ARCHBISHOP SENTAMU : OUR SAVIOUR !

It is fortunate for us that the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, is an expert on military matters and the safety of the realm.

 

Having failed to secure the Archbishopric of Canterbury, Sentamu seems to be looking to make a name for himself in other ways and has been heard on the British Forces Broadcasting Service (BFBS) criticising the government's plans to increase its reliance on reservists. Exactly what qualifications the Archbishop has for pronouncing on military matters is a question that may never be answered, but it must give great comfort to us all that this man of God is so knowledgeable and able to offer his advice which, presumably, comes straight from the Almighty.

 

I wonder if he can also explain to the Government how they should solve our economic problems. Perhaps he might be able to offer advice about the siting of airports in the south-east, the future of the NHS and the welfare system, and how to solve the problems of the European Union.

 

Wow ! How lucky we are to have such a man.

ROAD TOLLS : TAX BY ANY OTHER NAME.

It's reported today that the coalition government is to produce a new 'policy agenda' which will include proposals for funding new road building schemes through the imposition of tolls on motorists.

 

I doubt that  I am the only motorist who will find this approach unacceptable. Motorists already pay a vast amount in assorted taxes for the privilege of using existing roads and are generally 'hammered' at every opportunity. Car tax, the road fund licence, petrol duty, VAT, insurance premium tax are only part of the story; tolls on some roads and bridges, parking charges and vindictive and disproportionate fines and other penalties for a range of supposed traffic offences etc., etc., and now they want to charge us yet again to use roads for which we've already paid several times over.

 

I have no objection to the imposition of tolls *IF* it is as a replacement for existing charges and taxes, not as an addition. As currently stated, the proposed charges would be just another tax on top of the huge amounts that we already pay; the motorist is simply being used as a 'milch cow' for the government.

 

NO, NO, NO !

 

 

PLEBS, POLICE AND A WASTE OF MONEY.

At a time when our public services are supposed to be under enormous financial pressure, I've read with not a little incredulity that the Metropolitan Police Force has dedicated some 30 officers to investigating the issues surrounding whether or not the former Conservative party Chief Whip, Andrew Mitchell, called another policeman a 'pleb'.

 

Pardon me for clearly being out of touch with the world inhabited by those who understand the importance of such matters far better than do I, but I fail to see how an investigation into who said what to whom can possibly require such a committment of scarce resources. The only unusual element in this case is the fact that a politician was involved; if I had been the supposed offender I would, by now, have been dragged up before the local magistrates, pronounced guilty of something such as 'committing an offence likely to cause a breach of the peace' and sentenced. There would have been no police investigation and I would have been allowed no real opportunity to defend myself.

 

If there was ever an example of the difference between the ruling class and the rest of the plebs in our society, this is surely it.

USA's OBSESSION WITH GUNS, PT 2

Following the murderous rampage that led to the deaths of 20 children and half a dozen adults, the US is now in the throes of a lot of soul searching.

 

While many are suggesting that it really is time for the personal possession of at least some firearms, such as automatic assault weapons, to be restricted, others have actually suggested that the recent deaths could have been prevented if there was even greater gun ownership; indeed, it's been suggested that if teachers routinely had guns in their classrooms, such events would never happen again.

 

If anyone wanted proof that the USA is a very sick society, surely this is it. 

USA'S OBSESSION WITH GUNS

The horrific events in Connecticut on Friday make one wonder just what it will take to convince the US authorities to change their stance on the universal right to carry arms.

The USA is such a childlike nation is so many ways, wedded as it is to semi-mythical stories about its past and having the gung-ho mentality of the cowboys who never actually existed. That it has enshrined a right to own and use guns in its constitution and th; at powerful parts of its population resist any suggestion that this right should be curtailed tell us how how much they live in the past and refuse to acknowledge the realities of the modern world.

When the US Consitution was written, machine guns and automatic rifles didn't exist; a man with a gun could, possibly and with luck, shoot one or two others before he was shot. Today, one man with an automatic weapon can kill 20 or 30 before anyone even realises what's actually happening; in Norway not very long ago, Anders Breivik managed to kill 77 before being captured. It seems abundantly clear that the US Constitution has failed to keep up with the technological developments of the last 200 years and that the world's most powerful nation is, in this respect, as backward as Afghanistan and the poorest nations in Africa.

The madman who perpetrated Friday's horror will be villified quite rightly but so should be the US authorities and lobbies that allowed this situation, and previous ones, to happen by their refusal to bring their country into the modern world. Barack Obama and others will make headlines with pious speeches and demands for change but it is surely time that someone did more than simply pour forth meaningless and pointless rhetoric.

Personally, I doubt that much will change. Once the bodies have been buried, with much wailing and gnashing of teeth, it won't be long before things get back to normal. Then we will simply wait for the next murderous rampage and the next round of tearful soul-searching.

CENSUS BRINGS TERRIFYING NEWS.

Yesterday's news of the latest statistics to be released from the 2011 census make terrifying reading.

 

A report from the Government's statistics bureau, the ONS, told us that the number of foreign born people in our population increased by more than 3 million between 2001 and 2011; at the time of the later census, we apparently had 7.5 million people living in England and Wales who were not born here, representing something like a 65% increase over the 10 years. The majority of these were immigrants from India, Pakistan and Poland.

 

My reason for saying that these figures are terrifying is the enormous effect that such rapid change in our population is having. For any country to try to absorb so many immigrants, few of whom have the English language or culture at the heart of their lives, is next to impossible. We now have cities, such as Leicester and London, in which indigenous British are no longer in a majority; these places have, in effect, become outposts of Warsaw, Delhi or Islamabad.

 

Given this news, we can now only wonder what the next census will bring, if the Government doesn't decide to cancel it. While it is certainly possible that the number of overseas-born people may not rise as rapidly over the coming years, the descendnats of those already here will undoubtedly increase. The effect on our society will be dramatic, possibly so dramatic as to cause stirrings of genuine ethnic conflict.

 

Already, the proportion of our population which describes itself as 'White British' has declined to only 80% of the total; another 10 years will almost certainly see this proportion fall to little more than 70%; the major towns and cities, which is where most immigrants head for, will become more and more 'no-go' zones for the 'White British'. While politicians such as Keith Vaz, an immigrant himself, appear to welcome these changes, what the general population will make of them as the truth dawns is anyones' guess.

 

Released separately is the news that the number of 'parental child abductions' has almost doubled over the last decade. While the BBC's news item on this story fails to mention anything about the ethnicity of the offenders in these cases, it seems likely that the majority involve familes from the Indian sub-continent. The numbers are not huge, rising from 270 in 2003/04 to over 500 so far in 2012, but they can hardly be read separately from the dramatic rise in immigrants that has occurred over the same period.

 

British society as most of those born here have known it for decades is going to hell in a hand-basket. At the same time, our economy and living standards are falling through the floor while our political leaders feed us platitudes. Without question, the best thing any young Brtain can do is get out while they still can, because this country isn't going to fit for them before very long. To paraphrase Sir John Betjeman :

Come friendly bombs and fall on Britain,

It won't be fit for us to live in.

 

 

IRISH RE-UNIFICATION IS THE ONLY ANSWER.

Over the years, many politicians have claimed to have resolved the centuries-long conflict in Ireland but none has yet succeeded. The recent rise in the number of acts of violence seems to demonstrate that resolution remains some distance away.

 

The origins of the conflict are shrouded in the mists of time though the violence of recent times seems to be based on religion and the opposing desires of different elements of the Irish population - those who wish to see an independent and united Ireland versus those who wish to remain a part of the United Kingdom.

 

While one has to suspect that the vast majority of the population have no strong views in either direction, both sides have their fanatics who will stop at nothing to achieve their stated objective. "Why ?" is anyone's guess. The murder and mayhem perpetrated on the people has been a shocking indictment of Irish society as a whole and the tribal behaviour of some seems little different from that seen in the most savage nations of the third world. The recent petrol bombing of a police car in Belfast is simply another appalling manifestation of this animalistic warfare.

