Refugee or migrant? Line on the left, one cross each..

Of course we should help genuine refugees. People fleeing from war-zones and conflict. And let's face it we have done much to create these situations and we are culpable in many ways thanks to the utter fuckwittery of Bush and Blair and the ravenous political influence of arms manufacturers in whose interests peace is not.

Feel free to re-arrange the words in that last sentence to your liking. Up with that I will put.

But you get my meaning.

And what are you young man? 'I'm a migrant'.

Sorry but we're only taking refugees this week.

'In that case I'm a refugee'.

Ah, in that case you will have to remain here in France/Italy/Spain/Croatia/Albania/Greece, since these are 'safe countries': they will protect you and your family and they are not war zones (yet anyway).

By the way, where is your family? Where are your wife and kids?

'Oh, they're at home in Nigeria waiting for me to send some money back to them'.

Not in a war zone then?

'No but we're very poor we can hardly afford a state of the art mobile phone or these Nike trainers.'

I feel for you. I'm sure it is difficult for everyone in poorer countries than the UK. But you're not exactly refugees then are you?

'No but we're really poor. Just ask the guy I gave £2,000 to in Calais to get me over here. He'll tell you.'

Why would you give someone £2,000 if you're so poor, so desperate?

'Because I can get £26,000 and a house for doing nothing in the UK. It's a no-brainer. And then my family can come over here and live off you forever'.

Now I don't think for one minute that this is the motivation for all of the would-be migrants trying to get to the UK. But think about it, calmly for a moment. If they can come here and secure money for no work - more money than they'd have to work their bollocks off for in their own country - it must be something of a pulling factor surely?

Asylum seekers are in a completely different category. They (the genuine ones) are fleeing persecution. fleeing from threats to their lives in their countries of origin. Because of wars or believing in the wrong God or whatever. And in those cases we have a duty to try to protect them and to provide them with a safe place to live.

International law states that this should be offered in the first safe country they reach having left their own country. Now you may disagree with that law, but it is the law as it now stands. And that means France, or Italy or Greece or Albania (God help them) or Spain etc. And it means that they must genuinely be fleeing from threat.

What we are seeing in Calais are not refugees - or if they're there they are massively outnumbered by economic migrants - or 'illegal migrants' which is the correct term for what they are. Illegal meaning that they do not have the right, under long-established international law, to reside in Europe or the UK. Again, you may not agree with that law, but it is the law.

And yet France builds a major 'refugee' holding station in Calais and ships these people through their country to queue up to enter the UK. And then we help to pay for it and pay for the added security needed to stop them actually getting over to the UK? Erm why?

And why isn't the main French refugee holding station in Clermont Ferrand, or Lyon?

We are supposed to be partners on the international stage with France after all. So why are they trying to 'dump' (and that is clearly not too strong a term for what is happening) this 'problem' on the UK?

You see we have laws in place to address this issue. That they are being ignored by economic migrants is not a surprise - since the law is designed specifically to stop this problem from arising. But the law is being ignored by France, Italy, Greece etc - and not just ignored but flouted in the way that these people are being shipped across Europe to the UK.

Why do we always have to clear up Europe's shit?

There are three main reasons why these people are coming: One is because they know about the benefits they can receive if they get to the UK because of the information age - and traffickers probably exaggerate these benefits as well in order to fuel their hideous business. Two is that the trading policies of the EU are effectively facilitating the continued rape of Africa, with protectionist agricultural policies that make it impossible for Africa to trade its way into the first world.

And three - the most pressing at the moment - is because they can. Because the international community is refusing to enforce the laws that have been designed to stop this problem arising in the first place. And at the same time as ignoring the law, they are also taking no responsibility for solving the problem but facilitating it's deliverance, across Europe to the UK.

You have to steel yourself to look at the bigger picture here. Yes some - but by no means all - of these people are poor and destitute, but we simply cannot afford as a nation to tackle the inequalities of the world. We already pay, as a country, more in foreign aid than anyone else in the world by head of population (strictly speaking Denmark Sweden & Holland give more % but a fraction of the actual money we pay) and we pay a similar amount (£12 billion a year in both cases - total £24 billion) to the EU. For what? To be shat upon like this?

We always help where we can - help more than anyone else including Germany, France and the US - so why are we now supposed to pick up the tab for Africa's EU-propagated failure?

And yet at home we're cutting our police forces to the bone and reducing our spending on the MoD to ridiculously low levels?

