JEWISH OR MUSLIM; THEY'RE JUST FANATICS.

There appears to be a growing expectation that the fanatical government of Israel is moving inexorably towards armed conflict with the equally fanatical government of Iran over the question of Iran's possible acquisition of nuclear weapons. The Israelis claim that any action taken by them would be simple self-defence while the Iranians would no doubt see invasion in a slightly different light.

 

Ever since the founding of the Israeli state in 1948, there has been conflict in the middle east, the conflict being based mostly on religious intolerance and hatred. Every time the Israelis are criticised or asked to modify their stance they roll out the now hackneyed story of the 'Holocaust' as justification for whatever they're doing. From the other side, the assorted Arab and muslim states talk about the way in which their land was taken from them in order to create Israel in the first place; they also have the more recent evidence of the appalling way in which the Israeli authorities have treated their Palestinian citizens.

 

In the case of Iran, the fanatical muslims who run this country are every bit as mad as those who populate al-Qaeda; they seem to believe that Israel is an abomination that should be wiped from the face of the earth. While the creation of Israel in the first place was undoubtedly a catastrophic error, mainly due to the actions of the USA, its existence today is a fact that cannot be denied and will not change. Most of the other countries of that region also owe their modern-day existence to similar political shenanigans, officials drawing lines in the sands to delineate the various nations with little regard to the local ethnic or religious groupings.

 

It does not help that the world's major powers, principally the USA and Soviet Union in the past and now the USA, Russia and China, have used the middle and east as an area for a proxy-war, drawing up their own battle lines through the support of one faction or another, one country or another. Today's problems with the madmen of Israel and Iran are simply the latest product of the games played by others over recent years; the only difference is that the current crisis may well lead to eventual nuclear war.

 

 

 

SQUATTERS TO BECOME CRIMINALS AT LAST

Until midnight today, those who choose to enter a residential building they neither own nor rent and have no right to be in can claim that they are 'Squatting'. This allows them to remain in possession of the property until they are evicted by the landlord in a civil court action, something that may cause the landlord considerable inconvenience and cost.

 

From tomorrow, 'Squatting' in a residential property will be a criminal offence, meaning that 'Squatters' will be liable to summary arrest and removal by the police, potential fines or imprisonment and may end up with a criminal record. Landlords obviously are in favour of this change in the law while 'Squatters' and others who support their activities are equally obviously opposed.

 

To me, the prospect of coming home one day to discover that my house has been occupied by 'Squatters' is horrific. The very term 'Squatters' seems to have been invented in order to downgrade the seriousness of the activities of these people, pretending that they are somehow just another group of fun-loving people who don'r mean any harm. While there may be elements of truth in this, I fail to see how 'Squatting' can ever be considered acceptable.

 

The 'today' programme this morning had a significant contribution from a very sweet and decent sounding supply teacher who also happens to be a 'Squatter'; she explained, very reasonably, that she didn't earn enough to buy or rent a place to live and had no choice but to 'Squat'. One would suspect that she was chosen by the BBC because she was young, female, obviously intelligent and sounded so appealing; sadly, none of these characteristics is relevant to the issue. As of midnight tonight, she will be a criminal and could lose her chosen career as criminal records are not favoured when appointing teachers.

 

Why it has taken so long for us to arrive at this point is a mystery to me. 'Sqautters' deprive property owners of their rights and belongings in the same way as do other thieves; 'Squatters' are, in truth, thieves. It matters not that some try to ameliorate the effects of their actions by paying what they see as 'rent'; the fact is that they have no right to be in the properties that they occupy. The various arguments that are advanced in favour of these people simply can't justify their actions any more than I could justify murdering my neighbour because I don't like his dog.

 

Life is a series of compromises and we simply can't have everything that we want. Sometimes we have to change career or location in order to meet some other need; we may have to put one ambition 'on hold' in order to pursue another or may have to accept a poorer standard of living in one part of our lives so that we may enjoy greater excess in another. What we cannot do is deprive others of their property in order to short-cut our own path to success. 

 

 

 

 

KNIGHTHOODS FOR ALL !

A committee of MPs has complained that too many honours go to civil servants, politicians and celebrities. One really does wonder why it's taken them until now to realise this.

 

For decades, perhaps centruries, honours were awarded largely to politicians and others of significant influence. Then it became the norm to reward many civil servants once they reached certain levels - a famous sketch from 'Yes Minister' has Bernard explaining to Jim Hacker the language attached to the awarding of the CMG, KCMG and GCMG, honours exclusively awarded to senior civil servants.

