ROCHDALE REVISITED

THE REPORT INTO THE Rochdale scandal where children as young as 10 were kidnapped and plied with alcohol before being raped, has just been published. There were 47 victims of this gang of nine Asian paedophiles who were jailed for between four and 19 years earlier this year.

            In total 127 warnings were given by NHS staff to police and council social services about these practices, yet they went ignored. Between 2004-2010 health workers made 83 formal attempts to educate Rochdale council into what was taking place in their town in the 21^st century; but again to no useful purpose.

            Rochdale’s MP Simon Danczuk, said ‘[the investigation] confirms this culture within Rochdale council, as case files  show social workers believed young girls who were raped were “making their own choices” and “engaging in sexual activity”.

            But I believe there was a far more sinister motive as to why this band of Asians were allowed to hunt down and violate both physically and emotionally these white children, than has been mentioned in this report. To describe such vulnerable young people as ‘making their own choice’ by ‘engaging in sexual activity’ says more about the prejudice and intolerance of the so-called ‘professionals’. Social workers and the police; and now it seems this report, has ignored the elephant in the room.

            Why for those six years between 2004-2010 did these professional bodies chose to ignore the warnings and allowed what amounted to child brothels to exist around them, with their full knowledge?

            I have not read the report, but the press mentions no content related to the elephant. The elephant in the room is of course multiculturalism, and the Asian Muslim culture in particular.         

Only Jack Straw, the former Home Secretary, has pointed to the elephant and acknowledged that, 'There is an issue of ethnicity here which can’t be ignored,' he said. 'It is true that if you go into the sex offenders wings of prisons there are proportionally more white men than Asian men. But there’s also the separate issue of grouping in the Asian community.'

THE POLICE AND SOCIAL SERVICES, as well as Rochdale council, all feared upsetting the Asian community by arresting those who were responsible, even after, in the case of the police, some of these young girls found the courage to come forward and complain about the disgusting way in which they were marketed for sex.

            Our modern police are given, as part of their training, instruction on multiculturalism, homophobia, as well as gender awareness: while our social workers need no such introduction, as they are inherently liberal in  nature and sympathetic to all minorities (except of course these sexually abused white children).

            Why these children were for so long exposed, was because both the police and social workers turned a blind eye preferring to see these young victims as ‘making their own choices’. In other words deserving the outrages that members of an ethnic minority subjected them to.

            How many of these young children were of Asian origin? Let me guess – none. Political Correctness is the equivalent of Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book; not of Communism, but of Multiculturalism. These children were the victims of the political correctness taught to the police during their training.

            Why these wretched individuals were given what amounted to a free hand to do what they did, was because they knew they were members of a minority community, against which the authorities, whether in the form of the police or the social services, were instructed to tread warily when investigating any such illegal behaviour by minorities.

The Rochdale police were frightened to act. Remember, these assaults had been going on for six years or more and the police had no intention of upsetting the Asian community. When I say Asian, I  mean Pakistani; for to blame  every culture encompassed by the whole of Asia, on the cruel happenings in Rochdale would indeed be racist.

IT IS MY GUESS that had the same scenario occurred in Bradford or Birmingham, the police and social services would have done exactly what their counterparts in Rochdale did. For there is a greater sensitivity in Multicultural Britain to the needs of minorities than (as proved in Rochdale) to the indigenous population.

            The Rochdale case will indeed replicate itself throughout those areas of our nation where Muslims from the Pakistani community   seek to use white females to satiate their lust. For by doing so they do not,  as so many of them believe, fall foul of the Koran and Islamic teaching, where of course the infidel is comparable in status to the black slaves that were used to harvest cotton and alleviate the lusts of their white masters in the southern states of America as well as throughout the Arab world.

            Our politicians are terrified of the multifarious minorities they have brought into being through granting them citizenship, and among whom, they now seek to govern. But of all such minorities, it is the two million Muslims, mainly from the Pakistani community that they fear the most. I now realise that if the police in Rochdale had stamped on these practices, it would have needed the go-ahead from a serving prime minister – such is the sensitivity surrounding a large Muslim minority.

            We have, in this country, been reduced. The indigenous population has been reduced. Our needs have been supplanted by Multiculturalism and made secondary to the needs of up to 100 other cultures we have allowed to live among us. Our schools are engaged upon the indoctrination of our children into perceiving as normal a Multicultural society with its many different cultural practices.

            The outcome of such an educational impulse is of course Rochdale, where other cultures can practice what we would perceive as cruelties without interference. Thus we have arranged marriages, genital mutilation, and, the latest from Africa, child exorcism. How long will it be before liberal Britain no longer sits on the fence  in order to safe-guard its conscience?  It has always been the top of the fence rather than either side of it, that has protected the liberal conscience from many sleepless nights.

            The Rochdale scandal is just another feature of Multiculturalism and its conduit of political correctness. We have either to come to terms with our Pakistani community by bowing down to their every wish as we seem to be doing; or we challenge them to either obey our laws above those of the Koran; or they should depart our shores to a more welcoming home in some part of the Muslim world where they and their  religious laws will be more welcome.

