A 'coloured' question

Two items on the internet caught my attention this evening; one a report from Gates of Vienna and the other from the Metro. The former contains an unsubstantiated report of an attack by 'coloured' youths on Tommy Robinson who is a prominent member of the English Defense League (EDL). The second is about Alan Hansen's 'unreserved apology' for having used the word 'coloured' when describing the ethnicity of some players in English football.


The report of the attack on Tommy Robinson makes some statements that are 'questionable'; it refers to 'Asians' and 'Pakistanis' yet there is no proof that this is so. That this 'attack' seems not have made it into the media (nowt on Google) does not mean that it did not take place - yet it seems odd that Tommy Robinson only has to give a statement about 'race' or 'Islamism' and the media are swarming round him like bees round the proverbial honeypot. Whether the 'story' is true can easily be proved by a picture of this man showing his 'injuries'. That is not to say I do not believe that this 'attack' took place - purely that I am 'reserving judgement' on the truth of what occurred.


The second article deals with another aspect of the 'race' problem and Hansen's use of the word 'coloured' - which begs the question of why the 'uproar' over Hansen's use of the word - is 'black' not a colour? Would it have caused the same 'uproar' had Hansen used the word 'black' because do we not have a registered charity in this country that uses that same word? Does not the word 'black' appear on various forms asking for one's ethnicity as in the classification of 'Black Afro-Carribean'? Do we not discuss the question of 'Black and Ethnic Minorities' (BME)? Do we not refer to differences in numerous matters as being one of 'black and white'? And the difference is?


It is a well-known fact that amongst our black immigrants they refer to the indigenous white inhabitants of the UK as 'Whitey' or 'Honky' - these are but generic terms, or 'slang'. Where is the difference in the use of those terms compared to the French referring to we English as 'Les Rosbifs'? From Wikipedia we learn that it is an insult to the English because of their association with the dish. At the same time do we English not refer to the French people as 'Frogs'? I may well be mistaken, but I know of no 'charity' in existence fighting for either we English, or the French, in order to change public perception.


That our society has now reached a state in which an 'uncontroversial' comment, or term, has been seized upon by those with a 'special interest', forcing a 'grovelling apology' from the person making the remark, does not say a lot for said society nor for the individual concerned.


Whilst it is, I believe, generally accepted that it is impossible to 'force integrate' different cultures - which is exactly what our political elite have done - without tensions arising, it is also arguable that this 'problem' has been exacerbated by, dare one say, the 'Human Rights' and 'PC' brigades - but hey, everyone has to make a living................


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

Coup - look at this!

That our Parliament, MPs and democracy is a sham behind the facade of which the first two condone, through what can only be described as a Quisling attitude, the undermining of the third, is ironically on show today.

Item 1: Today's Order of Business in the House of Commons contains a debate the EU budget for 2014 – 2020. The European Commission has called for a 5.9% increase in 2014-2020, but the BBC reports that the Treasury has estimated this amounts to an 11% increase on current contributions, thus increasing the UK’s annual contribution to the EU by £1.4 billion. The Commons will also debate a Treasury proposal to object to the EU’s proposals on capital requirements for credit institutions and investment firms, as it proposes maximum limits and wouldn’t allow the Government to impose additional requirements on UK banks. For our 'sovereign' Parliament to spend a maximum of 1½ hours debating the first matter - plus the additional time for the second - when, whatever their decision, they cannot affect any budget increase, or any change to capital requirements, proposed by the EU Commission only bears witness to the truth of the statement contained in the first paragraph of this post.

Item 2: Ian Parker-Joseph, in his post today, also illustrates the sham that our Parliament and MPs have become when he homes in on the editorial in today's Daily Telegraph which highlights the creation of what IPJ correctly calls a Politburo. David Cameron and George Osborne have been adamant that the eurozone countries should come together to resolve their problems - and that suggestion is, I would aver, about to come back and bite them.