 

There can be no doubt that the British did some terrible things to the Irish in the past, particularly to the Roman Catholics, but this was now long ago. The continued hatred of the British by the Catholics and the continued celebration of their actions by the Protestants are both well passed their 'sell-by-dates'. It is long passed time that both sides in this atrocious conflict put down their guns, bombs and cudgels once and for all, and learnt to live with each other in a civilized fashion. If they can't do this, my vote would be very strongly in favour of severing the link between Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom and letting them all get on with it.

 

For Britain, this situation is like having Afghanistan or Iraq on its doorstep; we neither want it nor need it. As Scotland prepares for its referendum on independence, it's time for Ireland to do the same, but all of Ireland, not just the north. Dividing a nation in the way that Ireland was divided in the 1920s hasn't worked and won't work. It's time to put things right.

BARROSO SHOOTS SALMOND DOWN IN FLAMES.

The President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, seems to have shot Alex Salmond's plans down in flames.

 

Salmond has maintained that if Scotland succedds in his ambition of becoming an independent state, it would remain within the European Union and negotiate the details of its position from there. Mr Barros has now made it very clear that his understanding of the legal position is that any new independent state would have to apply for membership and, presumably, complete the whole process before being admitted.

 

Why anyone would want to be a member of the EU is a mystery to me; the club is a socialist monolith which is in danger of collapsing at any moment. Nonetheless, continued membership is one of the central planks of Salmond's push for an independent Scotland.

 

He's already claimed that separating from the United Kingdom would affect neither the position of the Queen as Head of State, nor Scotland's use of sterling as their currency, both of which may be somewhat problematic. This latest rebuff, coming as it does from one of the most socialist individuals in the EU, must surely put his plans under extreme stress. Wonder what he''ll do now ? ! 

HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE : CAMERON'S DEATH KNELL ?

David Cameron is reported today to want churches in England and Wales to be allowed to conduct marriages between homosexuals and lesbians. Somewhat magnanimously, it is also reported that he will not force religious organisations to carry out such ceremonies.

 

Exactly why this exceedingly stupid man is so keen on the nonsensical idea that marriage should apply to people of the same sex is beyond me. I have no religious beliefs but it is quite clear to me that marriage is an ancient institution that applies only to a man and a woman; the notion that a man should actually marry another man or a woman another woman is utterly ridiculous. That Cameron should be in favour of such lunacy taking place in religious institutions leaves me totally bewildered.

 

If homosexuals and lesbians wish to enter into formal living arrangements, that's for them to decide; it is then for the state to determine the extent to which such relationships should be treated on a par with heterosexual unions. It is most certainly not for the state to be telling or even suggesting to religious organisations that they should countenance this lunacy under their own rooves..

 

Cameron's doggedness in pursuit of this madness serves only to make him less and less acceptable to traditional Conservative voters and to make the success of his party at the next General Election less and less likely. Given the appalling economic state in which our nation has found itself and the inept performance of the coalition government, the electoral fortunes of the Conservatives were always going to be problematic at best; with Cameron heading off down such insane left-wing paths as this latest venture, it seems likely that they will fare very badly indeed in both the European elections of 2014 and the General Election in 2015.

 

If Cameron survives until 2015, one can only hope that electoral disaster will be followed by the appointment of a new leader who more closely reflects traditional Conservative values. Until that time, we have to expect a rapidly rising level of support for UKIP, being the only real alternative.

AUTUMN STATEMENT : MORE DRIVEL DUE FROM OSBORNE.

Today, George Osborne, the 'Boy Wonder', will deliver his 'Autumn Statement in which he will no doubt tell us another pack of half-truths and lies about the economic plight that faces us. It is most unlikely that he will have the nerve to tell us the truth as that would almost certainly get him the sack.

 

Interestingly, a discussion on 'Newsnight' last night raised this exact point. Basically, while our politicians are focused on how to win the next election, the economy has longer time scales in mind; as long as this dichotomy exists, economic difficulties will persist, at least for much longer than they might. Until our politicians are prepared to share the truth with the electorate and take the action that is necessary for prolonged recovery regardless of electoral advantage, we will continue to be in a mess.

 

Very few political figures have ever been willing to be honest. The current crop are not only no exception to this rule but are probably some of the worst we have ever had in this respect; they are true successors to the duplicitous era of Blair, Brown and the rest who largely helped to create the mess we are now in. If Osborne had any guts, he'd be taking an axe to Government spending in a way that would send shockwaves around the world; instead he's about to set up yet another QUANGO, one to oversee the extraction of natural gas from shale deposits. Wasn't this a government that siad it would reduce the number of such bodies ?

 

Our economic situation is dire and it's going to get a lot worse. We all know this and yet the government is continuing to pretend things will get better without them doing a great deal about it. They spout grand plans but are actually terrified of making the real changes that are needed for fear of electoral catastrophe. Great leaders do what's necessary regardless of personal advantage - that's why this lot aren't great, aren't even good. They're pathetic and it's time the people got up off their backsides and let them know.

HYPOCRIT HODGE HOUNDS HMRC.

Margaret Hodge who is, I understand, chairman of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, is making a lot of fuss these days about companies which are avoiding paying much tax.

 

Ms Hodge, who would probably object to my use of the term 'chairman' and would prefer the imbecilic 'chairperson', is one of those left-wingers who have been coming out of the woodwork ever since Labour were put out of office in 2010. Notwithstanding that she and others were members of the Labour government, they're suddenly coming forward to complain bitterly about various things which they did nothing about while in power.

 

In the case of Ms Hodge, it is tax avoidance, a perfectly legal measure adopted by very many people and companies in various ways. Indeed, the government even helps people to avoid paying tax through the mechanism of pension contributions and ISAs among other things. When it comes to companies, many find ways of moving their profits around so as to avoid, quite legally, the payment of taxes in particular countries such as the UK. This is not tax evasion which is illegal, it is a perfectly legitimate business practice.

 

Ms Hodge and others have now decided that this is not acceptable, that is, using the law to one's advantage is wrong. A while ago, David Cameron went so far as to claim that tax avoidance is immoral and this now seems to be the cry from many of our politicians. That their position is ridiculous seems to pass them by.

 

Government creates the laws by which we live and successive governments have created a vast jungle of laws to cover anything and everything that they believe they can control, including taxation. As a direct consequence of their huge enthusiasm for this pastime, they have made our legal system so complex that few if any know all of it or can understand it. This applies as much to the laws on taxation as to everything else.

 

What we now have is a system that has so many facets there are a plethora of opportunities for smart tax accountants and lawyers to exploit in favour of their clients. Politicians don't like this and are thrashing around trying to find people to blame, other than themselves of course, and suggesting that perfectly legal financial arrangements are somehow immoral and anti-social. This is so hypocritical as to be almost impossible to believe. One of the principal targets seems to be the HMRC which is being accused of not doing enough to tackle tax avoidance - pardon me, but what can they possibly do to prevent perfectly legal actions ?

 

For decades if not centuries, our politicians have used every possible means to turn the system to their advantage; they've even enjoyed special arrangements regarding their expenses, pensions and other matters principally aimed at enriching themselves. How they can now have the temerity to complain about others doing the same within a legal framework that they have created is laughable, especially when one remembers that the people making the loudest complaints are those who served for 13 years in a Labour government which did nothing about the matter.

 

Is it any wonder that politicians have so little credibility with most of the population ?

THE PRESS MUST BE FREE BUT RESPONSIBLE.

David Cameron's failure to embrace the Leveson Report with any enthusiasm demonstrates just how much our political classes run in fear of the press. In turn, this clearly shows that it is long passed time that the media had its wings clipped.

 

This is not to say that I'm in favour of the government taking control of the press but it is clear that the current 'self-regulation' has failed miserably; any replacement self-regulatory arrangement is likely to be every bit as useless and impotent. that What is needed is a framework established by law which guarantees the freedom of the press while also making sure that it behaves in an acceptably civilized fashion. There is no reason at all why there should not be a wholly independent body in place of the discredited 'Press Council' and which can properly respond to complaints from those whom the press abuses. Such a body could be set up, chiared by a retired judge and with, perhaps, 2 representatives from the media and 2 from the public; the Press would, of course, foot the bill as they do now, but they would have far less ability to sweep things under the carpet.