                       

           

           

                                   

           

           

The Affluence Unit

This war on affluence is nothing less than a war on prosperity and on Britain’s whole economic future.
Melanie Phillips

IT’S THAT SEASON AGAIN. The one which follows when politicians accumulate  frightening amounts of debt through too much spending and borrowing. At such times the ‘rich’[1] are targeted to pay for the latest episode of political recklessness; and at such times the rich citizen is demonized by rich politicians[2], and ways are found to make them pay more than their fair share of taxes. The rich are an easy target in a country where class envy has flourished since the 19^th century and continues to this day within the Liberal Democrat half of the Coalition – no wonder Nick Clegg has been in talks with the Labour Party over cohabitation in the event of another hung parliament in 2015.

            Already the top 10 per cent of earners pay 53 percent of the tax intake to the exchequer; while that evil City of London contributes £20 billion. Yet more is needed so property will now be brought into the firing line; anyone owning a £1million property will be presumed a tax-dodger, and the so-called Affluence Unit will investigate, by trawling through people’s financial records to hopefully make a few more pips squeak.

            The Affluence Unit (yes it really does exist) sounds like a 17^th century creation of Cromwell’s puritans, and will behave as such. Only a Labour Party conference circa 1978-1985 would come up with such a body: now it appears David Cameron (2012)  has allowed this sinister sounding body to be created and sent forth to do its nefarious work.

            Tax avoidance is perfectly legitimate, and if PAYE tax contributors were in a position to do so, would themselves pursue such legal means of keeping more of what they earn; and keeping it as far away from the politicians as they could in the knowledge that by handing it over, the politicians would spend, spend, spend, to their hearts content knowing, as they do, that billions have already been wasted on defence procurement, computer systems, Quangos, and a compendium of other forms of spending that have been brought to the attention of, and investigated by, numerous parliamentary Select Committees over the years.

            Politicians, when it comes to the people’s taxes are given to spraying them like confetti at a wedding. As it is not their money, it is not their loss: and if they mess up, there is always the rich to cover their losses. Politicians know what buttons to press to get us plebs excited; and attacking the rich, and milking them for all they are worth, will prove popular. Which, after all, is what every politician craves.

            Every pound of every billion spent in the public sector arrives via the private sector – the wealth creating sector is, in other words, the farm that produces the crops. Wealth creation has produced the following: the NHS, education, defence, oversees aid, and every other department of the state’s budget. It has done so by creating wealth and paying the wages of employees, all of whom, including the company itself, pour billions of pounds annually into the exchequer’s coffers for the politicians to spray about in such an anarchic manner.

THERE ARE SOME three million tax payers earning £50,000 per year (which is the base income for the 10 per cent Clegg has targeted for increasing taxation). These include many teachers, high ranking nurses and army officers. These groups are presumed to be of sufficient wealth to be described as wealthy by Nick Clegg. They will be expected to pay extra in taxes, thus narrowing the gap between themselves and those under them who will escape the Cameron/Clegg spite.

            As the wealth gap between public sector ‘master’ and ‘servant’ narrows; we can expect the unions representing those in the public sector on £50,000 to demand an increase to continue the pay-gap, thus incurring ever larger amounts of taxes from those working in the private sector.

A BODY CALLED THE ‘AFFLUENCE UNIT’ would have no place  in a truly Conservative administration: but it is alive and well within the Coalition. In the years to come political historians will scratch their heads in bewilderment at this creation; which is prepared to persecute those who have had the ambition, drive and intellect to create their own wealth and create employment in the process: only to see it so ill-treated  by politicians who feed the prejudices of their constituents in order to remain popular.

The Affluence Unit sounds evil to all those other than  socialists or communists, all of whom would regard it as eminently sensible. Under the banner of ‘Fare Taxation’, this liberal coterie of a coalition has brought discredit to the word fare. Fare? Why? Because it demands more from the rich? Why is this fare when they already contribute to well over 50 per cent of the collectable tax income?

Affluence represents prosperity and material comfort for the vast majority in a North Western European democratic society. But the word becomes synonymous with evil when used as a means of tracking down wealth as if its existence were a blasphemy.

            Clegg should give up on this idea before it comes back to haunt him. It may not rank with the euro in terms of sheer stupidity; but remember, Clegg still supports the euro, which should tell you something about the man’s judgement, as well as his ability to construct policy.   

---

[1] The current definition is someone earning £50,000 and over

[2] It reminds one of the historical demonization suffered by the ‘rich’ Jews when a East European state got itself into economic difficulties in the 19^th century and heralded the pogroms.

What is the difference between a pleb and a Paki?

I T WAS THE KIND OF comments made by Andrew Mitchell MP and Tory chief whip, that kept many working class voters from voting Tory. The arrogance displayed toward those police officers guarding Downing Street confirmed to the socialist Left their cultural prejudices against Tory ‘toffs’.