And the £12 billion we pay to the EU is to help them to go not towards the trading partnership of nation states which we favour but towards a federal Europe with which we disagree?

It's time we stopped clearing up Europe's shit; time we stopped funding its federalist folly and time we gave priority to helping genuine refugees and using UK taxes to serve the UK population who pay them.

Thanks for reading.

So where do you go on holiday these days?

This Middle East and immigration shit just got serious. Forget about the people drowning in the Med or terrorism running wild across the globe, it is now starting to impact on where Brits can go on holiday - it's getting that serious now. Something must be done about it.

OK, I'm being somewhat, and deliberately, facetious, but actually this is a question worth considering - and it is becoming a serious problem for a variety of reasons:

Given the terrible plight of tens of thousands of 'refugees' around the world, I understand that it might seem a bit trite or uncaring even to ask this question, but it is becoming something that is worthy of consideration in my opinion.

And of course it's not just about finding somewhere safe to take one's family on holiday, it is, more importantly, about where UK or 'Western' tourism will deliver much-needed money into the economies of holiday destinations, most of which are heavily reliant on the tourist dollar, pound, Euro, Yen etc.

Terrorism must now be having a serious negative impact on tourism in many places that have hitherto been major tourism destinations for Europeans. Places like Tunisia and Egypt in particular - countries whose economies rely very heavily on tourism must be taking a massive hit. And of course this is a deliberate policy of the terrorists to destabilise their economies and propagate anarchy. It is a scorched earth plan that effectively means that these and other countries cannot trade their way into prosperity by using their already very limited resources of sunshine, coastline, culture and history. What else do they have? Not much frankly.

And this is spreading either via reality or perception. Given what happened recently in Tunisia in particular, are Brits and other European really going to go on holiday to other north African, Arab/Muslim countries? I think not.

And this is spreading to southern Europe too. Are people really going to be booking holidays, a year from now, in southern Italy or Greece, Spain or southern France (Marseilles)? Or Turkey or Albania, Croatia perhaps?

An island in the med then? Cyprus? Sardinia, Malta?

In a year's time? I don't think so.

Further afield then? Thailand?

I think you're getting my point. It seems to me that Florida will be full to the gunwales this time next year as will Weston-Super-Mare. And if you do want to stay in Europe I think you'll be hiking in the Swiss mountains.

Just so long as you can get the car through Calais on the way down.

And the countries that you don't go to, including many in southern Europe, will be taking another massive hit on top of all the financial crap being piled upon them by the EU as this disease spreads northwards from Africa and the Middle East.

Maybe Scandinavia then? Sweden is lovely. But avoid Malmo and don't let your wife or daughter out of your sight for an instant.

What a fucking world we're allowing to be created. And we still seem committed to enforcing our 'tolerance' of others' intolerance as if it will all work out in the end. Trust me, it won't.

Thanks for reading.

Most popular UK boy's names. Does this matter?

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) reported yesterday that Oliver was the most popular boy's name in the UK last year. The report was accompanied by news of a rise in names from characters in the Game of Thrones thing and the media lapped this up.

This was the BBC's list:

As Al Murray might say 'All good British names'.

The ONS reported that 6,649 boys born in the UK last year were named Oliver. That's all good then. What was not reported, indeed absolutely no mention was made of this, is that if one adds up the three different derivatives of the name Mohammed (Mohammed, Mohamad and Muhammed - and there are other derivatives that I'm not including), the figure adds up to 7,240.

So, in fact the name that is pronouced (but not necessarily spelled) 'Mohammed' was the most popular name for boys in the UK last year. As it was in 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010 and 2009.

Is this a problem? Absolutely not. It is a predominantly Muslim name but if British citizens choose to call their kids Mohammed what concern should that be of ours?

I do however have a small nagging concern that a community which represents 4.8% of the UK population (2.7 million people) has effectively topped the boy's name league for the last 5 or 6 years when this is viewed alongside the oft-repeated mantra of extreme Muslims that they will become the majority in our land by 2050 (which ONS statistics support) and, so they say, will then result in the imposition of Shar'ia law in the UK.

Which is a real concern, if it is true.

Because it is not a legal/social system that we (the current majority) want to see in the UK and it is not a legal system that has created modern, free, fair and progressive societies where it is implemented elsewhere in the world. Quite the opposite.


What this does do is raise, once again, the issue of whether our Muslim population are looking to assimilate into UK society or to import their laws and way of life into their new homeland. I personally am not convinced that we have seen enough evidence that the former proposition is correct and that the latter concern is unfounded. I still think, as I have blogged endlessly before now, that we do need to ask this question of our Muslim neighbours.