 

More recently and with the rise of the celebrity culture, honours have been showered like confetti on a host of media and sports' 'stars', to such an extent that many of the gongs are now almost meaningless. Doing good for your community brings an MBE while being a name on television is worthy of a knighthood.

 

That the system is shot to pieces is obvious to anyone with a brain cell. That it's taken a whole committee of MPs so long to realise this simply raises questions as to how many brain cells they have; the chances are that their brain cells are, anyway, outnumbered by their collective gongs.

MORE SOCIALIST CLAPTRAP FROM CLEGG.

That well known socialist, Nick Clegg, wants what he calls the wealthiest people in Britain to pay more tax 'for a limited period'. Ho, Ho, Ho !

 

While it is typical of Clegg and his Liberal colleagues to throw out such stupid ideas, it's also the case that statements like this are always so full of amiguity as to be meaningless. Who would be in the 'group he considers to be the 'wealthiest people' ? What does he mean by 'more tax' ? What is a 'limited period' ?

 

Governments, especially those of a socialist hue, rarely if ever reduce taxes on anyone. A trumpeted reduction in one area is usually accompanied by the muted introduction of another in some other quarter. In Britain, income tax was introduced as a temporary measure at the time of the Napoleonic wars - so much for 'temporary' or 'limited period'. As for paying more tax, the people of this country already pay something like 50% of their total income in taxes of one sort or another - isn't this more than enough ?

 

Yes, it's true that some people earn more than others and have greater savings and other assets but, as a rule, these people pay their taxes the same as everyone else. They actually pay vastly more in tax, not as a percentage but in absolute terms, than the poorest in our society who receive large handouts from the state rather than having their pockets picked by it.

 

It is very easy to forget, and often conveniently ignored by politicians, that we have a range of different taxes and not just income tax. National Insurance is a secondary tax on our incomes while VAT, assorted excise duties on alcohol, tobacco and fuel for instance, stamp duty on certain asset purchases, air passenger duty, car tax, road tax and probably several I've forgotten all get us when we spend anything we've managed to keep out of our income. Then there's council tax which seems to be for no good purpose at all, capital gains tax make sure we haven't profitted from any investments and inheritance tax to steal whatever we manage to leave when we die.

 

Of course, despite all of these taxes some people still manage to accrue significant wealth but they are a minute proportion of the population. They also tend to be the people who've been highly successful in business and often brought substantial wealth to the country as a whole. To attack them with demands that yjey pay still more tax will simply drive them away.

 

As with all good socialists, Clegg and his friends believe that the state knows best. Consequently, they believe in taking as much money as possible from anyone who has any and using on whatever pet projects they've dreamt up; this usually means pouring a large part of the proceeds of their thievery straight down the drain on worthless rubbish. To compound things, the politicians have a number of special tax arrangements that shelter them from the effects of much of what they do to the rest of us, ensuring that they, who are generally much, much wealthier than us, are largely unaffected by their actions.

 

If this comes across as a rant, that's because it's meant to be. The last thing this country needs is more taxation. What it actually needs is a lot less taxation, less state spending and less government. Get rid of a few hundred, even thousand, politicians; get rid of some of the vast number of civil servants and other state employees who do little but shuffle paper in pursuit of some ridiculous government inspired policy or practice. Free the country from the bureaucratic straitjacket in which it is now confined. Only then will we be able to see the light of day again.

 

BRANSON GOES OFF THE RAILS

Richard Branson really is an arrogant man.

 

The failure of his Virgin conglomerate to secure a further period running the west coast mainline rail service has been met with whingeing and whining of epic proportions as Branson tries to find a way of changing the outcome of the bidding process. The simple fact is that Virgin lost due to submitting an inferior bid and Branson doesn't like it.

 

There is no provision in the process of tendering and contracting for a losing party to start demanding reviews and effective renegotiation. Branson's petulant demand for a delay in the final award of the contract and his ridiculous suggestion that MPs should have an opportunity to debate the award really are beyond the pail. The award of a contract is a financil and business matter, not a political one, and MPs certainly have no role to play; Branson's claims that the winning bid isn't viable and should be looked at again is just daft. Since when do losing bidders have the right to have their views on competing bids heard and considered ?

 

Unless the world has gone truly mad, Branson will be told to shut up and go away; the problem is that he's very, very rich and has very powerful 'friends', mostly, it seems, on the opposition benches in Parliament. This is a time for 'Boy Dave' to show some balls..

GCSE IS DEAD; NOW BURY IT FOR GOOD.

The furore over GCSE exam results was inevitable once the decision had been made to stop the year-on-year success rate of students.