            It was not the several expletives Mitchell peppered his rant with, but the use of the term pleb to describe the officer who refused him admittance through the main gate in Downing Street, which rekindled for me the world of PG Woodhouse, where Bertie Wooster and his fellow drones engaged themselves with stealing policemen’s helmets; as a means of bringing excitement into their indolent lives

            Andrew Mitchell it appears, late of Rugby and Cambridge, is known as ‘thrasher’ for his fondness for the cane, which reawakens another literary simile, that of Flashman (also late of Rugby) in Tom Brown’s School Days; whose sadism knew no bounds. Like all such arrogant bullies who feel themselves protected by an authority bestowed, Andrew Mitchell’s final  caveat to the police officers, ‘you have not heard the last of this’, is a promise that has proven to apply more to his own behaviour than that of the guardians of the most important and celebrated street in the land.

            What is more I would take the word of those officers for what was said, any day, rather than  a politician…any politician. The sad thing is that those officers standing guard over Downing Street may be obliged to stand between Mr Mitchell and a bullet, if  terrorists were ever to launch an attack on while Mitchell was arguing and blaspheming over which entrance he and his wretched bike should be allowed to enter from.

            Mitchell’s attitude is outdated and indeed offensive. If I used the word Paki or Nigger, I would be hauled before some hate crime tribunal for sentence – which in the case of a hate crime would carry a modern sentence, at least equivalent to manslaughter. But the use of the word plebe; an equally offensive word to those it is meant to represent (or why did Mitchell use it?), is allowed to be used, like chav, without any involvement with the courts of law. Indeed Mitchell is not even being sacked from the front benches. But what if the officer he let loose his vulgarity upon had been black?

            I doubt then that Cameron would feel obliged to issue no more than an apology on his chief whips behalf  - but would  have been forced to tell him to go back to the backbenches.

ANDREW MITCHELL  is a throwback to earlier Tory cultural prejudices, where today’s people would be expected to respond immediately and without question to his antediluvian malevolence. This Tory chief whip believes himself once more back a Rugby where discipline and the lash to enforce it, still remains necessary and suited to his nature and reputation.

            But I am glad that this comic figure of a disciplinarian has met his match. He cuts an old-fashioned vignette as he peddles, grey-haired, his bicycle into Downing Street with its basket attached to its handle bars. This man, physically at least, is no obstacle to any back bench Tory. The nick name ‘thrasher’ is no doubt, intended to intimidate his backbenchers. But if so, his prime minister David Cameron, has lost the plot; as the events this week at the entrance to Downing Street have proven.

            From 2010 to the reshuffle this year Andrew Mitchell was the Secretary of State for International Development. In this office he managed a multi-billion budget for overseas aid. He, unlike any other minister, had his budget ring fenced. Which of course meant, unlike other government departments, the International Development budget is to grow.

            Mitchell, in this capacity, sought to persuade us of the returns we would receive from such giving. But when we in this country were being forced by our politicians, as well as the economic realities to make sacrifices; why then in God’s name should our people still have to subscribe to a multi-billion pound oversees budget? But I digress

           

ANDREW MITCHELL is thankfully no longer Secretary of State for International Development, and in a position to spend any more of the tax payers money. He now resides as his  party’s Chief Whip, who has fallen fowl of his own arrogance and may still be forced to stand down despite his leaders’ ‘confidence’ in him.

            The sooner this disreputable individual leaves the stage, the better it will be for the Conservative  Party. But I am afraid that the only time Cameron shows any kind of determination is when he stands by a cabinet minister.     

            In terms of the common cultural nomenclature, pleb should perhaps become treated by the liberal establishment as an addition to the list of none-words like Paki, which we cannot utter on penalty of committing a hate crime.

            To be a Plebeian in ancient Rome meant nothing more than being one of the people, ruled over by the patrician class. Today, such an aristocratic class no longer exists to any meaningful extent; while if the word pleb means anything today, it is used to describe what remains of the working class and the broader middle classes.

            Mitchell was never a patrician. He was the son of a wealthy parents who could afford him the best education money could buy – and a fat lot of good it did them. The new chief whip has been given a position of power over the Conservative benches which befits his reputation as the ‘Flashman of the Whip’s Office’.

            I believe Andrew Mitchell is indeed role playing the part of  the truculent aristocrat who believes himself above the common heard and fully entitled to express himself in the terms he used against those officers. He probably pines for the Rotten Boroughs, where his like bought their place in parliament, rather going cap in hand (as he would see it) to an electorate.

            To be fair to the modern Tory party Mitchell is an isolated romantic reliving earlier times in our parliamentary history when a walk down the street in a topper turned heads in respect. Today’s Tory Party is full of plebs, as is all other parties. The only patrician class today is homed in Buckingham Palace; and no tenant of that august establishment would ever have spoken in Mitchell’s terms, to any member of the police force.

