POOFTAHS OF THE WORLD UNITE !

A Ukip candidate has resigned because he's been guilty, apparently, of using "homophobic and racist" language. What a load of politically correct tosh.

In an age when nudity and simulated sex scenes are commonplace, almost obligatory, on our screens and radio, television and films are littered with the most crude, vulgar, offensive and disgusting language, using the word 'pooftah' has been deemed to be so bad that an ordinary man cannot remain as a parliamentary candidate.

It may be news to the politically correct liberal elite who rule our poor nation, but such a word is not homophobic; it is an old fashioned expression, possibly a little distasteful but no more, which was used alongside others such as brown-hatter, queer, shirt-lifter, homo and many more. If the speaker intended offence, it would have been in the manner of speech rather than in the words themselves.

How 'pooftah' can be deemed utterly unacceptable when the egregious 'fuck', and 'cunt' appear with ever-increasing frequency escapes me. In the past, I've known more than a few old 'pooftahs' who had no trouble with those who used the vernacular to describe them, but would have been equally as unhappy as I at the use of much of today's disgusting language.

It's high time that we got back to calling a spade a spade and a homosexual a pooftah, instead of this awful 'gay' nonsense. Hijacking perfectly good words and perverting our language for political causes can never be a good idea and is what we should be fighting against.

PROUD TO BE BRITISH ?

David Cameron, the posh and privileged rich boy who pretends to be running the country, wants us all to be more proud of being British. This is, of course, all to do with the success of UKIP in the recent elections and is an attempt to make us all believe that he's 'on our side' when it comes to the issues around Europe and immigration. The simple fact is that he's on his own side, desperately trying to find a way to win next year's general election.

As a politician, Cameron is more than happy to throw over the orthodoxy of years and even decades in order to gain power. The orthodoxy in question in this case is the notion that ever greater immigration coupled with the egregious 'multi-culturalism' is good for our nation. Once upon a time, immigration, within limits, was undoubtedly a good thing but the almost uncontrolled influx in more recent years is proving disastrous; allied to the fact that many immigrants have been allowed to form largely distinct sub-communities within our major towns and cities in which they live much as they did in their home countries, it is catastrophic.

The potential for problems arising from this policy was enunciated by the subsequently vilified Enoch Powell in 1968. That he was, in fact, correct, is something that no modern-day politician will ever admit though Cameron's words come close to recognising this by implication. The trouble is that he and his ilk are far too late in accepting the truth and have no idea what, if anything, can be done to prevent a backlash from the indigenous and largely Anglo-Saxon population.

There will be trouble, the only questions are how much and how soon.

ERIC PICKLES - JUST ANOTHER FAT CAT.

Following on from Harriet Harman's appearance on the Andrew Marr show, Eric Pickles, a Conservative 'big-wig', has just been on the 'Sunday Politics', interviewed by Andrew Neil.

Just as Harriet Harman demonstrated a total disregard for the electorate, so did Mr Pickles. His answers to Neil's questions were opaque in the extreme and his babbling and waffling was painful to behold. Apparently, the Conservatives are intending to 'reduce the pull factor' with respect to immigration; does anyone have a clue what this might mean ? To my ears, it was the type of language politicians employ in order to say nothing meaningful and to bamboozle the electorate.

Pickles and Harman may not look the same but they are clearly out of the same pod. They will lie and dissemble as if their lives depended on it, their only aim being to retain dominion over us. Neither of them is to be trusted in any degree, nor to be voted for.

Astonishingly, the other political big hitter to hit the screen this morning, Theresa May, was very different. Also on the Marr programme, she didn't say anything particularly new but she was easily the best performer of the three on offer. An easy smile and some unexpected honesty suggested that she is far more in touch with what is needed if the fortunes of her party are to be restored.

Harman and Pickles are dinosaurs and will soon be extinct. Mrs May, on the other hand, could very easily be the next leader of the Conservative Party. However, I still say 'VOTE UKIP !'.

HARMAN SPOUTS THE USUAL DRIVEL.

Oh dear.

Following my last post, I've just experienced Harriet Harman being interviewed by Andrew Marr. Ms Harman, true to her nature, gave the responses that might have been expected; "We've listened, we 'cognize' (?) the peoples' concerns and will address them, we actually did rather well, we will deliver the answers, we're moving forward, blah, blah, blah".