I think it is a question that 'moderate Muslims' should welcome as a way of declaring their allegiance and putting our concerns to rest once and for all. I think we're one mindless act of terrorism in the UK away from many people demanding that the question is asked. I think that this is an inevitable scenario given the state of the world and the number of times that (we are told) a new atrocity has been averted by our security forces.

Mr Farage has talked about a 5th column within our society. I fervently hope he is wrong about this, but I'm not certain that he is.

The 'migrants' gathering in Calais seem to be more young men of military age than desperate families. It doesn't take too much imagination to see this as more than just economic migration, especially given what is happening in Syria and Iraq at this time.

I hope I'm wrong.

What I am not wrong about is the fact that the BBC and others are deliberately hiding the fact that Mohammed has been the most popular boy's name in the UK for the last 5 or 6 years. Just as it has been hiding the nationwide problem of grooming gangs, FGM, child brides, honour killings etc.

One has to wonder why this is being done?

Thanks for reading.

Genetically Modified Crops. Some facts you ought to know

The theory goes that if we are to feed the world as the population grows, seemingly inexorably, we need to apply science to food production in order to increase yields, reduce the effects of disease and contamination, weeds and so forth and we need to reduce our reliance on pesticides by developing crops that are naturally resistant to predators.

That's all good then. And farmers and growers have been doing this for millennia. Cross breeding crop varieties in order to produce better, more productive and robust crops, breeding animals from the fittest or in order to develop better growth, quality of meat, hardiness; breeding much of the fat content out of varieties of pigs for example making the meat healthier for human consumption.

So why not now involve a more scientific approach in order to make this process even more effective and to short-circuit the time-frame from generations at least, to more immediate improvements to yields?

Why not indeed? So long as it is provably safe to do so? And so long as the science does deliver higher yields. Oh, and also, so long as the process does result in better - and sustainable agricultural outcomes and results in the third-world countries where these things are so important.

And my final 'oh'; so long as the process is about feeding people rather than exploiting them for the profit of privately-owned conglomerates.

And it is in these areas where the problems arise.

Are GM crops provably safe for human consumption?

 Quite simply no they are not (provably safe).

When, over the centuries, farmers have cross-bred crops and animals in order to make improvements to their productivity, they have done so by working with nature. They have 'helped' to create a new strain of plant or animal by encouraging 'mutations' that could have happened naturally as part of the natural selection process. By which I mean cross-breeding plants or animals in a natural way which could have occurred in nature. It has been about combining positive genes from one organism into another in order to produce new properties that are, hopefully, beneficial to the resulting foodstuff. This has been done on a trial and error basis, taking time and care and resulting in a 'new' plant or animal whose 'production' is entirely natural.

What the GM industry is doing is chemical engineering. It is changing the DNA of organisms and creating an entirely new 'product' that is effectively 'man-made'. Instead of this development being done with nature, it is being done entirely outside of the natural evolutionary process. It is tinkering with nature and it is being done for profit and not for the stated aim of improving food production. And so short-cuts are taken in the interests of profits. Of which more later.

Take the example of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) - a chemical insecticide which emerged in 1945 and was promoted as being entirely safe for decades before being banned in 2007 when a direct causal link between DDT and breast cancer in women was established. I mention this because every genetically modified crop is effectively a different chemical solution. Every single one is potentially a DDT disaster waiting to happen. It is simply, therefore, impossible to make the case that they are all provably safe.

And Monsanto, Beyer and Syngenta (the three multinational giants behind almost all GM food products on the planet) know this very well. It is why they successfully lobbied in the US for protection against class action legal liability in the event that any GM foods are found to be harmful to humans in the future.

If you knew your products were 100% safe why would you want and need to do this? To my mind this single fact effectively closes the case. They simply cannot know that their products are safe and this legal action is a clear admission of this situation.

Does the science deliver higher yields

 Despite the theoretical promotion of GM foods as delivering higher crop yields for more than 20 years, there has not been a single example of the commercial farming of GM foods that has delivered higher yields. Not one, anywhere in the world.

Do GM crops deliver sustainably better results in the third world?

See above - there is no evidence that GM crops deliver better results in the third world. Indeed the opposite is provably true. Because GM crops are almost invariably a 'single season' crop which means they change (and irrevocably damage) the very systems of agricultural production that they seek to improve: Because they are effectively 'sterile' crops, the farmer cannot harvest some of the seed for next year's crop. Instead they have to go back to their supplier - Monsanto, Bayer Syngenta - and pay again for next year's crop.

