What happens if British Muslims aren't 'moderate'? What do we do if they're not on our side?

OK, I've blogged quite a lot on this subject: My starting point was that we face a threat - a global threat - from 'radical Islam' and that we need to know, since there are now so many Muslims living in our society, that their views and outlook are compatible with our own. Fundamentally that our way of life is not under threat from people who have become our neighbours.

That does not mean that I think they should give up their personal belief systems or their religion but that, when push comes to shove - as it surely will do eventually - we can rely on our Muslim communities to be on the side of 'us' Brits instead of being a threat to us.

This is not a racist or bigoted view but a practical one. Islam isn't a race anyway so off you jolly well fuck with that rejoinder. 'Practical' because we are facing a threat at the moment and we do, I think, need to know who's on our side. That's what happens in a time of war and I would strongly suggest that this is exactly where we are right now.

I have studied the Quran, not in great depth (I don't speak the 7th Century Arabic dialect which qualifies one to claim that right), but I have read academic papers as well as comments and viewpoints from people I respect and I have to conclude that it does not promote a 'religion of peace' and that it's time we rejected this bullshit for what it is - PC propaganda, the motivation for which I simply cannot understand. It's like wilfully misinterpreting and misrepresenting something that can kill us, in order not to offend the perpetrators of horror on our streets. On what planet can this be a good thing?

For fear of offending people, some of whom would kill us as soon as look at us, we seem to be trying to address their threat with kindness, with understanding and generosity. Values that we may be proud of, but which our sworn enemy sees as weakness and opportunity.

One does not stop a bully by appeasement, but by standing up to them.  But this is what we seem to be trying to do right now.

All of which I've blogged about before. And my suggested solution has been to enable the so-called 'moderate Muslims' to speak out against this violence and this aspiration to take over 'the West' and to establish a global Caliphate by asking them - and making highly public their answer - whether they're on our side or not. So that the 'moderates' voice could be heard loud and clear by all in their communities as a crucial starting point to weeding out the extremists that we know (for sure) are living amongst our Muslim communities.

That was why Mr Pickles' letter to the Muslim community this week was so welcome. It was what I have been calling for for months and it was a good - and timely - letter. The response to it from many Muslim groups has not been positive and I have to say, therefore, that many of my suspicions seem to have been confirmed.

My concerns now, are essentially these:

1. Do 'moderate Muslims' actually exist or is their very view of how we should be governed (Sharia law) incompatible with what we want to see in our country?

2. Do they really abhor the violence that has been visited on our streets (France, Canada, Australia etc) or are they quietly supporting it?

3. Does the Quran (written when we though the earth was flat, almost 1,400 years ago) take precedence in the minds and hearts of British Muslims over our modern laws and values?

4. Can one be a Muslim and reject some verses of the Quran? Like one can be a Christian and ignore some of the more barbarous verses of the Old Testament?

Number 4 is key. The Quran calls for a global Caliphate established using violence if necessary. That's not an opinion. It's a fact. If Muslims cannot reject one of the most important elements of their 'book' in the light of modernity, then they are, quite simply, enemies of our western society.

I still cling on to some hope that modern Muslims can do this, but sadly I see absolutely no evidence that this is the case.

Pickles needs to ask the question again, but more specifically. I'm not sure that he will given the response so far received. He - and everyone in the establishment - must understand that this is a problem, but they're too scared to tackle it.

If they don't there will be war on our streets in my opinion. And because of our terrified PC media, when this war starts (it already has to all intents and purpose), we will not understand the nature of our enemy and we might well lose the war for that reason.

If they do, there may still be war - I think that this is inevitable now - but at least we will have been able to identify our enemy (Islam, the Quran and Muslims) and we'll know where we stand and who we're fighting against.

What will this 'war' look like in the UK? What do you do when your opponent has 5 million 'sleepers' ready to fight on the streets of your country? When its 'army' has already invaded? And when one's enemy sees dying as a martyr as a glorious outcome?

It's a terrifying thought, but unlike our so-called leaders I'll contemplate the reality of that thought. And if you think about it seriously, you will too. Nothing I have said above is impossible. Not much, frankly, is all that unlikely. I think it's happening as we speak. Time is running out and whilst the Muslim population is currently at 5% of our population, it will be more than 50% by 2050. Unless we do something about it.

If you think I'm bonkers, look at Sweden right now. And Denmark. Holland? Germany where PERGIDA protests are being banned.

When (if) we get to a Muslim majority population in the UK we will have Sharia law. There are enclaves in the UK right now that have Sharia law. Name me one Muslim country in the world that is not a basket case, a shithole. Just one will do. There aren't any.

So what can/will we do? If we come to understand that Muslims are not on our side? That they're actually working against us, using our PC-mad world, our tolerance and our generosity against us?

Rounding them up would look like what the Nazis did to the Jews in WW2. It would not be a good look. But if their committed view is to subjugate all of us in the West to living under Sharia law, taking us back, as a society, to medieval times, could we do it?

I think we should, but looking around the place at the moment, I don't think we would have the balls to do it.

And the trouble is that our opponents are not remotely interested in compromise or the 'live and let live' attitude that we have.

They won't give up until we are defeated, cast under the yolk of their medieval religion. We may well be the pawns of corporations and the élite in our modern society today , but we have opportunity and many freedoms. If we are taken over by the Muslim faith we will have neither of those things.

We'll pray on our knees six times a day and worship Allah. Every day. Forever. On pain of death.

What did the Charlie Hebdo guy say? I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees?

It's time we told Islam to fuck off. And time that we told it's followers either to get on side or to fuck off too. And time we rounded up and sent back to the Islamic world British Muslims who are not on our side. Many may have been born and raised here in the UK, so this won't be easy, but if they're not 'Brits', if they're fighting against us, if they want to live in a country that's governed by Sharia Law, we should help them to achieve that goal.

And we should be crystal clear about this: It will not, ever, be in the UK. They have a choice right now. To come on board or not. If their so-called 'leaders' including Baroness Warsi are to be believed, they are determined not to take that opportunity.

That window of opportunity is closing fast. We want to talk and to discuss this issue. We want you to be on our side so that we can face this threat together and defeat it. If you're not prepared to be part of the solution, you are part of the problem and we will solve it eventually. Or die in the attempt. If history tells you nothing else, on the 50th anniversary of Churchill's death, it should tell you that we will never, ever be slaves.

It's time for our 'moderate Muslims' to have another think. To ignore the bullying 'leaders' in their midst and to come on side, or, frankly, to fuck off. It's their choice. Not one that we can impose at this time, but we will find a solution if they don't.

It may not be pretty, if and when it comes, but it will be decisive. We are generous and tolerant, slow to rile, it's what makes us special in the world. But when we eventually wake up and realise that this is about our freedoms, we will not roll over. We never have and we never will. Because we understand what is important in this world.