           

 (

PRESIDENT NETANYAHU IS NO SWIVELLED EYED AHMADINEJAD

AN ARMADA IS GATHERING in the Strait of Hormuz. Naval vessels from 25 different nations, including the USA, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia and the UAE - they are purportedly about to carry out their yearly 12-day exercise.

            If this is really such an incongruous event annually held; why does today’s Sunday Telegraph choose to give it a splash? Well, for weeks, if not months, there has been constant talk of Israel launching an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, timed to take place either before or soon after the November presidential election in America.

            Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, has threatened such an attack and with good reason for so doing. For years the Israelis have been aware of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s nuclear programme and have been accosted by such vitriolic rhetoric from him that leaves the Israel’s in little doubt about what this Muslim fundamentalist  would like to do to the Jewish state – after all if Ahmadinejad were a citizen of the UK and used the language he uses here; he would be brought up on a hate crime charge.

            Israel’s main ally, the USA has sought to intervene to prevent such an attack by requesting that Israel gives time for the ever more harshly contrived sanctions to work and create a kind of ‘Arab Spring’ in Iran among its people. But having seen how the original Arab Spring  is developing, Israel can no longer afford to allow the same mistake to be repeated when it comes to the Jewish state’s survival.

             Netanyahu knows that time is not on his country’s side. If Iran were successful in destroying forever the Jewish state, Iran would become the power house of the region; all conquering and heralded by the rest of the Muslim world as its centre (the new Mecca): which is why both Saudi Arabia and the UAE, as well as Israel, all know what is at stake if Iran becomes a nuclear power which all Muslims can rally around.

            It is not only in Israel’s interests, but also the West’s as well as those Arab nations like Saudi Arabia and the UAE; who will no doubt be seeking to become nuclear powers themselves if Iran is left to its own devices with little threat other than economic sanctions; which in all such cases leaves the ruling class amply fed - it is Iraq all over again in the period before the West’s invasion, when the ruling elite kept themselves well fed despite president Clinton’s  sanctions.

            If Israel can delay Iran’s nuclear purpose for a year or two, it presents all sorts of possibilities. If Israel deferred Iran’s procurement of nuclear weapons for two years it will have achieved far more than sanctions could ever do, however severe.  Sanctions do not prevent Iran’s nuclear ambitions however relentless the West believes them to be. Only military action designed to damage and delay them will have a sufficient impact to allow further harm to be done to them if they resurrect their ambitions.        

            Then and only then, would the Iranian people feel that enough is enough and once more dare to take to the streets to overthrow their president and the hideous Ali Khomeini who is the true puppet master of this once cultured nation.

ISRAEL SHOULD PROCEED  with its long heralded attack upon the Iranian nuclear programme. If Benjamin Netanyahu believes, through his intelligence sources, that a military attack would succeed and do sufficient harm to Ahmadinejad’s ambitions; that would allow for further advancement in the West’s response; then it would be worth taking.

            Israel feels the whole Arab world closing vice-like upon it. The Arab Spring has not delivered democracy, only a united Arab front against the state of Israel led by the Muslim Brotherhood. The Arab world is in flux; but the one thing that unites them is the destruction of Israel, and every Arab religious faction will use this to unite themselves briefly enough to see the Jews once more driven from the ancient land called Judea.

            The fleet now congregating in the Strait of Hormuz to carry out an annual military exercise is there primarily to keep the oil flowing in the event of an Israel attack. Israel believes Iran will have a bomb by this time next year. If this proves to be true, then this part of the world will be more dangerous than ever, and the West will be to blame for any unfolding disaster.

            The West has relied upon sanctions and the Iranian opposition to overthrow the regime. This, if it were ever to happen, it will not do so before Tehran has a fully functioning nuclear weapon to threaten Israel with. What the West’s strategy would then be, they themselves do not really know, which is Netanyahu has demanded his red line. If he does not get it, he not going to mess around with his nation’s security in order for Obama to get re-elected.

            Benjamin Netanyahu is no liberal. His hero is Winston Churchill[1]; and I would ask the British people what they would do if this island nation were surrounded by enemies in the manner of Israel; with any one of them on the brink of becoming a nuclear power and without any prospect of being  appealed to through reason; just as Hitler could not be appealed to and had to be destroyed.

            If we are forced to confront a nuclear Iran militarily, think of the body count if  Ahmadinejad were to go nuclear, which he probably would if he faced defeat by Israel and the West. We have prevaricated, stalled, dithered and dissembled, in order not to face up to the threat that is Iran. It is about time, before it is too late, to draw that red line Netanyahu is asking for  in order to stop his country acting alone – but sadly, and perhaps tragically, alone is where Israel may find herself if Obama wins in November.

           

           

           

             

           

           

           

---

[1] And like Churchill, Netanyahu is thought upon as a warmonger by his enemies at home and in the West – they comprise those hapless oppositionists that Wellington in his time called the ‘croakers’.

