Monday, October 27, 2014

An EU conspiracy?

THE LAST TIME I believed in a conspiracy theory was following the death of President Kennedy, and I clung to it right up to the time I watched the film JFK; Oliver Stone's long winded attempt at trying to prove Lee Harvey Oswald to have been a patsy working for either the CIA or Cuba[1], and concluding that it was not Harvey's rifle that fired the fatal shot, but whoever was lurking on the 'grassy mound' as the president's cavalcade passed.
            
             American conspiracy theorists are, like Oliver Stone, of a usually Left-wing liberal bent who think the US government are up to all kinds of schemes to eliminate those who get in their way – especially liberals like himself, and JFK.
            
            From time to time governments of whatever ideological bent, try to keep information they do not wish the public to be made aware of, secret. In the UK, under the thirty-year rule (said to have been put in place for reason's of national security) documents are kept hidden until the rule has, like an insurance policy, matured and the actors in the proceedings are probably dead.

WHEN I HEARD THIS MORNING on Sky News that the UK has been asked to contribute a further £1.7 billion to the EU, while Germany and France get a rebate; I smelt a conspiratorial rat at work.
            
             I thought to myself, it must be a stitch-up. A conspiracy had been concocted between Downing Street and Brussels to spike Nigel Farage's' guns in the forthcoming Rochdale by-election where the latest poll puts his party 13 points clear of the Tories.
            
             It would go like this. Brussels would insist that the UK should have to pay this extra contribution because of the UK's economic success; and at the same time Germany and France should be given a rebate for the failure of their economies. Well…I ask you. What better foil could Cameron have, than to have himself and his party made even more unpopular -  but then there would follow a sudden victory over Brussels; a victory brought about by  'negotiations' which gave  Cameron his victory over the £1.7 billion taxpayer robbery? Well, we will all have to wait and see.
            
             But a fellow conspiracy theorist on this issue, insists that indeed a conspiracy is afoot; but it is not one of Cameron's making. My brother came up with the following. He suggested that Brussels wanted Cameron out, come the next election and a more pliable Miliband put in his place. Milliband would never allow, for instance, an In/Out referendum; and therefore represented  the EU's best hope for keeping the UK safely within the federalist concoction.
            
             Think about it. Cameron has offered an In/Out referendum if he wins next May after negotiating EU reforms – a process the EU is fearful of, if only because whatever reforms they agree to with the UK; other member states will demand the same changes, thus causing such a volcanic eruption within the EU that its very existence may be left in doubt - better therefore Milliband governing the UK than Cameron – or at the very least, not Cameron.
            
             As a conspiracy theory this makes far more sense than my own. Perhaps, instead of Cameron, the idea behind this demand for more funds is meant to help Milliband. After all, on Sky News this morning when Ed Balls was asked what he would do about this budget increase; Balls wittered on about Cameron alienating himself from the negotiating process with our European partners. He never once said that he stood full square behind challenging such an unfairness.

SO THERE ARE convincing and unconvincing conspiracy theories surrounding the  £1.7 billion demand from the UK. Between the two, I favour my brothers. In doing so I do not insinuate or even infer that Ed Milliband is part of the conspiracy, but a mere willing associate of anything pro-European. Brussels are the political puppet masters in all of this, which Cameron is finding to his cost, and Milliband, if elected will find to his own.
            
               Both Cameron and Milliband are being, in one way or another, used by Brussels to the EU's advantage. They are both instinctive supporters of the European Union and our membership of it; but are both trying to either hold on to or gain power within the UK, and Brussels is trying to manipulate it to their own advantage, and in doing so they have come out in Miliband's favour. Milliband is an innocent in all of this, for his natural EU impulses will willingly serve the interests of the social democratic European Union in any event.
             
               The EU wants Milliband. He has proven himself a creature of the trade unions; so perhaps he has strings that can be pulled by Brussels. Well I would not be surprised if Ed did Europe's bidding. After all, he disdains an In/Out referendum, even on Cameron's spurious grounds.
            
               So Ed is the perfect servant of Brussels, one who can be guaranteed to turn the UK under the much longed for Federal Union into a mere province of the greater European Union, where the nation state becomes a thing of the past; where it becomes a province, divided into regions instead of counties.
            
