J' Accuse Labour

LABOUR HAS DONE many awful things while governing this country, but the most perfidious is the evil that is political correctness. It was Labour that infected our culture with it and in doing so allowed its awful consequences. We see today what Orwellian newspeak can do, with the evil that has occurred in Rotherham.

            

            Rotherham is a Labour town, where Labour councillors, the police and social services covered up the beatings, rapes, and in one instance the dowsing of a young girl in petrol accompanied by a threat to set the girl alight. Fourteen hundred young children were systematically abused with the consent of those public bodies that were meant to protect them. On three occasions reports into the kind of misery these children were enduring were  suppressed?

            

            Well, this is where the evil that is political correctness plays its part. Those bodies that were meant to look after these children's interest were either fearful of the racist tag, or even agreed with such a politically correct agenda, as many social workers did; and still do throughout the country today.

            

            The most frightening word in the PC lexicon, surpassing even sexism, misogyny and homophobia as a stain on someone's character is being accused as a racist.

            

             To be targeted as a racist is like being given the black spot. From there on in, only a child molester is treated worse (unless, that is, if you are a Pakistani who lives in Rotherham, Doncaster, or Rochdale). Racist, like 'witch', and 'counter-revolutionary' - titles that shared its current prestige in the past; causes immeasurable harm to be done.

            

            The authorities in Rotherham allowed such evil to go unpunished because they were frightened by a greater evil, that of being accused of racism. These 1400 young souls were put through the kind of hell that those allowed it to happen, would never see their own children put through.

LABOUR HAS MUCH to answer for; for it was from their part of the political spectrum that this whole invidious form of entrapment sprang. In Rotherham these children's collective fate were in the hands of local Labour politicians in a town with a significant Pakistani population; significant enough to keep Rotherham Labour.

            

            For instance, during the Blair-Brown years, Labour used 'racist' at each and every opportunity to prevent any Tory from discussing immigration. Anyone brave enough to step forward to complain about the way mass immigration was allowed to flourish by the Blair government; had racist waved like garlic to a vampire, by the Labour Party.

            

            To be charged as a racist could destroy careers in an instant whether in politics, or anywhere else in the public sector. Labour had it all sown up. They arranged by their PC restrictions for people in the public sector to fear speaking out; the PC noose would quickly tighten around anybody's neck who was thought to have transgressed against multiculturalism. As far as the public sector is concerned, it was from them that the Rotherham tragedy was wickedly ignored for so long for fear of the black spot of racism.

            

            There are 5.7 million[1] people working in the public sector, all trained into obeying the various strains of political correctness. All fearful of the black spot and a ruined career and a lost pension. These were the kind of calculations being made by those in Rotherham, Rochdale, and Oxford, where Pakistani's groomed, abused, and raped young girls taken into care by social services…so much for the benevolent and compassionate state.

IT ANGERS ME that I voted all of my life for the Labour Party. For nearly 40-years I put my cross against a Labour candidate, as did my parents before me; and as will the residents of Rotherham, even after such an appalling exposure of Labour culpability.

            

            After the last war, Labour became the pioneers of colonial guilt. They were joined by the Left of the Tory Party, by now calling itself the 'One Nation' party. Between them they allowed an ever increasing flow of immigrants to enter this country; and the one individual who dared speak out against such an influx (small as it was then in comparison to what was to follow), was still regarded as a racist, fascist, bigoted, and considered a pariah by the establishment which he belonged to and believed in.

            

             You of course know to whom I am referring…the great Satan himself; brigadier John Enoch Powell MBE, who, unlike those highly paid public servants in Rotherham, cared little, or feared little from any reaction by the establishment to his truly held beliefs – beliefs which the establishment could not put asunder. In earlier periods of the nation's history, Enoch Powell would have suffered the hangman's noose, or at the very least a ducking stool for being a 'witch' opposing the current trend.

            

              The modern Labour Party cares more for the ethnic vote than they do for an ever diminishing white working class vote; a vote which, quite frankly, the Labour Party regards as two thirds racist anyway, according to their PC reasoning. The white working class are of a diminishing significance to the Labour Party. But the white working class will, through habit or impulse, still vote Labour (the red rosette on the monkey syndrome) next May.