Prince Harry should stand his ground

CAMP BASTION HAS come under attack by the Taliban. Sadly one American soldier was killed and five others wounded. The Taliban, thought to have numbered 20, lost 18 and had one captured – whose treatment by the Americans will now be closely overseen by Amnesty International and Liberty; to name but two of the multifarious human rights organisations.

            The media, including Sky News and the BBC, are behaving as if this attack on Camp Bastion was some kind of Tet Offensive, which, in 1968, proved to be the final straw that broke the camel’s back for America in Vietnam.

            The media got their teeth into this story and decided to shake it for all it was worth…which, in reality, meant very little. But when you are a 24-hour news broadcaster having to repeat the same stories on a 15 minute cycle, such an attack breaks the monotony; and if there is a British monarch involved, then hyperbole becomes reasoned analysis.

            This minor attack has been elevated by media commentators (many of them respected; and as such should have known better) into a crises. They have played into the hands of the Taliban by inflating this attack into a victory of  a magnitude that gives the Taliban God-like status within the Muslim world, simply because of what the Muslim world would see as flattering comments made by Western journalists, whose comments they see on satellite television and other modern media.

            Of course the involvement (be it at the periphery) of the third in line to the throne, they would suggest, makes this a major story. But does it really? A Taliban ‘source’ told a Western journalist that Prince Harry was the main target; but, as a footnote, he added that the  rancid anti-Muslim video also had a role to play. Now talk has begun about bringing Harry home.

            I hope this will not be the case. First of all, Prince Harry would fight such a proposal and quite rightly so. He would be humiliated by any such suggestion, and it would do him great harm in his future life psychologically, knowing that he was taken from the battle field by the monarchy for fear of him being killed. A fear which his comrades share each and every day throughout their posting, and one which Harry needs to share if he is to fulfil a proper military role.

           

“THAT HE WHICH hath no stomach for this fight, Let him depart; his passport shall be made”.[1] Is this to be the end of a prince whose namesake took on the mighty majesty of the French nobility at Agincourt?

            I know that in this cynical world of the early 21^st century such a sentiment, even if written by the Bard himself, is either deemed reactionary or comical.

            We have a soldier prince and should allow him to pursue his profession. It is a deeply dangerous profession, but one which his ancient ancestors took hold upon and brought victory to their country.

            Cruelly described as the spare, Harry needs a role in life to fulfil, and to perform such a role without being treated as a piece of Ming dynasty china.

            The Camp Bastion raid was just that – a raid. It served no purpose other than to send the Western media into a frenzy of excitement because of Prince Harry’s ‘involvement’.

            I truly appreciate a free media, but it behaves at times as if it is serving its own interest by promoting a news story; which it hopes to win an award for.

            Harry should stay where he is and continue the battle against the Taliban, until his cowardly political masters return him and the whole British involvement in Afghanistan back home, as they intend to do by 2014.

            Prince Harry knows what he wants. He is a soldier prince, and as such demands no favours. If he dies on the field of battle, then he will have suffered the same fate as over 400 other young men and women who fought for their country.

            We should not pull Harry from  the field of battle. He should, as an Apache co-pilot, in charge its formidable armoury, allow him to use it in defence of his comrades whether British or American. He must be allowed to fulfil the role his family choose him for. It is what no doubt Harry would want and thrives upon. He knows that war is a lottery and if he engages in it, he must stand no greater chance of surviving it than any other soldier.

            It is the chance that every soldier has to take, and Harry wishes no easier progress through his military career than any other of his comrades.

            In the coming days after the Camp Bastion raid, there will be a flurry of talk within the media about whether Harry should be brought home. The palace should ignore such talk and allow the young prince to carry on with his duties. They must not, under any circumstance, kow-tow to the media by bringing Harry home until his term of duty has been completed. He should be allowed his one contribution he believes he can give to his country, as third in line to the throne.

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

---

[1] Harry does indeed have a stomach for the fight – but does the Palace?

The West Continues On Its Fateful Course Of Appeasement

“He’s not a prophet. He’s a bad boy!”

From The Life of Brian

THE ARAB SPRING has taken a nasty turn. One which many commentators believed it would, once the dictator’s departed the stage. Obama, Cameron, and Sarkozy, all heralded  the Spring as the midwife of  democracy throughout the Arab world. In the case of Libya they even leant a hand with its birth by destroying from the air, all off  Gaddafi’s  heavy weaponry.

            Today, throughout the Arab world, protesters are laying siege to American embassies, after a video was posted on the internet insulting the prophet Mohammed. It started in the Libyan city of Benghazi, where the American ambassador and three others were killed after an angry mob laid siege to America’s embassy.

            Now the protests have spread to Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Nigeria, and the Sudan. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt have called for a million people to protest peacefully against this depiction of the Prophet after Friday prayers.

            The Muslim Brotherhood have never been stronger and must now believe their time has come. The Brotherhood was kept on a very short leash by Mubarak, Hussein and Gaddafi, before they were themselves driven from power; encouraged by the West.  It is clear, especially in Egypt, that the Brotherhood  have become the main beneficiaries of the Arab Spring and their influence throughout the Arab world and beyond is taking root.

