Tuesday, July 29, 2014

MH17 – Europe played its part

COMMENTATORS HAVE WORKED themselves up into a frenzy of emotional turmoil over how to react to Vladimir Putin since Flight MH17 was brought down with such catastrophic consequences.
            It was not only the shooting down, but how and why the bodies were treated and the way the crime scene was abused with such indifference by Russian separatists which has increased the fury of Western journalists toward Putin. But then when you are impotent to act, all that is left is blind fury; not only toward the villain of the peace but toward Europe who have refused to take any real measures to punish Putin. Frustration has been the navigator of the presses keyboards; with each commentator trying to outdo the other to pour scorn on Europe for failing to act.
            Cameron, in his usual way of seeking a praiseworthy headline, joined in by challenging Europe to make a further stand against this modern Tsar Ivan. He demanded ever greater sanctions against Russia exceeding those that had taken place after Russia took back the Crimea. He elevated himself to become Putin's nemesis, imploring and cajoling his European partners to stiffen their spines, and bring Putin to his knees.
             If the situation was not so grave; Cameron's hypocritical performance, as leader of a much diminished nation; which is now taken very little notice of in the world, would be comedic (be it of a black nature). No sooner had he made demands of his European allies, than we learnt of our own arms industry's provisions to Russia: which had followed the exposure of France's contractual obligation to provide Russia's modern tsar with two helicopter carriers, one of which was paid for and due for delivery. The French had not only the right, but the obligation to deliver on its contract.

BOTH GERMANY AND FRANCE had made themselves obligated , on a near wholly depended reliance upon Russian energy supplies. Neither nation seemed to fear Russia or Putin's governance of it before agreeing to such a reliance. Even the UK welcomed the Russian oligarch's billions, and the migration of Russian billionaires on to London's premiere street codes, buying up properties and herding out the poorer residents of Sloane Square (that dominated the 1980s) into parts of Fulham no less.
            Our own great and good have also enjoyed the indulgences of Russian oligarchs, such as Peter Mandelson and David Owen to name but two. Our former politicians have cashed in on the bounty on offer. Putin's face must distort itself into an expression of contempt when he hears David Cameron trying to act the principled strong man, a pitiful specimen who has allowed his armed forces to become dilapidated at the expense of oversees aid; and renders any such convincing military option to himself, obsolete.
            Economic sanctions will not work. The Russian people have learnt to survive the barren diet of living under Tsars, Commissars, and the rape by Nazism. Why do you think it was that the Russian separatists showed little respect for the bodies of Flight MH17? Because once put under threat, as was the Soviet Union from the Nazis, and seeing for themselves what could be done to humanity, and brought up to understand what could be expected from the Tsars, Communists, and Nazis, the Russian people adapted to suffering. During the Second World War  21,800,000 to 28,000,000 died fighting Nazism. This does include the millions of others sent to the Gulags, who eventually met a similar fate under Stalin
            No other country on this planet has suffered the kind of suffering Russia had to endure under the years of Soviet imperialism.
            Flight MH17 was a mistake. It was probably not even targeted properly but assumed to have been a Ukrainian transporter carrying soldiers; as had happened in the days before when such a military transporter was hit, killing 45 Ukrainian soldiers who were being delivered to the east of Ukraine to tackle Russian separatists.