Not known much is the fact that the The Lisbon Treaty, in addition to expanding qualified majority voting (QMV), substituted the current voting weights in the Council with new ones based on the population sizes of the member states. These new rules are not yet in force – coming into force in November 2014 (with an option for a state to request a vote follows the old rules until April 2017 - an option the UK may well take). In addition to changing the voting weights, to the benefit of the larger more populous states, the rules also reduce the qualified majority required to pass an EU law from 71% to 65%. These two measures mean the UK will no longer be able to muster a blocking minority with the help of smaller non-eurozone states when the 17 eurozone members vote as a 'caucus', as they surely will do. Under the new rules a group of states needs votes from countries representing 65% of the EU population and the eurozone as a whole already have 66% on their own, giving them a permanent inbuilt majority.

So our self-proclaimed voices of sovereignty wasting 1½ hours of their time - although it could be said that, besides wasting all of their time, they are a complete waste of time - discussing aspects of our governance over which they have no say is indeed ironic, but at the same time extremely sad to witness.


Update: IPJ also Mary Ellen Synon who gives further proof that the EU stinks - an aroma that is now permeating our own government!

And so the farce continues.....

Anyone watch Prime Minister's Questions today? Out of curiosity I did and my immediate thought, after about 15 minutes, was whether a refund from the taxes that pay for this show of crass stupidity was possible. As Calling England writes (and who has the video), it was tetchy, rowdy, with neither Cameron nor MilibandE listening to the other and neither of them actually addressing the issues. In apologising for forgetting about Nick Clegg and suggesting we make up our own jokes I think Calling England's comment could be extended to cover our political scene in total.

According to the Mail today, we understand that this year Parliament' budget is to be increased to £228million, a four per cent increase on last year's figure of £219million. In keeping with the example set by the EU, it also appears that Parliament's auditors have refused to 'sign off' the accounts - and for the second year in succession. With the national debt standing at a figure in the region of £940billion - and rising by the day, if not the hour - one would have thought the political elite would set an example by ensuring they cut their own expenditure, especially in view of the Foreward written by John Bercow to the thirty-third report of the House of Commons Commission, in which he states:

"This report covers the first year of a new Parliament.......This is happening against a background of financial stringency. It was inconceivable that the House could stand aside when spending everywhere else in the public sector was being reduced."

On top of which is the monies spent refurbishing the Speakers Apartments and the £10million paid to 'retiring' MPs - both of which I consider to be a waste of public money, bearing in mind the 'special' pension arrangements that 'retiring' MPs receive - and let us not forget the past practise of flipping homes', furnishing those homes at our expense, etc, etc.

Then of course we have other costs, namely the The HOUSE of COMMONS: Administration Resource Accounts 2010-11 (for the year ended 31 March 2011) which are well worth a perusal. For those readers interested, previous years can be found here.

If Westminster is supposed to be, amongst other things, a tourist attraction, then if we have to have a national circus perhaps someone would dig up Bertram Mills who ran his rather more efficiently and economically.

          

Ukip & an English Parliament

In his speech, posted here earlier today, Nigel Farage announced a policy change that meant his party now supports the creation of an English Parliament. Whilst details at the time of writing are sparse, it would appear from the party's website that this would involve the creation of a First Minister and executive which would be responsible for domestic legislation such as education, health, the environment and transport. 

I have for some time complained about Ukip's lack of ability in the areas of administration and presentation; and the announcement above illustrates that point admirably. If a party is to announce a new policy - and presumably one that has not been decided on the spur of the moment - might it not be a good idea if the details of that policy were immediately available on their website? Unfortunately, the policy for the constitution of the United Kingdom has yet to be amended, as can be seen.

In view of the fact the present policy complains that:

"Bureaucracy overrules democracy at every level, from Brussels to Whitehall to the town hall."

perhaps someone can explain the logic of creating yet more politicians and more bureaucrats? Does the club not already contain far too many self-opinionated and self-centred members? If, as Nigel Farage maintains, Ukip is a Libertarian party then surely they are in favour of small government - not increasing the existing large one?

Just asking, you understand.......................