Undaunted by Argentina

ARGENTINA ARE COMPLAINING ONCE more . The country’s president, Cristina Kirchner accuses Britain of militarising the South Atlantic after the departure of HMS Dauntless and Prince William to the Falklands.

            She now threatens to inflict her constant nagging on this issue to the members of the United Nations; who must be waiting with baited breath.

            Nevertheless she has captured the support of one aging statesman. Cuba’s Fidel Castro gave Cristina the benefit of his support in the form of one of his lengthy speeches; which apparently lasted two hours. During which he reminded us British of our impoverished defences. Here is a taste of Fidel’s rhetoric: "Somewhere is the English ship sailing to the Falklands but the English only have one little boat left," such wit reminds one of Oscar Wilde.

            "The only ones who have aircraft carriers are the Yankees. All the English can do is send over a destroyer, they can't even send an aircraft carrier," he rightly concludes.

            Well, sadly, he is correct. But considering the misery and backwardness he has brought to his people since the overthrow of Batista in 1959, he has little to boast about.

            For instance, those of his islanders who declared themselves gay, were taken off for ‘re-education’; which was something the Left in this country preferred not to know about; or, if they did, they kept silent about.

            As for the Cuban people as a whole; they were merely part of the great socialist experiment. For their sacrifices, they had the best health service in the region…which, let’s face it, was the one and only aspect of Cuba’s utopia that the Left in Europe could openly boast about.

            However, since the demise of the Soviet Union left the communist elite in Cuba to fend for themselves, the unfolding tragedy that began in 1959 has continued. The same automobiles that were there in 1959 are still gas guzzling their way around Havana. The colonial buildings in Havana, may have their aesthetic beauty, but there has been little other modern architecture to add to any kind of mix.

            So, as much as I agree with his assessment of Britain’s naval power, he has little to boast about after 85 years regarding his dictatorship of Cuba.

BUT LET US get back to Argentina and Cristina Kirchner’s persistence. She has used every opportunity to stir up anti-British sentiment on this the 30^th anniversary of her country’s defeat on the Falklands.

            Like General Galtieri before her, she is using the issue of the Falklands for a political purpose. She is soon to fight an election, and an early start must be made. As democrats we understand this, for elections are important and our politicians are prepared to go to any legal lengths to either gain or hang on to power. But never has any politician sought to drag in the United Nations as part of their election campaign.

            Cristina Fernandez Kirchner no doubt sees herself as a latter day Eva Peron made fashionable in populist culture throughout the West by Andrew Lloyd Webber. 

             But to the British; on such an important anniversary as the 30^th, precautions must be taken. After all, it was the lack of such which lead to our temporary loss  30 years ago of the Falklands; and this fear and only this fear has invoked the presence of HMS Dauntless to the region.

            If Argentina had not been so hostile to our defence of the Falklands, they could now be helping their economy by agreeing terms for the exploration of oil in the seas of the South Atlantic. We have always been willing to come to some arrangement with Argentina over this vital oil resource.

            We have also said that if the people of the Falklands wish to become part of Argentina, we would not prevent this from coming about. Although we have every justification in laying claim to the Falklands; if our people living on the islands no longer wish to remain part of the United Kingdom, then we could talk about ownership with Ms Kirchner, the president of Argentina.

 

AS WE MUST  be drawn into Argentinean politics in this way by the Kirchner harridan, we may as well go through the motions. If the Argentinean president finds the UK a convenient electoral weapon in the democratic armoury of someone who wishes to cling to power, then why not oblige her.

            She is not to be taken seriously. All she wants is what all politicians want – power. To maximise the vote in Argentina, she needs to stimulate the people’s clitoris in order to electrify them over the Falklands.

            After she has managed to do this and hang on to her presidency, she will hopefully settle down to the domesticity of running the country; after which Dauntless can be replaced by a frigate once more - until that is, Cristina Fernandez Kirchner seeks yet another term as president of Argentina. By which time we should have an aircraft carrier to send…be it with French aircraft on its flight deck.

           

           

 

         

DON’T CRY FOR ME ARGENTINA

ARGENTINA ARE COMPLAINING ONCE more . The country’s president, Cristina Kirchner accuses Britain of militarising the South Atlantic after the departure of HMS Dauntless and Prince William to the Falklands.

            She now threatens to take her constant nagging on this issue to the members of the United Nations; who must be waiting with baited breath.

