Nuclear War!!!!

Yesterday, I read in the news that government papers from 1975 had been made public under the 30 year rule. Apparently, old Harold (Wilson) would have been whisked away to an underground bunker. Art treasures would have been taken to an underground hideaway in Wales. And us? Well, we aren’t prime ministers, or art treasures (You speak for yourself!!) There were, apparently, no provisions for us. Well, who did Harold think he was going to Prime Minister over? And who would be there to look at the art treasures? Wasn’t the whole 70’s ‘nuclear thing’ a bit of a wet squib? We had no say in who, why or when they would be deployed. We had no protection, apart from the official line. Which as I remember was, paint your windows with white-wash, lean a door against a wall, cover it with sandbags and take a few months provisions in with you??!!!!??
Now, assuming we could do all this in the 3 minutes we were told we had, and we could fit in that much food, (maybe for a family of 4 0r 5?) can anybody explain why the armed forces were given different instructions? I had a friend at the time, who was a member of the armed forces. A marine, if I remember correctly. And the advice they were given? ‘If the bomb goes off, turn away from the blast, crouch down on your knees and elbows, cover your eyes and kiss your ass goodbye’!!!

Boxing Day Hunts

So the Countryside Alliance say thousands of people will support the Boxing Day hunts, because ‘a new poll showed only a third of people think the new legislation is working.’ Maybe thousands will support the hunts. But they will not be there because they do not believe the new legislation isn’t working. I do not believe it is working, but that doesn’t mean I disagree with the principle of the new legislation. They will be there because they support hunting. And if we wish to justify or otherwise hunting using these poll figures, then consider that by their own admission and interpretation of the poll results, two-thirds ( a good majority, I think you will agree) believe the new legislation is working and do not support the principle of hunting.

Christian Doc Payout Row

So, a Christian eye specialist loses his job because of his religion. Imagine the outcry, were he Muslim ousted by Christians. I hope United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust is investigating, and takes appropriate action, since they have reportedly paid undisclosed damages on the advice of lawyers. But I wish Dr Joseph Erian, at the centre of the row, had rejected the offer and exposed the bias in our so-called equal rights legislation. In my opinion they should have sacked (and deported) the Muslims forcing the issue.

Story HERE

Electronic Tagging

Re the girl who successfully had her electronic tag removed because it ‘clashed with her clothes’. This is tantamount to a convicted criminal claiming he shouldn’t be sent to prison, as it clashed with his lifestyle. It is quite clear to me that this girl was embarrassed at having to wear the tag. Had the decision to tag her been upheld, the embarrassment may have dissuaded her from committing further crime.  (As I believe punishment is supposed to do). She probably now feels she can manipulate the justice system, and will not have any concerns about further illegal activity. Send in the clowns!

Fred Dibnah

Fred Dibnah


I am currently (I mean at this moment) watching ‘The Fred Dibnah Story’ on UKTV Documentaries. The world is a sadder place for the loss of this great man. You may not agree with his beliefs, principles, call them what you want. But he was a genuine principled man who gave his all for his work, no vocation. I have just heard him say, after his first divorce that he felt he was becoming the man down the pub, propping up the bar and realised it had to change. Fred, I hope, wherever you are, the great steam rally in the sky, the great chimney in the sky or the great pile of bricks in the sky (!) that you can read this. To me and many others you would never be that. What a better world we would live in if more of us were like you. I regret deeply that I never met you in person. But I feel that I know you. I hope they have chimneys, steam engines and Guinness in heaven!

Don't Wear a Tie-pin

Don’t Wear a Tiepin

According to the Yorkshire Post and BBC News Wakefield Prison Officers have been told not to wear St. George Cross tie-pins bought in support of a cancer charity for fear they may be misinterpreted as racist symbols. Ms Owers, Chief Inspector of prisons, has said "staff should not wear unauthorised tie-pins". Well, if it is merely the wearing of an unauthorised tie-pin that is the issue, why were the officers not told this? Why is the Saint Georges Cross aspect being highlighted? If you ask me, this is the racist element of the issue. English people being told they cannot advertise their loyalty to and love for their country even in support of a worthy charity.

Hurricane Katrina II

Hurricane Katrina II

So George Bush is to lead an investigation into why his government didn’t offer enough aid quickly enough. Tweedledee and Tweedledum come to mind.

Hurricane Katrina

Hurricane Katrina.