 

There can be no doubt that some elements of the media are out of control and feel themselves to be beyond the reach of the law. The 'phone hacking scandal was merely the tip of a very nasty iceberg, the submerged parts of which include all of the grubby bits of journalism - the manufactured stories for pure sensationalist value, long range pictures of well known people living their lives, every type of intrusion into peoples' privacy for the purpose of making money alone. Most of these activities, all of which have usually been justified on the basis of 'the public interest', have been the mark of a dysfunctional press reacting to the salacious appetites of an uneducated and ignorant public.

 

It is time for a change.

ED BALLS REALLY DOES TALK BALLS !

Listening to Ed Balls, shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the 'Andrew Marr Show' this morning, was like listening to a broken record.

 

Whingeing on about George Osborne's 'failed' plan for fiscal recovery, Balls did little but spout the usual socialist claptrap: a 'bankers' bonus tax', 'creating jobs', 'millionaires tax cuts' and so on. The one thing that Balls never mentions is his own gross culpability for much of the mess in which we now found ourselves.

 

The last Labour government, of which Balls was, eventually, a major part, laid the foundation for a large chunk of the current crisis through its policies of high taxation and uncontrolled state spending. Let us not forget that it was Gordon Brown who changed the taxation status of pension funds, depriving many people of vast amounts of money in their old age. It was Gordon Brown who introduced the system of tax credits which now makes it completely pointless for many people to work the basic hours required in order to claim them; It was the Labour government which introduced the minimum wage resulting in small companies often being forced to pay uneconomic wages to lazy and inefficient staff. They did all this and much more while raising every tax within sight, always excepting income tax which they cynically used to signal a supposedly tax-friendly approach towards the poor oppressed population.

 

For Balls to be complaining that the coalition government has 'failed' to restore balance to the economy after not much more than 2 years in office is an insult to the intelligence; for him to demand a restoration of the catastrophic 'tax and spend' policy of his disastrous government shows an almost unbelievable arrogance and ability to ignore reality. Why anyone would listen to him seriously or, worse still, ever vote for his bunch of failed hypocrites again, I have no idea.

LEVESON UNDER FIRE FROM MPs.

For some reason known only to themselves, a group of 80 or so MPs and Peers have taken up the cudgel against Lord leveson's report on press freedom even before it's been published. They object to any real restrictions on the freedom of the media despite the appalling disclosures of recent years.

 

I'm not one to believe in state interference in our lives but I also don't believe in allowing the press to have a free pass to break the law in their supposed pursuit of justice and in the supposed 'public interest'. In recent times, some media outlets have shown a shocking and callous disregard for peoples' privacy and have pursued the most outrageous lines of so-called enquiry. The self-regulation carried out by the Press Council has proved to be worthless and it must now be time for a properly independent body to oversee the activities of the media in general.

 

This is not to suggest that legitimate reporting should be curbed but there must be real sanctions for those bodies that publish irresponsible and poorly reasearched stories, or that intrude into the private lives of individuals for purely salacious reasons and to make profits. The Press Council has proven itself to be incapable of carrying out this role; it must be replaced by a body with real teeth.

 

Those MPs and others who have taken up the pen in opposition to what Leveson is believed to be going to report are presumably those who also make a tidy living from their own connections with the media; what is most frightening is that there are so many of them.

IS MARK CARNEY REALLY SUPERMAN ?

Speaking of the appointment of Mark Carney as the next Governor of the Bank of England, George Osborne described the man as being the "outstanding central banker of his generation". Even allowing for the usual hyperbole that issues from the mouths of politicians at such times, this was extreme and will undoubtedly open Osborne up to potential career meltdown in a few years time if his words prove inaccurate.

Carney has previously been the top man in the Canadian central bank and has gained a serious reputation; he's credited with guiding Canada through the last few years of economic turmoil in a relatively successful way although there also seem to be some who claim that his policies have laid the ground for much more turmoil ahead. Having made it very clear that he had no ambitions to take on the job at the Bank of England, his arrival there next year might suggest that he knows full well that there are choppy waters ahead in his home country and he's getting out now before things begin to turn bad. Who knows ?

Canada's economy is about ¾ the size of the UK's and its population is a little more than ½; it is heavily dependent on its trading links with the USA. It's a huge nation covering a vast area much of which is sea and ice, and is a very different country overall from the UK; its wide open spaces yield some of the world's greatest volumes of oil, natural gas, timber and agricultural products, while mining of important metals and minerals is another major part of the economy. None of this is replicated in the UK.

Carney's credentials as a brilliant central banker may or may not be justified but what is clear is that his record has been earned in a very different world from that he will find in the UK. In Canada he has maintained very low interest rates while pumping large amounts of credit into the financial system, similar to the approach adopted in the UK but with, apparently, far better results. Whether this was a consequence of banking skill or of the different financial and banking regulatory framework in Canada is open to question.Nonetheless, Carney has been fêted around the world and comes to the UK with huge kudos attaching.

 

If he succeeds, he will leave the UK in 5 years time with his reputation enhanced and George osborne will emerge as the man of genius who appointed him. If he fails, he will still leave with a lot of money and will undoubtedly find another well paid job, while Osborne will have watched his career and ambitions to be Prime Minister run away down the drain. The rest of us just have to sit and hope.

ROTHERHAM : DISCRIMINATION BEFORE RACISM ?

The utterly disgraceful action of Rotherham council in deciding to remove three foster children from the care of a couple purely because they are members of UKIP must be one of the most prejudiced and outrageous acts of discrimination ever perpetrated in this country.

 

The Labour controlled council is clearly full of extreme left-wingers whose next step will presumably be to start removing children from foster carers who vote conservative, support an 'inappropriate' football team or like the 'wrong' type of music. If this action had been taken by a conservative council against, say, carers with extreme left-wing views, the outcry would have been heard all the way to Vladivostok but, of course, conservative councils don't behave in such a way.

 

Why is it that it's only left-wingers who seem to know what's best for everyone and have the special ability to decide who is, or is not, 'politically' suitable to take on certain roles ? Might it be that they are simply prejudiced beyond belief ? The couple in this case have been effectively accused of being racists on no evidence of any sort; this is, by anyone's definition, slander and discrimination and the full force of the relevant legislation should be brought to bear on those responsible for this appalling action. They should be roundly condemned and, if sufficient evidence can be found, arrested, tried and made to make appropriate recompense. They are a disgrace to our nation.

 

 

LORDS A'PLENTY AT THE BBC.

What a surprise !

 

Typical of an inward looking organisation, the BBC Trust has appointed a former Director of the Corporation to be its new Director General. Apparently unconcerned by the abysmal failure of their last appointee the Trust, led by Chris Patten, a man whose credentials for being in charge of the Corporation have to be under extreme scrutiny, has stuck to its tried and tested approach. That that approach has not proved terribly successful seems to be irrelevant.

 

On Radio 4 this evening, Patten defended the Trust's actions in robust, even arrogant, style. Whether its new DG, Lord Tony Hall, is able to justify Lord Patten's stance will be revealed over the coming months and, maybe, years.

NOW THE CHURCH WANTS TO BANISH DEMOCRACY.

As our egregious government continues its campaign to tell everyone what to do while taking no notice of those who elected it and whom it supposedly represents, every day brings more woes.

 

To my simple mind, the members of the Church of England have every right to tell their bishops and clergy what they will and will not accept in terms of the running of their organisation; after all, without those who attend for services, there would be no need for the church. That the worshippers, the so-called 'laity', voted against the appointment of women as bishops has caused so much furore is, therefore, quite ridiculous; the very notion that the chrch is now in danger because of a failure to abide by anti-discrimiantion and equalities legislation is utterly laughable. Nonetheless, it is said that a number of Members of Parliament, including the idiot child himself (Cameron, that is) have expressed varying degrees of unhappiness at the outcome of the vote; some ahve apparently suggested that the C of E may now well find itself stripped of various legal immunities and made subject to the assorted laws relating to equality and so on.

 

How dare they ! The 'laity' have expressed a democratic view in a vote conducted within an essentially private organisation. The ways in which a religion is conducted cannot possibly be considered to be in the same province as, say, the ways in which the NHS or BBC operates. Whether or not women should be eligible for bishoprics is not a matter for the law but for the Church and its members.

