Have the rules of the road changed? Or are they just not teaching people properly anymore?
When I was learning to drive, the golden rule drummed into my head by my instructor was "keep left". Nowhere was this impressed upon me more than when it came to turning right - "always remember the golden rule - keep to the left unless directed otherwise" - meaning that you should always pass a car offside to offside (i.e. go around the back of it, not across the front.
I don't drive a lot of miles these days - but when I do I am amazed how few people seem to apply this golden rule anymore. I narrowly avoided an accident yesterday when I was approaching a right hand turn as someone coming the other way was doing the same - both of us with our indicators flashing away. She suddenly swung the front of her car across in front of me forcing me to brake very sharply.
Being a warm day I had the air-con going and the windows closed - but managed to convey my annoyance none the less. All she could do was gesticulate that she was turning right - which I already knew from her indicator - and seemed completely unaware of the "golden rule". It also meant that she could not see past my car nor I past hers - so I sat and waited till she moved, while she gradually inched into the traffic to try and see past me - almost causing another accident!
The offside rule in football is complex, but in driving it is simple. Unless directed otherwise by signs, lines or a policeman you should always pass offside to offside when turning right (and just in case you're not sure which is the offside - it's the side furthest from the kerb and the side you sit on).
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
Remarkable value for money
That's the monarchy.
The accounts also show that the costs of the monarchy have risen by £1.5 million in the last 12 months to £41.5 million, the annual equivalent to 69 pence per person in the country, up from 66 pence last year.
I don't care what anyone else says or thinks - that is bloody good value. What else can you get for less than a quid a year these days? The monarchy is certainly delivering better value than your average quango (roughly £2000 per person per year in total) and the NHS (about £1500 per person per year).
I would bet also that a President would cost a bloody sight more than that - and be a lot less effective.
The accounts also show that the costs of the monarchy have risen by £1.5 million in the last 12 months to £41.5 million, the annual equivalent to 69 pence per person in the country, up from 66 pence last year.
I don't care what anyone else says or thinks - that is bloody good value. What else can you get for less than a quid a year these days? The monarchy is certainly delivering better value than your average quango (roughly £2000 per person per year in total) and the NHS (about £1500 per person per year).
I would bet also that a President would cost a bloody sight more than that - and be a lot less effective.
Bath or holiday? You can't have both.
Who says so?
A certain Lord Redesdale of the all-party parliamentary climate change group.
"We can either heat our homes and have hot baths, or fly but not both. There really does need to be much tougher policies on reducing carbon emissions from the homes."
Of course, when he says "we" he means you and me - not him. I really can't imagine his Lordship giving up his hot bath and foreign holidays - sorry, I mean fact-finding missions to the Caribbean - can you?
What is all this about? "Tougher policies on reducing carbon emissions from the homes"? That sounds suspiciously like compulsion to me - i.e. we (the ruling elite) have to force you (the mug electorate) to use less energy because we (the ruling elite) can't be arsed to have an effective energy policy.
So we're going to be forced to use less energy - and for what? Man's CO2 contribution is but a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of CO2 that enters the atmosphere naturally - and Britain's contribution to that drop is negligible. If everyone in Britain stopped producing C)2 tomorrow it would make absolutely no difference whatsoever - so why are we to be forced to use less energy?
The answer, of course, is that it isn't about using less energy - it's about raising more money through taxation. We'll be forced to use less by being taxed more on the energy we do use - one way or another.
Partly it will be through the general taxation - money taken from the taxpayer to pay for the largely useless and heavily subsidised wind farms which are not economically viable without huge subsidies from the state.
And then they'll be the money raised through indirect taxation - taxes or costly requirements placed on energy suppliers which they will recoup by charging us more for using less energy which is increasingly unavailable when we need it anyhow.
And all this for what? An imagined problem that exists only in the minds of "green" fools and the computer programs of climate models and which real world data tells us does not exist.
A certain Lord Redesdale of the all-party parliamentary climate change group.
"We can either heat our homes and have hot baths, or fly but not both. There really does need to be much tougher policies on reducing carbon emissions from the homes."
Of course, when he says "we" he means you and me - not him. I really can't imagine his Lordship giving up his hot bath and foreign holidays - sorry, I mean fact-finding missions to the Caribbean - can you?