LABOUR IS responsible for Rotherham, just as it had been for Rochdale, and every other mainly northern town that has, and will, in the future experience further such horrors. The Labour party has always been ethnic sensitive since the emergence of their multicultural formula. The PC Labour Party has wrought the modern horror of Asian abuse of white children, and through their political correctness the Labour Party have managed to shut many mouths in Rotherham as well as many other northern cities that may emerge in the future. 

            

            The Racist charge has been the Labour Party's nuclear weapon meant to keep them in power, and they have used it to further advance their multicultural ideology. It has also proved useful to further encourage, through Europe's open borders, further millions to come to our shores.

            

             It is Labour that is ultimately to blame for the way the events in Rotherham have been allowed to transpire. But I have not heard any comment from any Labour politician upon the appalling events in Rotherham. Up to now, not a single Labour politician has spoken on the subject of the events. But when they do, they will no doubt find a way of blaming the current government.

            

             Next May the Labour Party, will most likely once again govern this country -  if only in partnership with the Lib Dems (the party of power without popularity). Next May will be politically interesting but economically disastrous if the party that spent 13 years ruining the country's economy and its social fabric, were to govern once again as the front half of a pantomime horse.

            

            Why oh why, do working class people still vote Labour? I tell you now – the Labour London Metropolitan hierarchy disdain you all. They even recreated you as chavs; that much despised and ridiculed class to whom there is no PC corrective, as there is with nigger, or Paki. I am working class, but even I am growing weary of those who share my culture, time after time allowing themselves to be herded like sheep into the ballot booth to vote Labour.

            

            It was Labour that were the pioneers of political correctness that led directly to the events in Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford, and whatever other city will in the future be found out. The Labour Party does not deserve office, but their working class supporters still exist in such numbers to give them power. I say this to today's Labour Party working class voters. The Labour Party is not the party of your forefathers…socialism is dead, and it was never really believed in by the Right of the Labour Party, that always came out on top.

            

            Today the Labour party is about 'progressive' politics, and their New Jerusalem is no longer socialism, but multiculturalism and promoting all kinds and forms of minorities; whether ethnic or sexual. Today the party rallies around Gay rights, transgender rights, ethnic rights, abortion rights, 'human rights'; such as the right to allow prisoners to vote.

            

            The Labour Party is not and never has been for over two thirds of its history, a flag-waver for socialism…as far socialism is concerned it is a dead parrot suffused with romanticism – the kind which unfortunately keeps the British working class voting Labour.

           

             

           

---

[1] At Q2 2013 according to www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/pse/public-sector-employment/q2-...

Scottish Independence

Here's the bird that never flew

Here's the tree that never grew

Here's the bell that never rang

Here's the fish that never swam

A traditional Glasgow rhyme

I NEVER WATCHED the great IN /OUT debate between Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling on the BBC last night. But from what I have heard and seen from the highlights, the contestants ranted at and bludgeoned each other, while the audience at times resembled a seething multitude. As for the 'moderator', well, in this case the term became an oxymoron. It  must have been like sitting in a Glasgow pub downing pints of  'heavy' in the 1950s. All that was needed was for Rab Nessbit and his cronies ambling drunkenly into the room to put in an appearance waving the Saltier, and trying to remember the lines of 'Flower of Scotland'.

            

            On the evening the Scots lived up to their  English stereotype  - although, as I say, I only saw the highlights. I nevertheless saw one poor women emerging mentally bruised in front of the cameras and wondering what it had all been about. She had not understood, or learnt anything from her experience of the 'debate', such was the bellowing between debaters and audiences. It is difficult to understand some Scots even in a state of calm; but it is impossible to understand a bad tempered one.

            

             I am told that the audience was heavily weighted toward the YES campaign; although I doubt if the lack of such a bias would have made it any more endearing as a spectacle. Darling got the better of Salmond in the first debate, after which the YES campaigners were determined to silence him in the following one. I do not know, or even care, how the BBC selects its audience on these occasions; but if it is done via a questionnaire, then a lot of people were telling porky's.

            

             This fractious 'debate' has not endeared the English to the idea of keeping the Union. Indeed the English are left wondering whether they should not have had a say on this issue. For if the NO vote wins, then the English taxpayer would be subsidising the Scots through their taxes. The Scots, through devolution, now have the right to manage and finance much of their public sector, including the NHS – and if the vote goes with those seeking to retain the union, then Salmond would still win because we have promised the Scots even greater inducements as a reward for voting NO.