                This is the supposed nightmare scenario of European federalism. A dystopian vision concocted by Europhiles throughout the Union beginning after the Second World War in order to restrain further military conflict of the type that brought forth two World Wars on European soil within 40 years .
            
                So in order to avoid further such conflict in the future… so the theory goes: we have to, according to the EU, abandon our national sovereignty and nationhood, and be immersed into a federal union within Europe where national democracy has no place in the scheme of things. Is this the future the British people whish to be part of. A future bereft of nationhood, and the abandonment of ancient counties? I very much doubt it.
           
           
             



[1] Preferably, for Stones purpose, the CIA.

The swivel-eyed youth who wishes to be Mayor of London

THERE IS NOW speculation that L'Enfant terrible of right-on, politically correct comedy, is considering to challenge for London Mayor after what he may consider to have been a bravura performance on Newsnight earlier in the week – I speak of course, of Russell Brand.
            
            A self confessed economic ignoramus, but who also says he likes the sound of 'collectives', which he also has little knowledge of: Brand has also not denied (through his spokesman) his intent to stand for London Mayor after Boris Johnson. Brand reminds me of the erratic and dysfunctional and paranoid hippy Neil in the BBC 1980s sit-com The Young Ones. At least Neil had a pretext for his behaviour; after all, his brain had been addled by wacky-backy, and therefore excuses could be made.
           
             But Brand has no such excuse for his erratic behaviour, other than that he is about to publish a thesaurus decorated tomb. If all of the fuss and bother surrounding his Newsnight  interview was part of such a promotion, then the rumour that this muttonhead seeks elevation to our capitals most prestigious office must also be taken with a mouthful of salt.
            
            The man is ignorant. He has drip-fed the gullible in the media with outrageously uninformed views and an ill-mannered expression of them. He has been promoting his book, and the media have been snared into helping him. The controversial Newsnight interview was an attempt by the BBC to keep its programme on the air; and if helping Brand promote his latest contribution to Western literary endeavour served their purpose, then so be it. Both the BBC and Brand are feeding of the other.
            
            Newsnight, because it badly needs headlines to keep the programme afloat, and Brand who, after his failure to take on in America, needs to get all the publicity he can from his latest literary offering this side of the pond – ghost written, of course, by Roget.
            
            Russell Brand is part of the problem of the over-weaning might of celebrity culture within Western society. He is a dork, but whatever slips from his illiterate mouth is treated as being newsworthy because he has gained the title of being a celebrity. I do not blame him, but those in the newspaper  media who take him seriously enough to help add copies to their daily sales by publicising the Left's new Dave Spart.
            
            He is a chump of the second order who, in association with chumps of the first …the media; has managed to promote himself through his  vicarious and outrageous behaviour into earning another half a million or so.

BRAND'S BOOK SIGNINGS will be financially enriched by his behaviour. The book will not make the top of the Sunday Times best seller list   in any event, but it will have given him a generous publisher's fee before publication, and whatever the shortfall in sales, Brand will still be left in pocket. After all, a book with the title Revolution will appeal to the BBC, Channel Four, and the Guardianista everywhere.
            
            I am almost warming to this politically and commercially savvy reprobate. He is a bogus Lefty, who seeks wealth for himself, but needs the Leftwing brand to guarantee his pension. I would love him to stand for the London Mayoral office; and what is more, I would like him to win. London will then have as its Mayor, a court jester instead of a king. A jester in control of the court itself, with imbecilic, and self-admitted ignorance of economics and therefore any competence in economics.
           
            It  matters little to Brand that, if he puts his name forward for the race to become the Mayor of London, such an ambition would run contrary to his belief in not voting. Like any other politician, he can come up with the appropriate excuse, to encourage his most devoted to vote for him in such a contest. Brand, in other words will earn the opprobrium – hypocrite; but like all the politicians he so despises, his skin is thick enough, and his kerching moment loud enough to rejoice in the opprobrium of the right-wing press.
             