THIS CONFLICT, and the West's response, may become far more serious for Europe than any Gazan distraction – and I do not mean this cruelly regarding innocent Palestinians on the Gaza Strip. The EU is expansionist by nature and sought to include eastern European nations once under the Soviet hegemony to become part of their own European hegemony
           Whatever the appalling nature of Putin; he set himself against his boarders being challenged by the EU. Which is exactly what has been done by the expansionist EU. It was the EU itself that set this ball rolling; and before it is brought to a stop I fear many thousands of lives will be brought to a summery end on both sides.
            I now read that 1,300 British troops are being sent to Poland in response to Putin's behaviour. It is a meagre and pitiful response, but one associated with a country that has pared down its own national defences to such an extent that it is building two aircraft carriers that will have no aircraft to take off from - unless they are French: and one of the carriers, once completed may even be sold off – what a pathetic excuse for a national defence.
            Putin must be laughing at such a pitiful offering from a once great military nation, if, that is, he has even noticed the Ministry of Defences announcement of it. Our politicians are seen as stand-up comics by the likes of Putin. He is almost daily entertained by either our prime minister or Foreign Secretary boasting on the world stage. Believing themselves still believing in this country punching above its weight. When in fact, they are an embarrassment to the country.
            It was Douglas Hurd, who as Foreign Secretary, first used this "punching above our weight" aphorism. It was embarrassing then and it is even more so now. The trouble is our Foreign Office is only as influential as our armed forces capabilities allows; and these are meagre thanks to the Cameron government preferring the ring fencing of foreign aid over the nation's defence.

RUSSIA IS INCREASING its defence budget by £400 billion over the next five years; while Europe has decreased its own defence spending, and lacks the ambition to increase it; probably because of its reliance on the USA for its defences.
             So in five or so years time Russia will be militarily more powerful than the Europhile's Greater Europe. America, by now self-sufficient in its energy needs through fracking, will no longer require a dependence on the Arab world for its oil. America will also see no purpose in remaining in Europe, especially as the USA is so despised among European nations, for delivering them from the Nazis.

AMERICA WILL turn to the Pacific region for its trade, and will continue to prosper; while Europe continues on with its decline; but without the protection of America. European nations have despised the so-called Anglo-Saxon economic agenda which included the USA.
             America must remove its military might from Europe. Europe, while despising America, has relied upon its military protection. America's military removal from Europe is the only way that Europe will see that its own military budgets have to increase to defend the continents people. But what's the betting that such a lesson will go unlearned?


Israel is in the right

THE PEOPLE OF Gaza have only Hamas to blame for the circumstances in which they find themselves. There leader is holed up somewhere well away from Gaza, while on the Gaza Strip his senior lieutenants crawl under hospitals to keep themselves safe, while above their heads and on the hospital wards such as they are; they use their people, the sick, injured, and dying, as human shields.
             Hamas even hijacks ambulances that are meant to carry the victims of Hamas's actions to and from hospital; once again to keep themselves safe from Israeli bombs. Not only do they use their own people to keep themselves secure, but also the thousands of rockets they hide in people's houses, until they are ready to be unleashed on Israel. Then we have the tunnels whose openings start in the same people's houses before they wend their way into Israel.
            If the Gaza Strip is a prison, it is not one of Israel's making. Hamas and only Hamas have brought the Strip and the Palestinian people to this tragic, awful, and destructive position - as they have often done in the past.
            Israel cannot be expected to allow 3,000 missiles to be launched against their people without seeking to neutralise them; and the most effective way has been to embark on a ground action which will cause many civilian casualties – such street fighting often does. Just talk to those remaining survivors of the D-day landings.
            Israel has conducted herself in a way that is exemplary considering her nation was being attacked. From the beginning of the bombing and in response to Hamas's missiles, the Israel's were careful about their targets, for fear of hitting civilians. Indeed several sorties were turned back when the pilots or drone operators were convinced by what they were seeing that their target was occupied by ordinary Palestinian civilians.
            But as the sympathetic Palestinian media points out, Gaza is a small compact civilian rich territory, and any military action taken against it would result in civilian deaths. So as far as the Western media are concerned Israel should just sucked it up and allow the Hamas blitz to go un challenged; after all Israel has Iron Dome, and also highly developed underground facilities into which Jews can scurry into at will, without fear of being hit by the rockets.