            

              One can imagine Salmond returning to the Independence vote in ten years time and if he suffers the same result, Scotland will accrue further powers as a reward, until independence arrives through perpetual referenda.

IF SCOTLAND CHOSE to go alone, then good luck to them. But the knot must be completely severed, tying Scotland to the rest of the UK, regarding the pound; and the three main party leaders this side of the boarders must stick by their decision to remove the Scots from the ambit of the pound; for I think Salmond is calling our bluff in the  expectation that when he wins and the English are given time to lick their wounds, our politicians will have second thoughts about Scotland keeping the pound under the protection of the Bank of England.

FREEDOM MEANS just that, and independence means freedom – total and absolute. If this is what the Scottish people want, then this is what they would have signed up to by their yes vote. The English would not tolerate any compromise that Mr Salmond thinks he can negotiate with the English parliament – the English are in no mood to be taken for suckers once again, after what they have had to put up from various European Union diktats, that now imposes on the UK's liberty as a nation state.

            

            No. If Scotland yearns for independence then they must know what it means; and I do not think that the Scottish audience tuning into last night's debate are any the wiser - so they should be careful for what they wish when they vote for Scottish independence.

           

            I believe in the Union. Britain is an island nation incorporating Scotland, a nation which has delivered a host of world renowned scientists, engineers, politicians, economists and novelists – and to use a phrase once used by the one-time British Foreign Secretary, Douglas Heard (in relation to the UK) Scotland has, throughout its history 'punched above its weight.' Scotland's contribution to Great Britain has been magnificent; and its cultural achievements in politics, philosophy, economics, science, and the arts, have spread throughout the world. The country has, often through persecution, forced its people abroad, to attain even greater success among those they settled among.

            

             This busily creative little beehive that is Scotland is to be admired by anyone who believes in civilisation, and who understands the bricks and mortar that go to make up such a civilisation…I wish Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom.

BUT, IF THE SCOTTISH people chose to turn their backs on us and seek to go it alone, then we members of what would be left of the Union must rearrange our lives calmly and collectively, at this historical moment in the United Kingdom's history.

            

            If the vote is YES, then the cut must be clean, and we in what is left of the UK must go about our business in the same way we do today and would have continued to do so if the NO vote had won. All talk of compromise must never enter the vocabulary of our English politicians. England, Wales, and Northern Island must manufacture their own destiny together.

            

            Scotland will become independent. As an independent nation it will have to find its own way forward. England will no longer owe the Scots any kind of support economically or politically – as they would not wish us to do.

            

            So, if the vote is YES, then farewell Scotland – it is sad to lose such a great friend and bulwark of the United Kingdom, but you have chosen your destiny, and, as with what is left of the rest of the UK, you must go it alone. But by wishing to become part of Europe, you will soon lose your national independence anyway.

            

            For if Alex Salmond seeks to become an EU member, then Scotland, as a nation state will be lost within a few decades of its very new-founded infancy. The future of the European Union is a federal union that seeks to rid itself of the nation states of Europe, including Scotland and England.

            

            European federalism is designed to usurp the nation states throughout Europe; something which no doubt Alex Salmond has not passed on to his Scottish Nationalist brethren, as he seeks an independent Scotland's entry into European Union.

            

             European federalism, or to use a more realistic term - a United States of Europe, is what the great Scottish Nationalist leader will be steering the Scottish nation toward if he wins. Scottish nationalism, like all European nationalism, will lay dead in the water. The future of Scotland will be exactly the same as that of England. If Scotland chooses the way of the European Union – then last nights debate and the whole referendum issue would have been superfluous. European federalism will ultimately triumph, to the determinant of the nation state.

           

           

           

              

           

           

           

             

Israel - the West's watchtower in the Middle East?

ON AUGUST 21^st  Israel killed three of Hamas's senior commanders; this followed an attack on the home of Mohammed Deif, Hamas's commander-in-chief, killing his wife and daughter, and leaving him to continue to prowl the seedy depths of terrorism[1].