 

As has been said by some, there has to be a differentiation between students of different abilities. Any exam which achieves close to a 100% pass rate must be largely worthless. When too many candidates gain the top grades, it suggests that the exam is too easy and the very best candidates are being short-changed.

 

Whether or not there has been any element of unfairness in the way that this year's results have been graded is something I don't know. I do know that the ridiculous comments of at least one head teacher, to the effect that some students did not achieve their 'predicted grades', are almost impossible to believe. If schools are able to accurately predict the grades that will be achieved, why have the exams in the first place ? Indeed, the whole practice of telling students their predicted grades well in advance of the actual exams must surely discourage most from making any extra effort - "If I'm predicted a 'C', that must be all I'm worth" will be the message ringing in their ears.

 

The GCSE exam always has been a mechanism for schools and governments to use in their ceaseless pursuit of supposed perfection in a system that is actually shot to pieces;.this socialist nonsense had to stop at some point and this appears to be it. What we need to see now is a return to the days of the 'O'-level, an exam that did mean something and led students on to their 'A'-level studies as a natural progression. The GCSE exam as an attempt to introduce a test that could be applied to all subjects, academic and vocational, has failed. Throw it away and start again, and give the next generation of children some hope that their years at school will produce some worthwhile qualifications.

 

And while we're doing this, let's get rid of the vast number of 'universities' that are nothing more than overblown technical colleges offering worthless degrees in pointless subjects.

NAKED HARRY GETS DAY IN THE SUN.

Unsurprisingly, 'The Sun' newspaper has broken ranks and become the first British newspaper to publish the now infamous pictures of Prince Harry cavorting in Las Vegas.

The managing editor of the paper has claimed that publication is in the public interest and justified. While the story may be a matter of public interest, it is hard to see how printing salacious photographs of this stupid young man can actually be of interest to any but the most prurient of its readers.

Clearly, 'The Sun' is seeking to raise its profile after the catastrophic revelations of the Leveson Committee and it's quite possible that Rupert Murdoch is also more than happy to be putting up two fingers to the British establishment.

With any luck, this story will run its course over the next few days and we will then be able to go back to reading real news rather than over-hyped celebrity tripe. Does anyone remember the recession or the Euro-crisis, neither of which has gone away ?

NAKED HARRY LETS EVERYONE DOWN.

While lots of youngish people might well do things that they subsequently regret, I suspect that very few have, or will, ever get involved in a game of 'strip pool'.

 

Prince Harry, at the age of 27 and employed as an officer in Her Majesty's army as allowed himself to be caught, literally with his trousers down, cavorting with a naked woman in some hotel room following such a game. It's reported that he was accompanied by some fellow officers and had picked up a number of young women in a bar of the hotel; presumably these young women were well aware of Harry's identity and were not averse to a bit of naughties with this eligible Prince. One wonders if they were not even present for the specific purpose of 'undoing' our young hero.

 

That Harry was up to such games says much about his own naivety and lack of maturity. For a man af his age and in his position to be engaged in such sordid activities must be a considerable disappointment not to say embarrassment to his family. He has, as well, brought his Regiment into disrepute by his actions and will surely find himself subject to some sort of disciplinary action when he returns to duty; to claim that this was just a few soldiers letting off steam may be an adequate excuse for his companions but Harry's position and responsibilities are different. He inhabits a very different world to the rest of us, with a lifestyle and privileges we can only dream of.

 

Harry always has been one of the least bright members of his family and this behaviour is hardly a surprise. However, the boy needs a severe talking to and, perhaps, a quick posting to somewhere where he will be out of sight for a while; 6 months inside the Arctic Circle, for instance. That should cool him off.

 

WHAT SHOULD WE DO WITH ASSANGE ?

Julian Assange is a rather large embarrassment for the UK government, but one wonders why this should be.

Mr Assange has committed no offences in the UK and this country's only involvement in his convoluted story is as the recipient of an extradition warrant from Sweden. That the Ecuadorean government has decided to give Assange asylum should surely be the end of our dealings with the man.

Assange has been accused of various offences in Sweden and everyone knows that the yanks would love to get their paws on him. What has any of this to do with us ? The Swedish charges have yet to be tested in court so the man is innocent, at least for the time being. The Americans want him for supposedly damaging their national security though, if they were less paranoid, they'd surely not be quite so sensitive about such things. Regardless, Assange is not American and does not live in America, making any charges against him somewhat dubious in any sane world.