            As I have written in other blogs, the Muslim world has never been cleansed of its medievalism. Unlike Christianity in the West, the Muslim world never enjoyed a Renaissance; was never subjected to a Reformation, or the liberating oxygen of an Age of Enlightenment. Which is why today a little known video of little artistic merit and grossly insulting to the Muslim faith, has brought about such a tide of anger.

            If such a video of this type was made attacking Christ, it would no doubt anger the few remaining practising Christians in the UK. But our secularist society would have shrugged it off and we would all have gone about daily our lives, thinking the photos of Kate exposing her breasts while relaxing on holiday, and being published by the Frogs, of a far greater significance.

            The quote at the head of this piece was from the Python film, The Life of Brian (1979), and the film caused much outrage at the time of its release; but the indignation and fury did not result in the deaths of Graham Chapman, Eric Idle, Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones, John Cleese, and Michael Palin; or even our ambassador to the Sea of Rome.

            Ever since The Life of Brian, the Christian Church has been an easy target for humorists - without any kind of criticism, even from the Anglican Church. I am sure there is as much humour to be made at the expense of Islam as there is with Christianity. But of course, it takes courage to tackle Islam in the way the Python team chose to do with Christianity.

IT IS A FRIGHTENING PROSPECT that the Western democracies now face, regarding the Muslim world. Dictators, who understood their societies far better than the West’s modern political classes ever did: and who served our interests well by keeping Islamic fundamentalism at bay through their, at times, brutal treatment, are no doubt  looking either down or up at us in the West, and experiencing a kind of ephemeral shardenfroida before taking up their final residency in whatever part of the ‘other side’ they find themselves competing for.

            As with our domestic politics, our leaders have displayed their total naivety when tackling foreign affairs; and the Arab Spring in particular. Domestically, they allowed into the UK over two million Muslims to seek residency; while believing that the Muslim world would jump at the chance to become democratic.

            But it was not only UK politicians, but politicians throughout the whole of Europe whose idealism replaced the sound rational judgement that they believed themselves to have had. So we, on the continent of Europe, are hosts to over 15 million Muslims, at a time when Islamism is on the march against the West and its Christian values …although they may have concluded (as many in the West have done) that Christianity and its Western leaders, lack any kind of spinal fortitude to oppose them.

            Our leaders in the West are willing to bend over backwards to appease the Muslim world, and would no doubt like to see the maker of this video handed over to Muslim mobs for summary execution, without trial. It would calm down the situation until a comedian at some working men’s club in Hull cracks the wrong kind of joke which is published via a mobile phone onto the internet; and sets off another round of Islamist protest.

            It is a common belief, summed up in a simple expression that has transgressed the decades since his death, that, “Enoch was right”.

            The kind of  belief that was, once shared within range of a microphone, could end a political, or celebrity career; now takes on a more serious and reflective purpose. Enoch was indeed right. He, unlike the Westminster corralled political classes and media today, saw what could happen when cultures mixed without the continued dominance of the host culture over all others; to which alien cultures had to comply if they wished to remain British citizens. Powel was no racist, but a strident opponent of communalism, which while in India, he found so destructive.

            For communalism, read multiculturalism. When India gained its independence from Britain, its Muslim population demanded its own independent state and it cost over 100,000 lives          to bring about. Enoch better understood the dangers of multiculturalism than his accusers (filled with idealism) ever did.

           

TODAY’S POLITICAL LEADERS have been  moulded their whole lives by political correctness and a belief in multiculturalism; which, in terms of allowing millions of Muslims to seek and take up residency in this country or the European continent, will bring about a sizable fifth column once our politicians begin to smell the coffee and realize the true significance of the Arab Spring.

            Today our politicians, whether in Europe or America, still seek to appease this medieval religion, whose many semi-illiterate followers, have been exposed to nothing more than the Koran, but can nevertheless frighten the West’s politicians into an apology for an act regarding freedom of speech, which they are supposed to believe in as a corner stone of democracy.

            The West must show to the ever growing Islamist Arab world, as it once did the communist one; its preparedness to act to defend Western democracy. This new, and soon to be a more radical and anti-western variant of Islam will, if the West continues its appeasement of it, become convinced that a Western Caliphate is no longer a dream

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

            

“A generation of trade unionists will dance on Thatcher’s grave”

'you spit on your own, you can’t do anything. But if you all spit together, you can drown the bastards.’

                                                                                RMT leader Bob Crow

AT THIS YEARS TUC conference, the brothers and sisters have gathered to unleash the venom they have stored up within them for the last year. Rant after rant, bigotry and spite, is the formula at the lectern; as the ancient class war, like a May Day Morris dance, is engaged in by the remnants of a once powerful and destructive Union movement, that was given its rightful place in the pecking order by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s.