What is all this about? "Tougher policies on reducing carbon emissions from the homes"? That sounds suspiciously like compulsion to me - i.e. we (the ruling elite) have to force you (the mug electorate) to use less energy because we (the ruling elite) can't be arsed to have an effective energy policy.
So we're going to be forced to use less energy - and for what? Man's CO2 contribution is but a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of CO2 that enters the atmosphere naturally - and Britain's contribution to that drop is negligible. If everyone in Britain stopped producing C)2 tomorrow it would make absolutely no difference whatsoever - so why are we to be forced to use less energy?
The answer, of course, is that it isn't about using less energy - it's about raising more money through taxation. We'll be forced to use less by being taxed more on the energy we do use - one way or another.
Partly it will be through the general taxation - money taken from the taxpayer to pay for the largely useless and heavily subsidised wind farms which are not economically viable without huge subsidies from the state.
And then they'll be the money raised through indirect taxation - taxes or costly requirements placed on energy suppliers which they will recoup by charging us more for using less energy which is increasingly unavailable when we need it anyhow.
And all this for what? An imagined problem that exists only in the minds of "green" fools and the computer programs of climate models and which real world data tells us does not exist.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Big heads, bulging balls and grunting
It's one of those strange ironies in life that, just as Britain finally develops someone with enough talent in tennis to have a chance of winning Wimbledon, my interest in the competition is at an all time low.
I'm not, as you may know if you follow this blog, much of a sports fan - but I used to love Wimbledon. The thing is, though, Wimbledon used to be different from every other tennis tournament simply because it was on grass - and grass is where the serve/volley player flourished over the boring baseline bat it back and forward brigade.
But with the development of lightweight tennis rackets with massive heads the baseline player has been given the edge even on grass. One of the benefits of the modern television coverage is the slow motion replay. - and with this you can see that today's players often hit the ball around the edge of the string area rather than out of the centre. Thanks to the size of the heads on rackets these days this is still enough of a sweet spot to guarantee a decent hit - but in the sixties a shot like that would have spun off the wooden frame into the crowd. One wonders how the modern player would cope with the smaller, wooden tennis racket used by the great Rod Laver - my bet is not too well.
Another thing that annoys me is the two handed backhand. Nothing wrong with that per se, but it means that the player no longer has a free hand to hold onto the spare ball - so they tuck it in their pocket or, in the women's game, inside their knickers producing a huge unsightly bulge rather like a massive carbuncle on their hip.
Finally, there is the grunting. Now we all grunt a bit when we're putting in that bit of extra effort to a physical activity - but these players who do it every shot (often quite a while after they've actually hit the ball) and grunt loud enough to drown out a passing Kawasaki are really taking the mickey.
So what with the big heads, bulging balls and extreme grunting I've kinda lost interest in Wimbledon. I wish Murray all the best and if he gets through to the final I'll certainly watch it (especially if Federer does too as he really is something special - I'm afraid that most of them, in my opinion, aren't).
I'm not, as you may know if you follow this blog, much of a sports fan - but I used to love Wimbledon. The thing is, though, Wimbledon used to be different from every other tennis tournament simply because it was on grass - and grass is where the serve/volley player flourished over the boring baseline bat it back and forward brigade.
But with the development of lightweight tennis rackets with massive heads the baseline player has been given the edge even on grass. One of the benefits of the modern television coverage is the slow motion replay. - and with this you can see that today's players often hit the ball around the edge of the string area rather than out of the centre. Thanks to the size of the heads on rackets these days this is still enough of a sweet spot to guarantee a decent hit - but in the sixties a shot like that would have spun off the wooden frame into the crowd. One wonders how the modern player would cope with the smaller, wooden tennis racket used by the great Rod Laver - my bet is not too well.
Another thing that annoys me is the two handed backhand. Nothing wrong with that per se, but it means that the player no longer has a free hand to hold onto the spare ball - so they tuck it in their pocket or, in the women's game, inside their knickers producing a huge unsightly bulge rather like a massive carbuncle on their hip.
Finally, there is the grunting. Now we all grunt a bit when we're putting in that bit of extra effort to a physical activity - but these players who do it every shot (often quite a while after they've actually hit the ball) and grunt loud enough to drown out a passing Kawasaki are really taking the mickey.
So what with the big heads, bulging balls and extreme grunting I've kinda lost interest in Wimbledon. I wish Murray all the best and if he gets through to the final I'll certainly watch it (especially if Federer does too as he really is something special - I'm afraid that most of them, in my opinion, aren't).