That's not sustainability; it is effectively taking ownership of what should be a 'natural' product that produces seed to provide next year's crop with no cost (other than the time required to harvest the seed for this purpose) to the farmer. Taken to its extreme this could mean that Monsanto et al, would come to own a natural product and have the ability to charge farmers to use it in order to feed people. How does that sit with your view of the goals of GM as being to help to feed the growing global population?

Is it about feeding people or exploiting them?

I think if you've read the above, the answer to this question is blindingly clear. The whole GM food scam - and I am convinced that this is an accurate description of it - is about Monsanto et al making money out of a hungry world. Not in a way which delivers value for money, but in a way which sees them owning entire swathes of foodstuffs wherever in the world they are grown. This is about commercial, privately owned corporations actually owning commodities like wheat or maize or barley etc in a way which means they get a cut of the price of the final crop wherever in the world it is grown or consumed.

****

Three final points if I may?

First is that the only large scale farm trials of GM crops took place right here in the UK between 1999 and 2004. The trials found that GM crops were detrimental to wildlife - birds and insects. As crops which have pesticides effectively engineered into them, is this really a surprise? And if they're measurably detrimental to the health and habitat of wildlife, what are we? Are we not semi-domesticated wildlife too?

The second is that despite an ongoing campaign from consumers around the world to have clear GM labelling on foodstuffs (the jury FSA {Food Standards Agency} is still out on this but consumer power is decidedly anti GM), most non-organic meat products in our supermarkets are from animals that have been fed on GM feeds.

So we are already consuming GM products whether we want to or not.

And thirdly. China recently decided not to produce any GM food crops in the country, as has Kenya. The UK agriculture sector recently announced that it has increased yields by 30% in the last decade without using GM technology.

The correlation between GM foods and the equally profit-rather-than-reality driven climate change scam are striking. Neither is about actually improving people's lives but about exploiting people for profit and funding. Both are really about controlling people, their behaviours and lifestyles and maximising the profitable returns to be taken from exploiting and monetising the natural environment.

Both are utterly cynical and damaging to the very people they claim to be trying to help.

So, in conclusion, do we need to produce more food to feed a growing global population? Yes we do.

But is GM a safe, sustainable and successful solution? No it most certainly is not.

People who have recently been deriding the SNP for banning GM in Scotland, suggesting that this stance is retrograde or anti science or Luddite in its nature clearly do not have the first clue about the reality of the global GM food scam.

Thanks for reading.

Creating a 'tolerant' society is a really bad thing for everyone concerned

 'Tolerance'. Just think about the word for a moment. You probably see it as being a positive thing. A good thing. In our Politically Correct (PC) world we have had it drummed into us that a 'tolerant society' is a good society. And that 'tolerance' is something we should aspire to, should accept, should play our part in promoting.

That 'intolerance' is always a bad thing - it smacks of bigotry, prejudice, racism even. It suggests that one is not prepared to accept other views or behaviours or lifestyles or religious beliefs. And that is a universally bad stance to take.

But it is nowhere near as simple as the black and white 'tolerance is good, intolerance is bad' mantra that we have drummed into us by the PC brigade. Indeed, I would argue that 'tolerance' particularly when it is imposed by law, is a really really bad thing for everyone concerned. Tolerant does not mean 'friendly'. In fact the establishment of legally-backed tolerance actually goes a long way towards achieving the exact opposite of friendliness.

It helps, I think, if one looks at the issue - and the term - from a slightly different perspective. One could very easily argue that other definitions of tolerance include 'minding your own business' or, perhaps even more tellingly in my view, 'putting up with' the behaviour of other people. And this latter definition goes to the heart of my argument. Tolerating or 'putting up with' something suggests that it is something you don't like but have to accept.

And in many small and everyday ways this is true in all aspects of our lives, but in the west in any case, these niggles, up with which we have to put, are almost always minor issues - we forgive them as they forgive us our trespasses etc etc. The next-door neighbour starting up the mower at 08.00 on a Sunday morning for example or late night revellers coming noisily back from the pub.

The thing is I want to live with my neighbours and my community on friendly terms. We are part of a community which means we tend to try to avoid these minor off-pissing events as far as possible. It's called being civilised and rubbing along together with respect and friendship. And it is something that, I would argue, the majority of people who already live here and those who want to come to live here are seeking. We and they value and desire this informal approach to 'putting up with each other' as the bedrock of our 'tolerant' but above all friendly society.  