            Nevertheless she has captured the support of one aging statesman. Cuba’s Fidel Castro gave Cristina the benefit of his support in the form of one of his lengthy speeches; which apparently lasted two hours. During which he reminded us British of our impoverished defences. Here is a taste of Fidel’s rhetoric: "Somewhere is the English ship sailing to the Falklands but the English only have one little boat left," such wit reminds one of Oscar Wilde.

            "The only ones who have aircraft carriers are the Yankees. All the English can do is send over a destroyer, they can't even send an aircraft carrier," he rightly concludes.

            Well, sadly, he is correct. But considering the misery and backwardness he has brought to his people since the overthrow of Batista in 1959, he has little to boast about.

            For instance, those of his islanders who declared themselves gay, were taken off for ‘re-education’; which was something the Left in this country preferred not to know about; or, if they did, they kept silent about.

            As for the Cuban people as a whole; they were all part of the socialist experiment. For their sacrifices, they had the best health service in the region…which, let’s face it, was the one and only aspect of Cuba’s utopia that the Left in Europe could openly boast about.

            However, since the demise of the Soviet Union left the communist elite in Cuba to fend for themselves, the unfolding tragedy that began in 1959 has continued. The same automobiles that were there in 1959 are still gas guzzling their way around Havana. The colonial buildings in Havana, may have their aesthetic beauty, but there has been little other modern architecture to add to any kind of mix.

            So, as much as I agree with his assessment of Britain’s naval power, he has little to boast about after 85 years regarding his dictatorship of Cuba.

BUT LET US get back to Argentina and Cristina Kirchner’s persistence. She has used every opportunity to stir up anti-British sentiment on this the 30^th anniversary of her country’s defeat on the Falklands.

            Like General Galtieri before her, she is using the issue of the Falklands for a political purpose. She is soon to fight an election, and an early start must be made. As democrats we understand this, for elections are important and our politicians are prepared to go to any legal lengths to either gain or hang on to power. But never has any politician sought to drag in the United Nations as part of their election campaign.

            Cristina Fernandez Kirchner no doubt sees herself as a latter day Eva Peron made popular in populist culture throughout the West by Andrew Lloyd Webber.  She is using the Falklands as a crutch for her political ambitions. But to the British, on such an important anniversary as the 30^th, precautions must be taken. After all, it was the lack of such which lead to our temporary loss  30 years ago of the Falklands; and this fear and only this fear has invoked the presence of HMS Dauntless to the region.

            If Argentina had not been so hostile to our defence of the Falklands, they could now be helping their economy by agreeing terms for the exploration of oil in the seas of the South Atlantic. We have always been willing to come to some arrangement with Argentina over this vital oil resource.

            We have also said that if the people of the Falklands wish to become part of Argentina, we would not prevent this from coming about. Although we have every justification in laying claim to the Falklands; if our people living on the islands no longer wish to remain part of the United Kingdom, then we could talk about ownership with Cristina Fernandez Kirchner, the president of Argentina.

 

AS WE MUST  be drawn into Argentinean politics in this way by the Kirchner harridan, we may as well go through the motions. If the Argentinean president finds the UK a convenient electoral weapon in the democratic armoury of someone who wishes to cling to power, then why not oblige her.

            She is not to be taken seriously. All she wants is what all politicians want – power. To maximise the vote in Argentina, she needs to stimulate the people’s clitoris in order to electrify them over the Falklands.

            After she has managed to do this and hang on to her presidency, she will hopefully settle down to the domesticity of running the country; after which Dauntless can be replaced by a frigate once more; until that is, Cristina Fernandez Kirchner seeks yet another term as president of Argentina.

           

           

 

          

Daniel Stringer Price v Multiculturalism

17 YEAR-OLD DANIEL STRINGER PRICE and his friend were chased and attacked by up to eight Asian youths. Daniel suffered a fractured skull, two broken eye sockets, and he needs a plate put in his cheek. His friend Kavan Brown, also 17,escaped with a broken nose.

            Neither of the boy’s had provoked the assault, and did not know the identity of their assailants. But the police have refused so far to acknowledge any racist motive for the attack based on the fact that the boy’s attackers never used racist language during the assault. They do however consider it a hate crime…which is something I suppose.

            Whether, however, the police would have been so exacting had the victims been Asian and the assailants white, I very much doubt, considering the age we live in.

