Hardly rocket science.......

New research from Labour claims English primary schools will be short of approximately 500,000 places by 2015 unless at least 2,000 new schools are built in the next three years. Shadow Education Secretary Stephen Twigg called on the Government to act in Wednesday's Budget to deal with the "urgent crisis". This is picked up by the Guardian, with the Mail also having an article informing us how some local authorities are intending to cope in the next few years.


Twigg is being true to political form in that having been a member of the preceding government that exacerbated the problem with unlimited immigration, he conveniently fails to remember this and promptly blames the present government. As that Mail article shows, the NAO were reporting that in 1981 just 6% of the population, 3.4 million were foreign born; 2001: 4.9 million and 8%; and by 2009: 6.8 million - 11%. Those foreign born immigrants also produced children; with this report, also in the Mail reporting that 24.6% of births were to foreign born mothers, reaching 174,174 births in 2009 compared to 86,456 in 1998.


This story has now resulted in what usually happens, namely a war of words between a member of the last government and a member of this government with both of them wringing their hands and in effect saying not my fault, Guv. How long have we been suffering politicians, through ideological policies, creating problems which then, later, require solving, those solutions requiring yet more money being taken from taxpayers. And still it continues with Cameron only yesterday informing us of his 'vision' for our country - albeit one mainly dictated by our Masters in Brussels. What struck me with his speech yesterday is he proposes pressing ahead without doing the one thing he says he should. Witness:

"........we should ask instead: what is it that people want for the future?"

Instead of informing us of his next five year plan as part of our democratised/elective dictatorship, perhaps Dav il Cam should do just what he suggests - bloody ask us what we want for the future? 


Just saying.................

At cross purposes?

Today the Prime Minister and Communities Secretary Eric Pickles have both backed the right of Christians to wear crosses at work and in fact the Prime Minister's official spokesman also said today: "The Prime Minister’s personal view is that people should be able to wear crosses."


The Mail reports on Lynne Featherstone's instruction to Government lawyers to call on European human rights judges to dismiss the claims of Christian workers who have been banned from displaying the symbol of their faith at work.


My first reaction on reading those two news items was: Jesus! Accepting that there are, no doubt, among the readership of this blog those who may take offence at blasphemy, I will content myself to observing: Don't you just love to see joined-up government in action?


Afterthought: Or is the Communities Secretary and the Equalities Minister entering the spice business with a new line: Piccalillynne?

Down with trousers - up with skirts!

The Mail reports on the case 13-year-old  Luca Scarabello who believes he has the right to wear skirts like girls. This item of news also appears in the print edition of the Daily Telegraph but does not seem to be on-line. Young Master Scarabello's case has been taken up by Tam Baillie, Scottish parliament's Commissioner for Children and Young People and Scarabello's campaign, needless to say, is being backed by the Scottish Transgender Alliance and LGBT Scotland, which represents lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.


Leaving to one side that this may well be a case of a child attempting to be 'clever'; or his mind has been led astray by a 'not-fit-for-purpose' education system, one aided and abetted by Baillie; the question has to be asked whether a 13-year-old actually does have any idea what gender he is? I cannot help but be reminded of 1 Corinthians 13:11 "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me".


Having said that, it may be Master Scarabello has not noticed that for yonks, where he lives, men have been wearing skirts.......... 

Psychological Hogwash?

The Mail reports that human beings are 'hard-wired' to 'fancy' to other races and that Dr Michael Lewis, who led the research project, said:

"It will come as no surprise to many that facial attractiveness makes up part of the decision of who we marry. ‘And it's no coincidence that groups perceived as more attractive - black males and Asian females - feature more often in mixed-race marriages. ‘In the past more measurable features such as wealth, status and fertility have been considered more important in how we choose out partners. ‘Our study matches the same patterns observed in the Government's data on marriage."

I would argue that this 'research' is no more than yet another attempt at 'social engineering', as intimated by Up Pompeii. The case that Up Pompeii makes, that white males and females supposedly 'prefer' coloured partners; that the media will 'pick-up' on this supposed fact and promote is not in doubt, because (a) we all believe in 'myths'; and (b), the media believe everything they are told and do not bother to query or investigate claims.