            

             However the deaths of the three Hamas commanders, Mohammed Abu Shammala, Raed al-Attar and Mohammed Barhoum, were to prove adequate compensation for Mohammed Deif's survival. Israel are targeting Hamas's senior operatives and leaders. The gloves are now off. What would have been considered by the liberal West as political assassinations can no longer, after this latest conflict, be regarded as such. The Hamas leadership have now become legitimate targets, and Mossad have them in their sights and will eventually, as the Hamas leadership knows, eventually kill them.

           

             In panic, Hamas has put to death 18 of what they call 'Israeli agents'. Let there be no doubt, panic has set in within the Hamas leadership: they are feeling the heat, and are not, or ever will be, ready to face martyrdom on behalf of their people; which is why they hide themselves away in Gaza's hospitals.

            

            They have, however, herded their people into martyrdom by using them as human shields. The Hamas leadership , and only the Hamas leadership, are the real killers of their people. They cower, either in hospitals within Gaza or in Doha, while the very people they represent are being used as pawns in the greater Palestinian game – the means, it seems, according to Hamas's calculations, justify the ends.

            

             Now comes news that the Fata leader President Mahmoud Abbas, has called upon Israel to join in further negotiations to solve the current impasse. The tone was desperate. Egypt would once more provide the negotiating arena. Israel was waiting for such a pronouncement but not so soon and were prepared to continue with such assassinations of  the Hamas leadership. To save face, Hamas had asked the Fata President Mahmoud Abbas to arrange the negotiations.

           

            Israel was determined that Hamas should once more, not turn an obvious defeat into a victory. What Israel's response will be after a four-year-old Israeli boy was killed by Hamas mortars will be, I do not know. But the mere fact that Abbas, under a face saving instruction from Hamas, now seeks further negotiation and puts Israel in charge.

ISRAEL WILL HAVE no better chance to finish off Hamas than they now have. Will they yet again allow themselves to be reined in by the West; only once more to be faced with the same dilemma, and the further sacrifice of Israeli lives in two or three years from now, as they acquiesce once more in their so-called American allies 'instructions'.

            

            Since the election of president Obama, Israel seems to have forfeited its reliance upon the USA. Obama and his anti-Israeli Secretary of State, John Kerry have been in the forefront of anti-Zionism -  be it out of the ears of the American public. They both believe that Israel are the oppressors of the Palestinians and will do whatever they can to aid this cause despite historical evidence to the contrary.

            

            Today's Democrat government in the USA have little sympathy for Israel, but dare not openly expound it (except when caught off camera doing so[2]). All American governments, whether Republican or Democrat, have rightly proved generous allies of Israel in the past. But as far as the current administration is concerned; it does all it dare do to support the Palestinians without incurring a backlash, not only from the Republican Party, but from within the pro-Israel lobby within its own, led by Hillary Clinton.

            

             Hamas has to be marginalised among their Palestinian supporters in Gaza; if not, and because Israel is to be once more reined in by the West: then we will once more revisit the current situation in one or two years time, and add to the further suffering among the Gazan civilians whenever Hamas regards it as to their benefit to strike out at Israel once again; in the belief that the world will once more take their side after Israel's 'Pillar of Defence' incursion in 2012, which was also brought about by Hamas's rockets.

            

             Every time Israel tries to defend itself (and all its military operations have been defensive since the War of Independence in1948), the West intervenes with the liberal injunction of 'proportionality'. That pitiful human rights concoction that does more harm than good to the Gazan Palestinian people's cause regarding Hamas - the peoples ruthless puppeteer.

            

             The so-called impartial Western media joins in the spirit of anti-Israeli bigotry. Once the state of Israel engages with Hamas in Gaza, particularly through land incursion, the Western media orders its journalist into attack mode. In the latest incursion the Israelis have allowed the Western media access to Gaza, and they have paid the price.

THE ISRAELI'S have never been given a fair shake by the so-called 'impartial' Western media. Western journalism and its ethos of impartiality seems to have taken a back seat when it comes to the state of Israel and the Palestinian cause.

            

            There is a belief that UK foreign journalists, because of their educational background and training, are perfectly at ease with the anti-Israeli bias, when it comes to the Palestinians; and this has been the case for over three decades.

            

            There is even a higher educational bias against Israel in our universities, some of whom will not allow Israeli academics to speak or lecture on their campuses. The liberal hegemony has long set their sights against an Israeli state, although they will tell you they believe in a two-state solution – but without telling you how they can convince Hamas into accepting the existence of a Jewish state in the first place.

