats and their attitudes towards the UK once we've left.  Just to see if they are still sneering at us while their utterly unjustifiable livelihoods fall into the dust.

Dave is toast if he carries on with this 'campaign for in' charade much longer. And if he doesn't, in the end, act in the national interests of the people who elected him as Prime Minister, he will go down in history as an enemy of this country's interests.

I don't really care much about that, it's up to him and he currently has every opportunity to do the right thing. What really is important, is that we take what will probably our last chance to leave the EU and retake our leading position in the world as the 5th or 6th largest economy on the planet, and in control of our own destiny instead of having an 8% (and falling as new members join) influence on the planet's only failing trading bloc.

And if you let apathy decide your vote when the referendum comes; if you think we're better off with the status quo, that leaving is not worth the risk; you will be condemning future generations to being ruled by people we - and they - don't elect. And it won't be the status quo. The EU is not standing still, it is pushing inexorably towards a federal state.

If we leave we will be free to take our rightful place in the world and will be able to control our own destiny. We will be governed by people who live locally to us, who understand our issues and, crucially, who we can vote out if they don't deliver what we want them to.

If we stay in, the laws by which you will be forced to live, will be made by people you didn't vote for, can't vote out, and who will almost certainly never have heard of the city, town or village in which you live, let alone understand your issues.

I genuinely cannot understand why anyone in their right mind would want the UK to 'remain' in the EU. Outside we will still be part of Europe, will still be a major trading partner, but it will be on our own terms. That must be worth fighting for - as we did, as a nation, twice in our relatively recent history - and for very similar reasons if one thinks about it.

Thanks for reading.

This 'human beings' thing..

During last week's BBCQT when all hell let loose between 'surburban' Rod Liddle and 'utter leftie snob' and New York resident Simon Scharma on the UK's best response to the tide of immigration that is coming inexorably from the Middle East to Europe, one audience member effectively stole the show and you may think won the argument by playing the 'these are human beings' card.

Fellow human beings who need our help was the message. And so we should obviously offer whatever help we can, was the unspoken bottom line. Indeed, I'd go further. The 'they're human beings' mantra didn't use the words 'just like us', but it was there writ large of course.

The problem is that they are not 'human beings just like us' at all, and therein lies the problem. You may say 'I'm out' at this point and condemn me, but I'd ask you to read on if you want to give me a fair hearing on this massively difficult subject. If you don't enjoy being challenged in your views, why the hell are you reading my stuff in the first place? :)

In an ideal world I would have every sympathy for this generous but naive view. My solution would not be for us to then take everyone in, which is what she was implying, but it is, on the face of it, a compelling argument and illustrative of the generosity and care that is part of our western culture. It was, if anything, a comment that did her credit in a fundamental humanitarian sense even if it was essentially flawed and terribly naive in my opinion.

My solution, as I have blogged about here and here, would be to try to help these people in their own region so that a; they're not forced to risk their lives at the mercy of ruthless people traffickers in order to get here and b; that we are not swamped by a mono-culture that clearly does not share the same values that made the 'human beings' message so compelling.

Because - and I know this is a very harsh, controversial and likely unpopular thing to say - these 'human beings' are not the 'human beings' that the audience member had in mind when making the point. Her point was made, in my view, based on the naive assumption that these are 'human beings' just like us. And that if we 'human beings' were in the same sort of peril as they are, we would want to be treated and helped in the same way that she was proposing to help them. By treating them as if they are the same as we are.

But they are not the same as we are. There I've said it. Puts on tin hat.

Let me please just say here for the avoidance of doubt, that I do care about people and I am not saying any of this in a selfish way. It breaks my heart to have to say that these people are not 'human beings just like us', because in an ideal world they should be. But I am right in saying that they are not. And that is a tragic fact. Let me also say that some - but not all - of these 'human beings' are throwing people off tower blocks for being gay and are beheading people for not converting to Islam. Not all. But what I have said is also a fact. An important fact.

Had they all been born in the West and been brought up in our largely free, fair and democratic society, they might well be the same as us; have the same generous values as us, whatever their original background or religion - I'm not making a racist point here in any way. But they weren't and that means that there is a massive difference between our idealistic view of them being 'just' human beings and what they actually are, and have become because of where they grew up, where they have lived their lives thus far and their indoctrinated, religion-driven belief systems.

They don't share the same beliefs and values of generosity and care that we do and whilst that is certainly a source of sadness and sympathy towards them, they simply are not the 'just human beings' that was implied in the comment.

It is nowhere near as simple as just saying 'they're human beings' (just like us). Because they're not.

I'm sure the woman who made the comment would extend her view about just 'human beings' to gay people. I bet she'd be one of the first to stand up for gay people as 'human beings'. I bet she'd stand up for the rights of women not to be controlled or enslaved or for people who don't believe in one religion or another not to be persecuted. She'd probably be outraged by the fact that young girls are being forced into marriage at age 11 and being sexually mutilated (FGM) at a very young age. Routine practises in the world of these 'human beings' of whom she speaks. And if so, I'd be standing right beside her.

The 'human beings' she was in favour of helping without reservation, are human beings many of whom (and not just the 'extremists') are intolerant of gay people, intolerant towards people who don't believe in the same God or religious doctrine that they do.

Yes we should help our fellow human beings if we can: Given the sheer numbers involved it is imperative that we endeavour to help them in their own countries so that they don't have to risk their lives to get away and also so that we are not swamped by 'human beings' who don't share our values in any meaningful way. Because if we do take people into the UK who have these values it will certainly undermine our society and the very belief system that spawned the 'human beings' comment. And if their views are welcomed in their own countries but not in ours, that's a bigger and better reason to try to help - and keep - them where they are.  Because if (when?) it so happens that we take millions of these 'human beings into the west and the UK in particular, hers will become a hollow argument very quickly as their intolerance sweeps her engaging, attractive, naive and ultimately flawed stance from under her feet.

And those that we do help by welcoming them into the West, must understand that the western values and generosity that has welcomed them in, to help them, must be reciprocated and not undermined.

Harsh? Perhaps. Practical and necessary? Undeniably in my view.

If we don't act to ensure that the 'human beings' we help, understand what being a 'human being' means in the West and in the terms implied by the BBCQT speaker, then the values, generosity, care and the very humanity she was talking about, will be lost and rendered utterly irrelevant. The status of 'human being' might mean one recognisable thing to us in the West, but it certainly is not the same thing that is understood amongst those we seek to help in this increasingly tragic situation.

Of course, in the end, these people are just human beings, in peril, in need and deserving of our concern and our care, but sadly they are not 'just like us' and if we are to survive, retain our values and generosity, we need to understand this difficult issue in my opinion.

The BBCQT speaker had the right idea and the right values but what she was espousing will result in the exact opposite of what she has in mind. And that's unutterably sad. But true nonetheless.

Thanks for reading.