THIS IS PROBABLY the harshest blow of all for Israel to have to take from its so-called allies. Hamas throws its own citizens onto the front-line in the hope that enough of them will be killed by the Israelis in order to encourage a sympathetic Western media to report on the behaviour of the Israeli 'war criminals'. The Western Media are Hamas's useful idiots, and because they sympathise with the Palestinian cause; they allow themselves to be escorted around Gaza to report upon the 'holocaust' conducted by the Hebrews upon Palestinians.
            Hamas do not supply their people with any underground sanctuary; although they have begun each and every military action against Israel and know what to expect from it – their underground behaviour is concerned only with tunnels built not for civilians to take refuge in, but in order to send terrorists through so they can crossover into Israel to deliberately, not by accident, kill Israeli civilians.
             Let history judge. Israel is in the right. It is protecting its right to exist as a Jewish state, and will not once again go quietly into that goodnight. Israel's response to those attacking her was observed by a friend of mine through watching the media; not being interested in the Middle East or in geo-politics generally, he told me; "They don't mess about, do they?" No they do not; and between 1939-45 neither did we.
             While in Israel they still cling to the same principles of the nation state that Churchill believed in; and, as we know, with the bombing raids over Germany, he was determined to protect us from an evil enemy; there was no talk at the time of proportionality of course[1]. All that the nation under attack had in its power to destroy its enemy, it used (even if it had only comprised of bows and arrows). When your nation's survival is at stake proportionality goes out of the window (if it ever had a place in war anyway)  –  if you have an advantage, then by God you had better use it for the sake of your nation.
             This we did when we bombed Germany; and this is what Israel are doing in Gaza today. The argument about the rights and wrongs of land and property ownership are neither here or nor there in this latest flare-up in the conflict - only the rights and wrongs of what led up to Israel's latest invitation by Hamas to enter Gaza is what matter. Every time Hamas attacks, Israel has had its hand forced by Hamas. While Hamas pours rockets into Israel, and remember, this flare-up came after months of Hamas rocket attacks on Israel - so Israel is expected to be forced to remain unresponsive by her allies?
             Then when a breaking point is reached, and Israel has to mount a military response – what happens. It suddenly makes the nightly news; after weeks of little interest in Hamas rockets being launched against Israel. It is only when Israel has to respond that the Western media takes an interest. Then there outlook changes. Israel, forced to respond to Hamas's terror tactics, decide upon action to take the power out of the missiles and those wretched tunnels.
             At this very moment the Western liberal media decide who is going to be their Gaza correspondents. There are now Pulitzer 's at stake, and photo journalist bravery prizes to be handed out… "Today the BBC/SKY journalist, (fill in the blank), was awarded a BAFTA for his/her news coverage from within Gaza."
             The Media begin to tool up, and when the first bomb drops on Gaza, Hamas opens the Strip to the liberal Western media; and takes them to where the grizzly of spectacles await their biased prognostic. It is a disgrace. In war civilians die, so it is better to not have struck the first blow against a nation stronger than your own, if you cared anything about the lives of your own civilians.
             Unlike Hamas, Israel does not deliberately target civilians. If they did, they would have used their military capability to lay flat Gaza City. If Hamas had Israel's military power, they would have done so to Tel Aviv, with little thought for Jewish women and children.          
ISRAEL CANNOT AFFORD the presence of a complicated tunnel system engineered from within Gaza to threaten Israel's citizens. So far 13 members of the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) have been killed through terrorist incursions into Israel through these tunnels. If these incursions had proven successful and Hamas had been victorious in entering civilian areas -  would they have cared if the hated Jews were civilian or military?
              Israel has to do what she has to do to keep her democratic nation in existence; just as the West had to do during the Cold War when they embarked upon a nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union. Nationhood may mean little or nothing to those modern empire builders within the EU today, whose many citizens still harbour ancient prejudices against the Jews. But Israel does care about national identity and is fulfilling its centuries old dream of returning to their ancient homeland once known as Judea. If only the UK remained supportive of their nation state as the Jews are of their own.


[1] Except, as I have just learnt within a budding liberal part of the Anglican Church.