Thanks for reading.

Extracts from Chilcot Report (spoof but no jokes)

Hi Tony my old mate how ya doin'? Listen I have a bit of a problem after 9/11. My 'people' want me to take some sort of action in response to the twin towers thing.

'I'm not surprised George, it was awful, how can I help?'

Well the thing is we need to find an enemy that we can defeat in a spectacular way as retribution for this terrible atrocity. It's a revenge thing obviously but it needs to look like we're targeting the bad guys, even if we're not quite sure who they are. What do you think?

'Well George I feel your pain and I can assure you that we'll do everything we can to help. Do you have any targets in mind?'

Well obviously this has come out of the Middle East, my experts are saying it's a Saudi thing, this Al Quada stuff, but we need their oil and they have lots of our modern weapons to use against us. They'll be difficult to hit. We thought some other unpopular regime in that God-forsaken part of the world might do just as well? We thought Iraq: Saddam's not very popular is he?

'No he isn't but didn't we put him in place in 1979 to try to rule the unruly in our interests? He's been brutal but he's kept control and who knows where we'd be without him?'

It's him or me Tony - my Dad said so. He's got to go. And then we thought maybe Afghanistan? We think Osama's up there somewhere...

'Ah Afghanistan: Are you sure George? We tried to impose ourselves in Afghanistan in 1919 but failed - they really are ungovernable. Just bloodthirsty tribes with nothing to lose. And the Ruskies couldn't beat them. Can you?'

We think so, Lockheed Martin tell me we can beat anyone, but even if we can't we can get to the stage where I can have my 'mission accomplished' banner on an aircraft carrier and that's all that matters really isn't it? We can walk away then and leave them to it.

'You do realise that unseating our erstwhile ally Saddam will result in chaos in the Middle East?'

Chaos schmaos. I need some action and I need your help. The question is, Tony boy, can you deliver? Will you back us up? Do you have the authority to do it?

'George I can do whatever I want in the UK. I am the authority in the UK. I don't need parliament to make the big decisions. I'm 'it'. If I say it will happen, it will happen.'

That's good to know Tony, mate, so we're going in as soon as we can. Can we count on you?

'Of course you can George - I'll just need a bit of time to get everyone on side. The opposition won't have access to the facts so they won't be a problem, they have to go along with what the government of the day says, it's a British thing. I'll have to make up some 'facts' about why we're attacking Saddam when the real enemy - Bin Laden - is in Saudi or more likely Pakistan, but I can do that.'

Will the British people be onside Tony?

'Well they might not be, they might march against it (almost 3 million people did), but they're irrelevant. We'll tell them that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction readily available. That he can strike mainland Europe in a very short time. I'll tell them that 'someone has to take tough decisions - that always works. My mate Alistair can arrange that - he'll just love the chance to  intimidate the BBC into line anyway. We'll have to make a show of putting some 'experts' into the Middle East to prove that he has weapons of mass destruction, but that won't be a problem. Hell he probably does have them anyway - which would be helpful. But we will have to ditch our experts eventually.'

Tony this is much bigger than them. Do what you have to do. Make it happen my friend, we're relying on you. It'll be much easier for me to get the American public on-side if you help me to make the case for action.

'OK, not a problem George....'

And later...

'George, hello, Hans Blix will have to be discredited, we have a Doctor Kelly looking at things but we have stuff on him so he won't be a problem, or if he is - well you don't need to know that stuff.'

Let's do this Tony. We'll go down in history.

'Indeed we will George. By the way, what is our 'exit' strategy? What does success look like? How do we leave the world in better shape than it is now? We don't really want to create an unsolvable  problem for our future now do we?'

Just deliver the tomahawks and troops on the ground Tony. Let us worry about what comes later. There's a good boy.

Still looking over the Chilcot report....

And there you have it, almost word-for-word. ;)

Thanks for reading.

Is the response to Pickle's plea for help from Muslim leaders an answer in itself?

I've been advocating, for months now, that government should ask our Muslim communities whose side they're on in the current, highly dangerous situation in the UK and Europe generally.

Clearly my use of the term 'whose side are you on?' is my blunt shorthand and not a form of words that the government would or should use in reality, but overall, the line of questioning is really about establishing this fact.

Again, without being too diplomatic about it, the fact is that we are at war against radical Islam which will inevitably come out of our Muslim communities and it is therefore right that Mr Pickles should be asking them for help in rooting out the problem alongside government, security services and the rest of the population.

All eyes are on our Muslim communities and Pickles' letter, which was respectful and civilised, is therefore fully justified in my opinion.

I am not in a position to have seen all of the responses to his letter from the Muslim community, but what I have seen so far does not fill me with much hope.

It seems that the initial response has been to question why Pickles is directing the question - plea for help really - towards British Muslims. And not in a friendly way but in a way which demonstrates their outrage at being singled out.

Perhaps the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) might like to suggest another area of our country - other communities - that we should be looking at? Radical Jews perhaps? Or radical Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, radical atheists perhaps? Given that they're running amok on a global scale killing and beheading people willy nilly?

Perhaps we shouldn't be focusing or attention on these other groups for the simple reason that they're not fucking killing or threatening anybody whereas radical Muslims are doing?

In THIS Guardian piece Areeb Ullah seems to be arrogantly infuriated by Pickles' approach, questioning any suggestion that Muslims don't bring up their children to know right from wrong.

Firstly that was not the tenet of the letter although mention was made about the problem of radicalised young Muslims (significant numbers of whom have gone to Syria and Iraq to fight for ISIS). Is Mr Ullah unaware of this?

And since he raised the issue about raising children to know right from wrong, might I mention FGM - the mutilation of young girls which practise is widespread in this country although it is illegal? Or forced marriages, the arrangement of child brides and polygamy, also illegal but a widespread practise in UK Muslim communities. Not an issue for children per sé, but perhaps seeing their parents trying to take-over UK schools to introduce a Muslim curriculum, in breech of UK law might be an indicator that the laws of the land are not to be adhered to? Or vote rigging in Tower Hamlets and Bradford?

Or perhaps the nationwide grooming for sexual exploitation of 'white trash' girls, many of whom are under age, by Muslim gangs, might not be the best example to set your youngsters?

None of these issues was mentioned by Pickles in his conciliatory letter asking for help.

However these Muslim leaders would do well to remember that their fellow Muslims are not exactly an asset to this country at the moment, given all of the above. It might be an idea, therefore, for them to respond positively to a request for help - a request that is designed to make our streets safer not just for non-Muslims, but also for members of the Muslim community in the UK who will almost certainly face a massive backlash when, as seems inevitable now, the Charlie Hebdo madness is visited on the streets of the UK.