           


A new poster is unfurled by Ukip

REMEMBER LAST MAY? Remember the outcry when Ukip produced a poster of an image of the White Cliffs of Dover in the foreground with an escalator laddered against them; meant to depict how easy it was to enter the UK. The froth emanating from Tory mouths could have filled several baths. But the image captured the mood of the people, and its depiction registered with them and helped Ukip triumph in the European elections. The party had its hand on the pulse of the nation; whereas the London based Tories had only their politically correct sentiments to respond with.
            
            Ukip has now produced another poster. This time for the up and coming Rotherham election to select its new Police and Crime Commissioner after the resignation of its previous incumbent Shaun Wright, a Labour candidate for the position who refused to resign after the Rotherham child abuse scandal.
            
            The poster depicts a young girl with the message; "There are 1,400 reasons why you should not trust Labour;" a reference of course to those children raped and assaulted by Pakistanis whose atrocious behaviour went ignored by the Labour authority as well as the police and social services; and for the usual politically correct reasons of not wishing to offend the Pakistani (Muslim) community… and the Labour party's filthy hand was all over this subterfuge to keep the suffering of these children secret, as it was in other areas of the North where it needed the Muslim vote.
            
            So the poster tells a truth about Labour, one which it is their turn to froth about. Here we have the Labour response so far; first up Simon Danczuk the MP for Rochdale: "Ukip are clearly more interested in trying to use victims' suffering to win votes than in coming up with solutions. They have never contributed to discussions in terms of child sex abuse. They have decided to create a bandwagon which they are now jumping on."
            
            The shadow justice minister, Dan Jarvis, a South Yorkshire MP then weighs in: "The cynical and deliberate exploitation of victims by Ukip in this poster marks a new and unacceptable low in their recent campaign activity."
            
            These responses mimic those of the Tories in May; insincere and out of touch with the communities they were meant to serve. If the people of Rotherham are repelled by this poster, then they deserve to see the whole horrible episode repeated again. But I know that Ukip has got it right once more and the people of Rotherham will elect Jack Carson, the Ukip candidate.

THE TRUE CYNICS are not Ukip but Dan Jarvis who has the temerity to suggest Ukip has  been responsible for the, "… cynical and deliberate exploitation of victims." Where was Labour when these victims were being truly exploited through abuse? Ask the victims themselves if they feel Ukip are exploiting them. My guess is, and it is only a guess, that these young girls at the time who were abused and raped by Pakistanis, will tell you they had no one to turn to in Labour controlled Rotherham or Labour controlled Rochdale or Oxford.
            
             Mr Jarvis is a mountebank who froths at the mouth at every opportunity, like every other politician fighting for or to remain in office.  The two main parties have failed miserably the people of the UK, both on immigration and because of political correctness.
             
             But no single party has done more to add to the suffering of these 1400 children than the neglect of their situation by the Labour Party; as no doubt Mr Danczuk, being the MP for Rochdale would readily admit under different circumstances than wishing to impute Ukip with charges of opportunism – which, God forbid, Labour have never succumb too.
           
             Ukip have every right to highlight this tragedy. They are not exploiting anyone; but reminding those trusting Labour supporters in Rotherham of the responsibility for this carnage. The Labour Party helped keep secret, through their misplaced faith in political correctness as well as their betrayal of the white working class in Rotherham, what was happening to these children.
           
             The true outrage should be against the comments of Simon Danczuk and Dan Jarvis, whose party tapped its mouth shut through the insidious political witchcraft known as political correctness performed in Rochdale, Rotherham, and Oxford. Ukip have done a service to the people of Rotherham by the unfurling of their poster.
            
             The people of Rotherham will judge whether Ukip has shown any kind of disrespect for those 1400 abused young girls who, due to the multicultural sensitivities of the Labour Party, found themselves in dire straits without any form of protection…can the Ukip poster ever compare with this?

            
              One thing is for sure, the Ukip candidate Jack Carson will not allow the intrusion of political correctness into the decision making of the office of Police and Crime Commissioner, if he is elected. Political correctness is anathema to Ukip, as even their worst enemy would readily acknowledge; which is why Ukip should be given the position of Rotherham's Police and Crime Commissioner…and I hope the traditional Labour Rotherham  voter agrees. 