            Judging from comments made by the readers of the Daily Mail, such incidences as this are not uncommon, just ignored by the media. According to one reader John, from  Preston; “This has been going on for years in NW England but has been covered up by the PC governments and Police because it does not fit their PC agenda!”

            I am inclined to believe this reader, simply because I know what levels our politicians and parts of the media are prepared to go to keep such stories away from the headlines, for fear of undermining Multiculturalism and provoking a backlash.

            Daniel Stringer’s horrific experience was, it seems, an exception to the rule. Perhaps the horrific nature of the attack just could not be ignored by the media.

           

WHEN STEPHEN LAWRENCE  was set upon and killed by what we freely call racists; politicians’ overturned the double jeopardy rule to gain a conviction years after the original murder, and after an earlier trial which returned a verdict of not guilty. Yet young Daniel and Kavan will no doubt have to make do with the meagre gruel served up in the name of justice to victims similar to Stephen, but of the wrong colour.

            When it comes to a violent crime or murder, the colour of a person’s skin, whether assailant or victim, should not matter. Justice should not only be blind, but also colour blind. But under Multiculturalism, it seems it does matter, because the statute book now has included in it something called a hate crime; as well as a ban on racism…which has so far only amounted to name calling; however distasteful it becomes.

            I have written this many times before, but it still needs repeating. Multiculturalism has caused millions of white British to be cynical regarding the treatment of such cases represented by these two youths by their Asian assailants. It has done so because at its very heart is a dystopian vision of racial and cultural harmony within one nation, which, it is hoped, will be achievable by giving the various cultures equal status with the host culture.

            I object to such an arrangement; for it can only be made functional by adapting the law of the land to the prosecution of the non-believers like myself. Thus the hate crimes and crimes of racism. But in accordance with this there has developed a whole new social etiquette to be obeyed, known as political correctness.

            Our many institutions have instructed their workforce in its finer points. From our free press and the BBC, to all departments of state and education; and through our lawmakers to the factory floor. Political correctness has become the noose around democracy’s neck.

            On the sports field it has also taken its scalps. At the moment John Terry faces trial for what? Name-calling? Even before his trial, he has been stripped of his England captaincy.

            I am no supporter of Terry, for he has  previous of such a nature  which I disapprove off and would have merited his permanent loss off his England captaincy. But name-calling does not; even of a racist nature.

           

WHETHER OR NOT Daniel Stringer and Kavan Brown’s assailants were motivated by race hatred or not, they should be brought to justice and, if found guilty, be given the maximum penalty under the law regarding GBH – which sadly, under today’s system of justice may amount to nothing more than a probationary sentence …being, as they are, part of an ethnic minority in a Multicultural society. 

            Multiculturalism is a liberal construct. One of its architects was Roy Jenkins, who later came to feel disillusioned by the whole project, after no doubt living long enough to see the way it was heading.

            When Roy Jenkins’ departed the political stage, political correctness was still a liberal wet dream. But it has now become a reality; and it will advance and advance, until no doubt our prisons become filled, not with murderers or other felons, but with those considered Multicultural law breakers.

            As a nation still fit enough to address itself as such, we are creating a Tower of Babel.

Those belonging to the host culture are having to sit in silence while it is being diluted and relegated to just another culture among many.  The indigenous people on these islands, outside of London that is, are frustrated and in many cases angry; and in much fewer cases turning to the BNP. But for how long will it be before a trickle turns into a flood?

            Nobody in any of the main parties are prepared to speak publicly against mass immigration or Multiculturalism – far less launch a public crusade. So when such people hear of the kind of attack suffered by Daniel Stringer Price and Kavan Brown, and there is not so much as a squeak from parliament, then is it little wonder that enough of them to tilt the balance toward fascism and social unrest are being recruited by the BNP.

            These young Asian thugs who attacked Daniel and Kavan will be caught and brought to trial; but whether or not they will admit to a racial motive remains to be seen, but the police will be praying the crime remains one of common assault without any racial motive.

            One thing is for sure there will be no hidden police cameras planted in the home of any of the young men who committed this crime, as there were in the home of one of Stephen Lawrence’s murderers.

           

           

            

MR VAZ GOES TO BELMARSH

WHAT ON EARTH WERE a group of MPs doing visiting Belmarsh Prison to seek the opinions of old ‘Hooky’, Abu Hamza?

            The group of MPs were members of the home affairs committee, seeking information about internet extremism, and among their number was committee chairman Keith Vaz.       It appears they proved politeness itself to this messenger of hate, referring to him as ‘Mr’ Abu Hamza. This is the man who has told his supporters that the killing of a none Muslim is acceptable.