If they continue to turn their back on our legitimate concerns, refuse to engage much less to help, it will be difficult to have much sympathy for them when such a backlash occurs.

I have tried (but perhaps not always succeeded) to make my comments based on the assumption that the majority of British Muslims are moderate and repulsed by the violence we have seen being enacted in the name of Islam around the world. I truly hope that this is the case, but I don't actually know for sure - I don't think anyone does. Which is why Pickles' letter was so welcome from my perspective this week.

The response, so far, does not fill me with any kind of relief. Quite the opposite in fact. So I've done a little digging on the subject.

I don't know about you, but the above figures, produced by reputable research organisations don't suggest to me that we're talking about a 'tiny minority' of Muslims who are antagonistic towards the West or towards UK laws.

Sharia Law being the sort of medieval system of governance that has reduced all Muslim dominated countries around the globe to backward-looking, poverty stricken, corrupt shitholes where women's rights are virtually non-existent and where stoning and beheadings are common-place. Where women can be prosecuted and put to death if they're the victims of rape. You may think that's a harsh thing to say. So humour me; tell me of a single Muslim country that doesn't fit this description to the letter. Take your time.

Immigrants who want to come to the UK, to share in our way of life are welcome (so long as it happens in a controlled way). The deal is -and must be - as David Aaronovitch said in the Times last week:

If, on the other hand you come here with the motive of trying to change our laws and our lives in line with your religious beliefs you are not welcome. It is not what we want. And if you are not prepared to accept that you need to live by our standards and laws (irrespective of your privately held religious beliefs) then we will have to re-think our welcome.

If you think - and will either fight or, equally dangerously. ignore the fight that is coming out of your communities in an attempt to achieve it - that this image represents 'progress' then I'm sorry but we cannot live together in peace and harmony.

If this is what you want, you can have it. Anywhere in the Muslim world. And if you don't support our attempts to protect our population it is your destiny. And that destiny is not in the UK.

So work with us; respond positively to Mr Pickles' letter. There are only two possible solutions to the problem of radical Islam that we face in the UK: One is for the authorities working with the co-operation of leaders in our Muslim communities to root out the problem. The other is neither pretty nor peaceful.

It's time British Muslim Leaders justified that epithet and started to be more outraged by the barbaric killings being carried out in the name of radical Islam than they are outraged at being - entirely justifiably - 'singled out' as a crucial part of the solution.


Thanks for reading.

Your letter was exactly right Mr Pickles. Do not under any circumstances give up on this approach

Write another letter Mr Pickles, make the question more direct:

'You are leaders of Muslims in the UK. We have a potential problem with radical Islam (Islam being the faith followed by Muslims) and we need your help to root it out. Are you prepared to help us to do this? Oh and bear in mind that if you're not, we will still need to root it out.

'We can do this with your help and co-operation or without it, but make no mistake, we will be doing it. Obviously we are likely to be more immediately successful (in achieving our goals of de-radicalisation and bringing everyone on side) if we have your help and co-operation. These are communities for which you are established as 'leaders' after all. It is now, of all times, that the country needs you to fulfil your roles.

'I'd advise you to stop hiding behind your faux 'outrage at being singled out' and either get on with helping your fellow citizens to have a safer, less fearful, more cooperative and cohesive life here in the UK, or get out of the way while government gets on with the job.

'If you're not part of the solution - and we've asked you in a caring, positive and civilised way - then you must be part of the problem.

'Which is it?'

It's time to raise the stakes Mr Pickles, not run away and hide because some Muslim leaders have affected to be offended by the very suggestion that they might (should?) be able to help. Their communities are where this insanity and danger to UK citizens is coming from.

I'm not suggesting, for a single minute that this is endemic or 'the norm' amongst the UK's Muslim community, but I don't really know. Do you? The only way we can know is if we ask the question and insist upon receiving a proper answer. It's time we stopped allowing these people to hide behind their outrage and find out what their true colours are.

I hope, for everyone's sake, that they are what they claim.

Thanks for reading.

Enlightenment - of politicians and the Quran: Time is running short..

Both of my readers probably knew this was somewhere in the works. My other regular reader might be surprised. I don't know.

The thing is this:

When the Christian Enlightenment happened some 700 years ago it was a major event. It came out of major conflict between the Catholic church and those who refused to accept its teachings at face value. The fight was bitter and barbaric, it saw heretics being burned at the stake, because what was at stake was the overwhelming control of people via Catholicism. It involved the Monarchy, the 'Divine right of Kings' and it was about subjugation of the individual in favour of the élite.

Science and philosophy rose up and asked questions, were resisted and thank God (deliberate use) they prevailed. And we now have a society in which the values taught by God (if one believes in that stuff - I don't but have no problem if you do), influence our way of life in a good way.

Essentially the Enlightenment allowed us to scrutinise the teachings of the Bible and either embrace them or not. It became an issue of belief or not, but it was not governed by the threat of death, it was about faith and belief, freely arrived at. And by being about free - not imposed - faith, it has not only survived but has flourished and shaped our modern world, our laws and our ways of life. Whether you're a believer or not, that is a pretty powerful outcome and I think it is a welcome one since we have chosen the 'good stuff' over the bad controlling, threatening stuff. It has allowed people to be free from the control of religion and to be able to choose whether to believe, to devote one's life to God, or not, without fear of reprisal on either side.

At the same time it has allowed us to pick and choose some of the great 'love thy neighbour' stuff and include those fantastic sentiments into our modern outlook. It has guided us into the modern world and I personally think that is a great thing regardless of whether one is religious or not.

Without it (that guidance) where would we be?

However, we are now faced with Islam, which in historical terms is 700 years younger than the Christian religion and seems to me to be going through the same process that Catholicism went through at the same period in its history: Namely that it is resisting scrutiny, resisting modern interpretation, resisting modernisation and for exactly the same reasons: Because its leaders don't want to give up the ultimate control that it affords them over their believers and because its most devout believers fear the scrutiny and inevitable change that may arise from it.

And in our modern, media-driven, 24-hour news society, this change will happen in days, weeks and years, rather than the decades and centuries that the Catholics were afforded in order to adapt to change in the 14th Century. That means it's much more of a jolt and that resistance to change will likely be much more extreme, but also much more short-lived. We just happen to be at the epicentre of it right now.

My concern is that we in 'the West' are denying that a problem exists. And by doing so we are prolonging the agony and the violence.

Instead of siding with and helping the peaceful Muslims who surely must want their religion to be acceptable in a modern world through the inevitable process of 'enlightenment' (so that they can live their lives in a modern context rather than the frankly medieval practises that are being implemented in most if not all Muslim countries around the world); we are effectively supporting the desperate men who seek to maintain their control over their cowed 'followers'.