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Chivalry has been long since dead

THERE IS A SAYING THAT the age of chivalry died with the invention of gunpowder. Today the West still lives in the age chivalry[1] and it could help bring it to its ultimate ruin. Unable to adapt to the age of gunpowder, because it represents having to kill men women and children in order to defeat an enemy whose ultimate purpose is to kill your own men, women, and children; the West now sinks even deeper into the moral abyss. Such is the power of gunpowder over the sword and lance, that it obliterates bystanders… who we, in the modern West, refer to as civilians.         
            
            The days when two armies confronted each other to indulge in mortal combat, in a field somewhere in Europe without any civilian involvement, have long gone. The age of lance, musket, fife and drum; and the squares at Waterloo have long since passed. Civilians have become as much part of war as the combatants themselves. Chivalry is dead. Weaponry and munitions have moved on, even if the modern liberal West are fearful of using them to their full potential because of guilt and the many sleepless nights feared by our politicians, who are unprepared to be classed as 'war criminals' and pre-dated upon by human rights lawyers.
            
            Churchill regretted but did not fear the bombing of the German cities during the Second World War; and he carried the cost of hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in order to advance the completion of the Second World War.   
            
             There were no Cameron or Obama-like uncertainties to undermine the great man. What had to be done was done. Churchill never became a Nazi or Communist for his exemplarily ruthlessness against German Nazism; or even through his alliance with Stalin's Soviet Communism, and neither did both the American and British nations.
            
              Churchill did what was needed to defeat Hitler; he was a patriot and a democrat and did what was required to salvage that cause…and so it should be the case today in planning the defeat of ISIS. If politicians fear sleepless nights, unpopularity, and human rights lawyers because of their actions; then they should not be leading a nation  -  especially one they tell us is under threat from ISIS. Because if this nation is under such a threat that those MPs who voted for action over the skies of Iraq believe; then when we release the dogs of war, they should be unleashed and not held back by politicians fearful of the next day's headline.

AS ANY CHILD knows or should know; war is an appalling business that should not be entered into flippantly, especially by career obsessed politicians of the calibre of Tony Blair. War is a bloody, cruel, and a sadistic enterprise to embark upon; which is why particularly Western nations in the modern era are loathe to engage in them.
            
            But a nation or nations can be propelled into conflict by the unfolding events of history. War cannot in many circumstances be resolved through negotiation. The Second World War sits as the template for such an axiom. A piece of paper signifying 'peace in our time' is a barren guarantee when you are up against an enemy in full ideological certainty that their cause is right, such as Nazism who cared little for such documents – as ISIS does today.
            
            As with the imperial nature of Nazism and their design for a Greater Germany; ISIS also believes in a Muslim imperialism; a caliphate spreading, in its infancy, throughout the Middle East. But its ultimate and ambitious reach spreads further still. They no doubt hope that their ambitions for their Muslim caliphate[2] will eventually traverse the European continent as earlier centuries old intrusions once attempted. But Islam no longer has to fight its way into  Europe, as it once tried. Today 15 million Muslims live throughout Europe and over two million of them live in the UK.
            
            As we are constantly told whenever an Islamist outrage is committed on our soil, the vast majority of Muslims are appalled by such an act. It is only a minority of Muslims that embark upon such acts of terrorism. The Muslim community as a whole deplores such acts.
           
            But how do we know this? I am sure that there are many hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Britain who abhor such acts of terrorism. But the Muslim population represent a great demographic forest on UK soil. A forest among which Jihadists and ISIS members can hide at will when they return from Iraq and Syria. I am not saying the Muslim population of Britain are culpable; but only that they represent the foliage among which the Islamists can hide; and if discovered can seek protection under the European Court of Human Rights.
            
            We have, through our liberal progressiveness and liberal imperial guilt, allowed the intrusion of Muslims into our nation: as has also happened in other parts of Europe, and for the same reasons. The whole of Europe are now seethed with a Muslim population of some 15 million people. The demographics will dictate the future direction of Islam on the continent of Europe
            
            The point is that Islam has arrived in Europe, and has done so without bloodshed as it once suffered through combat in the past, when Europe stood in its way militarily, and were fully prepared, whatever the cost, to defeat its invasion. Today Islam is flourishing throughout Europe without a single shot being fired in opposition.
           