            I wonder if they shook his hoo… sorry that would be in bad taste even in reference to this creature. But I do wonder how these politicians came up with the idea for the visit; a visit which, even if  they deemed it justifiable on grounds of research, they must surely have thought of the anger their cosy little interview would have – especially among those victims of Islamic terrorism. The father of one such victim, Graham Foulkes, hit the nail on the head when he was quoted in today’s Daily Mail as saying: ‘The worrying thing is that as a result Hamza will tell his followers. “Look, they are taking me seriously”.’

            Hamza will indeed use this somewhat cordial meeting with our lawmakers as a means of self-promotion, and an example to British Muslims of how seriously he is taken as a prophet and spokesman for jihad against the West among our country’s MPs.

            There was no credible reason for these members of the home affairs committee to indulge Abu Hamza in the way they did. If they needed him to help secure the release of a British citizen from captivity by the Taliban in Afghanistan, then at least such a visit would have been plausibly, if not morally justifiable.

            But to seek his opinion on anything short of the above example, amounts to nothing more than self-aggrandisement of the kind Mr Vaz is familiar with, but has, in this instance, proven distasteful to millions.

AN ENQUIRY INTO extremism on the internet is of not sufficient importance to merit such a visit to such a man as Abu Hamza. I wonder if it was all done to court the outrage of the Daily Mail, instead of adding to our knowledge of extremism on the internet?

            Perhaps Mr Vaz has felt himself somewhat ignored as late, and sought to bring himself once more to our attention? If so he has been successful with his ambition.

            These MPs must know how opposed the British public are to this man and his views, as well as their visit to Belmarsh to seek them out: they must also know how much he is justifiably loathed by the same public. Yet they ignore this and set out, no doubt with a halo of martyrdom above their heads, to greet and sit at the feet of ‘Hooky’.

            I do not know whether there are parliamentary procedures that such an action has fallen foul of, but if not, there should be. Their visit has been a disgrace; there was nothing humanitarian or anything vital to this nation’s security that demanded such an act.

            If our prisons are allowing such people as Hamza free access to the internet to preach their hate, then prison governors must be ordered to stop any such automatic right to the internet. Even if, no doubt, Hooky’s lawyers would appeal  to the to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

            All Muslims in all of our prisons must be refused internet access, so the propagation of extremism from such a source can be stopped and the ECHR ignored.  If such action, is deemed unfair, then so be it. Is it not after all the aim of the home affairs committee to find ways of removing extremist content from the internet?

            So why go to Belmarsh or any other prison? If there are preachers of hate such as Hamza in our prisons with internet access, then stop it; it does not need to become part of a home office committee report into extremism; and the same goes for any other extremist preaching filtered out from our prisons via the internet.

CONSIDERING THE BROADER picture however; extremist views are part of the democratic nature of the internet as well as society. Which means that free citizens that are not serving a prison sentence for acts of extremism as decreed by the law of the land, should have every right to speak as they feel and to be challenged by their opponents. If this is not democracy, I do not know what is.

            The internet needs little regulation as far as public opinion is concerned; especially by politicians. Leave the internet to its own devices. As long as every citizen has access, they can challenge each other; and if they fall foul of the law they can be, in extremis, sent to prison; from which they forgo the pleasure of internet access.

            Internet extremism is part of  its innate democratic function. A parliamentary committee need not have ventured into these waters in the first place regarding prison extremists; which leads me in my natural cynicism of politicians, to believe that there was some other motive for such a procedure.

           

THAT MOTIVE has been eluded to above, and I have little to add for fear of court action. But when our politicians form their various committees, they should balance their committees’ needs for public enlightenment with the opinions of the people who elected them.

            The home affairs committee has acted with little merit in this case. They have sought to interview, perhaps the most loathsome of people as far as the general public are concerned. In doing so they have discredited their function as members of a parliamentary committee.

            The home affairs committee has, in this case, overstepped, if not their responsibility, then the boundaries of taste, as the general public sees it. Mr Foulkes rather than Mr Vaz has emerged as the spokesman of the popular will on this issue.

           

           

           

             

THE LAST CHANCE TO ACT

IN A SPEECH following Friday prayers in Tehran,  Ayatollah Ali Khomeini, launched a series  of threats against the West, and Israel. He also publicly acknowledged Iranian support for Hamas and Hezbollah promising support for ‘…any nation or group [that] confronts the Zionist regime, we will endorse and we will help. We have no fear expressing this’. Referring to Israel, he compared it to a ‘cancerous tumour that should be cut and will be cut’.