Instead of working to bring Islam into the modern world for the benefit of its own followers and the wider population of the planet we are, through appeasement and trying not to offend, working towards the exact opposite of what is the right thing to be doing for everyone including Muslims.

The simple fact is that the Quran needs to be translated and examined; Made more accessible to everyone. Isn't that the point (if one is a believer) of God's teachings? To spread the word and the faith in people's hearts and not via the barrel of a gun? The good bits need to be embedded into modern life not just for Muslims but for everyone. And the bad, frankly medieval, bits discarded. Respectfully, but discarded nonetheless. We need a modern 'Enlightenment' of the Quran for the good of everyone - especially those of the Muslim faith.

At the moment we are ignoring the bad bits and turning away from a fight that we will ultimately have to face. We are appeasing a radical doctrine that demands death for apostates (people who turn away from the faith), that describes non-believers as Kuffars or third class human beings. A doctrine that demands the killing of people of other faiths - not just 'demands' but actually carries out.

On what planet can these views ever be sanctioned? On what planet can these views be ignored for fear of offending someone?

Why don't we have any leaders in the world who are willing to stand up and say these things?

Have we given up? Are we resigned for this image to be our future? Because if we don't stand up, and soon, it will be.

The only people our current 'politically correct' policies are helping are people who have guns and murder in their hearts. People who want to change our ways of life fundamentally, who want us to be either under the yolk of their barbarous and medieval interpretation of a book written when the common view was that the world was flat, or dead.

For these people - radical Islamists - there is no such thing as compromise. They are simply not interested in a 'tolerant free society'. Indeed they are using our tolerant, free society against us, making use of our welcoming generosity to infiltrate 'free' countries around the globe and propagate their extreme beliefs.

If these 'free' and modern societies around the world don't change course - and soon - the numbers game (population growth) will mean that Islam will become the dominant religion and if it (Islam and the Quran) is left unchanged, unenlightened, un-modernised and frankly not de-fused of its current medieval radicalism, we will then be (technical term) fucked.

This take-over is not fanciful on my part. It is already happening to a significant and frankly terrifying degree in Denmark and Sweden; it is fermenting massive unrest in Germany and, following recent events, in France as well. It has touched Australia and Canada in recent weeks. It is part of daily life - and death - in Pakistan and Nigeria. It is only, I think, a matter of time before we see major attacks on British soil. Sadly. Tragically. Because we all know it's coming. All of us that is, except those who could recognise that we do have a problem and then do something about it - our government. More on the problem in Sweden here - 5% of the population responsible for 77% of crime and an 'out of control' rape epidemic.

I think it's inevitable now that there will have to be (and sadly will be) an atrocity in the UK before our politicians wake up to this threat.

If they carry on trying to deny that there is a problem, there will then be more actions.

Sooner or later the British people will call time on such actions and will probably begin to take matters into their own hands. At which point none of us - but particularly 'peaceful Muslims' living in the UK - will be safe. And there may well be pitched battles on our streets in towns and cities across the UK.

If you think about this thoroughly you know that what I say is true. I'm not saying it from an anti-Muslim perspective, I'm saying it from the perspective of wanting a coherent, free and safe society in which we can all live together peacefully.

I think that this is a clear and present danger facing our country and I also think that our politicians, by ignoring it for fear of losing a few votes by offending people rather than carrying out their duties to protect the citizens of this land, are putting us in deliberate danger.

It's becoming a powder keg 'out there' and our leaders and representatives are ignoring it for their own selfish interests.

If they don't wake up soon it could get completely out of their control.

Not many laughs, but thanks for reading.

Journalists: Keeping the free world free. Until now....?

Journalist have always been on the front line. The front line of truth. Of freedom. Becoming a journalist means that one is dedicated to uncovering the truth wherever it is suppressed; journalists can be commentators - as increasingly they are, providing views that fit the agenda of their employers, but at its heart journalism is - and should be - about exposing the truth and providing us with information that the wrong doers don't want us to know about.

Be they, politicians, criminals. liars, con men or terrorists. Journalists are, as I say, on the front line of truth, uniquely positioned to fight the good fight using the pen and not the sword and satire and ridicule can be an extremely powerful part of this process.

They have to be brave. They are inevitably reporting on stuff that is unpopular amongst those people they are reporting on. Because they are finding them out, exposing their criminality or hypocrisy. Standing up for us against corrupt government and lies. If the media is controlled by government then what it reports becomes just government propaganda and we become East Germany or the Soviet Union, or North Korea.

They (journalists) have to believe that the truth is sacrosanct and that, in order to do their job, they have to report without the sort of fear of reprisals at which most of us would blanch. A truly noble profession which I think still holds true fundamentally despite the hacking scandals and illegality that sokme of them have been shown to have committed in recent times. Yes the need to sell newspapers has become an influence; scandal and gutter journalism has invaded our corrupt society, but ultimately the quest for truth is a true and noble cause and should never be diluted in a free society.

When journalists do not publish things, even if they are true, because they are too scared to do so, then they are not journalists. They are writers. Not necessarily, quite, of fiction, but close. They are certainly not investigators of truth. They become consumed, influenced, controlled by the very people and issues that they should be exposing. Their credibility is compromised by their fear and at that stage they become worthless as journalists.

Credibility is everything. In all walks of life. But to a journalist, whose stock in trade is credibility, fear renders them useless. Utterly useless.

They might as well become PR men - advocates for those who make them fearful.

In the end it amounts to the same thing.

So ask yourself this: How many UK papers, despite claiming via the 'Je Suis Charlie' slogan that they were on the side of free speech, printed the front cover of the Charlie Hebdo cartoon this week?

It's here if you're interested.

  

And some previous ones can be seen here:

Not really my cup of tea, I wouldn't buy this stuff and I can understand how it could be offensive to some people. I don't happen to believe that free speech is an absolute issue. I think with freedom of speech comes some responsibility in how we use it - more in a blog from long ago here.

However when it comes to Islam and its determination to retain absolute control over its believers by not modernising, translating the Quran so that we can all see what it has to say; or behaving in anything other than a medieval manner, there is a positive need to satirise and to ridicule and free speech has become a valid battle ground in my opinion. What's more it is a battle that we must win if we are to maintain our way of life and it will take the efforts of brave people, like our great British journalists, if we are to do so.

However, if our journalists cannot stand up to fear they are useless to us.

David Aaronovitch in the Times understands the important role of journalists.

As does, of all people Polly Toynbee in her pece from yesterday here:  Polly is not someone I usually agree with (that is something of an understatement), but I fully agree with her piece. Respect to her and credit where it's due.

Not a single UK newspaper published a Charlie Hebdo Mohammad cartoon following the Paris attack last week, whilst virtually every German, French, Belgian and Dutch newspaper did. Ironic don't you think that the fight for European values is now being led by those countries whilst our media are too scared to stand up? For fear of offending 5% of our population (Muslims) and actually, if our media & politicians are to be believed, a tiny minority of that 5%, for fear of offending when the cartoons were at the very centre of the story. 