Thursday, July 24, 2014

Israel is not alone

AS THE PRE-EMINENT Marxist; it was Karl himself who proclaimed that history repeats itself  "…first as tragedy, then as farce." But the latest manifestation of the past may not include gas chambers, or human skin being made into lampshades; or the wholesale rape before death of thousands of women.
            But what has been going on throughout Europe since the events in Gaza; gives a soupcon of what took place on the continent of Europe in the 1930s. Today anti-Semitism; and I do mean anti-Semitism; and not that cowardly and illegitimate sibling, christened anti-Zionism – that wretched mask for closeted anti-Semites all over the world.
             Our digital media outlets have filled our HD flat-screen televisions, i-pads, i-pods, and all the social media gadgetry, with images coming out of Gaza; whose harvesting represents what I call porno-journalism where, a sympathetic, and on the whole pro-Palestinian bias operates, and which is willing to bare witnesses to whatever Hamas wishes them to see.
              But something else has gone unseen (in our UK media at least). It has been the resurrection of a virulent strain of anti-Semitism, that has lain dormant and waiting to emerge. It has now done so in European cities, such as Berlin, Essen, Paris, and Italy. In Berlin[1], police had to step in to protect a Jewish couple who had been spotted by demonstrators who "charged toward them",[2] shouting "Jew! We’ll get you!"
             In Paris synagogues were attacked. The windows of shops and cafes were attacked and several set alight; which included a kosher grocery store that burnt to the ground. In the German city of Essen synagogues was attacked and 14people arrested. And according to Justin Huggler: "There have been reports of protestors in Germany chanting 'Jews to the gas chambers', and police in Berlin have banned protestors from using another popular slogan: 'Jew, Jew, cowardly pig, come out and fight alone' ."
             In other words, under our very eyes; but we are not allowed to see the events on our television screens; a mini Kristallnacht was under-way and most of us in this country were just as unenlightened about these events as our ancestors were well before the digital age when the death camps were operating between 1940-45 in Europe.
            No doubt the vast majority of these protesters did not belong to the indigenous populations of these countries – especially in Germany, who had learnt its lesson long ago: I therefore suspect that the vast majority of those responsible were Muslims who were allowed to take up citizenship throughout Europe, with a few white indigenous liberalista standing by their side emoting for the Palestinians.
            I do not think for one moment that the indigenous German population took any kind of part in these acts of anti-Semitism, and the same goes for the indigenous French. There are now over 15 million Muslims in residency within Europe, and Europe is paying a heavy price in terms of their national and cultural identity.
            Paying a heavy price because we have made these Muslims citizens welcome to our continental soil; and what they do, they now do in the name of Germany, France, Italy, Holland and the UK. Europe has learnt from its past; but many of its Muslims are resurrecting the ancient shibboleths surrounding the Jewish people such as the blood libel, an antiquated, yet still believed in piece of black magic within the Muslim world, where Jews sacrifice children not of their faith.
            Despite all of this anti-Semitism, Israel must this time finish the job it set out to do, and destroy the tunnels and missiles aimed at it. It must not be drawn into a ceasefire whose conditions give Hamas any kind of  victory. There should be no preconditions set upon a ceasefire. It is after such a ceasefire that negotiations should be proceeded with, and not before.
             Prime Minister Netanyahu  admires Churchill and has his portrait sitting in his office; just as once the White House did in the president's office. Obama, however, had it removed [3]and returned to the British Embassy in Washington, after he was first elected.
             This is Netanyahu's Churchillian moment. The moment when he stands to bare comparison with the great man. In Churchill's time there was no talk of proportionality toward an enemy hell bent upon the destruction of your nation – then, as it should be now, if you have an advantage over an enemy that seeks your total annihilation, then use it to its fullest to defeat the imposter that seeks your racial and national extinction; which Hamas undoubtedly does the Jews.
            I dearly hope that Israel persists in squeezing Hamas until they cry out for a ceasefire. Israel has acted with restraint wherever possible when it comes to civilian casualties; as they have said time and time again. Hamas on the other hand lob missile after missile amounting  in number to over four digits into Israel and not caring where they land, but hoping they kill as many Jews, men women and children, as they can.
            If it had not been for Iron Dome, Hamas would have achieved their objective. But because Israel took measures (unlike Hamas) to protect their people; they are now being criticised because of the success in limiting their civilian deaths.