 

Of course, those with vested interest voted to allow the creation of women bishops and are now all mortified that they haven't got their way, but these people are as much politicians as they are churchmen. They see various political benefits accruing to them as a result of cow-towing to the current craze for 'equality' so were all in favour. Knowing that Rowan Williams, the disastrous and thankfully outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury was wholeheartedly in favour of the appointment of women bishops and that the next incumbent, Justin Welby has reportedly said that the motion will nonetheless be enacted, tells us that this is not a matter that those in power have any intention of allowing the ordinary people to stymie.

 

This has been very much a case of "Democracy is fine, as long as it produces the result that we want"; if it doesn't then we'll just ignore it or find a way round it. So much for Democracy.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND HAS IT ALL WRONG OVER BISHOPS.

The Church of England has its knickers in a twist over the question of whether or not to allow women to become Bishops. Personally, I always thought that Pawns could become Queens but have never given much consideration to this less significant issue.

 

Not being a churchgoer, in fact I'm an atheist, á la Dawkins, I have no idea what all the fuss is about. From a simplistic and uninformed point of view, surely the matter should be capable of resolution by reference to whatever it says in the Bible about the roles of men and women; but then, perhaps the Bible is ambivalent or even silent on the issue.

 

Whatever the rights, wrongs or otherwise, it occurs to me that this is a subject that has only arisen in recent times and since the attendance at church services began to decline. Now that most churches are pretty well deserted on most Sundays and many are even locked and bolted for much of the time, those in authority have become a bit panicky. How can we 'become more relevant ?' and 'How can we attract more devotees ?' are the rather ridiculous cries. If people believe, then they believe; if they don't they don't and that's all there is to it. Trying to attract bigger audiences or be more relevant is simply not relevant to any serious religion; religion is not about relevance, it is about faith and belief.

 

The fact is that the Christian religion is a dying cult, at least in this part of the western world. Most people have grown up and become wise enough to understand that belief in a mystical figure is not very sensible. It is inevitable that church attendances will fall whatever the Church of England does; it could ordain a donkey and few would either notice or care.

 

Advanced, civilized societies, the USA always excepted, do not need religion as a crutch, they have education and knowledge instead. Christianity in its traditional form in the UK is, therefore, a dead duck. The problem for us all is that we have increasing numbers of immigrants from backgrounds in which other religious beliefs have held sway; many of these immigrants are largely uneducated and hold firmly to the tripe with which they have been indoctrinated over many years. As our Christian churches fall into disuse and eventual disrepair, they are being replaced by an assortment of places in which these newcomers worship their gods.

 

The newcomers have their own thoughts as to what place women should have in their societies and we should, perhaps, pay more attention to this than whether or not women can be made Bishops. Forced marriages, honour killings, female circumcision and the like are anathma to any civilized person and these are the things we should be dealing with, not the irrelevant squabbles within a dying church.

MP's STILL ON THE SCAM.

Today's "Daily Telegraph" has returned to the subject of MP's expenses with a vengeance. It seems that even though their opportunities for screwing money out of the system have been reduced, some are still using every last twist and con to profit at our expense.

 

Their are a new range of scams with numerous Members now renting out their own properties to their mates while renting other properties at tax payers' expense; this is all within the rules but is clearly dodgy. More than 50 Members have refused to have their accommodation details released and the Speaker has, apparently, been very active on their behalf in trying to prevent the release of as much information as humanly possible. There can be no doubt that our representatives are every bit as busy in trying to screw as much money as possible out of the system as they have ever been.

 

Why do we, the people who elect these crooks, put up with any of them ?

 

 

CAMERON CONTINUES ATTACK ON DEMOCRACY.

A few days ago I wrote about the death of Democracy and today David Cameron will prove my point.

 

Speaking at the CBI's annual conference, he will apparently be telling the nation that the peoples' right to challenge government policies and decisions is to be severely curtailed. He will, reportedly, say that we need 'wartime thinking', when "rules were circumvented"

 

Now, what occurs to me is that this is the same David Cameron who calls circumventing tax rules immoral; this is the same David Cameron who obeys every dictat of the EU and wouldn't dream of circumventing its rules. This is, in fact, a man who picks and chooses which rules to adhere to and which to break according to his own fancies at the time. This is the beginnings of totalitarian dictatorship.

 

Ed Miliband, another in the Cameron mould, will supposedly tell the CBI that Britain is sleepwalking into leaving the EU. He would do better to point out that its people are sleepwalking into dictatorship, though this would not suit his political purposes as he may well turn out to be the Dictator.

 

Whichever, Cameron, Miliband or some other, emerges as top dog, "heil mein Führer !" "Viva Il Duce !"  "Da zdravstvuet Stalin !"

TIME FOR THE WORLD TO STAMP ON ISRAEL.

The horrors being perpetarted in the middle east can only be imagined by most of us who live in peaceful lassitude in the UK; to be able to remember bombs and rockets exploding around us we must be in our 70s at least.

 

Shockingly, such is not the case in Israel and the Gaza strip. The desperate Palestinian militants in Gaza are firing rockets into Israel and Israel, one of the most powerful military nations in the world, are responding. The measure of the mismatch between the 2 forces is that, so far, 3 Israelis have died while 94 Palestinians in Gaza have perished, including whole families and many children.

 

This is a conflict which will never end. Israel is a nation which has no right to exist, having been created out of panic and guilt after the end of WW2. Ever since its creation, its leaders, many of whom were acknowledged terrorists themselves, have cold-bloodedly driven the native Palestinians out of the centres and best areas so that now many hundreds of thousands are crammed into the inhospitable Gaza strip and living in squalid conditions. Is it any wonder that militant Palestinian groups, such as Hamas, have arisen and are attempting to fight back ?

 

The villains in this piece are the Israelis and those who first created the country and subsequently support their every act of aggression against the indigenous peoples of the region.  The Israeli government needs to be stamped on and forced to come to a decent agreement with the Palestinians, one in which the Palestinians have equal status; when a similar situation occurred in South Africa, the world did not support the white invaders, it supported the underdogs. Why is the position over Israel so different ?

 

DEMOCRACY IS DEAD : RIP

Now that the elections nobody wanted are over everyone is picking over the bones. The general consensus is that the whole process was a shocking waste of time and money, as well as being vastly undemocratic, though a few of the political eliet are still trying to insist that the outcome was inevitable given that these were a new set of elections. Their view is that it will all get better in time as the electorate gets used to the idea of electing Police Commissioners.

 

The truth must be that the general consensus is correct. The electorate stayed away from the polls in their millions and produced the lowest turnout ever recorded in any UK-wide elections since the introduction of universal suffrage. The overall turnout was around 14.7% and the winners were, on average, elected by less than 6% of the electorate's first preference votes; no one other than the interested parties can possibly claim that this amounts to an electoral mandate. It is quite clear that the absence of information and canvassing as well as the general lack of enthusiasm for elected "Police and Crime Commissionsers" led to the vast bulk of the population delivering the ultimate raspberry to the whole idea.

 

In my county the election was won by the Conservative candidate, a retired RAF officer. However, while numerous other party candidates also won, a dozen of the polls were won by independent canidates, a sure sign of the electorate's disillusionment, both with the main parties and this process. The most satisfying news was that at least 3 former Members of Parliament were defeated - John Prescott in Humberside, James Plaskitt in Warwickshire and Michael Mates in Hampshire. These 3 obviously saw the new roles as an opportunity to entrench themselves in positions of power without having the restrictions of Parliament but it's clear that the electorates saw through them.

 

This was a disastrous mess and a total wste of money. There was virtually no publicity and I was aware of no real efforts at canvassing; to my knowledge none of the local candidates made any effort to gain my vote or the votes of anyone else in my town. It's almost as though the intention was to keep the process low-profile in order to avoid too much public recognition of what was really happening - an attempt to bring police forces under much closer political control. In the event, electors in almost a third of the country chose independent candidates and thwarted such ambitions, although 29 police forces will now be under the direct political control which 85% of their populations did not vote for.

 

In quoting percentages, it occurs to me that these may not quite convey the true extent of the apathy shown by the electorate. Put more starkly, across England and Wales there was an electorate of around 36.25 million of whom 5.33 million bothered to vote; the winning candidates were favoured by some 2.11 million. That is, the new Commissioners have been elected by just over 2 million out of an electorate of over 36 million, ignoring the shenanigans of second preferences.