Actually it wasn't for fear of offending. Our media aren't scared of offending anyone. It was just fear. Fear for their own safety.

For our newspapers to say 'Je Suis Charlie' and then not publish the images has a very hollow ring to it.

These 'big' men and women will happily search your rubbish, go to any sordid lengths to get their story, they spend their lives offending people of all kinds, but they will not stand up for freedom of speech because they're scared? 

It seems to me that not standing up for the very thing that is at the centre of your job, the thing that your job holds most dear, the thing that we rely on you to do, is a lamentable state of affairs. It's like our armed forces refusing to go into battle because they're scared of getting hurt. 'Sorry son, that's your job'. 'Sorry journalists, this is your job.

If our media won't stand up to radical Islam and to terrorism where does that leave the rest of us? And if they've given up the fight for hearts, minds and opinion via the media, our next line of defence will inevitably involve weapons rather than words. And that is truly terrifying.

Thanks for reading.

 

So if you're a British Muslim and abhor what's happening in your name, how do you communicate that? Via our spineless media?

What if you are a Muslim living in the UK? You may well be, if so welcome, and thanks for reading this.

And what if you were appalled by the goings on in France last week, in Peshawar a couple of weeks ago etc etc?

And what if you were frightened to make your abhorrence of these actions more widely known because you were scared to do so because of the threat of violent reprisals from extremists within your own community? This is not fanciful. We know they're there (extremists within our own communities) because hundreds have gone to Syria to fight against 'the West'. And many have now come back, almost certainly having been 'radicalised'.

What if you're against FGM, polygamy, forced marriage, the grooming of underage children for sex, vote fraud.

What if this is a nightmare that you thought you'd escaped by coming to the UK?

Who do you talk to? How do you communicate this?

Do you turn to your representative in authority? An MP who, pre-election is in complete denial that any such problem exists and would not dream of doing, or saying, anything that might offend voters and lose votes?

A policeman who has effectively ignored the grooming of young girls by groups of men of Pakistani 'Heratage' for fear of causing social unrest and who avoids so-called 'no-go' areas in many of our towns and cities where Shar'ia is the dé facto form of governance?

Your local authority which has been doing exactly the same thing?

The media which is too scared to print an image of Muhammad for fear of reprisals and which blames anyone other than the perpetrators for these recent violent and unjustifiable acts?

Have we, collectively, already lost this fight when even those who are on our side are too frightened to say so and have no way, thanks to our political correctness, of making their voice heard?

Thanks for reading.

We're all at war with Radical Islam. Aren't we? So what exactly is it?

The French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said yesterday that his nation is at war against terrorism and radical Islam.

“We’re at war, but not at war against a religion, not against a civilisation, but at war to defend our values, which are universal,” Valls said in his late Saturday speech, the Huffington Post reported. ”It is a war against terrorism and radical Islam, against everything aimed at breaking solidarity, liberty and fraternity.”

He's right of course - we are all at war with radical Islam. Aren't we?

Well we are unless we're a supporter of radical Islam obviously. Might it be an idea, before long, to investigate this issue further to try to find out how many people in our midst do fall into this category?

Or unless we deny that there is a war going on. If you deny that there is a war going on then clearly you're not 'at war' with radical Islam. Because there is no war in your book. Just a few lone wolves causing mayhem around the world some of whom are using Islam as an excuse for their barbarity. Actually pretty much all of whom are using Islam as an excuse for their barbarity.

So the question arises as to what radical Islam actually is.

An objective view might be that it is an excuse for the carrying out of terrorist acts in revenge for the recent and historical actions of 'the West' which killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the Middle East in the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. I'm quite often confronted with this fact and this justification.

And I was vehemently against those wars - not on the principle that they were fought in order to protect and liberate the ordinary and downtrodden peoples in those places (which we were told) - but because our real motivation was revenge for 9/11, that the pious reasons were fabricated by Bliar and Bush and crucially that there was no real exit strategy. We had no idea what success looked like. Which meant that having 'defeated' the enemy of the ordinary people in those countries, we then walked away and left them to an even worse fate.

We were sold a pup by Bliar and Bush who ignored popular opinion against invasion and war and went ahead anyway and by their actions have essentially played a significant part in unleashing the beast that we now face today. I still harbour a dream that Bliar will be brought to justice eventually but the 'quick and no whitewash' Chilcot report is still to be published, six years and £9m later. And we, the taxpayer, are now paying for Bliar's lawyers to obfuscate and delay publication of the report. How mad is that?

All that being said, we are where we are now and we do face, in my opinion, a real war. Not a conventional one with Geneva conventions and all that, not with troops and tanks on both sides lining up against each other, but a 'modern' war with dirty tactics; the end justifying any of the means employed and a totally ruthless and 'inhuman' enemy that will employ tactics that we would never even contemplate.

And in this war 'hearts and minds' are not won by feeding and liberating people to get them on side, but by fear and terror; murder on the streets, and an enemy whose soldiers believe that dying is a glorious outcome. It's difficult to justify the threat that 'you will lose your life' to one's opponents if that is something they see as a good thing.

And by the time that one is facing these brainwashed people, there is simply no chance of bringing them around by trying to appeal to their intelligence. They want to be martyrs. They see it as their destiny and as a glorious and positive way for them to contribute to their cause.

Not what this blog is about, but in those circumstances, the only way out is to kill them or be killed. Negotiations or reasoning are just not going to bear any fruit. That's a scary thought.

OK so back to my theme - sorry for the ramble.

We're at war with radical Islam. Or we're not, that's up to you, but if we are, and here I agree with the French Prime Minister, what is radical Islam?

What is its motivation? What does it want to achieve?

The cynic in me thinks that it is all really about despotic, powerful and fabulously wealthy Middle Eastern rulers keeping their populations focused outwards via religious beliefs instead of on the fact that they buy Gold plated Ferraris while their people starve. I think a similar argument could also be made featuring the corporations and elites of the West as well. It's in the interests of both sides.

Some of it is clearly about keeping the world in some sort of turmoil so that leaders and the elite (on both sides) can carry on 'raping' us ordinary people regardless. A threat keeps us in line (on both sides) and allows increasing surveillance and increased control over ordinary people. People who are fighting each other will ignore - embrace even - their leaders and continue to blindly plow their money into the pockets of the ruling classes. I am in no way a 'leftie' by the way. Just for the avoidance of any doubt.

Conflict is essentially what keeps the US economy turning over, the arms industry and the US military machine. Peace is not in their interests.

And we're 'Useful idiots'.

If the above (cynical) view is true then we have no chance of ever solving the problem, but let's instead talk about where we are now. The alternative is just too depressing.