            Given the fundamentalist nature of the regime, and the  status within it of the Ayatollah; his language cannot be dismissed as mere hyperbole. He foresees Iran’s holy mission to rid the Middle East of the Jewish state; and day by day and month by month, his country is developing a nuclear weapon with a missile capable of delivering it as far as parts of Europe.

            Iran has built from scratch every element needed to create such a weapon, and she has done so by stringing the international community along with time delaying talks which Western liberals went along with, rather than face up to any kind of military confrontation with Iran. Now, if there is such a confrontation, the price could be much higher, depending on how far advanced they are with their nuclear aspiration.

            What we are told by the various intelligence agencies, is that Iran will have realised her ambition within a range of just a few months to two years. Once Iran becomes a nuclear power, the Arab world will have as much to fear from such a development as Israel and the West - Saudi Arabia is already talking of advancing her own nuclear capability in response to Iran’s.

            Iran will effectively hold hegemony over her part of the Muslim world once she is a nuclear power; yet still there are those  in the West, who think Iran would be prepared to negotiate the abandonment of a project that promises such rich rewards.

            Millions of Arabs from the streets throughout of the Arab world, whether Sunni or Shia, will, as Muslims, look toward Iran to bring about the end of Israel as well as stand up to the West. The Arab Spring is turning into a rather chilly autumn for the West. In Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood looks increasingly likely to take advantage of events, as they will in other parts of the Arab world.

            If Assad is overthrown in Syria, which the West hopes will happen (at least publicly), then what will replace his regime? Once more the Muslim Brotherhood await their opportunity. One thing is for sure, if the people of Syria are successful and manage to overthrow their regime, it is my guess that they will not look as favourably upon the West as did the Libyans.

BY BELIEVING THEMSELVES vindicated by the events in Afghanistan and Iraq, our liberals[1] are now complacent regarding Iran. While many of them still believe that Iran can be brought to the negotiating table via sanctions, others are even frightened of this – especially after Iran threatened to close the Straits of Hormuz.

            Military confrontation seems the most likely outcome, as the most optimistic of analysts cannot possibly countenance Iran giving up the prize; and why should she?

            Iranians’ know that the West, despite her military might, lack the ruthlessness to do what is needed to stop them. If they had such merciless and hard-nosed qualities, the Iranians have calculated; they would never have allowed her to progress so far with her  ambitions. The only country Iran has any kind of respect for as an enemy is the state of Israel.

            It has been Israel’s fate that America has a liberal President, at a time when they needed another Nixon or Reagan in the Whitehouse. Israel has wanted to put an end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions from its infancy; but was dissuaded by her greatest ally from so doing. Instead Israel, despite her natural denials, has had to resort to the assassination of nuclear scientists working for Iran.

            Now there is talk of Israel launching a military attack on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, after Iran threatened closure of the Straits of Hormuz. Because of the Western  liberals lack of Will in the past, this action now threatens greater and untold consequences. Untold because we do not have any concrete knowledge of Iran’s advancement. But what we do know is that by attacking today, it carries graver consequences than such an action would have done two years ago when Israel first wanted to act – at a time when we in the West procrastinated.

TWO YEARS AGO we knew that Iran was nowhere near reaching its goal. It was the ideal time to eliminate militarily her nuclear facilities, as Israel did Syria’s in the 1980s.

            Now the liberal fence-sitters throughout the West are left biting their finger nails, still hoping against reason that Iran will forgo her nuclear ambition through some kind of negotiated settlement.

            To Iran, negotiating with the West or the United Nations, was always  a means to buy time, and I do not think Iran needs anymore time.

            So for once the liberals must cross their fingers and hope not to have to salvage their consciences by making the wrong decision, and support some kind of militarily confrontation of Iran, despite the consequences.

            By sitting on the fence, the liberals have brought us to this point: prevarication  has always been the liberal’s main weapon of preference whenever a moral decision was to be made. Liberal guilt has helped drag the West to its present condition regarding Iran.

            The Ayatollah Ali Khomeini, as well as the Iranian president Mohammed Ahmadinejad have, between them, realised that within the West, but especially Europe, the liberals have always supported the Palestinian course and are therefore pliable when it comes to an attack on the state of Israel.