The US government has taken an unacceptable amount of time to begin organising help for the mostly poor people who have been affected. The UK is sending aid. Can we really get aid over the Atlantic Ocean to them before the richest country in the world’s own Government can get aid to them? I do not begrudge them aid, but if this is the case there is something terribly wrong.
     We also need to question why UK citizens were told to contact local consulates, even though they were known to be under water.
     Why was aid arriving for tsunami victims within 24 hours, yet it is now seven days since Katrina and still relief is not up to speed.
      Why when it was known that Katrina was going to devastate huge areas where people without the means to leave not supplied with the means to leave?  
     Why, although they must accept their share of the blame, are minor politicians being accused when George Bush could have overruled them and supplied relief in hours?
     Well, maybe Texas isn’t executing enough underprivileged, under represented people, and this is a convenient shortcut to further circumvent the legal system.
     

The right to live or die?

Fairly recently, people have tried to get the right to die for terminally ill patients who have no hope of recovery and wish to die painlessly and with dignity. This, of course, has been denied. Now we see a man who may lose the ability to make his decision to be kept alive known to doctors. He has asked the courts to ensure he is kept alive. With true British legal contradiction, he has been told the doctors can, if they see fit starve him to death.
I do not express, nor should you infer from this blog that I agree or disagree with the right to die or the right to live in these disturbing and somewhat complex cases. I am merely wishing to point out the ridiculous situation where the law denies death to one terminally ill patient, while denying life to another. The lawyers are getting rich on the back of our suffering.
Well done, Charles Dickens, for writing 'If the law supposes that', said Mr. Bumble, 'the law is an ass...'
I rest my case.

Bombs and Police

Lots of policemen about now we have been targeted by terrorists. Where are all these policemen when old ladies are being mugged? and women are being raped? and children are being abused? and innocent men are being beaten by gangs of thugs?
I rest my case.

Floods

Listening to the news reports about flooding this morning, I would like to comment.

1) Since some areas are likely to suffer a drought this year, where does all this excess water go?
2) London at risk of tidal flooding- spend millions on a Thames Barrier. Other areas likely to flood- you will just have to get used to the idea.

More for me, please.

The ‘Labour’ government has just announced shared purchasing of houses to get people onto the property ladder. What has happened to the Labour party? It is no longer the labour party. Every policy they have ‘pioneered’ has been an extension of Tory dogma. We shall, by their following of this ideology end up back in the days of private landlords, ruled by money and self interest. Moreover, it is not only this house ownership that is taking us back 60 or 70 years. It is the health care policies and the private pension thinking that is destroying all the things that true caring, and yes, I will say it, left wing politicians have fought against and we are about to lose. While (some of us) are earning high wages and living a more comfortable lifestyle than our parents and grandparents could have ever have hoped to achieve, we have forgotten how these rights were won. It is because of these social inequalities that we, as a nation of working people stood together in years past. ‘Socialism’ has become a dirty word. Let us take it back and remember, it means ‘We will look after each other’. Or as the bible says ‘love thy neighbour’.

Tonys' New Improved Police Force

This morning on GMtv Tony Blair was asked about an incident where somebody tried to telephone a local community beat police officer, only to be connected to an answering machine. He said that there were plans to introduce a ‘non-emergency police line’. A what? When I have an emergency, I dial 999. In a non-emergency, I telephone my local police station. So what is this non-emergency line going to be? Admittedly, when I telephone my local police station, I am connected to a central switchboard, (in Stafford, I believe) and when I have explained to them what I am calling for, they connect me to my local station and I explain to them. (This system, presumably was introduced to improve efficiency! Wait to be connected twice, explain twice.) Maybe this is what Tony means. In future, we will be able to telephone our local station direct. Like we used to. And I wonder how much these changes have/will cost

Blair's/Howard's/Kennedy's Britain

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
Prince Charles: "I'm getting married on Saturday."

Police: "Here, have a few hundred more police, besides your personal bodyguard that the tax payer funds."

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Joe Public: "My house and family are under attack by a gang of hooded yobs and I fear for our safety."

Police: "Sorry, our resources are over-stretched. We'll send somebody as soon as we can."
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬



I rest my case.

Teacher jailed for pellet gun offence.

The full story can be read HERE. A qoute from the teacher "I feel totally, totally distressed after all these things that have been happening.

"I know you do your best, but the law is on the side of the yobbos, these criminals, not the victim."