Regardless of the overriding, (and my theoretical) top level reasons why global conflict continues unabated, at the lower 'executive' level on the streets the rationale or motivation seems to me to be about people who have nothing to lose waging a war of envy: Trying to better themselves at the expense of richer people in richer countries by cowering them into submission. At this secondary level the motivation behind the conflict is, in my opinion, economic. It's about poverty - the living of lives which have very little in the way of hope or even comfort: lives which have little value to the individuals themselves, which makes them much more receptive to the brainwashing of their leaders.

And just as man-made religion has always been about the exertion of control and influence over others - and the development of the ultimate trump card: 'He can see you all the time, knows what you're doing and thinking and He would want you to do his wishes as defined by His book (but interpreted by 'us)', is very difficult for poor, illiterate people to disregard. Heck it's difficult for wealthy, well-educated people in their billions around the world to disregard.

All of which adds up to the fact that religion is at the centre of this struggle. Because it is being used by radical Islam to deliver carnage on the ground; on our streets. Whether it's about actual religious belief or other motivations is arguable (as I have outlined above) but really it doesn't matter. The fact is that religion is at the root of the problem we now face because the people committing these crimes are doing so in God's (Allah's) name.

And really regardless of whether you think we are 'at war' with radical Islam or not, the fact is that it (radical Islam) is at war with us.

The question, therefore, is effectively: how deeply ingrained is radical Islam? How widespread is it? Is it prevalent in all Muslim communities? Are the verses of the Quran that these madmen quote to justify their barbarity part of everyday life for Muslims? Can Muslims ignore these verses in their daily lives? Or are they secretly supporting the actions of their extreme brethren because their 'good book' tells them so and effectively controls their lives on a daily basis?

I do of course understand the argument that the Bible (particularly the Old testament) contains just as much in the way of barbarity as the Quran. But there is a massive difference here. Via the enlightenment we have been able to translate and question the Bible and its teachings against a more modern backdrop. Its threats of eternal damnation for non-believers have been diluted and membership of the club is now about freedom of choice and faith rather than coercion or threat. This allows it to be questioned, ridiculed even but it has proved itself to be strong enough to withstand criticism and survive.

None of this is true of the Quran. It is controlled by the Ayatollahs and Imams: a translation of the Quran cannot be called the true book. We're told that it is the true word of Allah, that it cannot be questioned and that the later, more violent verses and teachings supersede the earlier ones. Effectively our own history of burning unbelievers at the stake and the tooth and nail fight by our religious establishment in the middle ages not to allow the enlightenment to take place, is pretty much what we are seeing today with regard to the Quran (which is 700 years younger than the bible and so at a different stage in its life).

The proponents of the Quran are effectively resisting any attempt to modernise the teachings of Mohammad in order to retain control over their believers. It is why they take such draconian and medieval action whenever he is ridiculed. And why the proponents of free speech and modernity do actually poke fun at Mohammad and the Quran.

Today's new edition of Charlie Hebdo

 I think we do, therefore, need to know how ingrained radical Islam is amongst the Muslim community in order to make a good value judgement about how we go forward as communities in the western world. Farage and the French think we have a 5th column. An 'enemy within'. They may be wrong - I hope they are - but if we ignore this issue we're mad. We need to ask our Muslim neighbours the question. We need to find out if there is an enemy within.

Before we get to the point where we're facing a group of people who see death as the final victory.

In the end only the Muslim community in the UK (and around the world) can stop this madness. We cannot do it ourselves (peacefully) and my fear is that if they do secretly support this extremism, the only solution will be draconian and violent. I'm not saying that they do all support radical Islam by the way. I'm saying that I simply don't know and that by denying that we have a problem, there is no way that our politicians or our media knows either - and crucially they're not even trying to find out.

I am saying that time is running critically short for 'moderate Mulims' to denounce radical Islam.

Whether you're 'at war' with radical Islam or not, they are at war with us. And it's now almost but not quite, too late for us to wake up to this threat to our very way of life.

Should we die or lose our freedom for want of asking a few simple questions? 'Are you on our side or not?' 'In favour of a modern outlook on respect and tolerance or not?' 'Willing to abide by the laws, values and (secular) traditions of our land or not?'

The bottom line is perhaps: 'Is Islam really the religion of peace? Does your Muslim faith allow you to ignore some of the more virulent passages of the Quran - particularly those teaching that non-believers are third class human beings and that Islam must be spread around the world using any means available including violence? Or not?'

I think it would clearly be stupid to go any further down the route of integration without asking these simple questions.

Yet this is the policy of our government, supported by our mainstream media right now.

If we continue to ignore this we might find that we are the enemies of people we have welcomed into our country; have protected, cared for, educated and provided with opportunities that were simply not available in their countries of origin.

We might be helping our sworn enemies (their stance not ours) to take over our lives in a way that is not what we want and, looking at conditions, particularly for women in Muslim countries around the world, would not be recognised by most 'Westerners' as progress; but at least we won't have offended anyone. 

I think most of us would take being offended over being dead. I also think that many, if not all, of us would be prepared to fight to maintain our hard-won freedoms in the West. Otherwise what's the point?

It's time, I think, that this process began and in a civilised but unconditional way. It's time to stop ignoring the fact that we do have a problem.

Thanks for reading.

Big European marches 'against racism' are a good sign. But how are we defining 'racism'?

There have been, and will be tomorrow, huge marches in Europe in protest at the killing of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists and the other victims who were caught in the crossfire of this hideous crime against free speech and democracy.

This is a good thing. A great thing. About time, I'd suggest, that we woke up to the threat and the clear problem that we face from extremists across Europe. People, in their hundreds of thousands are effectively marching to say 'we will not be defeated by this kind of atrocity: we stand behind free speech, democracy and our way of life'.

It is being depicted in many media outlets including the BBC and Reuters as an anti racism protest.

And I agree with the sentiment; I am vehemently anti racism in all its forms - racism, as I'm sure you're aware, being defined as:

Utter and highly dangerous nonsense I'm sure you'll agree.

But the question is: Are these protests really about racism? In 2015. When, in Europe, we have neighbours, friends, colleagues, sporting heroes from every kind of racial background? People who we value, respect, love, enjoy spending time with? People whose background, culture, humour, cuisine have enriched our lives?

These protests are not about race, much less racism; they're about standing together as members of a civilised society against those who would wish to do us harm, who want to threaten us into doing, and believing in, things that we do not want to do or believe in.

It is a protest against the tactics being deployed by people who want to force us into a different way of life through violence and threat. People who disagree with - and are no doubt jealous of - our relatively free society. People, broadly speaking, who have very little themselves and therefore nothing to lose by trying to harm, threaten and control other people who are better off than themselves, presumably with the objective of bettering themselves, not by valid, legal means but by taking from others (which is what their upbringing, mired in corruption, has taught them is the only way - or at least the best and easiest way).