Because it is a tolerance based on friendship and community and when it works properly and effectively it exists without recourse to the law. It is about common decency and respect for other people and it is the strong basis of a society that works for everyone.

But here's the rub: when this need for 'tolerance' is pushed beyond what are the universally - and informally - accepted limits of the community, and the law is then required to step in, this legal 'tolerance' becomes divisive and actually a cause of increased conflict.

Quite simply because the pissant who has not been prosecuted for his antisocial behaviour will take this as a green light to do what it was that pissed you off in the first place, more often and more openly and will push the envelope even further just to piss you off.

But hey that's on a micro or 'local' level. It don't really mean nuffin'.

It's on the macro level that this 'tolerance' is really powerful and really negative. Because the imposition of 'tolerance' is actually undermining our values as a nation.

And this is not about our welcoming in people with different beliefs. What our hard on for 'tolerance' is doing is undermining the values and outlook and 'friendliness' that people who are risking everything to come here, are coming here for.

They are not coming here to live in the same shithole they risked everything to leave. They are not coming here to be bullied into subservience by an effective Muslim Mafia that we are allowing to become established in our country by our tolerance.

They are coming because they believe that they will have a freer, happier life here, with more opportunity, better healthcare, more respect, better educational chances and outcomes for their kids.

And instead, our 'tolerant' society is ensuring that this won't happen. Because what we are tolerating is the very thing that they are risking everything to get away from.

What we are tolerating is honour killings, female genital mutilation, forced marriages of 12 year olds, electoral fraud, the treatment of young white girls as 'trash' to be sexually exploited, terrorism.

All the things that these people are fleeing from. 

Still think that 'tolerance' is a universally good thing?

It's time that we stopped being tolerant of the intolerance of Islam. 

It's time we stood up for what it means to be British - because that is what most people who want to come here are coming here for. We are not a Muslim country. If you want to live in a Muslim country feel free to do so. If you want to live here you need to understand that our way of life is about respect and about friendliness. If you are friendly and respectful, you will be welcomed into our society.

We'll be friendly, we'll help you if we can.

And if you don't want to live by these informal rules, that's just fine. But not here.

Not. Ever. Here.

Thanks for reading.

Corbyn

It's really none of my business. As a Tory I have no dog in the fight, but as someone who feels that a strong opposition is a good thing in British politics I do take an interest in Labour's leadership election.

Let's face it, it's almost impossible to avoid at the moment. It's wall-to-wall on MSM and social media. Tediously so.

Here's the deal, the reality as far as I can tell.

One talks to Labour supporters on twitter, and the ones who don't start throwing personal insults around at the third tweet (few in number) will stand up for issues that have merit. Will talk about compassion and helping the vulnerable, will talk about inequalities and the need to re balance our society.

And they're right in many ways. In theory at least. Debates then ensue about how to achieve these morally correct outcomes, about the relative generosity of Tories compared to Labour supporters - in general the arguments come down to Tories making enough money to support the vulnerable and Labour wanting 'these people' to be looked after and 'entitled' without putting their hands into their own pockets.

That might be a tad harsh, but take a look at Labour MPs and tell me I'm wrong? Most of the current Labour MPs are in it for themselves and don't give a toss about the workers. The same can obviously be said of the Tories, but at least they're honest about it. The difference is about focus:

The Tory stance is that we need to trade and do business and to make money and when we do, one of the minor benefits of this is that we can help the vulnerable. The Labour stance is to focus almost entirely on the needy and the vulnerable and everything else is irrelevant. That way lies disaster for the country.

But here's the rub. Corbyn is articulating this latter vision. The vision that Labour supporters claim to support. Socialism. The very thing that Labour supporters claim to believe in. This is why he's become so popular because he is articulating what the lefties believe in. And what they will stand and fight about.

The trouble (for them) is that the Labour party has discarded its socialist principles in favour of gaining power. It doesn't anymore believe in its socialist principles but in saying almost anything to get its hands on the levers of power. It has ditched the working class. It is populated by career politicians who wouldn't know the first thing about having to eke out a living on no money.

They have completely lost touch with the people they claim to represent and those people have begun to realise that this is the case.

So, no principles, no empathy, no suffering, just taking care of their own careers and wealth. And frankly, fuck everyone else.

It's not a good look for Labour.

And then Jeremy Corbyn comes along talking - and believing - in the socialist principles that they should all be steeped in and following and living their lives according to...