Now, where does the word 'myth' enter the report in the Mail. Have we not been led to believe that men of black ethnicity are 'bigger' than white men, or in 'polite-speak', better endowed? Where is the 'research'? Are we not led to believe that Asian women are more subservient to the male? Where is the 'research'? Consequently I would argue that 'facial attractiveness' has bugger-all to do with it. As a result both men and women have been led to believe 'something' - and once into 'it' then find that it ain't so. Whereas men may be quite 'happy' with a situation in which they find they are 'top dog', where women are concerned the situation alters because I would suggest that the female gene 'kicks-in' whereby they accept their situation 'for the benefit of the children' and their desire to maintain a family atmosphere. The latter point is underlined with cases where women who accept 'violence' from their partner for that one reason, so who is to say that they do not accept their situation in 'mixed marriages' for the same reason?


It may well be that there are cases of happy and successful 'mixed marriages' but has there been any 'research' into cases where this is not so? Bearing in mind that I have now become a cynic, this begs the question whether the latest 'research' is not 'government inspired'? I would not put anything past our political bastards!


Over to my readers - but just saying.................

A word to the wise, Janice

Janice Atkinson-Small was a member of the Conservative Party who, it will be recalled, defected to the UK Independence Party and now also writes in the Daily Mail.


It would perhaps help stay in the good books of her leader were she, when 'lifting' almost word for word parts of a speech he gave to the EU Parliament, to include a little attribution within the article?


Just suggesting............

Surely we cannot go on like this?

The Daily Telegraph reports that George Osborne told MPs that it may well be necessary for extra support to be provided by Britain to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for the global fund to help stricken governments. We read in the Mail that Barroso is calling for Member States to contribute even more to the EU bail-out fund. Ian Parker-Joseph posts on why Member States are unable to reduce their spending and Pixijade posts a most telling graphic on the state of the UK's debt.


Elsewhere, in other news, the Mail breaks the news of the findings of a report, one commissioned by a group of ten Conservative MPs, on events since Britain's subscribed to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The report can be downloaded from here (see foot of page) and on that page will be found the names of the ten Conservative MPs concerned. The question of Britain's acceptance of the ECHR is further complicated by the European Union's intention to join the ECHR in its own right; and on that last point Open Europe has a reasonable summary here.


What the above shows is that monies forcibly extracted from us in the form of taxation is being spent by politicians without any referral to those that are providing it - which makes a case for 'referism'; that any Chancellor of the Exchequer's budget is not fully under his control - hence a loss of sovereignty; that politicians, especially Conservatives, seem to speak without engaging brain whilst also seeming to have no idea how to clear debt. What a way to run a country!


All of which also shows that a debate on the type of democracy under which we live is long overdue.

Fair reporting on fare increase?

That the Daily Mail has been renamed by some bloggers as the Daily Fail/Wail is understandable when considering the poor standard of journalism exhibited by that newspaper*, none more so than in an article today by Ray Massey; one that deals with the fare increases for rail travel due to come into force on 1st January 2012. This article contains the obligatory soundbites from various 'interested' people such as Sophie Allain of the Campaign for Better Transport; Bob Crow of the RMT Union (with whom Ukip seem 'best buddies'- nuff said); and Michael Roberts, chief executive of the Association of Train Operating Companies.


What is odd about Massey's column is that only last August the same newspaper reported on an EU proposal that railways should be operated on the basis of 'user pays' - on which I posted here** - that report hinting at a 50% increase in rail fares, should the proposal come to fruition. Even though the Mail is a supporter of this country's membership of the European Union one would have thought, in an attempt to be informative, Massey might just have mentioned that earlier report and its contents? Neither, of course, is there any mention that Osborne's deferment of an increase to 3% of the RPI aspect of fare increases may be linked to the fact that not until then is the impending Directive from Brussels expected to be published.


Presumably Massey and the Mail are either ignorant of the 'user pays' principle or decided to play along with their political friends by not mentioning the principle in the first place and that it is nothing new. For example, on that latter point, it was raised back in 1998 by Neil Kinnock when Commissioner for Transport; likewise the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC was based on the same principle.


It is also intriguing that Bob Crow, an avowed anti-EUer, did not attempt to raise this 'user pays' point - or maybe he did and the Mail decided not to print that. One would have thought that at least the Campaign for Better Transport might have mentioned it, but then looking at the graphic for their sources of funding (page 9 of their Annual Review) perhaps not. Unfortunately it was not possible to look at their annual accounts as the link provided does not work (an email has been sent.....). 