THE LATEST eruption of European anti-Semitism; and believe me it is only the latest addition to a 2,000 year-old catalogue of such persecution throughout Europe and the Middle East; and will not be the last. Israel will have to fight its corner over and over again. But this will only have to happen in this case, if they have to agree terms for a ceasefire insisted upon, primarily by America, that award Hamas a victory. A victory whose template will be used again and again in the coming years.
             Israel is without friends in the Obama administration, and also, so it seems, in those country's within Europe who also stopped flights to Ben Gurion airport. This decision had nothing to do with flight MH17. There was no security risk in landing or taking off from Ben Gurion; for why else would the US Secretary of State, John Kerry land at the same airport today?
             The closing of the airport was nothing more than the act of an anti-Israeli president and his butler (John Kerry) seeking to isolate Israel; in the hope of making it come to a ceasefire on Hamas's terms. Thus giving this archetypical terrorist group – acknowledged as such by the UN, America, and Europe, what it seeks; an advantage over Israel before it agrees a ceasefire from. Hamas now says that there will only be a ceasefire when Israel agrees to end the blockade of Gaza.
             This is where I believe Netanyahu should show Churchillian resolve and tell the wretched Kerry that Israel will not surrender to Obama's threats. For that is what they are. He should tell Kerry that he intends, this time, to see Hamas brought down, and if, because of the Obama administration, obstacles are put in Israel's way to make this impossible. Then. If Israel drowns, the vortex it will create will drag the West down with it -  as it should.

[1] Daily Telegraph journalist Justin Huggler in Berlin
[2] The quotes are from Mr Huggler
[3] This was to do with Obama's loathing of the British

Sunday, July 20, 2014

Proportionality; a weak-minded liberal construct

'DISPRPORTIONATE' is the Left's way of seeking to justify Hamas's terrorist aggression toward Israeli civilians. Nick Clegg has been first off the mark to accuse Israel of a disproportionate response to the 1500 missiles arbitrarily fired into Israel without any consideration for Israeli civilian deaths over the past ten days.
            War is, and can never be proportionate. If you are attacked you reply with whatever force is available to you. It can be argued that the allied bombing of German cities was disproportionate, in terms of those killed, to the bombs dropped on English cities by the Germans – and it was thankfully this disproportionality that helped keep our democracy safe.
            Churchill believed that if a nation is attacked then war becomes total, and you do whatever you can to defeat your aggressor and bring the war to a close as quickly as possible. Disproportionality is a liberal construct. What they mean in the case of Israel is that the Israelis should shut down Iron Dome to make the contest more equal – a kind of equality, not under law, but under war.
             If those 1500 indiscriminately targeted Hamas missiles had been allowed through to do their worse, and kill on a parity with the bombs being dropped on Gaza; then, no doubt, Nick Clegg and the thousands of pro-Palestinians existing within the liberal compass, would have been satisfied…or would they?
             Hamas, unlike Israel, have no aircraft to bomb Israel with. They also have no tanks, or underground shelters to protect their civilians. So the logic of the Clegg disproportionality argument is that Israel should abandon all these military devices that give them a disproportionate military advantage over Hamas – or, on the other hand, Israel should supply Hamas with their own Iron Dome system to make things more equitable. Would that help Mr Clegg?
             I have noticed that whenever Hamas starts such an aggression (and they always start it) the liberals remain silent; silent that is until Israel responds. Then the disproportionality argument is deployed, and the BBC's porno-journalists cannot get their cameras into Gaza fast enough to show blood curdling images of Palestinian women and children on stretchers and wrapped in bandages with a BBC film crew by their bedside: which Hamas are all too willing to use for their own propaganda purposes.
            The BBC are pro-Palestinian, and there has been no attempt at impartiality. The corporation itself commissioned a report into accusations of such bias known as the Balen Report which was commissioned in 2006 and named after Malcolm Balen, the BBC's senior editorial advisor which to this day has never been released; while the BBC has spent some £300,000 of British taxpayer's money on legal fees to keep it out of the public arena.