And they're trying to stop him at all costs?

Because he's threatening to fight for real people and threatening to stop their gravy train existence.

I hope he wins. Because the alternative is utter hypocrisy. As introduced and exploited  by Tony Blair for his own greedy ends. Corbyn is utterly wrong in his vision for the UK in the 21st Century, but he is not an utter unprincipled cunt like Tony Blair and those like Burnham, Straw, Campbell, Mandelson, Balls, Cooper et al who have followed in his contempt for working people in the UK.

Thanks for reading

Islam and life. Are they compatible?

I don't know about you obviously, but I tend to think that you, like most of us, want to enjoy your life?

Do good things of course, have some fun, maybe have kids if you want to? Help them to be happy and fulfilled; make the most of your own short time here on earth? Experience lots of things, partake of good food and wine, travel a bit and see the amazing world we live in. Experience different cultures, meet new people, people who are different from you, people who might have a different and interesting outlook and from whom you might be able to learn something interesting and positive about your fellow humans.

You might want to enjoy music, the arts, great things that creative humans have produced. You might be into competitive sports, or just take part in them for recreational purposes? You might enjoy the highs and lows of supporting a football or cricket or rugby team. You might love the theatre, comedy or opera, film or drama. Soaps? It takes all sorts to make a world.

You might want to swim with dolphins or climb the highest mountains or just take a walk in the beautiful countryside with your faithful dogs and loving family.

You might want to ski, or fly or read great literature, or study history or geography, because they're interesting. You might want to visit important historical sites and to marvel at past cultures.

Whatever floats your boat as they say - you can do. If you really want to.

So you're now slightly perplexed about the title of the blog aren't you?

My question is how many of these life enhancing things are even allowed under Islam?

If it was the religion of 'fun' or 'enjoyment' or 'fullfilment' or of 'freedom' it would be worth considering as an option. It simply isn't. And nor is it the religion of peace. It's the religion of barbarism, of violence and of control (especially of women) but actually of everyone who signs up to it - and many don't have any choice in the matter at all. Peace? Freedom? Bullshit.

It is, quite simply, the religion of a terrible, joyless, wasted life. It's the religion of depravity, of exploitation (especially of children and young girls) and yet we are apologising for it and trying to 'make' people accept it or be 'tolerant' towards it?

This is a scam. A disease. By trying to create an environment in which Islam (you can substitute the term 'Radical Islam' here if you wish) is accepted and accommodated in the UK (via politics and the media) we are actually delivering the same horrendous, pitiful lives to people who are coming here in order to escape the 'disease' in their countries of origin.

Islam is a nightmare from which most of its believers must long to be delivered if they have any idea of what kind of happy, enjoyable, interesting and fulfilled lives they could have. Indeed they will risk everything to come to 'the West' in pursuit of these values, freedoms and opportunities. To live under laws that are not draconian but largely 'fair' (particularly in comparison to where they come from) and in the hope of enjoying better healthcare, education opportunity and freedom from servitude.

And what do they find when they get here? They find the same bullying, controlling 'community leaders' they fled from. Using the same religious bullshit to control their lives all over again. Because our determination to tolerate this medieval doctrine has undermined our values, laws and the society that these people were seeking.

There might conceivably be elements of their former lives that these people would like to find in their new homeland - food, music, culture (such as it is), perhaps even the freedom to follow their religion in its (to them) purest sense. If one is brainwashed from birth that one's religion is the 'true word of God' and that turning one's back on it will lead to eternal damnation, it will be difficult to give up. But what these ill-educated, brainwashed people probably don't realise is that it is this religion, this Islam that has caused their countries of origin to be such shit holes in the first place.

And that having become one of the lucky few who actually get here, they now find themselves part of the process of making this country an equal shithole to the one they were trying to escape from.

This may be a controvertial thing to say. But I think what these people want to find when they get to the UK is not their own culture. Not the culture they're fleeing from, but the culture, the welcome, the freedom and the friendliness for which Brits are famed. I also happen to think that this is what we want out of the situation too. We want to be able to welcome and to trust our new neighbours, to help them if we can. To welcome them into our society as valued members of it.

We don't want to have to 'tolerate' people, we want to be able to live with them, befriend them, live with them. Get to the point where we can take the piss out of them sometimes, in a way which doesn't cause offense because they know - are confident enough - to understand that it is being done in a way which says: 'you know what? You guys are OK'. And perhaps more importantly so that they can respond not with a march or a demo, but by taking the piss out of us in return.