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Absolute beginners
Benedict Brogan has an interesting comment piece in today's Telegraph suggesting that more than half of the current batch of Tory MPs may not be around after the next election.
[T]hose around the leader are talking about possibly 100 of their 193 MPs being replaced. No wonder, then, that the Conservative backbenches are seething. It is dawning on them that they are being culled, whether by the leadership or the public, and they do not know what to do.
It's worth noting that the "cull" has very little to do with the expenses scandal and a lot to do with Cameron getting rid of the kind of conservative Conservative that no longer fits the profile of the New Tory Party.
There is resentment at the way Mr Cameron operates. He is too aloof, some MPs say, and relies on a small inner circle for advice, leaving the rest to stew.
Hmmm - sound familiar? I seem to recall similar accusations against a certain Anthony Blair.
Some MPs also reveal a deeper unease about the party's direction. "But what do we believe?" they ask, reluctant to consider that the consistent double-digit leads in the polls are for real or that the public has taken to Mr Cameron as a prime minister-in-waiting.
What do they believe? The New Tory Party believes in power - nothing else. There is no "direction" other than attaining power. The last thing the New Tory Party wants to do is confuse voters who provide that "double-digit lead" with things like policy and direction. Nope - just stick to vague and grandiose sound bites. It worked for Obama!
While we're on the subject of polls - a double-digit lead is meaningless. The Lib Dems have a double-digit lead over UKIP but are no more likely to win the next election! To actually achieve a large enough swing the Tories need to be looking at at least 50% in the polls to have a realistic chance of winning a decent majority in parliament - and they are not even close to that.
But supposing they do and they end up winning a landslide with some 400 or so Conservative MPs. More than three quarters of those MPs will be complete novices while most of the rest will have never served in government. Their leader is a novice himself having never had a significant position in government before. The Cabinet will be stuffed full of New Tory MPs with little idea of what is required and even less idea about how to go about achieving that.
And all this at a time when Britain is facing an unparalleled economic and political crisis.
This does not bode well for the New Tory Party - but it is even worse for Britain with the country in the hands of absolute beginners.
[T]hose around the leader are talking about possibly 100 of their 193 MPs being replaced. No wonder, then, that the Conservative backbenches are seething. It is dawning on them that they are being culled, whether by the leadership or the public, and they do not know what to do.
It's worth noting that the "cull" has very little to do with the expenses scandal and a lot to do with Cameron getting rid of the kind of conservative Conservative that no longer fits the profile of the New Tory Party.
There is resentment at the way Mr Cameron operates. He is too aloof, some MPs say, and relies on a small inner circle for advice, leaving the rest to stew.
Hmmm - sound familiar? I seem to recall similar accusations against a certain Anthony Blair.
Some MPs also reveal a deeper unease about the party's direction. "But what do we believe?" they ask, reluctant to consider that the consistent double-digit leads in the polls are for real or that the public has taken to Mr Cameron as a prime minister-in-waiting.
What do they believe? The New Tory Party believes in power - nothing else. There is no "direction" other than attaining power. The last thing the New Tory Party wants to do is confuse voters who provide that "double-digit lead" with things like policy and direction. Nope - just stick to vague and grandiose sound bites. It worked for Obama!
While we're on the subject of polls - a double-digit lead is meaningless. The Lib Dems have a double-digit lead over UKIP but are no more likely to win the next election! To actually achieve a large enough swing the Tories need to be looking at at least 50% in the polls to have a realistic chance of winning a decent majority in parliament - and they are not even close to that.
But supposing they do and they end up winning a landslide with some 400 or so Conservative MPs. More than three quarters of those MPs will be complete novices while most of the rest will have never served in government. Their leader is a novice himself having never had a significant position in government before. The Cabinet will be stuffed full of New Tory MPs with little idea of what is required and even less idea about how to go about achieving that.
And all this at a time when Britain is facing an unparalleled economic and political crisis.
This does not bode well for the New Tory Party - but it is even worse for Britain with the country in the hands of absolute beginners.
New police tactic reaps rewards
Gloucestershire has seen a stunning drop in crime with figures plunging to a 20 year low. What lies behind this remarkable turnaround?
Is it new forensic advances? No.