            One gets the feeling we are nearing some kind of endgame regarding Iran; and Iran’s resistance to any compromise which means her forfeiting the chance to become a nuclear power that would boost her hegemony throughout the region, leaves us with fewer and fewer options.

            The international community has, through it procrastination, allowed Iran to progress so far; and, if now seems likely, Israel finally takes a hand, then the international community are culpable for whichever way Iran reacts.  

           

---

[1] By liberals in this context, I refer to all such like minded people in all political parties in the West, who are in and out of government, but dominate the political agenda.

A SLAP IN THE FACE

SO INDIA HAS BOUGHT FRENCH. Whatever possessed them to sign a £13 billion contract for the French made Rafale fighter in preference to our Typhoons? I can have a good guess. Firstly, the Indians do not like us, as one time colonisers of their country. Secondly, by awarding the contract to the French, they saw it as a perfect way to rub our noses in it; knowing as they do the state of our current relationship with Sarkozy. Finally, they must have found it immensely pleasurable to imagine the odium that David Cameron must suffer from his critics after handing over £1 billion in foreign aid. Aid which they do not need, and can do without; for why else would they have behaved as they did? Unless, of course, they believe that they will continue to receive this aid, no matter what? Which is most likely.

            This is the second time within a month that the French president has got the better of Cameron, and he must be enjoying, what he perceives will be of benefit to him come the French election.

            If I were Cameron, I would come down hard on the Foreign Office (FO). No doubt these Rolls Royce brains, which we are told they have, have been working overtime to help secure this contract; and no doubt advised the prime minister to continue with the aid, on the basis of such lucrative defence contracts being awarded to the British defence industry as a consequence.

            It would not surprise me if some senior civil servant at the FO, is at this moment on the phone to Paris congratulating the French on being awarded the contract - in deference to the FO’s predilection for going native with whatever country (apart from their own) they have contact with.

           

WHEN WILL OUR politician’s learn? We are not liked in many parts of the world because we either colonised parts of it, or defeated other parts of it at one time or another. Yet, presumably because of this, we feel some obligation toward those countries we have, shall we say, had a shared intimacy with?

            India is gaining in confidence, as she should. She will, along with China, become the ascendant economic force that will dominate the last third of this century. While we in the West will sink in our decadence.

            The £1 billion we give annually to India may seem generous to us; but to the Indians? Well…they say…if they want to give us their money, then we would be fools not to accept it.

            Has it not occurred to those effete platinum brained fools in the FO that our annual stipend, is nothing more than that, to the Indians. They do not care for our lowly contribution to their national coffers; they are on the way up and we in the West, as a whole, are on the way down.

            Their time has come and ours is in the process of passing. Our only consolation as far as this rewarding of a military contract to France is concerned; is that they are as contemptuous of France as they are of us. For France was also a colonial power. India has rewarded one ex-colonial power with a few crumbs, at the expense  of the colonial power that governed them.

            This contract, with all its technical superiority over the French, is only important to us. As far as India is concerned, her only potential enemy is her neighbour, Pakistan; and as far as Pakistan is concerned, the French Rafale fighter is quite sufficient for the purpose.

THE LESSON THAT MUST come out of all of this is that we must take a long hard look at the foreign aid budget, which, you will remember, David Cameron ring-fenced when he came to power. It was the one department of state that was guaranteed to escape any cuts to its budget; and indeed, it was part of the planning to actually increase it.

            We are buying business under the guise of foreign aid, and this must stop. For, as we have seen with the Indian contract, it can cause a great amount of embarrassment to the British people. This may not bother our politicians who are  sufficiently thick skinned enough to go cap in hand and beg from a foreign power; which is what the £1billion annual contribution to India amounts too. But as far as the British people are concerned, it is a wake-up call.

            Our country must reassert its confidence; if it fails to do so; as in my darker moments, I fear it might, then we are truly finished as any kind of power in the world worth speaking of.

            We, as a nation, must look inward; we must above all else hang on to our sovereignty as a nation. We must no longer apologise for our colonial past, and we must no longer offer what amounts to bribery under the guise of aid.

           

           

           

           

           

           

            

Fred Goodwin; the discredited martyr of an unpopular cause

NOW HE IS ONCE MORE just plain Fred Goodwin. The politicians have yet again proven that there is no level at which they are not prepared to stoop to gain a few points in the weekly polls. David Cameron insists that the process of removing Mr Goodwin’s Knighthood was wholly proper and carried through without political pressure being put on the forfeiture committee.