             



           



[1] A chivalry born o liberal guilt
[2] Islam is , like Christianity, a proselytising religion after all, if not one which cuts off people's heads.

Monday, October 20, 2014

Barroso tells it as it is

IT IS OFFICIAL. The retiring president of the EU, Jose Manuel Barroso, has poured a bucket of cold water over David Cameron's attempt at restricting the number of migrants from the EU from paying us a visit. The prime minister was set to announce various restrictions on the issuing of national insurance numbers and putting a time limit on their effectiveness.
            
            Mr Barroso has done a great service to Ukip, and in a statement after his interview on the Andrew Marr Show, Mr Barroso was warmly thanked by Nigel Farage for his contribution which included a reminder of the illegal nature of what the prime minister will propose if stories in this Sunday's press are to be taken seriously.
            
            It appears that the EU's apparatchiks are not prepared to help Cameron see off Ukip before the next election. Perhaps Cameron thinks that Angela Merkle will have the final say, and these things can be solved once he has her on board. For it is she who pulls the strings in Europe including those of the EU presidents - whomsoever they may be.
            
             Perhaps in the coming days the puppet master will say something to the effect that will, using diplomatic phraseology, redress the balance in Cameron's favour without any commitment to what the British prime minister proposes. The words will be warm and comforting, without any real purpose beyond mood music such as an insistence that the EU cannot afford to see the UK leave; leaving open the possibility of compromise. Or so it will be interpreted as such by the Tory press
            
              Such vagueness will set the pro-Tory papers bristling with talk of the possibility of an accommodation. They will try to argue that it is Merkle who is really in charge and her warms words, should be the real focus of attention rather than the ones used by the retired puppet or his replacement.

AS MR BARROSO  pointed out in his interview;  'The freedom of movement is a very important principle in the internal market, the movement of goods, of capital, of services and of people.' The free movement of peoples are the fulcrum upon which a federal internal market relies. If we are to have a federal Europe comprising political and economic union, then Mr Barroso's logic is sound, when it comes to the free movement of peoples. This is what the European Union has all been about for God's sake.
            
              The free movement of people within a federal union of 28 different nations, is as vital as the free movement of people within the 50 states within the United States of America. This is what a federal union means. The Americans fought a civil war to achieve this. Barroso is right in his federal logic. Cameron on the other hand is naive or politically opportunistic for pretending that he can exempt the UK from the free movement of peoples. He his leading this nation toward a situation where we may be compared to the American South during the American civil war.

CAMERON IS NOT naive. He is the opportunist par excellence who believes the British people are naive, and is counting on that naivety to once more trust him. His ambition is to stay in power as a Conservative prime minister. To this end he has had to offend his natural allies within the EU. He desires this country's incorporation into a European Federal Union, as did past Conservative prime ministers beginning with Ted Heath, but ending, temporarily, with Margaret Thatcher. But he knows many among his party's members and voters who do not share his fascination with the EU.
            
              Now enter Ukip, and its ever more threatening presence over the Conservative Party's ambition for government. Once treated with contempt as swivel-eyed loons by Cameron; but who, he thought, would always remain emotionally tied to the Conservative Party; if only because they had nowhere else to go: such people now have an alternative with Ukip.

 UKIP HAS transformed the electoral battlefield for both the Tories and Labour. The three party triumphret of ToryLabLib have been complacent and, like the ancient regime of the 18th century French aristocracy, have taken their people for granted… let them eat bread; for who else do they have to turn to?
            
            The people know where their political masters wish to take their country – toward an eventual United States of Europe. This, the Grand Idea, promulgated in almost Napoleonic terms, shortly after the Second World War in the hope of avoiding further European conflict between European nations, has become a foetid proposition.
            
             Since the end of the Second World War, it has not been the creation of the EU that has prevented further conflict on the European continent; but the creation of NATO with its promise to stand by any member nation under attack from any none member nation.
           
NATO stood four square behind Europe during the Cold War when the might of the Soviet Union threatened Western Europe; but was successfully protected by a vastly superior American NATO contribution: an American 'interference' later objected to by many European members of the EU, as an Anglo Saxon intervention.
            