What she didn't do is say anything definite about anything. She simply repeated a predetermined party line. Anyone with half a brain who heard this interview must surely realise that Harman is one of those career politicians who sees herself as being above the rest of us and who will carry on regardless in the expectation that the moronic masses will still put her and her appalling party back into office next year.

Perhaps she's right. Perhaps most of the people are morons. Let's hope she's wrong.

NIGEL FARAGE : MAN OF THE PEOPLE !

You always know when politicians feel threatened because that's the only time they show any real passion about anything.

In the last few weeks, Cameron, Clegg and Miliband, plus an assortment of their lieutenants, have come out swinging at their nemesis, Nigel Farage. The UKIP leader really has got under their skins and has finally been seen as a genuine threat to the cosy world which the three big parties have had to themselves for many years. In recent weeks, every slight failing of UKIP, Farage or any of their members has been pounced upon in order to show what a nasty lot they really are; every opportunity has been taken to denigrate them in every possible way. In fact, it's been quite interesting to see how the campaigns of the 'Big 3' have been focussed much more on decrying UKIP than in putting forward much in the way of meaningful and coherent policies of their own.

Thus far, Farage and his party have emerged relatively unscathed from the attacks against them, probably because the general public are only too well aware that much of the anti-UKIP rhetoric is simple 'politicking'. Last Saturday's 'Daily Telegraph' carried a report which, perhaps, summed up the real problem for the main parties and perhaps explains why they are so terrified of UKIP. According to it, Gillian Duffy, the woman branded a bigot by Gordon Brown, has said that Labour needs a straight-talking leader who is comfortable drinking a pint to reconnect with working class voters. She apparently went on to add that Ed Miliband is a 'privileged' career politician who lacks the authenticity of Nigel Farage.

Mrs Duffy is not the type of voter anyone would expect to come out with a good word about Mr Farage, but she did, and with a swipe at Miliband along the way. It's also undoubtedly true that her words are equally applicable to Cameron and Clegg, both of whom are from privileged backgrounds and neither of whom has ever had a real job in their lives; neither has any real connection to the people  they expect to vote for them. The one man who seems 'real' in the political dogfight of the day is Nigel Farage.

 

Frankly, Mrs Duffy has hit the nail on the head.

FARAGE CLOBBERS CLEGG ; WHAT DOES IT MEAN ?

Pro-European Union Nick Clegg must be rueing his decision to enter into a debate with Anti-EU Nigel Farage after his mauling in the second meeting of the two last night.

After the first debate, opinion polls gave Farage a win on the night by around 55% to 35%; the second debate saw Farage increase his vote to close to 70% while Clegg's sank to around 30%.  Obviously, such polls are largely self-selecting and their accuracy can be debateable but the message does seem clear - Farage won by a margin.

Whether the result of this will affect anything in the world inhabited by those who actually decide things on our behalf is questionable. Sadly, Farage is the only even remotely serious political leader in this country who is in favour of a withdrawal from the EU. Clegg is 100% committed to the EU come what may, Cameron has no real intention of doing anything that would lead to us withdrawing and Miliband will do whatever he believes will get him into 10 Downing Street. While Farage may reflect the views of the a majority of the people of this country, our relationship with the EU will be decided by one or more of the other three.

The only hope is that Farage's showing in these debates will encourage many more people to vote for Ukip in the European and Council elections in May. There seems to be a good chance that Ukip will come top in the European polls and this is what is needed; last time, in 2009, Ukip came a good second in the polls with 16.5% but were still a long way behind the Conservatives with 27.7%. If Ukip can reverse these positions it would send a strong message to the main parties and leave Labour and the Liberal Democrats well behind.

In the council elections we can expect the three main parties to dominate but if Ukip can improve from their performance of last year when they gained 23% of the vote they could start to make a real impact in domestic politics by winning a significant number of seats and, even, one or two councils. Such a performance would certainly improve their chances of doing well in next year's General Election.

Nigel Farage is the only serious political figure in this country who is making progress. If the people give him the chance, he may be able to help the whole country to progress. VOTE Ukip !

BHUTTO A STORM IN A TEA CUP.