            

             So Hamas must be eliminated, not literally of course, but weakened into such a state that their followers in Gaza no longer have confidence in them and no longer fear them, because of the Israeli action taken.

HAMAS WERE ELECTED BY PALESTINIANS; and Gaza's Palestinians must accept whatever stems from their democratic decision, just as those who elect a government in the West have to do. In Gaza Hamas was the people's choice, and the people won.

            

            The Gazan Palestinian people, even after all they have suffered under Hamas's rule; they will still nevertheless wallow in their subservience to the false God known as Hamas. Such a God will incur much further suffering upon the Gazan Palestinians but, all the same, they will still allow themselves to be used as Hamas's sacrificial offerings. So what is Israel to do?

            

             Israel has to continue on its current path. Perhaps it is the Jewish state's manifest destiny to continue to defend itself while still managing to engineer a prospering economy from Muslim antipathy. Israel must not, however, bend to the West. The West, I am sad to say, are, at this moment in time, without a spine when it comes to the Islamic world – appeasement after appeasement, it seems, is the order of the day and this includes Israel's primary enemy.

            

             I feel for Israel because of the spinelessness of her so-called Western 'supporters', especially in Europe; who, having allowed some 15 million Muslims to live within the continent; and are now afraid to challenge their obvious anti-Semitism. The  European demographics are tilting toward Islam, and as they grow stronger, multiculturalism will be furthest from their mind.

                       

                       

           

           

---

[1] Although there are now rumours that he too has died.

[2] I refer to president Obama's insulting remarks about Benjamin Netanyahu caught off camera.

Lord Carey speaks for those living outside of the London bubble

“In Britain's hospitable establishment different beliefs were welcomed but only one was preeminent - Christianity. The fact is that for too long the doctrine of multiculturalism has led to immigrants establishing completely separate communities in our cities. This has led to honour killings, female genital circumcision and the establishment of sharia law in inner-city pockets throughout the UK.” Lord Carey

THE SENTIMENTS in the Lord Carey quote above are welcome. The ideology of multiculturalism has proven a disaster; but I fear Lord Carey should have said what he is now saying when he was Archbishop of Canterbury. I remember reading of one of multiculturalisms founding disciples, the late Roy Jenkins, having second thoughts about the wisdom of this ideology on the social fabric of the country in his later years.

            

            Like communism, socialism, and fascism; multiculturalism emerged from the vault of  political idealism, as did European federalism. In all of these cases the followers meant, and still mean well. They all looked to a better kinder world - yes, even the Nazis, because by eliminating their political enemies, like the socialist, communists and democrats, they believed they had a utopian blueprint for a better world that required it.

            

            Multiculturalism is such a blueprint. It believes in a society of the culturally diverse living in harmony[1] and each tolerating the other's cultures. Like all such utopian dream worlds born from the purest of  motives to do the best for mankind, reality intrudes; human nature intrudes. Soon it is not so simple as the simple minds thought it would be.

            

            This is where political correctness and the dreaded hate crime were included in  multiculturalism's annotation, to dampen any opposition to the intended perfect harmony. It is multiculturalism's way of disciplining opponents of its ideology. Instead of trying to eliminate racism, they have not only managed to breed a silent antipathy among the white indigenous working class – but also among the other cultures for each other. Pakistanis for Indians; Indians for Pakistanis; Afro Caribbean's for Africans; Indians for Afro Caribbean's - some melting pot.

            

             Political idealism is a poison, and in the 20^th century it managed to eliminate hundreds of millions of humanity in its pursuance. Those who seek to find ways of changing human nature, usually only end up, practising its worse aspects in trying to change it; and without success.

TO BE FARE TO the former Archbishop of Canterbury, if he said the things he is now saying when he oversaw the Anglican Church, he would have no doubt been jumped upon as a racist and a disgrace to his office; especially by New Labour under whose governance he partly served. But whatever government; if the noble Lord had expressed himself in terms that I have quoted above at the time of his residence, he would have fallen foul of political correctness and be seen as either requiring instant dismissal - or an exorcism under Roman rules.