It is, of course, possible that the Swedish charges have been largely invented in order to assist in an eventual extradition to the US. This is what Assange fears and, in the Ecuadoreans, he has found allies who have no liking for the way in which the US generally throws its weight around. Sadly, the UK government generally does whatever it's told to do by its supposed friend, producing something of a stalemate. William Hague's recent suggestion that the UK might temporarily remove diplomatic status from the Ecuadorean embassy was, without doubt, one of the most stupid political statements of recent years and will never happen.

What should now happen is that Assange should be allowed to leave this country and travel to Ecuador where he will have to spend the rest of his life. If that won't be much the same as being imprisoned for his supposed crimes I don't know what is.

FREE BANKING NEVER DID EXIST.

The usually sensible organisation 'Which ?' has just announced that the concept of "free banking" is a myth. This announcement has come after 'Which ?' conducted a detailed investigation into the banking servces that are offerred to the public.

That the conclusion reached is a "statement of the bleedin' obvious" hardly needs to be stated. Anyone who has the temerity to go overdrawn knows full-well that there are charges attached to maintaining their accounts. Most banks try to encourage customers to opt for accounts that carry a wide range of wholly unnecessary extras, mostly insurance based, for which there are monthly charges, while those who choose to use a basic account find that there is no interest paid on their positive balances.

The modern world makes it almost impossible to exist without having a bank account. Salaries, pensions and benefits are no longer paid in cash and recipients must have bank accounts in order to receive their income. Many companies impose financial penalties on customers who do not pay their bills by 'direct debit' and anyone without a functioning bank account will find it virtually impossible to obtain a loan of any sort.

While it may be that the ways in which our banks raise their vast profits are currently skewed against those who go overdrawn, opt for additional services and products or prefer not to use the direct debit system for payments, when interest rates return to more normal levels those who maintain a healthy positive balance will find that it is more likely to be they who are most disadvantaged. This latter group has no alternative but to accept the loss of interest, while the former has choices - should I go overdrawn ? Do I really want the additional products ? Why don't I use direct debit for paying my bills ?

By all means get the banks to identify the real costs of their services and even have them move towards more targeted charges, but implement this alongside proper recompense for those who maintain healthy balances and with a recognition that having a bank account is no longer an option but a necessity.

RAIL FARE RISES POINT TO MORE FUTURE PAIN.

Today is 'inflation day' with the publication of the estimated rate of inflation for the 12 months to the end of July 2012. The 'Consumer Price Index' or CPI rose by 2.6% and the 'Retail Price Index' or RPI rose by 3.2%.

The Government has recently changed how these numbers are used and most state benefits and other payments are linked to CPI while charges to users are linked to the RPI. Historically, CPI has usually been lower than RPI, meaning that the government wins hands down most of the time.

These latest figures are also used to determine the rise in rail fares to be implemented next January. In England, the figures mean that fares will rise by an average of 6.2%, this being in line with a formula of RPI+3%. How such an increase can be justified at a time of economic crisis escapes me.

When I was a child, our railway stations were clean and bright, always open and staffed by friendly people who were on hand to help in any way that they could; fares were also afffordable. Today, our stations are mostly dirty and dingey places, frequently lacking staff even in the ticket office, and looking for help with luggage or in any other way is a hopeless task. This shocking fall in service has, nonetheless, been accompanied by a vast increase in prices, to such an extent that many people undoubtedly find train travel unaffordable.

The government tells us that the increased fares are necessary in order to fund badly needed investment across the rail network, though were this occurring is a mystery to me. If such investment actually is needed, why has it not been made over the recent decades rather than suddenly being needed now ? Is driving people off of the railways through huge prices rises really the course to follow ? Why is it that so many places remain unconnected by the rail network and the car is still the only realistic mode of transport for so many journeys ?

The sad truth to all of this is that successive governments have made a total mess of our economy over so many years that the position is now all-but irretrievable. They've robbed us blind with a range of taxes and other charges and borrowed until their eyes watered, while squandering every last farthing on bolstering up their own images and egos. A 6.2% increase for rail fares is simply another insignificant shot in correcting the balance and there's much, much more pain and misery to come yet.

TIA LET DOWN BY FAMILY AND INCOMPETENT POLICE.

The shocking mess that the police seem to have made of their investigation into the disappearance of a 12 year old girl in Surrey makes one wonder what was going on.

When children go missing, the usual starting point is with the parents and other close family members. In this case and for some as yet undiscovered reason, the police actually did start in the right place but failed to draw the right conclusions; it was only after a return to the starting point and a second bite of the cherry that they found the girl's body, apparently hidden in the house which they had 'thoroughly searched' only a few days before.