HAMAS USES its citizens as shields, hoping that Israel will make a mistake to far in its targeting, and kills enough civilian Palestinians to cause such an outrage in the Western media, that Washington, the EU, and the UN, will pressure Netanyahu into another retreat until the next time, because there will be a next time: by which time the Hamas missiles will be more sophisticated; sophisticated enough to reach even further, and become more accurate; and even out-sophisticate what Israel can produce in response.
            This conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is not about the equal division of territory; but the annihilation of the Jewish state and its people. Hamas openly acknowledges this. They do not believe in any kind of 'two state solution', only in ridding the land that is now Israel of the Jews.
            Stop and think for one moment. If Militant Islamic groups like ISIS are fully prepared to slaughter fellow Muslims in Iraq. What then do you think would happen to the Jews of Israel if they were ever to become overwhelmed by their many enemies throughout the Arab world - not only among Hamas?
            Nick Clegg is intellectually corrupt; but he is not alone among his kind. They are all besotted with Palestinian 'victimhood', and their hatred of Israel borders on anti-Semitism, disguised as anti-Zionism.

THE UN, America, Europe, and the UK; all regard Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Objectively speaking it cannot be denied. One dictionary definitions is; "The calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence)against civilians in order to attain ggoals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this isdone through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear."  This definition fits perfectly into the UN's and the West's definition; thus does Hamas qualify.
            But I would like to add to that definition by including the following. The calculated use of a civilian population as human shields; the calculated use of civilian homes to store missiles in; the calculated use of civilian homes from which hundreds of tunnels are begun in order to enter Israel and terrorise civilians; the calculated use of hospitals as hiding places for terrorist leaders; and finally, the calculated use of a willing and supportive Western media for propaganda purposes – Yet, the likes of Nick Clegg still witter on about disproportionality.
            According to the Israeli press; since Israel's incursion began 13 tunnels and 3,000 rockets have been discovered; which has led Benjamin Netanyahu to warn that the incursion may become broader in its ambition to destroy  the tunnels. Meanwhile the JTA[1] has reported the condemnation by the United Nations Relief and Work Agency of Hamas, following the discovery of 20 rockets in one of its schools on the Gaza Strip.

            Proportionality is for those delicate blooms who live safe lives in their Islington quarters who can comment from afar without the fear of a missile tapping on their front door. These bourgeoisie liberals are Hamas's useful idiots who hold influence in the media and are biased in favour of a terrorist organisation.
            Israelis will hopefully defy their Western critics and continue to try and rid their land of the threat from missiles and tunnel incursions into Israel like the one attempted last week; which, if had proved successful, would lead the deaths of countless Jewish civilians of every gender and age.  
            Hamas must be defeated and those so-called Western friends of Israel had better brace their spines and openly give unconditional support for Israel as presumably they would any democratic country defying a terrorist organisation -  Its over to you Obama.




[1] The global Jewish news source

Thursday, July 17, 2014

'Assisted dying' sounds rather chummy

ASSISTED DYING is a very dangerous folly that, if it comes about, will change our attitude to human life, especially the elderly, and create a monstrous and frightening state where those who are vulnerable, will come to distrust their doctors and family members, who's motives  will leave them feeling they have 'a sword of Damocles' (to quote Archbishop Welby) hanging over them; and exposing them to a kind Kafkaesque helplessness. It will surely become a nightmarish and paranoid world in which to face your final days, weeks, months, or years, of your existence. The mental strain of such a situation will only add to what will already be, because of their terminal illness, a terror of dying, and naturally wishing to cling to life for as long as they can, regardless of the pain they suffer.
            Lord Falconer's Bill to be debated in the Lords this week, will, in itself not bring the above about. Indeed Lord Falconer's Bill could be supported by myself, if what I heard over the weekend is true; that it seeks to limit assisted dying to those who are expected to live only six months; and then the patient should (presumably if he or she is able) be given the means by which they can commit suicide.
            My complaint is not about someone taking their own life; but someone from the medical profession doing it on their behalf. Well then, why not a relative? This is where my opening paragraph warns of such a consequence of involving any family member in the death of an elderly relative.
            Why I oppose Lord Falconer's Bill, is that it represents only a beginning and not an end to what the law will allow when it comes to assisted dying. The phrase 'thin end of the wedge' is apposite. It is to me an odds on certainty that there will be a another such Bill before much longer, demanding that the practice of assisted dying creates newer and far more wider boundaries. Boundaries which Lord Falconer would oppose today; but, because through him this tadpole of a bill will have made euthanasia acceptable, and find ready support for enlarging the boundaries ever further, I find it a dangerous road to travel down.