We in 'the West' must accept some significant responsibility for the creation of this situation but it seems to me that it ultimately comes down to the selfish and utterly corrupt behaviour of their leaders and governments some of whom, in the Middle East, enjoy levels of wealth and luxury that would make Solomon blush, whilst their citizens live in abject poverty.

These protests, then, are against the terror and threat that is currently being led, worldwide, by Radical Islam. So our 'enemy' has a name at least. It is Radical Islam.

These protests are against Radical Islam which is threatening the lives and lifestyles of people around the globe. And not just threatening them, but actually murdering people.

This blog is not about whether the second of those two words would suffice on its own in my description of the threat (Islam). I have blogged about that before and my view is that we need to investigate whether that is the case. I fervently hope it is not.

My concern is that the term 'racist' is often levelled at people who suggest that Islam and it's followers who are called Muslims are part of the problem. Even though Islam is not a race at all but a religious grouping, the derogatory term has become, thanks to our Politically Correct indoctrination process in recent years, a quick and efficient way to stifle honest debate: brand someone 'racist' and the argument is effectively over.

My further concern is that the media and our politicians are using this ruse yet again, in order to de-fuse the situation and effectively pull the wool over our eyes again.

The hint behind the 'anti racism marches' theme, is that the marches are against anyone who questions Islam. That questioning the clear cause of the problem we face (which is Radical Islam remember) is racist and that these hundreds of thousands of people share that view.

This is clearly nonsense. The marchers are sending a message that the perpetrators of these atrocities are evil and will never win. Not that those who oppose them are 'racist'.

The media and in particular our politicians continue to deny that there is any sort of co-ordinated, Radical Islam agenda and that the perpetrators in Sydney, Peshawar, Canada and France are all 'lone wolf' events.

And in their coverage of these marches, whose message couldn't be clearer, the media is also seeking to deny that there is actually a problem.

Makes you wonder whose side they're on?

Just going back to the definition of 'racism' in which one group considers another to be inferior, the current beliefs espoused by Radical Islam (where non-believers are considered to be 'kuffers or third class human beings) seem to me to be much closer to being 'Racism' than anything else in the world today.

Maybe the 'anti racism' protesters are right, even if they don't quite understand why they are.

Thanks for reading.

Denying that we have a Jihadist problem in the UK means that we're not even trying to find a solution

Presumably whoever is our Prime Minister at the time will be lying (as in 'down' not as in 'moving his or her lips') with limbs amputated and a gun to the head and will utter the last words 'this has nothing to do with Islam' as amazingly simultaneous 'lone wolf' attacks take place at Buck House, the Houses of Parliament and my local post office.

And the very next day we will be told by our august and brave media that we are not facing a problem.

And of course by that stage they will be right. We will not be facing a problem. We'll be facing a solution. A permanent one.

Apologies for the graphic nature of the above but I'm trying to make a point and to make people wake up a little bit.

You see the thing is that one simply cannot hope to solve a problem if one doesn't admit that it exists.

So look around the world, and tell me that we don't have a problem with extremism. That is effectively what Dave, Ed and Nick and our mainstream media (MSM) are doing, despite all the evidence to the contrary. They must think we're stupid - and given their own personal lofty positions, they're probably right.

Is Islam the problem? The Quran? The Muslim faith? That's arguable and having studied the Quran which is the life-guide for all Muslims, I think the argument - or at least the investigation - is worth having. But if one lumps all Muslims into this 'dangerous scenario' one just invites the response of 'racist' (even though Islam is not a race) or 'Islamaphobe'.

So let's not do that because it has become an effective get out clause for apologists.

Let's just concentrate on the people with whom we do have a very clear and present problem. Extremists. Jihadists and Radical Muslims. So not all Muslims by any stretch of the imagination, I'm not accusing the whole Muslim faith of being a problem, but I am saying that we do have a problem with extremists, Jihadists (who are of the Muslim faith) and Radical Muslims.

And I am also saying that the evidence is strong that we have some of these people living here in the UK. Amongst us. The estimate is that more than 500 mainly young men have travelled to Syria and Iraq in the past year or so to fight for ISIS against the West.

And that they'll be coming back if they have survived. And that we cannot track them all when they do. And that they didn't go because they were forced to but because it is a cause in which they believe following their upbringing here in the UK.

Let me repeat that for you. 'Following their upbringing here in the UK'.

Still think we don't have a problem here? Still think we should ignore the issue?

Still think we should not at least recognise it and then try to find a solution for the security and benefit of the UK population - including British Muslims?

What happened in Paris this week could - and almost certainly will -  happen sometime soon in the UK.

It really is time we stopped ignoring the problem and started trying to solve it. Even if that might involve offending some people. I think most people would choose being offended over being dead.

Thanks for reading.

The only way we're going to get out of this unholy mess is if moderate Muslims take a stand

The carnage visited on cartoonists, of all people, in Paris yesterday was shocking and terrible.

There can be absolutely no justification of it in my opinion.

It has been described as an attack on democracy and on free speech.

It was also, I think, an attack on one group of people by another in what seems to me is becoming an attempt to provoke an all-out war between radical Islam and 'The West'.

A war which has the potential to escalate into a major, terrifying and almost unstoppable conflict between groups of people who live in the same country as their opponents and on a world-wide scale. Not one country against another with Queensberry rules applying and the Geneva convention to ensure fair play (as if this was remotely possible in a real war); but neighbours fighting each other for reasons of ideology, religious beliefs, control over others and ultimately (of course) financial gain.

The people who seem to want to provoke this all-out war are, as usual, those with the most to gain and the least to lose and when one has almost nothing to lose - and is promised a life of glory, luxury and a plentiful supply of virgins in the hereafter; and people believe that shit - then it must be quite an easy task to persuade them to sacrifice their lives for the cause. It certainly 'unlevels' the playing field if they're fighting against people who value life so much more than themselves.

If death is seen as a victory by your opponent, how to you (we) win the battle?

We've all seen the images of Afghanistan and Iraq in the 1950s compared to today. Sophisticated modern women enjoying freedoms then, compared to the huddled, covered chattels - slaves almost - that we increasingly see in those countries today. The inference is that this is how Islamic Sharia law would change the lives of women in particular in the modern world, should radical Islam succeed in provoking this war and then in its outcome.

It is truly a quite terrifying prospect.

OK a couple of points if I may before I justify the headline:

First is that the great British media who will dig in your dustbin to expose your shenanigans and will fight tooth and nail not to have any restrictions on its own 'free speech', will hack phones and loiter outside 'massage parlours' to expose perfidious politicians, did not have the guts to reprint any of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons that were at the centre of yesterday's atrocity. Because they were too scared to do so.