 

Is this any kind of democracy ? For democracy to exist, the population must believe in it; it's plain that in the UK they no longer do and, if we ever truly had democracy, we have it no more. Democracy died on 15th November 2012; its ashes can be collected from the back door of 10 Downing Street if anyone wants them.

AFGHANISTAN IS A DISASTER, SAYS ASHDOWN !

Lord "Paddy Pantsdown" Ashdown has finally come to the same conclusion as the rest of the intelligent population of the western world - Afghanistan is a lost cause and we should stop killing our soldiers there.

 

In an article in todsay's "Times" Ashdown has written that it is now crystal clear that, after 11 years, NATO has lost the war and that all western troops should be withdrawn as soon as possible. Why it has taken this supposed expert on foreign affairs and military matters so long to come to make this assessment is anyones' guess.

 

Afghanistan has always been a graveyard for foreign troops, at least since the British first ventured there centuries ago; for some reason best known to themselves, western political leaders, and the Russians, have repeatedly chosen to ignore the lessons of history and the consequence has been a succession of total foreign policy disasters.  It seems that the possibility of gaining some sort of advantage over one's main political opponents has outweighed common sense and the effects have been seen in the count of body bags and coffins.

 

In the western world we are told that we have democracy and that this is the best form of government. It is, of course, the case that our democracy is largely an illusion but we do, at least, get the occasional chance to vote for our dictatators. Contries such as Afghanistan have very different histories and traditions; their cultures are wholly alien to those in the western world and for any other nation, or group of nations, to attempt to impose a democratic form of government on them will always end in failure. If they are to achieve democracy, it will be in their own time and we should leave them to it; if they prefer some other form of government, that is their choice and we should respect it.

 

If the western world has real worries about Afghanistan or any other such country, why don't we just isolate them ? It is far from impossible for us to refuse them diplomatic recognition, refuse to accept their nationals as visitors or immigrants, and refuse to trade with them. It amazes me that vast amounts of money have been spent on a war while the flow of heroin seems to be unaffected; if the same money had been spent in different ways, perhaps much more would have been achieved, although the USA, UK and others would have needed to look elsewhere to conduct their military training exercises.

 

In the end, it's all just politics, and we all know just how dishonest, corrupt and manipulative politics and politicians are.

 

 

DICTATORSHIP IS BUT A VOTE AWAY.

Today is election day, not for a President or Government but for Police and Crime Commissioners. It is set to be a watershed for supposed democracy in the UK.

 

No one wants these people and it seems that the candidates themselves aren't particularly enthusiastic either. Even though the process has been hijacked by the main political parties, publicity and campaigning has been minimal and I've seen nothing whatsoever about 2 of the 3 candidates I'm expected to choose between. All that I've received is a tabloid-sized news sheet about the Conservative candidate, a retired senior RAF officer; how such a background has prepared him to oversee a police force has not been explained.

 

The other 2 candidates remain almost entirely unknown. One assumes that campaigning has been concentrated in the city at the centre of my police area, a city around 50% of whose population is of recent immigrant origin; one might also assume that the successful candidate will quite probably be the Asian standing as an independent.

 

That my police service may well be handed over to the control of someone who hasn't bothered to canvas for my vote and whose support comes from an almost entirely alien part of the population is frightening; that this choice may well be made by the votes of as few as 15 or 20% of the total population of the police area, even more so. There is nothing at all 'democratic' about this process which has been foisted upon the people as a purely political mechanism and with almost no attempt to improve its legitimacy.

 

Politicization of the police is a major step along the road to dictatorship. The monsters of recent history - Hitler, Stalin, Mao and the rulers of communist Eastern Europe amongst others - all used state controlled police forces to impose their tyrranical regimes. While I may not like the idea of my police force being under the thumb of someone with whom I have nothing in common, at least he would be answerable to at least a part of the population. Once the political parties in this country have full control of our police services allied to the vast range of electronic surveillance available today, GOD HELP US.

WHY IS ABU QATADA STILL HERE ?

The utter lunacy which has allowed a man known to be hostile to our country to be released on bail rather than being deported defies belief.

 

So called 'Muslim Cleric' Abu Qatada is a Jordanian citizen, wanted by the Jordanian government on allegations of terrorism. However, he has spent the last 19 years in the UK, having entered the country on a forged passport but been granted asylum on the grounds of religious persecution. He has been repeatedly linked with Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, and was also said to have had an involvement in the "9/11" attacks in the USA. For most of the last 10 years he has been in prison in the UK, fighting every inch of the way to avoid extradition to Jordan.

 

This man has already been tried and convicted, in absentia, in Jordan and should now be serving a life sentence, having been found guilty of various terrorism offences. Despite this, an assortment of courts, both British and European, have ruled that he cannot be deported for fear of mistreatment. Consequently, he and his family have existed on state support for most of their time in this country, running up a bill variously estimated at somewhere between £500,000 and £3m.

 

Abu Qatada has no affinity for the UK and is here only because it is not Jordan. He does not, and has not, contributed anything to British society and may well have been involved in terrorist activities both here and abroad; the Jordanians certainly believe this. Why is he still here, being kept at the taxpayers' expense ?

 

 

ENTWISTLE : £450,000 FOR FAILURE.

Troubles at the BBC simply go from bad to worse, if that's actually possible.

 

Following the resignation of the DG, George Entwistle, 2 more senior managers, Helen Boden and Stephen Mitchell, have 'stepped aside' whatever that may mean. Hot on the heels of this news comes the revelation that Entwistle, after 54 days in his post, will leave with a golden handshake of a year's full salary, the small matter of £450,000. Presumably this is the result of an agreement approved of by the Chairman of the BBC Trust, Lord (Chris) Patten. His contractual entitlement has been said to have been for 6 months salary, so why he should now be given a full year's is a mystery.

 

How anyone can be entitled to 6 month's salary, let alone a year's, after such a short time in post has yet to be explained. Given that the man's resignation was, effectively, a consequence of his total incompetence, I can think of no explanation that would justify the decision. If he does, indeed, take this licence payers' money with him, it will be nothing less than a scandal.

 

Having overseen this appalling mess and having contributed to it with his approval of Entwistle's pay-off, Lord patten's position must now be in serious doubt if not wholly untenable. The word seems to be that there will be further resignations from the BBC's senior management in the coming weeks and months; Lord Patten should undoubtedly be one of them.

ENTWISTLE GOES AS BBC IMPLODES.

I've awoken this morning to discover that the BBC's Director General, George Entwistle, has finally fallen on his sword.

 

Entwistle had only been in post for a few weeks but his period in charge had been dominated by scandals directly affecting his organisation. While he may not have had any personal responsibility for much of what has been revealed, his handling of the aftermaths was utterly incompetent; the revelations and ramifications of the Savile case have brought the Corporation into such disrepute that its future must be in doubt and Entwistle's response was pathetic. His appearance before the Commons CMS Select Committee was hopeless and his interview performance at the hands of John Humphries a couple of days ago was excrutiating; resignation had become the only option.

 

Listening to Jonathan Dimbleby, Max Hastings and Lord Patten on the 'Andrew Marr' show, it's clear that Entwistle's erstwhile chums are pulling out all the stops in an attempt to excuse his failings; this simply doesn't wash. Entwistle may be an honest and decent man but he was no use whatsoever as Director General. His expressed belief that he shouldn't get involved in anything unless someone specifically asked him to shows a shocking lack of leadership skill; it's also an indictment of those, such as the chairman of the BBC Trust Lord Patten, who appointed him.

 

For the BBC itself, it is now a rudderless and leaderless organisation which is suffering the greatest crisis since its founding in January 1927. The only serious advantages that it has over its commercial rivals are its funding from the licence fee and the absence of advertisements on its channels; much of its content is every bit as rubbishy as that of its competitors and one has to wonder why it should continue as it is. The notion that the BBC is somehow superior, with better staff and programmes, holds less water as the years go by and this may well be the moment when the scales are tipped against it.

 

We shall have to wait to see what develops.

OBAMA WINS, BBC GETS RASPBERRY.