WE HAVE, after all, travelled down such a road before. We have had people warning of similar consequences, only to be ignored. In 1967 a Private Members Bill was introduced to parliament by David Steel. Known as the Abortion Act 1967, it was meant (like Lord Falconer's) to address an injustice. The road to hell is paved with good intentions; and politicians intensions are indeed good. With the 1967 Act was meant to do was  to stop illegal abortions taking place which were a curse to women who wished to end their pregnancies in fear of society's moral retribution. Such abortions were often dangerous and in practice rested on nothing more than an abortionist's superstition.
             Society's moral retribution is however no longer a factor. Steel's Bill, like Falconer's today; set out boundaries. Section 1 of Steel's abortion act announced that; "Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith " It was well intended but, the phrase "formed in good faith" fell into abeyance over the following decades. We were told at the time that no women would, without genuine reason willingly give her child up to abortion.
             But where are we today? What does "if two medical practitioners" mean. Today it means nothing more than rubber stamping. For how else are we to explain the 250,000 abortions that taken place every year for the last ten years.
             Were these abortions taken reluctantly and guiltily because of our society's Victorian moral code, and the fear being ostracised? Never; abortion has been reduced to nothing more than another form of contraception by the 1967 Act. Foetuses are regarded as nothing more than tissue, like the skin on our bodies.

 EUTHANASIA, TO USE THE CORRECT TERM; which Falconer does not use in the title of his Bill, will over time, travel the same road as David Steels 1967 Abortion Act. The good intentions will create moral dilemmas that neither Steele or Falconer ever foresaw: because neither has a real understanding of human nature.
             Who knows, in the coming decades someone will introduce a Bill lowering the age of consent from sixteen to fourteen: then from fourteen to twelve. Ages which today we rightly see as falling within the compass of paedophilia, will be regarded as normal and written into law.

              The road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions.           