The idiotic fuss being made about some criminal who has, apparently, managed to be a member of both the Conservative and UKIP over the years is a fine example of the way in the which the media makes mountains out of mole-hills.

Mujeeb Bhutto has a fairly chequered history including being imprisoned for kidnapping. Obviously, such a person is a poor choice to be a political spokesman and one has to assume that those who granted him party memberships were unaware of his background, but then why should they have been ? He would hardly be the first member of a political party, or party spokesman, to have been found to be a crook.

One has only to consider the long list of MPs caught out fiddling their expenses, several of whom have been sent to prison, to realise that Bhutto is pretty far down the chain when it comes to criminality and political status. Politicians have lied and cheated for centuries - Chris Huhne, Jeffrey Archer, Jonathan Aitken and John Stonehouse all served prison sentences in recent years while many others from days gone by probably avoided such ignominy only because of powerful friends.

Bhutto does not bare comparison with these people and has only been in the news because of his association with UKIP, a party feared by all of the 'Big 3'; for Labour and the Liberals it's also manna from heaven that he's been shown to have been a one-time member of the Conservatives. In truth, it's all a storm in a teacup. 

VOTE UKIP.

HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE BILL CONSUMMATED BY COMMONS.

Why on earth is David Cameron so wedded to the concept of marriage between homosexuals ?

 

This is not a policy that has appeared in the manifesto of any political party, nor has it been included in any 'Queen's Speech'; the bill currently making its way, not without difficulty, through Parliament has not been properly debated and is not supported by a large section of the Conservative party, in fact, it only passed the latest hurdles thanks to the support of Liberal and Labour MPs.

 

Marriage between people of the opposite sex is something that has occurred, in one form or another, for as long s there is recorded human history; it has usually been associated with religious rites and is something that, until 1836, was overseen in the UK by church authorities only. Since that time, the concept of 'civil marriage' has been available and all marriages have been sanctioned by the state through a system of local registrars. Nonetheless, marriage in the UK has remained an arrangement between a man and a woman and the basis of every marriage has continued to be in accordance with, though not necessarily officially blessed by, the rules of one religion or another.

 

Now Cameroon and his Eton buddies are intent on changing all of this. They say it is because they're so enthusiastic about the concept of marriage that they want everyone to be able to enjoy its benefits, so that, clearly, cannot be the real reason for their mania. Spreading 'equality theory' seems far more likely a reason but in doing this, they're actually giving homosexuals (and I include lesbians with this all-encompassing word) greater rights than are enjoyed by heterosexuals; additionally, in order to bring about 'homosexual marriage' they're having to redefine the whole concept of marriage, consummation and divorce. What is 'consummation' within a homosexual marriage ? What are the grounds for divorce ? Will heterosexual couples be granted the same rights as homosexuals in these respects ? How will homosexuality be determined or will any same-sex couple be able to 'marry' with no questions asked ? If so, will single heterosexual people marry some friend simply in order to avoid, perfectly legally, inheritance tax when their time comes ?

 

The more one digs into this quagmire, the more problems arise and the more one has to question Cameroon's motives. Is he under pressure as a result of some schoolboy indiscretion ? Is he being unduly cajoled by the cadre of homosexuals in Parliament, of whom there seem to be more every time one looks ? Does he simply want to destroy the Conservative party and turn it into another 'middle-of-the-road' home for wishy-washy social democrats ? (Don't forget that 'Middle of the Road' was a pop group many moons ago, which gave us one of the most banal of all pop songs 'Chirpy, chirpy, cheep, cheep' - do we really want more of that ?)

 

Whatever the reasons for this mad policy, he will win very few, if any, votes by this measure and will almost certainly lose a great deal. Many grassroots Conservatives have already expressed great unhappiness at this leftie policy which runs wholly counter to their political and religious beliefs, and many have already defected to the only political home left for them - Ukip. Many more may well follow.

 

The latest opinion polls show Ukip running almost neck-and-neck with the Conservatives and informed voices are increasingly convinced that Ukip will come out top in next year's European elections. If that happens, and the Conservatives come third as is quite possible, what price then a Conservative victory in the 2015 General Election ? What price Cameroon still being party leader by that time ?

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.