Is it due to a change in police tactics? No.
Better intelligence and improved informant networks?
Improvements in technology? No.
What then?
The Johnson family was a ruthless gang of travellers who carried out countless crimes over two decades, from cash machine raids to sheet metal thefts.
Yep - the tactic is locking up do-as-you-likeys.
It was down to the arrest and imprisonment of one - just one - group of "travellers" .Now these are not to be confused with proper gypsies who are both rare and actually inclined to travel around the country rather than set up long term "camps" - a euphemism for semi-permanent home sites and building structures erected without permission often on land which is owned by someone else.
No, these travellers are what we used to call tinkers or - before it became politically incorrect to do so - pikeys. When I was a lad they well known as trouble-makers and the police were well aware and not adverse to telling you that when the pikeys were around crime would shoot up.
But thanks to decades of political correctness and "diversity" awareness indoctrination we have been forced to accept that these "travellers" are just exercising their right to live an alternate lifestyle which is just as valid and desirable as any other.
The fact that they live beyond the law, pay no taxes, dump their filth where ever they want and show absolutely no respect for authority or the rights of you and I while making full use of the "rights" afforded them by the very laws they ignore means nothing to the stupid liberal do-gooders who force us to accept pikeys into our communities - where they are then free to launch their crime sprees with little from the law to deter them.
Still, there is some benefit to having these travellers stay - if you're a car dealer who specialises in expensive 4x4 vehicles, a commercial vehicle dealer or a luxury caravan salesman - because their "camps" seem to have a proliferation of relatively new items of these types.
Is it new forensic advances? No.
Is it due to a change in police tactics? No.
Better intelligence and improved informant networks?
Improvements in technology? No.
What then?
The Johnson family was a ruthless gang of travellers who carried out countless crimes over two decades, from cash machine raids to sheet metal thefts.
Yep - the tactic is locking up do-as-you-likeys.
It was down to the arrest and imprisonment of one - just one - group of "travellers" .Now these are not to be confused with proper gypsies who are both rare and actually inclined to travel around the country rather than set up long term "camps" - a euphemism for semi-permanent home sites and building structures erected without permission often on land which is owned by someone else.
No, these travellers are what we used to call tinkers or - before it became politically incorrect to do so - pikeys. When I was a lad they well known as trouble-makers and the police were well aware and not adverse to telling you that when the pikeys were around crime would shoot up.
But thanks to decades of political correctness and "diversity" awareness indoctrination we have been forced to accept that these "travellers" are just exercising their right to live an alternate lifestyle which is just as valid and desirable as any other.
The fact that they live beyond the law, pay no taxes, dump their filth where ever they want and show absolutely no respect for authority or the rights of you and I while making full use of the "rights" afforded them by the very laws they ignore means nothing to the stupid liberal do-gooders who force us to accept pikeys into our communities - where they are then free to launch their crime sprees with little from the law to deter them.
Still, there is some benefit to having these travellers stay - if you're a car dealer who specialises in expensive 4x4 vehicles, a commercial vehicle dealer or a luxury caravan salesman - because their "camps" seem to have a proliferation of relatively new items of these types.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Truly, the world has gone mad
Popeye to be X rated.
NHS managers at Liverpool's Primary Care Trust says its plan to ban the promotion of smoking in films, including cartoons, could mean problems for the spinach-loving sailor if he ever makes a return to the screen.
And who put the NHS Nazis of Liverpool's Primary Care Trust in government? I don't remember voting for them or even seeing their name on the ballot papers - do you?
It is truly a mad world we live in when films aimed at children as young as 12 feature graphic scenes of extreme violence and even sex without censure, but a cartoon caricature of a sailor puffing on a pipe is considered too extreme for the eyes of people under 18.
NHS managers at Liverpool's Primary Care Trust says its plan to ban the promotion of smoking in films, including cartoons, could mean problems for the spinach-loving sailor if he ever makes a return to the screen.
And who put the NHS Nazis of Liverpool's Primary Care Trust in government? I don't remember voting for them or even seeing their name on the ballot papers - do you?
It is truly a mad world we live in when films aimed at children as young as 12 feature graphic scenes of extreme violence and even sex without censure, but a cartoon caricature of a sailor puffing on a pipe is considered too extreme for the eyes of people under 18.