            This committee is made up of senior civil servants who sit in order to judge whether any recipient of an honour has behaved in such a manner that they are no longer a fit and proper person to continue to hold such an honour.

            As I understand it, in the case of a Knighthood the recipient has to have committed a criminal act in order for it to be removed. If this is true; then, for all of Fred Goodwin’s many character flaws, one of them was never that of being found guilty of any crime (unlike some peers I will mention later).

            Cameron’s insistence on his own neutrality in this tasteless and crude episode, would  test the naivety of any village idiot. Of course the prime minister never introduced himself personally to the forfeiture committee, neither, for that matter, did any serving minister in the Coalition. What I suggest is a variation on, ‘who will rid me of this turbulent priest?’.       There are plenty of rewards, as any member of such an honours committee know all too well; if the head of Goodwin could be delivered up to the current anti-banking mob, and in the process boost David Cameron’s poll ratings for another week…well then who knows?       Those high ranking civil servants know how the game is played, and how unpopular Fred Goodwin is  among the British people. If the overheard desire of Henry II  followed  a similar pattern by theses high ranking civil servants, then Fred was truly shredded.

            The committee members knew there would be no inquiry into their decision, unless, that is, they had allowed him to keep his Knighthood; which, according to what I read, they had every incentive to do regarding the rules… but not, however, according to a politician’s displeasure. Which is another matter entirely for a civil servant – especially of the high ranking variety.

IN DOING, AS I BELIEVE this committee has done, by finessing a result favourable to politicians and the people, they have set a precedent for such excommunications in the future, based upon any distasteful, but  legal forms of behaviour, which would be sufficient for further removals from the honours list. This would open a Pandora’s box, whereby any prime minister of any party, could effectively remove Knighthoods bestowed by their political opponents when they were in opposition.

            By, as seems to be the case with Fred Goodwin, removing him from his Knighthood, through nothing more than a dislike for his personality, opens the way for similar treatment for the hundreds of other Knights of the Realm, many of whom may be in adulterous relationships, or, and this is popular at the moment, especially with Labour, a tax avoider.

            What the forfeiture committee has done, is to equate Fred Goodwin with Anthony Blunt the spy, one of the few receivers of a Knighthood to have had it taken from them. No; there is politics at work in all of this; and in order to solicit a high poll rating that may only last a week; our political masters may have ruined a system of reward that has stood the test of time.

            If anything that Fred Goodwin did that was illegal, I would have supported the forfeiture committee’s decision. I have no love for this man; he is all that his enemies accuse him of – but he is not a criminal!

            Politicians, especially under the last government, courted Fred Goodwin. Between 2001-2009, he was RBS’ chief executive. He presided over RBS’s rapid rise to global importance, helping to create assets of £1.9 trillion, becoming the fifth largest bank by stock market value.

            Then came a wrong decision that  incurred the wrath that now surrounds him. If he had not been so arrogant on the way up, he would have had friends in high places on the way down, that would have helped him cling on to his Knighthood.

            Being dislikeable, it seems, after the forfeiture committees latest pronouncement, is the new criteria for removing a honour.

IT IS STRANGE THAT, in comparison, a humble knight should have is honour taken from him for nothing more than being unpopular with politicians: but why should a peer (and more than one)  be allowed back into the chamber of the House of Lords after being jailed?

            Lord Taylor of Warwick was jailed over his expenses; his fellow peer Lord Hanningfield also received similar punishment. In both cases they had broken the law of the land and duly paid a penalty. But a penalty which fell short of relieving them of the peerages. All they received were suspensions from the Lords.

            Of course these were not the only violators of the law in the Lords; but the point I am making is that the same rule regarding the retention of Knighthoods also applies to the House of Lords. In the cases of Taylor of Warwick and Lord Hanningfield, they have each served a sentence for criminal behaviour, but have nevertheless been allowed back onto the red benches after a period of suspension.

            Is it little wonder that under Cameron’s watch, the whole system of honours may now become politicised. In this country the honours system has set the gold standard for all sorts of good causes. The system is supposed to represent the most beneficial contributions to this nation’s well being from the humblest recognition to the highest.

            Now, with Goodwin’s removal of his Knighthood for purely political reasons, this government has corrupted the whole system of honours. From now on, the press will examine every contender for a Knighthood, because criminal behaviour is no longer the gold standard for removing any kind of honour.