Having got it so wrong, the police have now charged the boyfriend of Tia Sharps's grandmother, a relationship which itself raises questions in one's mind' with the murder of this poor child. This sounds like yet another dysfunctional family - while we have heard much of Tia's 46 year old grandmother, her parents have been invisible, at least in my reading of the story. This story also has echoes of the recent tragedy in Derbyshire in which several children were burnt to death in a housefire started by their own family; once again, we have seen tearful and apparently heartfelt television appeals for information from the perpetrators of these horrific acts.

Whatever story eventually comes out, a 12 year old child is dead, murdered by someone close and whom she trusted and let down by her blood family. After death, she was also let down by the police, at least partly because they're too stretched chasing people for a whole variety of minor 'social crimes'

and simply unable to apply the highest and most rigorous standards to the most important crimes.

CAMERON JOINS COMMUNIST PARTY !

According to today's news, Prime Minister David Cameron, the idiot from Eton, has announced that he intends making it compulsory for all primary school children to partake in competititve team sports. When this will actually happen seems unclear but it is quite clearly a typical 'knee-jerk' reaction to an assortment of criticisms about the nature of the 'Olympic Legacy' which we are supposed to experience in the future.

Forgive me for being cynical and not a little angry about this nonsense, but wasn't this type of central control and direction a principal characteristic of Communist Russia ? Didn't this country and many others roundly condemn the old Soviet Union for its excesses in this area ?

That Cameron is an idiot for this announcement will gradually become clear as people realise that providing access to a range of sports, team or otherwise, will require the involvement of a huge number of trained coaching staff who will, no doubt, look for appropriate financial reward. That many sports require playing fields which no longer exist and specialist equipment which will be unaffordable for many has obviously not been considered.

That many sports are not of a team nature - most athletics, gymnastics, tennis, golf, boxing, swimming, cycling and so on, has been ignored. That many children will have no aptitude for football, cricket, rugby, hockey, or netball, has been ignored; so have the undoubted screeches of the 'health and safety' lobby which will object vehemently to small children being put a risk by playing almost any sports.

Making involvement in 'team sports' compulsory is ludicrous. It will do nothing to encourage the next generation of Mo Farahs, Jessica Ennis's or Rebecca Addlingtons and others who prefer individual competition. Cameron's announcement is nothing more than a pathetic piece of political spin, designed to keep him ahead of the game - in this case he's unlikely to win a medal of any colour and may well find himself disqualified.

WIGGINS IN THE NEWS AGAIN.

Now that he has become a fully paid-up sporting celebrity, Bradley Wiggins seems to have started down the road of using his status to tell the Government what they should be doing.

Wiggins is a cyclist so it's unsurprising that his particular cause for concern is cyclists. The story is that he's calling for more legislation to be introduced, compelling cyclists to wear helmets and have proper lights, and prohibiting the use of iPods and mobile phones whilst cycling, and so on. This all comes following the death of cyclist who was in collision with a bus close to the Olympic Park.

I have to say that Wiggins comments seem to make perfect sense, unlike the public utterances of many similar 'celebrities', but none of it will make any difference. The laws in place to control motorists are largely unenforced and unenforceable. Drivers who are 'caught' speeding, drink-driving, failing to wear a seat belt, driving with uninsured or untaxed vehicles, jumping traffic lights and the rest are the unlucky ones. Generally, the police have far more important things to do than bother with such trivia. Attempting to introduce similar laws for cyclists will be even more unenforceable.

Bicycles do not have number plates and do not require road tax or insurance; there is no central register of cyclists and they do not have to pass a test before being allowed on the roads. Consequently, they are a law unto themselves. Cyclists routinely ride an and off the pavement, picking and choosing whether to use pavement or road on a whim; they frequently ignore traffic lights, rarely make hand signals and often have no lights. Very few seem to wear high-visibility clothing and others sometimes veer wildly across the road without warning; younger children and teenagers ride with gay abandon, seemingly daring motorists to knock them down.

Wiggins is absolutely right that something needs to be done but new laws controlling the behaviour of cyclists are not the answer. What is needed is more discipline, starting at home and being continued in schools; no bike should be sold unless it has proper lighting attached and working, and no bike should be sold unless a helmet goes with it. If parents have to pay for these things, are they not more likely to ensure that they are used ? Schools should return to the old days of running 'cycling proficiency courses' which could even be seen as a first step on the way to a driving licence, and cyclists should be required to have insurance, exactly the same as other road users.

These measures may not be a universal panacea but they would go someway to starting to bring in a more sensible regime for cyclists and might help to prevent at least some of the accidents in which they are involved and the injuries that result.