            This lady took it upon herself to abate the union tide that threatened this country’s ruination. In doing so she allowed our economy to breath and grow once more. For I swear that if she had not acted in the way she did, we as a country, would have suffered modern Greece’s  Fall, but a decade earlier.

            But what do we see today at the TUC conference? T-shirts with an inscription promising that their wearers will dance on Thatcher’s grave. £10 each is the asking price, but they have not had, according to Christopher Hope of the Daily Telegraph, no more than half a dozen buyers. However many sympathised, but were not prepared to be seen wearing one.

            Unlike many who are attending this bash in Brighton, I am old enough to have comprehended the Thatcher years and to have become imbued with the kind of hatred  toward her that many feel today. I had been, since my 16^th birthday (as far as I can recall), a Marxist, brought up in a Labour family. In 1971 or was it 1972…it does not matter. I can remember marching against the Industrial Relations Act introduced by Ted Heath. There were some 200,000 people marching through London on that day to do what the TUC hopes to do today – to bring down a Tory government elected by the people; for then, just as now, democracy only had any kind of  relevance for the Left whenever a Labour government was in power.

            The country was in the grip of the trade unions and I was loving it; the revolutionary ether  was infiltrating the nostrils of a generation. There followed during that awful decade, the four-day week; the miners’ strike, the refuge collectors strike, the power workers strike which left the country facing power cuts. While in the private sector Red Robbo, the Bob Crow look-a-like, ruled the roost at British Leyland at their Longbridge plant in Birmingham. British Leyland had gone bankrupt in 1975 and was stupidly nationalised by the government.

            I was in my early twenties and the oil crises that set inflation spiralling gave me even greater hope that capitalism was on its last legs. At a time when I should have been concentrating on my own future, I was enjoying my revolutionary status as a member of the British Communist Party.

           

THE BRITISH NATION was, economically speaking, facing the abyss; and it was the trade union movement that managed to frighten the weak ‘One Nation’ Tory governments; and wrestled endlessly with impotent Labour ones, forcing them on many occasions to bow before their will.

            The TUC conference then, unlike today, was covered by the BBC as thoroughly as the party conferences were. Today the TUC merits only a news item and no live coverage. Then trade union bosses would be frequent visitors to Downing Street under Labour governments, threatening them with all sorts of embarrassment unless they were allowed their bridle.

            In 1969, pre-dating Heath’s Industrial Relations act, Barbara Castle, the Labour Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, introduced a similar document, In Place of Strife, which met with the same fate as Ted Heath’s later attempt at union reform.

            So what was left? The country was left beached and without rescue. The two main parties had fallen, each in their own way, to the power of the trade union movement . The Conservative Party had evolved into what became  known as a One Nation Party; which sought to accommodate all classes after its centuries of Toff-like image; or, as we have come to know it today via a quote from a Tory politician,  the Nasty Party.

THE RISE OF Margaret Thatcher, at a significant time in our nation’s history, sought to rehabilitate our economy. She did so, first of all by loosening the grip of union power over our legal processes regarding industrial law. She introduced  opposing laws given the unions  by previous Labour and One Nation Tory governments. No longer would closed shops or shop steward’s rule the roost on the factory floor. The trade unions were rightly brought to book and faced fines if they carried on with their nefarious practices.

            Heavy union fines soon confined the antics of the union bosses. This and only this, is why Margaret Thatcher is so hated among those gathered in Brighton today.

            Today, as in the past, it is the public sector unions who are set to revolt and cause mayhem this winter. Teachers, NHS workers, refuge collectors, town hall bureaucrats; are all being cajoled by their union leaders to bring about another winter of discontent.

            The public sector, who are paid from the taxes garnered from the private sector, are better paid and receive superior pensions to those working in the private sector.

            The public sector union bosses are hell bent on a political strike, which they hope will turn back time - but with a different outcome. These overpaid, bigoted, foul mouthed (see quote above), and bone headed commissars will lead their ‘members’ to certain defeat, before retiring on a pension of such opulence that may a CEO inn the privates sector would envy.

            In the world of palaeontology , speculation is rife that Neanderthal man may have interbred with homo-sapiens. If evidence was needed of such an occurrence, then the  leaders of the various public sector unions should provide conclusive proof.

            Margaret Thatcher, who is now too ill to defend herself, will be remembered long after Bob Crow’s Neander-sapien bones have become fossilised and awaiting the services of some future palaeontologist's trowel to confirm the relationship.

            Meanwhile the Thatcher legacy, like that of Churchill will have served this nation and allowed it to continue holding its head up in the world.

           

           

           

           

           

             

The useful idiots

JULIAN ASSANGE’S BACKERS have lost £240,000[1] between them after the egomaniacal Aussie broke his bail conditions and decided to hole up in the Ecuador embassy. Among those who he betrayed  were Jemima Khan, John Pilger, Ken Loach and the former Sunday Times  journalist Philip Knightley. Also included was  the wife of Lord Evens, Lady Caroline Evens.