With Barack Obama now safely re-elected for a second term as US President we can look forward to much of the same. Although the Democrat has won the Whitehouse race and the Democrats also have control of the Senate, the Republicans have maintained control of the House of Representatives; this means that for Obama to achieve anything of real note, he will have to convince his opponents in the House to vote for it. The chances must be that little of real note will be achieved in the next 4 years, the US economy will fail to ignite, and could even collapse, and we can look forward to an increasingly 'lame-duck' administration with every reasonably prominent politician beginning to position themselves for the next election in 2016.

 

While the political developments, or lack of them, in the US are all very interesting, my own attention has been caught by the extent of the BBC's coverage of events. For a corporation with huge financial issues to address, one has to question the way in which it seems to have sent everyone, and their dogs, on holiday.

 

Some programmes have done the right thing and relied on reports from accredited US correspondents such as Mark Mardell and Laura Trevelyan; others have thought it necessary to despatch their own presenters. As far as I can tell, Jeremy Paxman, David Dimbleby, Emily Maitlis, Huw Edwards, Jeremy Vine, Martha Kearney, James Naughtie, Bridget Kendall, Jane Hill, and some goon from the 'Breakfast' programme have all been spending time in the US at taxpayers' expense, with, no doubt, their associated personal armies of technical and other support. I also have no doubt that this list is nowhere near being exhaustive.

 

I don't deny that a US Presidential election is an important event but, in common with much that the USA does, it's an overblown event. That the BBC, with all of its difficulties, finds it necesssary to waste a significant amount of money on transporting so many of its 'big names' across the pond demonstrates just how far from reality its management are. With the technical abilities that we possess today, did they really need to base all of their election coverage in the USA ? Surely, transatlantic links by telephone, internet and satellite would have sufficed.

 

The USA now faces 4 more years of troubles while the BBC faces questions on many fronts. Obama will obviously survive his 4 years; whether or not the BBC will still be alive and kicking in 2016 is another matter entirely.

EU BUDGET MUST BE CUT.

Last week's EU budget debate and vote in the House of Commons has caused a few ripples but is unlikely to do achieve much more. When it comes down to the wire, Cameron, and the UK, have limited choices.

 

While the socialist mafia at the the centre of the EU want a massive increase to their budgt, Cameron has said tht he is determined to achieve a 'freeze' or, at worst, an inflationary increase only. That this is little more than political rhetoric and an almost impossible ambition has been glossed over. The Parliamentary vote which made it clear that there is no stomach in the House of Commons for anything less than a real-terms cut in the budget certainly stirred things up but power still resides with the EU and its assorted mechanisms.

 

Cameron can veto whatever the rest agree, but that will result in an inflationary increase allied with huge annoyance from the 17 nations which are net recipients of the EU's largesse. These countries want an increase and nothing less will do; a reduction simply isn't on the cards. There seems to be no doubt that the very best Cameron can achieve is the inflationary increase and this will create in great animosity towards the UK. Whtever the UK wants thereafter will be scrutinised minutely and very probably subject to vetos played by the annoyed members.

 

The EU is a disaster for the UK and we should get out. Trading is one thing, political and economic subservience is another. That the people at the centre of this obscene socialist entity continue to believe in bigger budgets and more spending at a time when individual states are suffering huge budget cuts and spending reductions shows just how out of touch they are. Their adherence to the Euro, at all cost, shows that it is politics and not economics or common sense that are driving them and we must distance ourselves from this.

 

The real test will come when Cameron brings whatever budget proposal he gets from Brussels back to the House of Commons. If they then reject the proposal it will be a crisis of sorts; the question is 'Will they actually do it ?"

MacSHANE SHOULD BE IN PRISON.

What is it that makes politicians almost universally corrupt ?

 

In 'tin-pot' third world dictatorships, national leaders habitually steal everything they can get their hands on and yet the developed world continues to pour in vast sums in so-called 'overseas aid'. Much of the money given by these countries simply disappears into the pockets of vicious tyrants such as Mugabe and, in the past, the likes of Bokassa. However, what we don't expect is for this same greed and corruption to occur in our own nation.

 

How wrong we are. The recent revelations of the activities of Labour MP, Denis MacShane, demonstrate that our own politicians are every bit as corrupt as those in other countries. MacShane has been suspended by his party and will almost certainly be suspended by the House of Commons within a few days for submitting entirely false and fraudulent expenses claims; a Parliamentary conmmittee has said that these were "plainly intended to deceive". He is, of course, not the first member of one or other of the Houses of Parliament to be caught out and he's unlikely to be the last, but his is a particularly corrupt case.

 

If MacShane were an ordinary member of the public, he would now be under arrest and would certainly be facing a lengthy prison sentence but, as a Member of Parliament, it seems that there are rules which prevent his prosecution. In this supposedly law-abiding country of ours, not only do our politicians routinely defraud the taxpayer, they have also provided themselves with a degree of immunity from the normal consequences of such behaviour. Is this really any different from the behaviour of dictators in the third world ?

 

MacShane is a crook and should be in prison. Unfortunately, the worst that is likely to happen to him is removal from his Parliamentary seat; this will simply free him to accept a variety of corporate posts which will bring him many more opportunities to enrich himself. Some punishment. Is it not time that we, the people, did something about the corrupt and self-serving political class which has failed so miserably to represent us and our interests for so many years ?

PPI SCANDAL RUMBLES ON.

Payment Protection Insurance, or 'PPI' as we all now know it, is one of the great scandals of our time. For years, our banks conned millions of people out of money they could ill-afford by selling them, sometimes surreptitiously, insurance which they didn't ask for, didn't need and didn't want.

 

Today, Lloyds bank has announced its latest results within which they've made a further provision of £1bn against the claims being made by people whom they conned in the past, bringing their total provision so far to £5.25bn. Lloyds seem to be the worst offender in this respect with other banks having made provisions, in total, of about the same amount, with the total cost of reimbursing victims now standing at something over £11bn. It's been said that the eventual total may be around £15bn.

 

That our banks can have been so criminal as to have robbed their customers of so much is surely a shocking thing. That they continue to find ways of relieving us of our money for useless or pointless services shows just how little they've learnt from the current scandal and also, rather sadly, how little many of their customers have learnt.

 

How long will it be before we can truly have any trust in our banks ? 

 

 

 

'RACIST' REFEREE WASTES POLICE TIME.

I find it astonishing that not only the Football Association but now the Metropolitan Police are engaged in investigating allegations of racism against a referee.

 

I'm not a football fanatic but I'm well aware that referees habitually face a barrage of shouted abuse from the players whom they are supposed to be controlling.The players cheat and foul their ways through match after match while the referees exercise almost no real control; every decision of any note that they make is disputed, often vehemently, by the penalised side. Referees are viciously criticised by players, managers and the media; in-depth post-match examination of slow motion replays is used to seek out every possible mistake. Now we have a referee not only being accused of using 'inappropriate language' but also being subject to a criminal investigation into what were his precise words. From a manager's perspective, this is, of course, all great news, with yet another means of intimidating referees into virtual impotence having been discovered.

 

I would have thought that the police had far better things to do than to waste time and precious resources on such a trivial and pointless investigation. Football is not a sport played by well brought up gentlemen who never use foul language; it's a high profile business in which grossly overpaid yobs kick lumps out of each other and habitually curse and swear at each other and at the referee. In such an environment, discovering whether 'a' abused 'b' is of little, if any, significance, regardless of what actual words are supposed to have been said. Any significance the issue does have should be for the FA to worry about, not the police.

 

If my house was burgled, I'd be lucky to get a visit from the police within several days. If I call, or am claimed to have called, a coloured person by some words that they consider to be 'racist' and they make a complaint, I'd be pretty sure to be arrested and dragged off to the local nick within a couple of hours. Why is this ? Who is the greater criminal - the burglar who invaded my house, wrecked it and made off with an assortment of my belongings, or the person who calls another a nasty word ?

 

In this country we have got our priorities horribly wrong; as a result, real crimes have been relegated in importance in favour of imagined 'social crimes'. What a farce.

WE NEED POLICE OFFICERS, NOT POLITICAL COMMISSIONERS.