Mistakes in grammar
David Davis is calling for the return of the grammar school as the "greatest instrument for social mobility ever invented" in a direct challenge - again - to David Cameron's leadership.
The former shadow home secretary, who went to grammar school, insisted only a return to selective education could 'rescue the next generation of the underprivileged'.
'The charge against the grammar school is that they helped the brightest at the expense of the weaker child. The truth about the comprehensive system is that it failed the best without helping the weak.'
The reality is that when they vandalised - sorry, reformed the education system into comprehensive they took the bit that worked well - grammar schools - and threw it away and used the bit that was failing - secondary moderns - as the model for their reform. The result is that we have a system which fails everyone.
I know - some people will say "there are some very good comprehensives". Yes there are - but there were also some very good secondary moderns as well. One good apple doesn't rescue the whole rotten barrel.
The most important point, though, is the one that Davis makes regarding social mobility. Grammar schools were the key instrument during the forties, fifties and sixties for motivating social mobility - nothing else has ever come close. The removal of that instrument has failed two generations of school children and will go on failing them until we retrieve it.
Davis is right to call for their return, but his call will fall on deaf ears. The progressives - and that includes his party and their leader - do not want to listen to anything that challenges their perception of the world.
The former shadow home secretary, who went to grammar school, insisted only a return to selective education could 'rescue the next generation of the underprivileged'.
'The charge against the grammar school is that they helped the brightest at the expense of the weaker child. The truth about the comprehensive system is that it failed the best without helping the weak.'
The reality is that when they vandalised - sorry, reformed the education system into comprehensive they took the bit that worked well - grammar schools - and threw it away and used the bit that was failing - secondary moderns - as the model for their reform. The result is that we have a system which fails everyone.
I know - some people will say "there are some very good comprehensives". Yes there are - but there were also some very good secondary moderns as well. One good apple doesn't rescue the whole rotten barrel.
The most important point, though, is the one that Davis makes regarding social mobility. Grammar schools were the key instrument during the forties, fifties and sixties for motivating social mobility - nothing else has ever come close. The removal of that instrument has failed two generations of school children and will go on failing them until we retrieve it.
Davis is right to call for their return, but his call will fall on deaf ears. The progressives - and that includes his party and their leader - do not want to listen to anything that challenges their perception of the world.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Making the BNP "acceptable"
So it appears that the establishment are going to force the BNP to accept non-white members.
In a letter from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, was told that he had less than a month to provide written undertakings that the party would abide by race relations legislation.
That in itself is a very telling paragraph - it tells you where true power lies in this country (and it is not within government) - but I also wonder what the result of such a decision would mean for the BNP. They may be forced to change their constitution to accept non-white members, but that doesn't mean they will change their policies.
And with the removal of the one barrier - the charge of racism - that prevents many people from joining, supporting or voting for the BNP it could actually result in a surge of support for the "far right" party, but is unlikely to result in a surge in membership applications from non-whites (even though I know one or two Sikhs who would join in an instant).
Personally, I've always considered the BNP decision to limit membership to whites self-defeating - they can restrict who joins simply by policy just like the Tory, Labour and Libdem parties can (and do). Equally, I think this decision by the (absurdly titled) Equality and Human Rights Commission just as self-defeating. The EHRC seem to forget that the Black Panthers were also a group who restricted membership based on ethnicity and, while they did so, were treated as pariahs. As soon as they were forced to open up their membership they became mainstream and are now lauded and celebrated by the left even though their fundamental principles never changed.
In a letter from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, was told that he had less than a month to provide written undertakings that the party would abide by race relations legislation.
That in itself is a very telling paragraph - it tells you where true power lies in this country (and it is not within government) - but I also wonder what the result of such a decision would mean for the BNP. They may be forced to change their constitution to accept non-white members, but that doesn't mean they will change their policies.
And with the removal of the one barrier - the charge of racism - that prevents many people from joining, supporting or voting for the BNP it could actually result in a surge of support for the "far right" party, but is unlikely to result in a surge in membership applications from non-whites (even though I know one or two Sikhs who would join in an instant).
Personally, I've always considered the BNP decision to limit membership to whites self-defeating - they can restrict who joins simply by policy just like the Tory, Labour and Libdem parties can (and do). Equally, I think this decision by the (absurdly titled) Equality and Human Rights Commission just as self-defeating. The EHRC seem to forget that the Black Panthers were also a group who restricted membership based on ethnicity and, while they did so, were treated as pariahs. As soon as they were forced to open up their membership they became mainstream and are now lauded and celebrated by the left even though their fundamental principles never changed.