Sunday, July 6, 2014

It is time for Westminster to be targeted

THERE IS A DARK cloud lingering once moreover over Westminster. It concerns an establishment cover-up by the civil service of a paedophile ring involving the so-called 'great and good'.
            I have just read the sentence of five years given to Rolf Harris, the latest in a line of celebrities, since the Savile scandal, to be found guilty of various sexual assaults against boys, girls, and women.
            The justice system has worked and the guilty have paid the price. Behaviour dating as far back as the 1960s has been investigated by the police  and evidence past to the CPS and prosecutions have been brought. Many a celebrity has preceded Rolf Harris in the box and been convicted in the hunt for all kinds of historical abuse against children and women; from the pressing of a breast to rape (including homosexual) over some 54 years.
             Now the focus is changing from celebrities to politicians; and in their case historical abuses seem to have been covered up by the UK establishment itself. In 1983 the Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens presented the then Home Secretary, Leon Brittan with a large dossier  detailing a paedophile ring operating in Westminster, whose practices could have brought down the government at the time: but it now appears Leon Brittan's civil service have shredded the documents. Brittan had at first denied knowledge of the documents, but has now decided to come clean - at least as far as their existence is concerned.
            The documents were by all accounts toxic…for why else would the civil service seek to protect their political masters by shredding them?   According to the press, there were ten high profile names mentioned in the dossier; and now the former Children's Minister, Tim  Loughton, is prepared to use parliamentary privilege to name names. But only as a nuclear option, hoping that Cameron will get to the bottom of this. The dossier may be shredded, but knowledge of its contents (especially the names) has, through word and mouth over the decades since Geoffrey Dickens managed to a point finger, is still known.
             MP Simon Danczuk, who co-authored a book on the perversions of the Liberal MP Cyril Smith, says nothing short of a public enquiry will satisfy the public; and he is right. It was the Home office that 'lost' the dossier, and now it is this same institution that has been given the job the prime minister investigating the dossier's disappearance.
            The civil service are the servants of the politicians; and servants serve their masters. The British civil service, is often boasted of by their political masters, as the finest and most incorruptible in the world. Yet it is no such thing. That our civil servants do not take bribes, of this there is little doubt…especially at senior level.
            But when it comes to protecting their political masters, who, like them, represent the establishment; then they will do what is needed to see that it is protected when it comes to scandal. So no, the Home Office, or any other department of state cannot be trusted to investigate the disappearance of the Dickens' dossier. Only a full scale public enquiry will satisfy the British people.
            Yet both Cameron and Clegg have opposed a public enquiry. As if our political class are not already in bad odour with the public; they now seek to test their patience once more after both the MP's expenses and cash for questions scandal.
            On Sky's Press Preview last night. One of the reviewers told of a conversation he had with a high ranking police officer friend of his in the Met. He was told that had as much police resources been put into the MP's expenses investigation as had been put into phone hacking (some 200 officers), then some 50 or 60 MP's would had to serve prison sentences, instead of the three that did.
             As for Operation Yewtree, as the Jimmy Savile investigation was called, 30 officers were involved in the investigation; and as for Operation Fairbank the name given to the investigation into child abuse at a guest house where rent boys entertained establishment figures including Cyril Smith; just seven officers carried out the investigation and complained that it was under resourced - and who was responsible for such resources? Why, the political establishment.
             It is said that Rolf Harris tried to keep his name out of the frame early on by using his lawyers to keep the mouths of the press tightly shut. But the Sun would have none of it and gallantly stepped forward and called his lawyers bluff and named their client. Now it is up to the same free press to do the same by publishing the names in the Dickens' dossier. The names are known, and if the latest Home Office inquiry adds little to what has already been said…then the names must be forthcoming.
              Brittan handed the Dickens' dossier over to a civil servant. Is that civil servant still alive? To whom did he give it to enquire into; is he or she still alive? And where did it go from there? It was in early 1980's after all, when Geoffrey Dickens presented his dossier to Leon Brittan. So some 30 years have passed, and the names of all the civil servants involved in the episode must be known, and some must be still alive.

THIS SCANDAL must unravel if only for the simple reason that the law is seen only to apply to certain people. All of those celebrities so far prosecuted have been from working class backgrounds.
            There seems to be a certain amount of cherry picking going on; or it will seem to be if the establishment figures named in the dossier are allowed to go unnamed; and especially if they are still alive, and should be named as Rolf Harris[1] was. Even if, after the 'disappearance' of the Dickens' dossier, its contents remain known by those working in the media or among the Westminster elite; then what they know should be brought out into the open; and if the only way names can be produced is under parliamentary privilege then so be it.
            It is easy for politicians to express their outrage and disgust at the likes of Rolf Harris, but such sentiment will be regarded as meaningless, if similar charges are made against their own kind and not properly investigated.
             Establishment cover-ups happen; and they usually happen when the establishment is shown in bad odour. Civil servants near to government are meant to serve the people; but often interpret this as serving the very establishment they belong to culturally and socially. They need very little instruction from politicians to shred a document, dossier, or files. Having finer intellects than most MPs, they know better than their political masters what is in the public interest, and the Dickens's dossier and the hundred or so files that have gone 'missing', are exactly the kind information that the public should never see…and the will not see.


[1] I know that Harris was named only after his arrest. But if the establishment can play dirty, why not the press when it comes to the establishment; sexual abuse is after all abuse, from whatever quarter of society it seems to flourish.