            

            It is the architects of multiculturalism that have reduced this nation; it is also the believers in such an endeavour that will have also added to this nation's eventual fall. There can be harmony between nations, who can form alliances between each other, as there always have been. This has been the pragmatic way forward between nations and peoples for centuries. Pragmatism does not promise eternal peace for the world which political idealism attempts to do, but makes a studious attempt at keeping the peace between nations as the only possible way forward, as it had been done for almost a thousand years.

            

             In Europe, it appears, this was never good enough. Peace in Europe demands that the continent be divided into provinces to replace the nation states, and each province sub-divided into regions - the European federal ideal.

MULTICULTURALISM  is just the latest figment of an idealists imagination. It is sad how we seem to try to create new political isms which usually end in, materially speaking, the most horrendous of consequences for the human beings whose lives they are meant to improve.

            

            Lord Carey is right. He may however be too late after his decision to speak out after his retirement. For the multiculturalism bandwagon has now moved on, and it cannot be stopped. Indeed, there is no enthusiasm among the political classes for it to be brought to a halt. Multiculturalism still carries much weight within the liberal hegemony and they are not prepared to see their child suffocated.

            

            But, suffocate it is a must. Henry Kissinger has been quoted as saying that he can envisage a time when Paris is surrounded by Gaza strips. France has twice as many Muslims living among them as we do in the UK, and we can see how this fact made a major contribution to the waves of anti-Semitism that has erupted since Israel's Operation Protective Edge in  Gaza. But it was not the indigenous French people who partook in these assaults on shops and synagogues, but France's Muslim population.

            

            It would be none PC to highlight the Muslim contribution to these attacks, so the media did not mention it (at least here in the UK). French Muslims are French, British Muslims are British. Their cultures are as important and equal to that of the indigenous populations' within multiculturalism. But the anti-Semitic stain will spread to the indigenous population when the history of these events is written.

           

            Lord Carey has at least shown the courage his predecessor and his successor lacks when it comes to multiculturalism. His message will be heard and cause, if only in a meagre, some rethinking among the liberals.

           

           

           

             

           

---

[1] Some of you may remember that old Coke advert from the 1970s. The one built around the song , 'I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony.' 

Bits and Pieces (round three)

THE PRESS ARE reporting today that the BBC sends out 100,000 TV licence fee letters a day. They sent out 46 million enforcement letters in the last two years at 20p per letter costing £10 million.

            

            Is it not about time the BBC abandoned the public tit and sought  to plough its own furrow in the market place like its competitors in the  private sector have to? The licence fee belongs to that pre and post- war eras, when the country was seduced by the state into allowing its advance ever deeper into society. The power of the state grew during the Second World War, which was understandable; and still remained useful for the two decades after the war when the NHS was created, and a safety net of welfare benefits introduced.

            

            The BBC became associated with the state through being allowed to tax its viewers, on threat of imprisonment. The Corporation, however remained popular with the people and even enjoyed the whimsical honorary, 'Aunty'. It was an institution that was truly loved and the licence tax was willingly paid. Public broadcasting had become an important part of British culture: and the BBC grew in popularity as well as in complacency. It developed a Divine Right to exist complex.

            

            In the first decade following the Second World War, the BBC bias was toward that of  a traditional conservative establishment that had existed for over a 100 years, and covered the values of empire. But in the coming decades, from the 1960s onwards, the country's establishment became ever more liberal – or, to use that awful liberal oxymoron, 'progressive'.

            

            Today the BBC's bias is Left of centre liberal. The problem is; that the population the corporation broadcasts to are not. The British are by nature, and on the whole, a small 'c' conservative nation who find the BBC's liberal bias intolerable and do not wish to be taxed  for its upkeep.

            

             For such a 'progressive' institution it sublimely tolerates the intolerable. Can the licence tax in this modern age be seen as truly progressive? Of course not, it is a plant wilting and in its death throes: and even many who support this institution feel that it cannot continue by taxing its viewers.

            

             The BBC's funding, like the age of steam, is an anachronism and has outlived its public subsidy. Hunting down and prosecuting citizens; not only for the none payment of its tax to watch the BBC; but for owning a television set in the first place. This is absurd and no BBC executive can find a justifying argument in the age of digital multichannel media to justify its continuance. Today the BBC are just five channels among hundreds of others. Why should we have to pay the BBC to watch the hundreds of others?