            It is a pity, for instance, that John Pilger never put his skills as a campaigning journalist to good use before signing the cheque. His natural scepticism, usually on display when targeting anything American, seemed to desert him in the case of Mr Assange. As we have seen on many occasions; when it comes to exposing  right wing misdemeanours (as opposed to left wing ones of the Latin American type), Pilger is usually thorough with his research. But in the Assange case, the fool’s gold that is Wikileaks; brought forth a kind of greed in the hack; of the kind fraudsters and mountebanks like to exploit.

            I wonder if the Ecuador One feels any kind of remorse over his betrayal of so many kindred spirits from the Left. Poor old Ken Loach the socialist film director must have had uncontrollable amounts of saliva foaming from his mouth at the prospect of Assange releasing all those leaks that Loach hoped would, like Pilger, damage Western interests and provide him with his next film synopsis.[2]

            Whistle-blowing is a seductive concept (especially for the left). While it can disclose fraud, for instance, within a company or public and private institution, this is wholly good. When it comes to government and government secrets and the publishing of thousands of sensitive US diplomatic cables and military files; then whistle- blowing is a great threat to a nation’s security - a concept I believe the left does not recognise?

            Whistle- blowing from within, for instance, the Ministry of Defence or the Pentagon cannot be, and should not be tolerated. Which is why Mr Assange is desperate to keep clear of American jurisdiction via his deportation to Sweden; and is now taken up residency within the Ecuador embassy.

            Those admirers of Assange like Pilger and Loach, have reached their sell by date. They have given this Bond villain their money and support, and are regretting doing so, but of cause, a public admission of such would make Pilger a laughing stock. So he and Loach will bite their tongues.

JEMIMA KHAN, unlike those natural cynics, Pilger and Loach, cannot be blamed for giving the wretched Assange her support. She acted through idealistic impulses; and not through a sense of bitterness toward the West in general, and America in particular - unlike Pilger and Loach.

            As for those other lesser financial contributors, apart from Captain Vaughn Williams who, you may remember, allowed St. Julian the occupancy of  his Norfolk county mansion as a bail address – they should have indeed known better. 

            Ms Khan still believes in the blessed Julian, but would like to see him, “… confront the rape allegations in Sweden and the two women at the centre have a right to a response.”

            She feels no bitterness toward Assange, or at the loss of her financial contribution to his bail money[3]. Unlike, no doubt, the many minor contributors who could ill afford the sums of between £5,000-£10,000.

            I am reminded by Julian Assange of a phenomena that presented itself during the reign of Nicholas II of Russia in 1917. The grip on Nicholas’s wife, Queen Alexandria by Gregory Rasputin, as well as on the whole Romanov dynasty in its final years: this  grip, that the mad monk had on the Romanov dynasty, for a short period, does indeed remind me of Mr Assange’s grip on the liberal dynasty which we in the UK have been living through for the past 50 years.

            Assange seems to have the same hold upon, what they themselves like to refer to as ‘progressive opinion’. Such opinion does indeed act like a dynasty. Especially as it has overwhelmed our culture since the beginning of the 1960s. The great liberal post-war dynasty, like the earlier Romanov one, is hopefully coming to an end.

KEN LOACH was never an artist, but a journeyman, which, no doubt, he will find flattering. Without doubt in the coming years after Julian Assange’s expulsion from the Ecuador embassy, Mr Loach will find an individual, without acting experience of course (for this is his trade mark), to play Julian Assange. He should preferably have a northern accent, and have worked at some stage in his life as a labourer, or, much harder to find these days, a miner.

            Julian Assange uses people to advance, not the truth, but only himself. His appeal to whistle-blowers is an appeal for them to contact WikiLeaks in order  to give him credit for whatever piece of prurience is passed on to him.

            The likes of Pilger, Loach, Khan, Knightley, Lady Caroline Evens, or even the Marchioness, among many other idealists including Nobel Laureates; have all fallen entranced, like the Romanov queen to Rasputin… to Assange’s appeals.

            We are entering a period when state secrets will matter more than at any other time in our modern nation’s history. When I say matter, I mean to the British people. The source of  any leak  that involves the security of our nation should be tracked down and the “whistle-blower” given whatever the law decrees suitable punishment for disclosing state secrets.

            Assange today sits in his new bolt-hole out of the reach of the British government and the useful idiots who put up his bail; he no doubt charmed and convinced the likes of Pilger and Loach, who he knew were useful to him because of their militant leftist credentials, which to someone like Assange, means, they would believe anything that incriminates capitalism and the West.

            Assange has played these two like Lenin played Wells and Shaw, and the Western left of his time. Fellow travelling often ends in disillusionment for the traveller; but it is my guess that both Pilger and Loach will continue to support the Assange Party; for to do anything less would  show them for what they are – a pair of  useful idiots!

           

           

           

---

[1] According to the Daily Telegraph 22 June 2012

[2] For both Pilger and Loach anybody whose cause is anti-American will be given their support

[3] After all it was daddy who provided it