Have we already lost this fight? Are we already too cowed into submission to have a chance?

They're here if you're interested:

They're a bit crass and a bit 'frying pan' (to the back of the head) for my taste; I probably wouldn't be a subscriber. But they've effectively caused the deaths of their creators so they deserve to be seen I think.

Maybe I'll be targeted now, killed for reproducing them. As one of the slain said, 'I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees.'

Melodramatic? Maybe, you never know do you? And that's part of the problem.

My second point is that we're ignoring this as an issue. Farage was criticised today for claiming that there's a fifth column in our society that holds our (British) passports and yet hate us. And that multiculturalism has failed and is part of the problem. I tend to agree with him - let's face it he's the only political public figure who seems prepared to recognise the issue.

Dave and Nick chastised him for 'scoring political points' on such a sad day. Not something they have ever shied away from themselves. Ed? Well he was just absent from the debate as is usually the case. Leadership? We're not getting any from any 'major' party at the moment.

The bottom line in all this, it seems to me, is that we have almost lost this fight. This piece in the Telegraph tonight suggests that by condemning yesterday's terror we're playing into the terrorists' hands. So what should we do? Embrace terror? Try to appease a bit more? The people we're up against see appeasement as our great weakness. Something to be exploited.

And then, later, just now in fact, this was posted by the Washington Post: Link.

I have blogged endlessly you might think about how we might solve this problem. I have perhaps been unfair to 'Moderate Muslims' before now, being suspicious of their values and views. You can decide here, here and here.

I stand by every single word. But today is different. Today I have realised that we simply cannot solve this problem (short of the all-out war I describe above), unless Moderate Muslims take a stand. Unless they stand up and denounce the terror that is being unleashed in their name. Unless they tell the world, not quietly behind closed doors but publicly and loudly, in Australia, Canada, the USA and Europe that they are against this travesty of their religion; this use of their religion to justify terror.

That while they may be Muslims, they do not share the views of the extremists in their ranks, their communities, their homes. That they value the societies around the world that have welcomed them, been generous to them, have housed, fed and cared for and protected them.

If they cannot do this, if they do not genuinely believe in this as being the right course of action then we're fucked. As a species. And so are they.

And if this comes to pass, our survival as a species will mean that the fight, against our fellow citizens, will be to the death. It will be modernity against the dark ages. Freedom against oppression. Progress against medievalism.

A fight we must - and will - win. Buit at great cost to everyone involved.

Thanks for reading.

Dave's EU bullshit is turning me away from voting Tory in May. I'd be surprised if I was alone in this

Another week, another suggestion by Dave that he'll hold an 'in-out' referendum sooner if we'd just do the decent thing and vote for him in May.

Yes we want a referendum Dave but we don't just want that. We want out.

You don't seem to be able to understand that.

What he's currently saying is: vote for me and you'll get the referendum you want, although I will bring the full force of the UK establishment (including the pro EU BBC and other main stream media [MSM] ) to bear against you in our efforts to keep the UK inside the failing EU project.

And that we (he) will also ignore the fact that the EU currently spends more on advertising (pro-EU obviously) than Coca Cola in the UK as part of this process, in order to make sure there is no chance of a level playing field or a truly informed vote on the subject.

Essentially what he's advocating at the moment is that he'll allow us to have a say on what is quite clearly (if only you really understood it) the biggest issue we face as a nation and as individuals, but that he'll win the vote to 'stay in' by disbarring MPs and ministers from having a free vote and by campaigning for his preferred outcome regardless of the success or failure of his EU renegotiations.

This approach does two things: Firstly it makes his 'essential-for-the-UK' renegotiations certain to fail: If the EU knows (and it does) that Dave will campaign for us to 'stay in' regardless of whether they allow his renegotiations, they will, sure as eggs is eggs, ignore his feeble requests for some UK leeway on the ever burgeoning federal Europe project.

They are irrevocably set on a course of creating a single European state with a flag and an anthem, a single European defence force, a single currency which means a single tax rate, welfare and benefits system that will require the integration of corrupt former eastern European countries and many others like Greece who have a less cohesive view on taxes, pensions, retirement ages and work ethics than we currently adopt.

I'm not necessarily criticising Greece or other (former soviet) countries here, but I am saying that their economic approaches are not models that we have based  our prosperity upon (and fought for, several times). What I am saying is that being tied to these countries means that we will inevitably be taken backwards in order to tackle the corruption and inefficiencies that we thought we'd left behind.

The second thing it does is that it (tries to) sell us a pup. If Dave gets his renegotiations accepted by the EU (in full) that means changes to immigration laws (freedom of movement), an opt out of future EU laws, a return of sovereignty to the UK parliament, changes to the welfare system that recognises priority for UK citizens; the ability to make our own trade deals with the rest of the world instead of having to go through the endless miasma of the EU machinery, it will be a modern-day miracle of such proportions, I can't think of anything massive enough to compare it to - passing Mr Pickles through the eye of a needle perhaps?

It won't happen. You know it. I know it. So let's stop pretending.

Dave is essentially trying to sell us a pup. Many people will read the Grauniad and the Telegraph and believe what he's saying, but it's all utter bollocks.

If you think the EU is a good thing, fair play to you. If you think it's an existential threat to the UK and our hard fought for way of life I'd tend to agree with you. If you think it's not a real issue, not very important, about straight bananas and low-powered vacuum cleaners, you should, I think, do some research.

Here's a starter for you: we pay £28 million a day (net) and have done for 40 years. Can you tell me one single benefit we have received from being in the EU? That £28 million a day (net) wouldn't have paid for? Clean beaches perhaps? We could have paved our promenades with marble and chlorinated the English Channel for that amount of money.

Can you justify in any way that most of our laws are being made in Brussels by people we didn't vote for and can't vote out and who will never have heard of the city, town or village in which you live, let alone will understand your daily issues?

I'd genuinely welcome your views if so. But I'm not expecting many respondents.

Dave holds all of the aces in this renegotiation - the UK is the EU's biggest customer to the tune of £46 billion a year (trade deficit in Europe's favour in 2013). They cannot afford not to trade with us if we left their cozy club. They cannot afford to impose any kind of trade sanctions, otherwise they're (technical term) fucked. Even with the UK inside the tent as their biggest customer they are essentially in deep technical trouble especially in southern Europe.

The question is why Dave won't use this position of power in order to get what he calls 'vital' renegotiations for the UK?

And the answer is that he's signed up to this stupid EU project, as have most politicians and most of our MSM, regardless of what the 'ordinary' people want. Not just ordinary Brits but massively increasing numbers of ordinary Europeans have realised too.

Your call Dave. But in an election year when you have to consider what people really think, this bullshit really will not suffice.

Thanks for reading.