CHOICE IS THE backbone of an open and free society. But when it comes to owning a television set the BBC, egged on by the political establishment, continues to frisk us on a yearly basis just for the mere purchase of a television set.

            This is Alice in Wonderland stuff. It can however be stopped; but only if enough of the BBC's taxpayers refused to pay. It would bring the whole charade to an immediate end, and the Great and Good would have to find another way to keep the BBC alive and functioning without public subsidy.

            Let those who wish to watch the BBC pay for privilege; or perhaps the BBC could compete for advertising revenue, or a combination of the two. The BBC boasts of its worldwide reputation. If this is true the BBC will have a head start over their competitors like Sky, and ITV; not to mention the hundreds of other freely (and I do mean freely) available channels.

            The BBC, if it believes its own propaganda, should shed their publicly subsidised skin, and grow a much healthier one in the private sector.

*                      *                      *                      *

LEAFLETS ARE BEING handed out in Oxford Street of all places by ISIS supporters (now to be re-Christened (sic) Islamic State), urging Muslims to leave the UK and fight for the newly founded Islamic state bulldozed into being by ISIS in parts of Syria and Iraq.

            

             We also have the bravery of an aged Nun to thank for removing the black ISIS (to me they are still ISIS) flag in a part of London for fear of antagonising local grievances. The police, fearful of upsetting the local Islamic community, had ignored its presence; as they always do when it comes to the criminal behaviour of Islamists.

            

             The liberal establishment has allowed this country to drift ever deeper into the multicultural sinkhole of their creation since the 1960's, when liberal guilt conducted each and every invitation to members of our one time colonies to come and live among us; transforming our society into a multicultural society of different pales. Meant to be diverse and inclusive, multiculturalism has produced alienation, separation, and resentment.

            

              The Muslim communities, for instance are cut off and enclosed; and the law and the politicians are frightened to upset them; thus the ISIS flag was left to flutter; thus, in Rochdale and Oxford, children were kidnapped and assaulted; thus arranged marriages and honour killings went ignored; thus female genital mutilation went ignore; thus the brutal exorcism of children went ignored – all in the name of, presumably, greater diversity.

            

             We now have schools in Birmingham being accused of indoctrination and gender separation within the class room…boys at the front and the girls (where else) at the back.

            

             There is another, and  more ugly side to tolerance… such as the above. 

            

Diplomacy has its limits

"Israel is bigger than Gaza and the West Bank, but it is smaller than almost everywhere else. Less than a century old, it is a democracy surrounded by hostile nations and under permanent attack by terrorists who wish to see it wiped from the surface of the Earth. What is a “proportionate” response to a hydra-like enemy who sees the Final Solution as work in progress? All terrorism aimed at Israel is genocidal in spirit. What would a “proportionate” response to that ambition look like?" Matthew d'Ancona

OLIVER MILES, the former British Ambassador to Libya, has just written a piece in today's Sunday Telegraph on the troubling issue of Gaza. Under the heading "Gaza conflict: making peace involves talking to your adversaries," what emerges from the piece is that the Foreign Office's (FO) views and opinions of the Middle East, are usually skewered in favour the Arabs - in this instance the Palestinians.

            

           The FO's Arabist tendencies are historic and probably go back to T.E. Lawrence and beyond. The Arab cause is by now part of the FO's culture (Margaret Thatcher never trusted the FO and with good reason), and any views expressed by the FO on the Arab part of world should be treated with caution. It is little wonder that, in some quarters, the entrance to the FO is known colloquially as "Traitors Gate".

            As the ex-ambassador to Libya, I am sure Mr Miles is far better educated in the Arab cultures of that part of the world than most of us. However, like most British ambassadors, in whatever part of the world they serve; they will usually go native before their time is up.

DESPITE MR MILES seeking to diminish, as he did in one sentence, charges of anti-Semitism directed against those who dare speak up for the Palestinians and criticise Israel, then he is right. I have views on Multiculturalism which would lead most of the liberal-Left establishment in this country (and probably the FO) awarding me the ignominious title of racist. So I know what Mr Miles means. But in the case of Israel, anti-Semitism is not far from the surface.

            

            Under the cover of anti-Zionism, many anti-Semites seek to prosper. I am not saying all anti-Zionists are anti-Semites; just that this title gives a perfect camouflage to those that are.