No hope
The progressives have won.
When I started writing this blog I had no illusions about changing the world. It was just a way for me to vent my spleen on the issues that frustrate, annoy and infuriate me. It wasn’t even started as a political blog although it’s fair to say that most of the things that do frustrate, annoy and infuriate me are related to politics in some way or another.
Another reason for starting it was the dearth of conservative opinion – political, social and moral – that was available outside of the USA. A lot of that was due to the fact that I was unaware of the many right wing blogs and opinion sites that actually already existed and which, since I started blogging, I’ve become aware of – but my point remains valid. If I, as a non-blogger, wasn’t aware of these other viewpoints on the web then you can bet there is a substantial number of other people out there who remain in ignorance of their existence.
I’ve now been blogging for almost three years and – even though blogs come and go - if anything, I should feel encouraged by the number of "right wing" blogs that now abound. But I’m not. If anything I’m convinced more than ever that this country is finished as a political and economic force -and quite probably as an entity in its own right.
The truth is that conservatism as a movement is finished in this country. It does not exist in any meaningful way. Most of the so-called "conservative" blogs that I come across consist of little other than "free trade" capitalism and "do anything you wanna" libertinism. Even though most of them seem to be concerned by the moral and social collapse of our society they still to continue to support the social liberalism which has brought about this collapse.
The understanding of the word "tolerance" has slowly moved from meaning "put up with" to "acceptable within reason" and on to its current meaning which is something like "consider as valid and desirable as anything else".
There is no conservative movement in Britain. There are numerous "conservative" factions, but on the whole these are all social liberal and, therefore progressive and leftist. Consequently, I believe there is no hope for Britain in the short to medium term. We will have to go through the complete collapse of everything we know and hold dear before there is any change.
Even though I detect a sea change in the opinion of the next generation - where a real social and moral conservatism is started to take root - I don't think it will come in time to save our nation. The best I can hope for is the emergence of a strong England nation from the ashes of demoralised and dilapidated Britain, but that will take a monumental effort by future generations.
For now, though, the war is over. The progressives have won. We, the conservatives, are defeated, demoralised and utterly beaten. There is no one standing up for us now. The progressives will roll out their "reforms" of parliament with which they will hammer in the last nails into the coffin of conservatism. Centuries of slow evolution will be destroyed with a stroke of a pen and, with it, the last vestiges of our defence against progressivism will be removed.
When I started writing this blog I had no illusions about changing the world. It was just a way for me to vent my spleen on the issues that frustrate, annoy and infuriate me. It wasn’t even started as a political blog although it’s fair to say that most of the things that do frustrate, annoy and infuriate me are related to politics in some way or another.
Another reason for starting it was the dearth of conservative opinion – political, social and moral – that was available outside of the USA. A lot of that was due to the fact that I was unaware of the many right wing blogs and opinion sites that actually already existed and which, since I started blogging, I’ve become aware of – but my point remains valid. If I, as a non-blogger, wasn’t aware of these other viewpoints on the web then you can bet there is a substantial number of other people out there who remain in ignorance of their existence.
I’ve now been blogging for almost three years and – even though blogs come and go - if anything, I should feel encouraged by the number of "right wing" blogs that now abound. But I’m not. If anything I’m convinced more than ever that this country is finished as a political and economic force -and quite probably as an entity in its own right.
The truth is that conservatism as a movement is finished in this country. It does not exist in any meaningful way. Most of the so-called "conservative" blogs that I come across consist of little other than "free trade" capitalism and "do anything you wanna" libertinism. Even though most of them seem to be concerned by the moral and social collapse of our society they still to continue to support the social liberalism which has brought about this collapse.
The understanding of the word "tolerance" has slowly moved from meaning "put up with" to "acceptable within reason" and on to its current meaning which is something like "consider as valid and desirable as anything else".
There is no conservative movement in Britain. There are numerous "conservative" factions, but on the whole these are all social liberal and, therefore progressive and leftist. Consequently, I believe there is no hope for Britain in the short to medium term. We will have to go through the complete collapse of everything we know and hold dear before there is any change.