              Barroso has reminded Cameron of the realities of EU membership. He is right in doing so. For what Cameron proposes in order to see off Ukip is indeed illegal under laws we signed up to …still, perhaps Angela Merkle will play good cop and give Cameron enough of a political carrot to allow him some political credulity on Europe.


             

Saturday, October 18, 2014

The Eagle has landed

ANGELA EAGLE was shot down by her fellow panel members and the audience on last night's Question Time for demanding the resignation of Lord Freud over his comments about the value of the disabled in the workplace. In replying to a comment from a councillor  (who has a disabled child), the noble Lord clumsily gave the impression that the disabled (especially those mentally impaired) should be paid a stipendiary £2 an hour when given work.
            
            Of course the Labour Party went off half cocked as usual and insisted that Lord Freud should tend his resignation for his comments. Thankfully David Cameron ignored the brouhaha at Wednesday's question time in parliament and kept him in-situ.
            
            Hoping to reignite  the nasty party image, Milliband went on the attack flanked as usual by Ed Balls and his deputy Hattie Harperson , both of whom enjoyed what they thought would turn out to be a Cameron lashing – something about as common from Ed in these weekly jousts as a straight answer to a question from the green bench political community as a whole.
            
            To say that Lord Freud handled things clumsily is an understatement. But to believe that any sane human being, or politician in an advanced economy such as ours would advocate the 'pittance wage' to any human being whatever his or her physical or mental condition, can only be playing politics six months before a general election.
            
            All parties do this of course and the public have at last wizened up to the practice, which is why Angela Eagle was criticised by the panel and audience on the BBC's Question Time last night. I am sure that if David Cameron had been on the panel telling us how he will stop the free movement of peoples from the EU entering the UK; the audience would have found him as equally disingenuous as Angela Eagle.

LORD FREUD MADE a mistake which he tried to rectify and apologise for. His £2 an hour comment was meant to include a subsidy to employers from the state, that would bring the disabled hourly rate up to that of the minimum wage; and he told the councillor that he would go away and think about the proposition.
            
             This seems to me perfectly just and reasonable if taken in the context he meant; which the Labour Party, for party political reasons refused to do in order make political capital out of the whole issue.
            
              The two main parties are facing a general election next May; and what they say between now and then, whether in their pronouncements or criticisms of each other must be taken with a pinch of salt. Promises before an election are easily rescinded after; which is why the voter is cynical and can no longer feel able to put their trust in the three main parties…and so enters Ukip: and everything the main parties now promise on such subjects as the EU and immigration, are due to the rise and popularity of Ukip, and the voters know it.
            
              The other day I heard Hattie Harperson say reasonable things on immigration (in light of the Heywood and Middleton by election) that six years ago, if someone had used the same comments, she would have declared him or her a racist. This is the impact Ukip has had on two of the main parties; and long may it continue. But rhetoric is one thing and application another. The public are beginning to understand the difference. If the electorate are cynical toward politicians and the political class generally (by which I mean the political commentators who have a symbiotic relationship with Westminster politics and its politicians), then I cannot see the three political tenors transforming the current climate of cynicism.

LORD FREUD is a victim of nothing more than synthetic political outrage by his political opponents within the Labour Party. But before he feels himself now removed from the hook his own incompetence landed himself on; he had better understand that such behaviour toward him by the Labour Party is no different from the practices deployed by all the main parties in order to map their road to power; and in the coming months leading up to May of next year, this road will become congested with the kind of behaviour Lord Freud experienced.
            
            Come the New Year, Nigel Farage will become under sustained attack from both the Left and Right of centre, as he was this year in the follow up to the local and European elections; an attack which the electorate choose to ignore. But come the new year Ukip's enemies within all the media, Left or Right, will seek to destroy Ukip's hopes in next year's May general election.
            
             Local and European elections are one thing but parliamentary ones are another. If Ukip poses any kind of threat come next May; the press will even accuse him of paedophilia on the eve the election; in the hope that it results in either a Tory or Labour government; or  even a Labour Lib Dem or Tory Lib Dem coalition.
            