            

            In light of the above; I would like to challenge the ex-ambassador's arguments regarding Gaza. Diplomats always want to talk and to negotiate. It is after all their stock in trade, and a much needed arm of international concord. But there are times when it is an infertile process, as Neville Chamberlin found to this country's cost when he returned from Munich waving his piece of paper promising peace.

            

            In Gaza, the unfortunate Palestinians are under the protection of Hamas; a terrorist organisation recognised as such by the UN, EU, USA, and the UK – where, however, the FO stands, is a different matter entirely.

            

            But Mr Mile's seems to favour the kind of appalling surrender by Israel, of the type the wretched Tony Blair agreed that the UK should do with the Provisional IRA – by promising that no IRA terrorist would be brought to justice for their evil, leaving many of their victims irrelevant to the course of Tony Blair's ambition. The terrorists were allowed to go free. Over 200 letters were sent to individual criminal members of the IRA with much blood on their hands promising immunity from prosecution.

           

            This is the kind of approach Mr Miles favours in relation to the Gazan crises. Mr Miles condemns Israel for not negotiating with Hamas. I find it bizarre that such a well regarded Rolls Royce mind, an expression usually applied to our overindulged FO civil servants, could even contemplate such a suggestion.

AS MR MILES points out, this is the sixth entanglement between Israel and Hamas. Does the ex-ambassador tell us how many of these conflicts were orchestrated by Israel? The latest one certainly was not. Hamas had deposited hundreds of rockets into Israel before the Western media even sat up to take notice. But once Israel, for the sixth time, decided to enter Gaza after days of Hamas's rocket bombardment - then like bees around a honey pot, the Western media were willingly herded by Hamas into Gaza to see the kind of "abominations" the Israelis had committed on innocent Palestinian civilians..

            

           During this latest conflict every ceasefire has been obeyed by Israel and broken by Hamas. Where Mr Miles goes wrong is in his insistence that Israel talks to Hamas. This of course is diplomacy of the Neville Chamberlain kind.

HAMAS DOES not wish to speak to Israel. If it did, it would recognise Israel as Jewish state, which it is not prepared to do. In fact Hamas's constitution forbids it. Does the wretched Mr Miles suggest that Israel enters negotiations with Hamas who refuses not only to accept a Jewish state, but also a Jewish people on what it considers to be its own land? If so, we are entering the ISIS territory of real genocide, and not the kind of exaggeration used by the  weekend demonstrators against Israel written on their posters.

           

            In this current conflict Hamas is seeking to get Israel to lift its blockade. The blockade was introduced in the first place because Hamas were importing military supplies to be used against the Jewish state. Cement went freely into Gaza in the naive assumption by the UN that it was meant to rebuild Gaza; but Hamas only built tunnels in yet another quest for the destruction of Israel.

            

            Now, because Egypt has closed Hamas's tunnelling life-line into Gaza from the Sinai after the overthrow of Morsi by Adly Mansour, Hamas now wishes to seek to lift the blockade. The Sinai tunnels had been a good little earner for Hamas. They imposed all sorts of taxes on all sorts of commodities travelling through them, whether from a single grape, or the latest Mercedes.

            Both the Palestinian people of Gaza and the Israel's are the real innocents in this latest conflict. The Palestinian people are being cruelly used as human shields by Hamas; as a means to an end.

            

             As far as much of the liberal Western media are concerned; it is the Israelis that are to blame; when in reality it is Hamas, whose sinister use of their own people, and the culpability of the Western Media which between them has put all responsibility onto Israel.

            

             The true war criminals Mr Miles, are not Israel but your Arab brothers in Hamas; and there can be no compromise with them without ceding to the Jews their right to their national homeland… that is Israel. This they cannot and will not give up. So talk is meaningless between Israel and Hamas, unless, as a prerequisite, Hamas acknowledges the right of the state of Israel to exist…which, Mr Miles, I doubt will ever happen. Perhaps you should acknowledge the fact that either a Jewish state is allowed to exist (which is something Hamas refuse to contemplate), or that the conflict continues. A conflict that Israel cannot ever tire of: because to do so would mean the end of the Jewish state of Israel. Perhaps it is Israel's manifest destiny, that it should be permanently in conflict with its neighbours, who wish to remove them permanently from the Middles East.