Quite right. While I do not condone her actions, I do understand. The chances of being caught are quite remote, and when these thugs are, they know that there is no real punishment. They have no fear of retribution. They ignore the law to victimise and terrorise people, but expect protection from the law they feel at liberty to ignore. I know this from experience. When are the law makers going to realise this? When will they see that the 'anti-smacking brigade' are in a minority. That they are persuasive because they are organised and vocal. Most, if not all the people I know and speak to agree we are too soft on yobs. And they agree that most of the people they know feel the same. But because we are not organised or vocal, we appear to be in the minority. If you read this and agree, leave a comment, perhaps contact details. Maybe we can organise and have our voices heard.

My advice to anybody suffering from this type of abuse is to collect evidence, even if this only consists of a diary of events. Make sure the police are aware of every incident. Try to get somebody else to confirm the incidents. It's not much, but it may help.

A little reading for Tony Blair and co.

(29) Labour Party Manifesto (1945)

The Labour Party is a socialist party and proud of it. Its ultimate purpose at home is the establishment of the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain - free, democratic, efficient, progressive, public-spirited, its material resources organized in the service of the British people.

I wonder if Tony and his cronies have read this? Or This-

(2) Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man Under Socialism (1891)

Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion. Sometimes the poor are praised for being thrifty. But to recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less. For a town or country labourer to practise thrift would be absolutely immoral. Man should not be ready to show that he can live like a badly fed animal. Agitators are a set of interfering, meddling people, who come down to some perfectly contented class of the community, and sow the seeds of discontent amongst them. That is the reason why agitators are so absolutely necessary. Without them, in our incomplete state, there would be no advance towards civilization.

(3) Robert Blatchford, Merrie England (1894)

Socialists do not propose by a single Act of Parliament, nor by a sudden revolution, to put all men on an equality, and
compel them to remain so. Socialism is not a wild dream of a happy land, where the apples will drop off the trees into our open mouths, the fish come out ot the rivers and fry themselves for dinner, and the looms turn out ready-made suits of velvet with gold buttons, without the trouble of coaling the engine. Neither is it a dream of a nation of stained-glass angels, who always love their neighbours better than themselves, and who never need to work unless they wish.

Socialism is a scientific scheme of national organization, entirely wise, just, and practical. It is a kind of national cooperation. Its programme consists, essentially, of one demand, that the land, and all other instruments of production and exchange, shall be the common property of the nation, and shall be used and managed by the nation for the nation.

Dubya Comes to Europe!

So the charismatic president of the good ol' U.S of A has come to kiss and make up with Europe. Why? Because it is the right thing to do? Because he wants Europe on and by his side while he spreads American influence and imperialism? Oops! Sorry, freedom and democracy. I think, personally, that he sees Europe growing bigger. He sees ratification looming of a treaty that some people have said would make us a United States of Europe. He sees a future power that might rival the U.S.A. A future power strong enough to say NO! to the U.S.A. And he is trying to get in on the ground floor, so to speak. Let's get them on side and then hold them to any agreements we can squeeze out of them. I think he is worried that the U.S.A. might lose its position as world leader. And that wouldn't do, would it?

Wacko Jacko's Trial

So Michael Jackson falls ill on the way to court. I've been to court a few times. And felt sick. You know. Wish I hadn't done it. Wish I could be somewhere else. Still, I am sure Michael is very sick. Physically, I mean.

Weepies on Channel4

Anybody watch channel 4's '100 Best weepy film moments' (or something like that) last night? There was an absolute load of rubbish in there. Some very good bits, such as Goodbye Mr. Chips. But I can't for the life of me see how E.T. was the number one weepy, and yet they miss out films like 'Wuthering Heights' when Heathcliff makes his 'Haunt me' speech kneeling by Cathy's deathbed. And 'Tale of Two Cities' when Sidney Carton climbs to the guillotine, comforting a young girl as he takes his love rival's place on the block. I'm filling up!

Charlie and his darling.

So Charlie has decided to wed the love of his life. So? Will it affect my social security? Possibly. They have to find the civil list money from somewhere. Will it affect my everyday life? No. Do I care? No. Is he immoral? No more than any of us.

As a republican, I say who cares? If he was my neighbour, what business would it be of mine? Arguing that he is the future King of England doesn’t make any difference. Were we back in the good old feudal system, when Kings and Queens had real power, arguing that his morality brings into question his ability to rule might hold some sway. (Except they were all at it) But then we wouldn’t dare voice our opinions. (Unless we had a massive army to back it up).

As a man, I say good luck to both him and his intended. And if he wants to call her Queen (what the hell is a Princess Consort, anyway?), well let him. Who among us has not been through a broken relationship? I suggest the sycophants take Diana of her pedestal and realise what we read in the press ain’t necessarily so. There are two sides to every story.