Even though I detect a sea change in the opinion of the next generation - where a real social and moral conservatism is started to take root - I don't think it will come in time to save our nation. The best I can hope for is the emergence of a strong England nation from the ashes of demoralised and dilapidated Britain, but that will take a monumental effort by future generations.
For now, though, the war is over. The progressives have won. We, the conservatives, are defeated, demoralised and utterly beaten. There is no one standing up for us now. The progressives will roll out their "reforms" of parliament with which they will hammer in the last nails into the coffin of conservatism. Centuries of slow evolution will be destroyed with a stroke of a pen and, with it, the last vestiges of our defence against progressivism will be removed.
Suicide cult
You've got to wonder about the mental state of this current crop of MPs.
Having been revealed as being mostly a bunch of money-grubbing fraudsters they've now replaced the discredited Speaker - Gorbals Mick - with the person the public least wanted to see there - John Bercow.
The Labour supporters would have been happy to see Beckett get the job. Tory voters wouldn't have minded if it had been Young or Widdecombe - nobody I know wanted Bercow to get it. Labour supporters think he is an unreformed right winger, while Tory voters wonder why he just doesn't go the whole hog and defect to the Labour party anyway seeing how he makes Tony Benn look like a raving neocon.
Talking of which, doesn't it strike anybody else as odd that someone as radically progressive as Bercow can find a home in the Tory party? It's one thing to have a mole in your ranks, but it's something else entirely to leave him there when you know damn well that he supports the other side. It's a bit like making Kim Philby head of MI5 AFTER finding out that he is a commie traitor. If anything, the fact that Bercow remains in the Tory party tells you more about how "conservative" the Tory party is today than anything Cameron says or does.
Anyway, the only message this sends to the people is that, really, the MPs don't give a monkey's what we think and that they are going to do what they want, how they want, when they want. Nothing new about that - that's been the way of politics for decades - only this time there is a serious mood of rebellion amongst the electorate.
No, I don't mean a physical uprising - I mean an acceleration in the general collapse in support for all the main parties as more and more people switch to fringe parties at elections as more and more people become disillusioned with the Tories, Labour and Libdem parties and the growing contempt those parties have for the people of this nation.
It's almost as if the main parties want to destroy themselves. Actually, that's not beyond the realms of credibility - after all, the cult of the left is anti-western, anti-nation and anti-democracy. They've been striving for the destruction of the traditional western society that sustains them for 50 years so maybe it isn't so surprising that they seem hell bent on political suicide.
Having been revealed as being mostly a bunch of money-grubbing fraudsters they've now replaced the discredited Speaker - Gorbals Mick - with the person the public least wanted to see there - John Bercow.
The Labour supporters would have been happy to see Beckett get the job. Tory voters wouldn't have minded if it had been Young or Widdecombe - nobody I know wanted Bercow to get it. Labour supporters think he is an unreformed right winger, while Tory voters wonder why he just doesn't go the whole hog and defect to the Labour party anyway seeing how he makes Tony Benn look like a raving neocon.
Talking of which, doesn't it strike anybody else as odd that someone as radically progressive as Bercow can find a home in the Tory party? It's one thing to have a mole in your ranks, but it's something else entirely to leave him there when you know damn well that he supports the other side. It's a bit like making Kim Philby head of MI5 AFTER finding out that he is a commie traitor. If anything, the fact that Bercow remains in the Tory party tells you more about how "conservative" the Tory party is today than anything Cameron says or does.
Anyway, the only message this sends to the people is that, really, the MPs don't give a monkey's what we think and that they are going to do what they want, how they want, when they want. Nothing new about that - that's been the way of politics for decades - only this time there is a serious mood of rebellion amongst the electorate.
No, I don't mean a physical uprising - I mean an acceleration in the general collapse in support for all the main parties as more and more people switch to fringe parties at elections as more and more people become disillusioned with the Tories, Labour and Libdem parties and the growing contempt those parties have for the people of this nation.
It's almost as if the main parties want to destroy themselves. Actually, that's not beyond the realms of credibility - after all, the cult of the left is anti-western, anti-nation and anti-democracy. They've been striving for the destruction of the traditional western society that sustains them for 50 years so maybe it isn't so surprising that they seem hell bent on political suicide.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Ga-rage
Spent the day clearing the garage out and now I can put my car in there!
Hooray!