With little more than 2 weeks to go until we're expected to vote for our sparkly new 'Police Commissioners' I've still seen almost nothing about them. Why we need them and exactly what they'll do remain mysteries. The only thing that appears clear is that the political parties, Labour and Conservative anyway, have hijacked the process and we are heading inexorably towards politicised police services across our once free nation.

 

In my area, I've been able to discover, purely by my own efforts, that we have 3 candidates; a Labour councillor from the nearby city, a conservative former senior RAF officer and an Asian man of indeterminate origin who's standing as an independent. None of these has any connection with my immediate area and, as far as I can tell, none has any experience of policing, crime and justice or anything else that would render them qualified to oversee a police service. If this is the pattern across the country, one fears for the future of our law enforcement.

 

I won't be voting for any of those on offer to me as I fail to see what benefits either they or their role will bring to me and the rest of the local population. One rather thinks that their impact, whoever wins, is more likely to be negative than positive, with yet another tier of expensive bureaucracy added to our already grossly overblown public administration.

 

I, and most other sane people, want to see more police on the beat, not Police Commissioners warming seats in plush offices and surrounded by hordes of fawning staff ; why does no one in authority understand this ?

SAVILE : HOW BAD CAN IT GET ?

As the Savile saga trundles on, the stories that are emerging are becoming worse and worse.

 

The BBC's 'exposé' that was eventually broadcast was bad enough with the revelations of Karin Ward followed by the realisation that she told the BBC of her experiences almost a year ago. Given these allegations, whether or not they were then considered to be wholly proven, that the corporation still continued with its laudatory programmes about Savile is incomprehensible. That the exposé went on to reveal that others in the employ of the BBC, such as Paul Gambaccini, not only knew of the rampant rumours but simply accepted Savile's behaviour as part of the local culture says more about them than about Savile; it seems clear that this kind of abuse was probably the norm in a world in which randy pop presenters were surrounded by large numbers of nubile teenage girls 

 

Since the BBC's programme was broadcast, others have made statements to the effect that not only was Savile's behaviour at least strongly suspected; Bill Oddie apparently knew and he joins Bob Langley and Martin Young who both appeared in the programme. None of them did anything about it. Today it's reported that a former governor of the BBC, Sir Roger Jones, heard of rumours more than 10 years ago and was so concerned that, in his role as Chairman of 'Children in Need', he ensured that Savile was kept very far away from any involvement in the charity. Despite what must have been very serious concerns, Jones apparently made no effort to bring them to the attention of the BBC's management because, it's said, 'he did not have evidence Savile abused children while a BBC employee'. What utter tosh is this ? The man was so worried that he wouldn't allow Savile anywhere near his charity but saw no reason to tell anyone else; am I the only person who finds this story ludicrous ?

 

With the number of possible victims of this appalling man now in the region of 300, many questions arise. Why is it that this army of victims has been so silent until now, or were they simply ignored ? It is very hard to believe that the BBC, Leeds General Hospital, Broadmoor and Stoke Mandeville Hospital all received complaints and all ignored them, or is it ? Given Savile's stratospheric public profile and fund raising activities, perhaps they all did shy away from the difficult publicity that might have resulted from taking action over any allegations.

 

The appearance of the new Director General of the BBC before a House of Commons select committee last week was another surreal moment. To say that George Entwistle's performance was pathetic is not to do him justice; it was far worse than that. The story reported on air of a 10 second conversation between him and Helen Boden before last Christmas simply fails the test of credibility; on being told that his entire Christmas schedule may need to be revised Entwistle failed to ask any questions or to follow up on the matter. Is this credible ?

 

The story now has so many facets that it's difficult to know what will be revealed next. Abuse associated with various BBC programmes - ToTP, Clunk Click, Jim'll Fix It, Savile's Travels and so on; the involvement of others with Gary Glitter high on the list and now arrested; public comments and statements made by Savile himself in his autobiography and on air; previous police investigations which failed to uncover his criminality; Fleet Street investigations that also led nowhere. Possibly worst of all, the BBC's 'pulling' of last year's Newsnight programme for reasons that appear entirely fatuous.

 

This is a story that will clearly run for some time. That the BBC, as well as the other implicated organisations, failed to notice that anything was wrong over so many years is a crime in itself. There can be little doubt that the culture at the BBC was such that Savile's behaviour, if not the norm' was at least not that unusual; others must have been involved and culpability has to go to the very top. Entwistle will no doubt claim that he was not in charge during the years of Savile's crimes but his failures over the last 12 months demonstrate that he has no business being Director General of the corporation. He has to go and he ought to be joined in the dole queue by several others; we can but hope that the other perpetrators of these egregious crimes are caught and find themselves serving very long terms in prison. We can but hope. 

BERLUSCONI : BUSINESS AS USUAL.

As the troubles of the European Union continue to create mayhem across the continent, there is news from Italy which is calculated to send shivers down the spines of anyone who believes in democracy and justice.

 

Just a day after being found guikty of tax fraud and sentenced to a year in prison, former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is apparently now threatening to withdraw his political party from the coalition which is currently in charge thus bringing down the government of his country. This is, of course, the same Silvio Berlusconi who is also in court on charges relating to a variety of sexual offences that occurred during his so-called 'Bunga Bunga' parties while he was in office.

 

Is it any wonder that both Italy and Europe are in such a mess when people such as this are in positions of great power and influence ? In the UK, the Conservative Chief Whip resigned because, in essence, he swore at a policeman; one or 2 of our representatives have gone to prison, and lost their jobs, for making false expenses claims; in the past, John Profumo resigned because of an affair with a prostitute and others have sufferred similar fates after committing sexual indiscretions; Charles Kennedy resigned as leader of the Liberal Democrats because he drank too much.

 

How can it be that in the UK we seem to be so sensitive while in Italy Mr Berlusconi not only hasn't resigned but is still in a position to bring down the government ? Not only is this unbelievable but it's also an indicator as to how far some countries need to progress in order to become truly democratic. Until they do, the UK would be well advised to give them, and the EU, a very wide berth indeed.

 

 

EUROPEAN UNION THIEVES WANT STILL MORE.

While our Government and those of most, if not all, of the other countries of the developed world cut back on spending in an effort to bring their economies back into financial balance, the European Union wants to increase its budget. Unsurprisingly, this demand is causing some controversy, at least in the UK.

 

True to its overwhelmingly socialist ethos, those who run the EU are only too happy to demand yet more money from their member nations. This is not simply a request for an amount equal to inflation but for another 5% on top of an already bloated budget; what the people of Greece and Spain, countries where budget cuts have been enormous, think of all of this is anyone's guess though I doubt their comments would be publishable.

 

Year after year, this entirely unnecessary bureaucratic nonsense absorbs billions of pounds and euros. Its offficials, in their thousands, live extravagant tax-free lifestyles at the expense of people who have little ability to control their excesses. Every year, without fail, they demand more money to fund their latest pet schemes and make it seem that without the increase the world will crumble around us; in truth, it is merely their own protected world that will be in danger of crumbling.

 

At a time of severe financial restraint elsewhere, why should the EU consider itself exempt from making its own contribution to savings ? How can their leaders possibly expect the people of Europe to give them even more to waste when they themselves are being squeezed  so aggressively ? If anything has ever demonstrated the way in which officials of the EU are utterly divorced from the realities affecting the rest of us, this is it.

 

David Cameron is reported to be meeting with the almost unknown President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, to discuss the UK's views on this subject and is, apparently, threatening to veto the proposed increase; such action will not prevent any increase but would limit it to around the rate of inflation at 2%. Allowing that Van Rompuy is something of a non-entity, having been put in his position largely due to his insignificance, why Cameron is bothering is a question worth asking. It seems clear that nothing of substance will be achieved and that the only person who really matters is the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, although the European Commission President, Barroso, will no doubt make plenty of mostly meaningless noise along the way.

 

To my simple mind the EU has one primary objective and that is to survive unchallenged; its leaders desire nothing more than to retain their privileged status come what may. The peoples of Europe should not only resist this, they should positively rebel. It is time for this bloated organisation to be cut down to size, to be made properly accountable to the people that they claim to represent and subjected to proper financial control. This is what Cameron should be telling "Rumpy-Pumpy" today, and the UK alternative to acceptance should be a referendum on total withdrawal from this insanity.