             Ms Eagle (and the Labour Party) misread the public mood which all politicians are prone to do in the era of Ukip as an alternative to their guile  – something the healthily distrustful British public are all too aware of, and determined to exploit.
            
             Thanks to the behaviour of our politicians, the public have been made far more astute, now they have an alternative to the three main parties to vote for; and long may it remain the case.
           
           
           

            

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

The nanny state is a sinister state

THEY TELL US what we should and should not be allowed to eat and in what quantities; they tell us not to smoke, and ban it in public places, and now want it band from parks; they tell us that alcohol is costing the NHS billions of trillions a year and very soon we will face the same totalitarian approach to its control as has happened with smoking; they are now beginning a similar campaign on e-cigarettes…who are THEY?
            
            They are the masters of the universe. They are the professional apparatchiks of the state controlled system of healthcare known as the NHS. They are doctors and consultants; or the chief medical officer, one Sally Davis, who is the bright spark who says that smoking should be banned from the nation's parks because it encourages children to take up smoking. Where is her evidence? She needs none of course – tobacco is evil, and she is a trained medical professional and this is sufficient.
            
            The NHS has £113 billion of the people's taxes spent on it each year, and it remains the people's champion. It is, despite its well advertised cruel practices, still popular with the public. Like all state run institutions, those working for them sooner or later come to believe that we are there to serve them rather than the other way round. Complacency sets in as it did at Stafford NHS Trust.

WHEN A WOMAN seeks an abortion, her primary argument for doing so is that it is her body and therefore her choice. But when it comes to smoking, obesity and alcohol, the same argument is ignored. Smokers, drinkers, and the obese, are told that they are a financial burden on the NHS, and therefore need to either stop doing something or moderate and limit something else, with the implied threat that in the future NHS treatment will be limited to those imbibing in those vices.
            
              If we take those categories of smoking, alcohol, and over eating; then it just about covers the whole of the adult population to some greater or lesser extent. In other words the taxpayer as a whole; who keep the masters of the universe solvent and in work. These so-called public servants can educate and do little more regarding the behaviour of their patients. The medical professionals are there to help and warn people about their vices, not promoting an illiberal political attitude toward them; trying to influence politicians into forming and passing anti-civil libertarian laws of the kind, the chief medical officer would like to see.

IN AMERICA, where private medicine is practised; the medical professionals are true servants of the people; for they charge for a service, and have to provide it. It matters little whether the patient that walks through their door is clinically obese, or an alcoholic with liver damage, or a smoker with emphysema or any other related disease brought about by indulging in what are after all pleasurable activities – human beings never indulge in un-pleasurable ones unless they are sadomasochists.
            
            When you can afford to pay, or have sufficient private health insurance; the medical professionals are masters of nothing; merely servants in the true sense of what public service was meant to foster within the state sector.
            
            Under state healthcare, the people are not in control of anything. They are under the control of the nanny state; a quaint word for something much sinister. Soon all our vices, deemed unhealthy by our medical professionals, and deemed a threat to NHS funding will be put under the microscope until our behaviour will be overseen to see who deserves and does not deserve treatment for an arrange of subjects.
            
             At least under the American system, whether through wealth or through an insurance based system, the patient is treated without moral judgement regarding their illnesses incurred through their vices. Human beings are prone to the lure of enjoyable vices that may in the long run ruin their health –this goes as much for sex (i.e. Aids) as anything else.
            
            The best compromise is the market based system, and not the Victorian judgmental system of a state regulated and politically directed arrangement  (paid for by the tax payer) – an arrangement based upon the kind of medical determinism where the medical professionals decide who can and cannot be treated based upon their behaviour. This is not happening now; but it is the direction we are going in. The direction medical professionals like the chief medical officer Sally Davis are leading us.
            
            A direction where illnesses that have found little favour with the medical profession because they were brought about by the vices mentioned above; have no welcome within the NHS. It will come to this eventually, if the likes of Sally Davis and those who come after her have their way. We are on the infernal slippery-slope.
            
            Would Sally Davis for instance warn off homosexual's from indulging in anal sex because of Aids? A practice which no doubt has an impact on NHS spending. Would this vice be pilloried by her in the same way she seeks to end smoking in parks?