Instead of this we have become so politically correct in the name of 'tolerace' that everyone is constantly walking on egg shells in order not to cause offence. This is not creating understanding, it is creating division. It is not creating community it is creating conflict.

Let's stop giving it any respect at all. Let's condemn it as what it is - it's the religion of terror, of wasted lives and of the desolation of the human spirit. It condemns culture, it destroys historic sites, outlaws the enjoyment of music and other arts, it wants to stop people from being educated in anything other than its medieval, controlling and fundamental religious doctrines. It abhors freedom - of speech, of thought, of action. It outlaws fun and sport and enjoyment, literature and the arts, history and invention. Progress as a species. If it has its way we will be living in burned-out caves, cowed down before a made-up God who doesn't want us to do good things just to be subservient to Him.

Why are almost no people trying to get into Islamic countries - other than a few idiots who really have no idea what they want - to the extent that we're trying to prevent them from going at all? Why are they all trying to get to the West? To freedom and opportunity. It cannot, surely, be simply so that they can undermine and destroy our freedoms? It must be because they want to enjoy the freedoms and opportunities that we do. But unfortunately, when they get here they find that others have already arrived and are instead intent on controlling their lives and making money out of their subservience in another state. Because they can do that 'at home'.

So, having handed over their life savings, everything they have, to escape the medieval controlling regimes of the Middle East in order to get to 'the West' they find themselves in exactly the same position they were fleeing from. And our western Governments do nothing. They actually promote the existence of these 'communities' in our midst. The very kinds of regimes that these poor people were trying to get away from.

And because of the bullying, the threats, the use of religion to subdue these people, who are adrift in a foreign land without resources, their 'escape' becomes nothing of the sort. It just becomes imprisonment in a different country.

Little wonder that their kids grow up to hate this country. No wonder that schools become hotbeds of terror. No wonder that they go back to the middle East that their parents fled in order to fight against us.

It is because what they find when they get here is not the freedom, protection, choice and opportunity that they believed we offer and represent, but a society that has become so tolerant of Islamic intolerance, so accepting of the religious crap that we would not for one moment accept ourselves but allow to fester in our inner cities, that they're simply no better off.

In many cases they're worse off because they have to follow Islamic laws which are probably more closely policed here than they are in the Middle East, and our own laws at the same time. In the Middle East they only have to (pretend to) abide by one set of laws, here there are two sets.

And instead of finding the freedom and opportunity that they believe 'the West' offers, what they find is the worst of all possible worlds. They can see and almost touch the freedoms they believed in, but are prevented from accessing them by bullies in their own communities. And our governments do nothing to deal with the problem.

In effect, our liberal, politically correct desire to introduce tolerance is exactly what these people don't want. They didn't risk everything to bring themselves and their families to a place that is (for them, in many of our inner cities) just as much of a shithole with no way out than the one that they left.

Why does our government think that it is? Why does our government think that these people risked life and limb to come to a country that delivers - for them - exactly the same problems and servitude as the one they were so keen to leave?

It's time we told Islam to fuck off. And by 'we' I mean not just us in the West, but, more importantly, all of the downtrodden Muslims who currently follow this absurd faith.

Thanks for reading.

We need to reboot our system of generosity before it disappears altogether

The UK has always been generous to the world. I know, I know you can all point to darker times, slavery, exploitation etc. Not proud historical facts.

But at the time everyone was doing it and we had to compete. Let's not get too mired in that indefensible argument. We are where we are.

I would argue that Britain was and has always been motivated by trade, by anti corruption (or fairness in other words) and by the rule of law. In many cases, as the victors we have written the history and so its veracity must sometimes be questionable.

We have exploited peoples and nations but more often than not we turned them into prosperous countries via the rule of law and trade. We generally didn't take over and rape and pillage, we took over, imposed our laws and values of fairness and whilst we made sure that we got a good deal out of it, we also created better countries. India is perhaps the best example of this but there are many others in the Commonwealth.

And most countries in the Commonwealth recognise that we made a valuable contribution to their ensuing prosperity and freedoms based on our laws, our view of the world and what was 'right.'

It won't take much digging on your behalf, if you really want to, to produce specific, individual examples that disprove my stance on this, but in general terms I think I'm right.

We are as people, amongst the most generous in the world when it comes to helping people in crisis. And as a nation, although I would question how this is implemented on the ground, we give more in foreign aid per head of population than almost anyone else on earth. Our overseas aid contribution is currently 0.7% of GDP, compared to 0.19% (less than a third of the UK) from the USA and 0.38% from Germany (or half of what we 'give').