 

While their is little chance of Cameron having the bottle to really 'have a go', he will probably come back claiming some sort of victory, if not today then within the next few weeks. Whether it will be enough is a different matter. 

WHO WANTS POLICE COMMISSIONERS ?

I've heard today that I should receive a leaflet in the post telling me all about the elections for 'Police and Crime Commissioners' which are due to take place on 15th November. I can't wait !

 

Thus far, I have been told, purely through the media, that these unnecessary jobs are to be created and that we, the people, will have the joy of voting for them. I have no idea whose names have been put forward in my area nor, indeed, even what 'my area' is. I do know, again through the media, that those applying for the taxpayer funded jobs include a whole managerie of former Members of Parliament and other political hangers-on; in other words, the whole process has been hijacked by the political elite who see this as just another way to sponge off of the man in the street.

 

Exactly what these individuals will do that will benefit us is a mystery. Why we should be 'politicising' our police in this way is a mystery. Why we need yet another layer of political bureaucracy is a mystery. Why we should be inventing this expensive nonsense at a time of financial stringency is a mystery. The only thing that is not a mystery is the fact that few people are truly aware of what is going on and even fewer actually care.

 

*IF* I was ever to want a Crime Commissioner, I would not want anyone who had a prior career in politics. I would want someone who understood crime, the policing of it, and our society. The likes of John Prescott, who was putting himself forward somewhere or other, would not even make my 'long list' of possible candidates.

 

I look forward, with muted interest, to receiving my leaflet and discovering who my candidates are. I will consider the options most carefully and then, when it comes to the time to vote, I will make my mark with equal care :

 

NONE OF THE ABOVE, NOR ANYONE ELSE, THANKYOU !

CAMERON TO STOP US DRINKING WINE.

There was a time when the Conservative Party supported the free market and, in particular, people often defined as 'middle class'; no more, it would seem.

 

Today's newspaper carries the news that the Government, a coalition of interfering do-gooders, is to launch its Alcohol Strategy next week. This is theoretically aimed at preventing the abuses perpetrated by the hordes of young yobs who rampage around our streets on Fridays and Saturdays, having loaded themselves up with cheap alcohol before venturing out and subsequently drinking more until they can no longer stand, they vomit and cause a genuine nuisance to everyone else around them. Some of them end up in hospital having made themselves so ill that it takes the skills of doctors to save their lives.

 

Few would argue that addressing this generally disgusting and anti-social behaviour is necessary and a good thing, but there are ways and means. It seems that the 'coalition of the incompetent' is to use a sledge hammer which will affect everyone who drinks, rather than hitting the problem itself. The chances must be that their actions will do little to resolve the issue but will do much to annoy a large section of the population.

 

The plan is, so I've read today, to introduce a minimum price for alcohol of 40 pence per unit and also to ban supermarkets from offering discount deals, specifically for bulk purchases of wine. None of this would, of course, affect Dave, Nick and their pals but it may well affect a very large number of very ordinary people who like a glass of wine with their meals. If I drank wine regularly, which I used to do, I would buy my supplies in bulk, perhaps 6 or 12 bottles at a time. Up to now, many supermarkets have offered discounts for such purchases but under the coalition's plans this would no longer be allowed. I have never gone rampaging around the streets or caused a public nuisance but I, and people like me, are to be hammered by this insane Government's inability to act rationally and by the squawkings of the fanatics in the 'Health Lobby'.

 

I'm more than capable of making my own decisions about such matters - why should I be penalised because of the behaviour of ignorant yobs barely a third of my age ? If the imbeciles in power really want to deal with this issue, why don't they take direct action against the morons who set out at the weekend to get drunk and create mayhem ? Why aren't these people targeted by the police, arrested, charged and punished ? Why aren't those who end up in their local casualty department charged for their treatments, in the same way that injured motorists and their passengers can be ? Why aren't the bars and clubs which cater for these people, ignoring the laws governing the sale of alcohol to those who are already drunk and equally ignoring the sale and use of an assortment of illegal drugs, closed down ?

 

David Cameron may be a member of the Conservative Party but he is no Tory. He is a middle of the road liberal who believes that he has a duty to interfere in the lives of the rest of us, telling us what to do at every turn because he and his friends know best. However, he doesn't have the strength of character to actually tell the truth about such things and finds it much easier to attack a broad sweep of the population than to target issues directly. In doing so, he hopes to hide his actions and dilute the response; in fact he simply makes an even greater part of the population fed up with him.

 

Cameron is a disaster. The Coalition is a mess. The sooner we get rid of it the better, though it looks as though we will have to wait until 2015 unless the real Liberals decide to walk out sooner. Let's hope they do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MITCHELL BOWS TO PRESSURE AT LAST.

It seems that I was wrong in my assessment that Andrew Mitchell, the Tory Chief Whip would survive the furore over his use of foul and derogatory language to a police officer at the gates of Downing Street.

 

Mitchell has now resigned following weeks of almost constant pressure which has done nothing but harm to his party and his leader. That the man should have resigned, or been sacked, almost immediately after the original incident seems to me to be clear; whatever he did or didn't say, the potential for the matter to be used as a cudgel with which to batter the government was obvious. Had Cameron been a tougher and more decisive leader, Mitchell's head would have rolled within hours.

 

Now that he's gone after such a protracted fight, Labour will claim a great victory for democrarcy and common folk while the Prime Minister's authority has been dented yet again. All-in-all, a real coup for the opposition.

EU LOOKS FOR EVER CLOSER UNION, AGAIN.

As the EU stumbles from crisis to crisis, the German Chancellor has reportedly called for the so-called 'Economics Commissioner' to be given explicit powers to veto the national budgets of member states should they go beyond limits set by the Union. This call has come a matter of hours before leaders of the 20 something member nations are due to converge for a summit meeting which is expected to focus on the proposed introduction of a banking union.

 

Given the EU's woeful management of its own budget and constant demands for more money to be granted to it, one wonders how anyone can consider such developments to be justified. However, from the perspective of Mrs Merkel, there may be some logic as Germany would clearly gain more power over the states that her country is currently financing, and this would probably go down quite well with elections due in Germany next year. For most of the rest, this looks like the beginning of the end. Should Merkel's plan succeed, a United States of Europe would not be far behind.

 

No doubt the UK and a few others may object to these initiatives but there must be a likelihood that those members which are in the deepest trouble plus the smaller nations which simply rely on German patronage may well accede. For countries like Greece and Spain, it will be a choice of accepting much greater external control over their affairs and the eventual forfeiting of their nationhood or bankruptcy and consignment to the economic scrapheap. While neither is very palatable, a choice will have to be made.

 

An aged aunt of mine who was married to an Austrian for many years has repeatedly told me that her husband had a little saying. Germany had lost 2 world wars but it would not lose the third; a German-dominated USE would be a decisive victory, indeed, in the economic war which has been fought ever since 1945.

CAMERON GETS IT WRONG ON ENERGY.

David Cameron, the man whom some believe is running the country but whom others consider to be an incompetent muddler, seems to have got himself into another mess.

 

Yesterday, Cmeron made an announcement about energy prices, stating that energy suppliers wouldbe forced to offer all of their residential customers the lowest available tariff. Today, as questions have been asked about this pledge, it's become clear that this was another example of our PM attempting to make up a policy 'on the hoof'; sadly for him, the policy hasn't yet been developed by the relevant ministry and even if it had been, it is rapidly becoming apparent that such a policy would have so many unintended consequences and difficulties that it would be unworkable.

 

We all know that the energy companies have little real competition, have such a maze of tariffs that it's virtually impossible to decide which is best at any particular time and that they operate as an effective cartel, something which is already illegal in this country. The companies' single aim is to screw their customers for as much as they can get away with and successive governments have done nothing to change this to any degree.

 

Gas and electricity, water and telecommunications, railways and so on are all guilty of similar approaches. Their customers have been consistently robbed for decades, while our political masters have fiddled. Cameron's announcement yesterday may have been well meant but it was also naive and stupid, not the type of rubbish we should expect from the leader of the country. Perhaps it's time he went and he might consider taking his arrogant chief whip with him.