As with HS2, where I have shown an EU connection, so there is the same 'connection' where rail fare increases are concerned. That not one politician, nor 'stakeholder' cares to mention these connections can only show that there is indeed a policy in place to hide the truth from the British public. Where the hiding of truth is concerned Dav il Cam should take note that we are not all in it together. Where that practice is concerned, they may be - we in the blogosphere most definitely are not.




* Though tis a tad unfair to single out the Daily Mail when just about every member of the MSM exhibits 'Fail' where journalism is concerned.


** This post contains links to the August Mail article and access to the EU White Paper and other related documentation.

What happened to 'free speech'?

Jeremy Clarkson is being pilloried because of his assertion that those public sector workers who took part in the latest 'protest strike' should be 'taken out and shot'. This is a man who makes his living by being outrageous and flouting political correctness. This is a someone who, because of his views, you either love or hate. That he is reported, subsequently, to have apologised does unfortunately lower his 'standing' in my eyes.

James Delingpole (who else?) brilliantly summarises this latest controversy when he writes that it is Clarkson's critics who should be taken out and shot (preceded of course by our politicians who have allowed/instigated/promoted, utilising, naturally, their paid 'social organisers' - Ed.):

".....It should be patently obvious to anyone who is familiar with his style or has seen one of his programmes – ie: everyone in the world – that Clarkson didn't mean it. For one thing, being an informed fellow he would be perfectly aware that the government simply hasn't the money to spend on bullets right now....."

Remember Sarah Kennedy? From the Mail (yes, I know, I know.....):

"She was twice rebuked for racist comments: once, she said black people could run fast because their ancestors were chased by lions. More recently, she said she nearly ran over a black pedestrian because he was invisible in black clothing, until he opened his mouth."

Once any race loses the ability to laugh at itself then it has lost the will to exist - likewise, by allowing itself to be cajoled by those whose entire raison d'etré is purely to stir up dissent whilst 'feathering their own nests'.

To end on a 'polite' non-PC joke:

"When does a cub become a boy scout? When he 'eats' his first Brownie'" 

Smoking out political funding

Two 'reports' have been issued today, one in the Mail which states that a Japanese tobacco firm spent £23,000 on 'entertaining' 20 MPs in six months, nearly half of which voted against the proposal to ban smoking in cars. The second is the report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, one in respect of whether our political parties should be funded by the public.

How many of us who do and have worked in the private sector have enjoyed a day out, one paid for by a company whose 'services' your own employer comes into contact with? During my days in estate agency I would invariably, one or twice a year, enjoy a day at Lords or the Oval but that did not put me in the pocket of the bank, building society or firm of solicitors who may have been my host. Admittedly a certain amount of work was passed to these organisation, but it was done evenly and fairly. Having said that, the question has to be asked whether MPs should, because of the nature of their position and power, accept days out funded by private companies? I think that all would agree arguments can be made for and against that question - although that is not the point of this post.

The first paragraph of the Introduction to the Executive summary of this report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life states:

"Political parties play an essential role in this country’s democracy. The public may be cynical about them. But they affect all our lives in important ways. They produce the platforms and leadership between which electors choose when casting their votes at elections. They provide and support the individuals who make up the government, the opposition and the membership of hundreds of local authorities. They develop policies. They build support for those policies by engaging with the electorate. When in opposition, they scrutinise and debate government policy and hold the Government to account."

That opening paragraph contains so many unbelievable statements, I am at a loss where to start - but I digress. Neither of these two subjects - acceptance of corporate hospitality and party funding - would be of much importance were politicians not part of a dictatorial pact, one that ensures the continuance of their subjugation of the people.

Were politicians just 'managers' of policies imposed on them by the people; were policies devised by politicians liable to public intervention whereby they could be annulled or amended; the problems of corporate hospitality and party funding would not arise as companies in the private sector would realise those on whom they lavish 'hospitality' in fact have limited power. On the same basis, the funding of political parties by private organisations would also fall for the same reason. The added bonus would of course be the saving in the cost of 'committees' being set up and funded to find yet more ways of preserving our political, dictatorial, class.

Just saying............

Afterthought: For those who may not have seen earlier posts, a fairly long post is planned for the weekend in which an alternative form of democracy will be suggested.