To put that into perspective, we are 5th in the international league of overseas aid providers (by percentage of GDP) which is 'given', behind Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Luxembourg. But the contribution made by Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Luxembourg combined adds up to £15 billion annually, whereas the UK 'gives' almost £18 billion on its own. Germany, whose economy is 30% bigger than the UK's 'gives' £14 billion and the US, whose economy is 5 times bigger than the UK 'gives' £31.55 billion - considerably less than double our contribution.

France, whose economy is larger than the UK at the time of writing by a gnat's chuff, gives' £11 billion.

However you want to slice it, we are giving more than almost everyone else. And as a major nation (with respect to Sweden, Norway Denmark and Luxembourg) we top the giving league. The USA is 20th, Germany is 12th and France 11th. The US would obviously rather spend money on bombs than providing aid.

We are generous - it's probably a legacy of Empire I guess, but it is also about how we view the world and why we punch above our weight, always, when it comes to foreign crises and conflict. We recognise that peaceful trade always trumps wars and conflicts, whereas the USA economy depends on foreign wars and conflicts, France is generally against getting involved in them  and Germany has been banned from the sweet shop for decades for obvious reasons.

Brits always give more in charitable donations to stricken parts of the world than anyone else - as individuals I mean. We pledge money and then deliver it, whereas many countries pledge it and then conveniently forget about it. This is something we should all be proud of. whereas our nationally imposed overseas aid programme, which gives £billions to countries who have their own space programmes or are in conflict with us, like, respectively, India and Argentina, is just stupid.

Two things arise from all this, the second of which is really the point of this blog.

The first is that the work of DfID (Department for International Development) 'gives' more than double what Germany gives and more than 3 times what the USA gives (relatively speaking) in overseas aid in a largely untargetted way, without any involvement or choice given to we who pay for it. That is just wrong. And much of this money goes to pay for jobs for the boys and to corrupt dictators in foreign lands where we have no real economic interests. Surely we should be helping people who need our help instead of maintaining cushy DfID office positions around the world?

The second issue is that we are generous as a nation. But we're being taken for a ride.

Ask me for help and I will give it if I can. Demand that I give money to people who don't really need it, and you're taking the piss. And I will rail against it.

The problem is that we've become a soft touch. And whilst many on the left will see this as a good thing, the reality is quite the opposite.

The only way we can be generous to genuinely vulnerable and needy people is if we can afford to be. Once this generosity is extended in the form of 'entitlement' to 'everyone who makes a claim' it becomes unaffordable. And it is then resented by previously generous people. And then the genuinely needy fall through the net as more aggressive, 'system savvy' claimants make their own claims and it's then the most vulnerable who suffer the most.

This is happening internationally - as migrants gain 'entitlement' via free movement and access to the UK, with its more generous welfare system (than France, Italy, Spain and Germany) and once again our generosity is taken advantage of. And when our economy does well what happens? The EU imposes additional bills upon us to pay for the mess that its utter incompetence has visited on most of Europe outside Germany. Even though the rest of Europe is hell-bent on a direction (Federalism) that we do not want or support. Go figure. Why on earth should we be paying for this?

This generosity is also the root cause of tens of thousands of people from Africa paying their life-savings to crooks and risking their lives to come to the UK. And dying in their thousands. We are, quite literally, killing people with our kindness.

And this is not just happening on an international scale. It's also happening right here at home where our 'generous' welfare safety net, designed to help people in genuine need, has evolved to become a lifestyle choice for millions of people and led to the situation in which half of UK households receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes (ONS June 2015).

Where the 'system savvy' take everything they can (and more if they can get away with it) whilst the most vulnerable suffer from delays and increasing levels of scrutiny because others who are not in such need, play the system more effectively than they know how to.

And then what happens? Well what happens is that previously generous people who wanted to help, see this unfair and completely out of control system and say to themselves: 'fuck this, I'll take everything I can too, and I'll reduce my generosity as much as I can because my money is not going to those in need, but to those who play the system most effectively.' And they see that when they donate to food banks they are castigated by the left for 'the state of the country in 2015'.

Brits are the most generous people in the world. We have been for centuries (see initial caveats above). But what's happening now, where 'entitlement' is taking over from generous provision - provision that is welcomed, appreciated and most of all needed - is endangering this generosity of spirit.

We need to reboot our system of generosity before it disappears altogether.

Thanks for reading