I do have a workbench at the end so it's a tight squeeze - but it just about fits. However, I can't get out of the car once it's in the garage. Even with it pushed as far over to the left as I dare go there's still barely six inches of open door to squeeze out of. Grrrr!
Hooray!
I do have a workbench at the end so it's a tight squeeze - but it just about fits. However, I can't get out of the car once it's in the garage. Even with it pushed as far over to the left as I dare go there's still barely six inches of open door to squeeze out of. Grrrr!
A bit quiet
If you're wondering why I've not been posting much recently, it 's partly because of my new job - I'm having to travel a bit more to get to meet and know my new clients - but mostly it's because there isn't much going on that interests me at the moment.
The MP expenses row has been done to death. Labour and the Tories are indulging in silly, childish mudslinging about who is going to cut spending by how much while our economy goes to rack and ruin and all anybody can say about the issues that got the BNP elected is that the BNP are racist thugs. The level of political discourse in this country is depressingly low.
I can't get fired up by what's happening in Iran because I don't believe - as some do - that there is some grass roots rebellion going on that will overthrow the theocracy. To me the argument seems to revolve around a choice of a seriously barking mad Islamist nutter and slightly less barking mad Islamist nutter. Whatever happens, I'm pretty sure that Iran will remain in the control of barking mad Islamist nutters - so why get excited?
Hopefully there will be something going on soon that will motivate me to write something, but at the moment most of it just raises a "ho-hum" feeling. Of course, I still get angry about the many criminal injustices, government spending waste and political correctness that goes on, but other blogs cover that much better than me so I'll just make do with the odd comment on those sites.
For now, I'll just get on with clearing the garage.
The MP expenses row has been done to death. Labour and the Tories are indulging in silly, childish mudslinging about who is going to cut spending by how much while our economy goes to rack and ruin and all anybody can say about the issues that got the BNP elected is that the BNP are racist thugs. The level of political discourse in this country is depressingly low.
I can't get fired up by what's happening in Iran because I don't believe - as some do - that there is some grass roots rebellion going on that will overthrow the theocracy. To me the argument seems to revolve around a choice of a seriously barking mad Islamist nutter and slightly less barking mad Islamist nutter. Whatever happens, I'm pretty sure that Iran will remain in the control of barking mad Islamist nutters - so why get excited?
Hopefully there will be something going on soon that will motivate me to write something, but at the moment most of it just raises a "ho-hum" feeling. Of course, I still get angry about the many criminal injustices, government spending waste and political correctness that goes on, but other blogs cover that much better than me so I'll just make do with the odd comment on those sites.
For now, I'll just get on with clearing the garage.
Friday, June 19, 2009
English Poetry: Brahn Boots
It's been a while since we had some poetry on here. This choice was inspired by a programme I listened to on Radio 4 during the week about the early 20th century songwriters, Weston & Lee (worth listening to on iPlayer if you can find it - I don't know what it was called, though).
Weston & Lee wrote many songs which are familiar to most of us - including the Great War classic "Goodbye-ee" and the East End pub favourite, "Knees Up Mother Brown", but also wrote a number of delightfully working class monologues for the actor Stanley Holloway. My personal favourite was "My word you do look queer" and I wanted to post a version on here from You Tube, but, for some reason, I can't get video to embed on my blog (if anyone knows why, please tell me!).
Anyway, this is Brahn Boots - written in the vernacular so bear in mind the cockney accent when you read it. Hope you enjoy.
Brahn Boots
Our Aunt Hanna's passed away,
We 'ad her funeral today,
And it was a posh affair,
Had to have two p'licemen there!
The 'earse was luv'ly, all plate glass,
And wot a corfin!... oak and brass!
We'd fah-sands weepin', flahers galore,
But Jim, our cousin... what d'yer fink 'e wore?
Why, brahn boots!
I ask yer... brahn boots!
Fancy coming to a funeral
In brahn boots!
I will admit 'e 'ad a nice black tie,
Black fingernails and a nice black eye;
But yer can't see people orf when they die,
In brahn boots!
And Aunt 'ad been so very good to 'im,
Done all that any muvver could for 'im,
And Jim, her son, to show his clars...
Rolls up to make it all a farce,
In brahn boots...
I ask yer... brahn boots!
While all the rest,
Wore decent black and mourning suits.
I'll own he didn't seem so gay,
In fact he cried most part the way,
But straight, he reg'lar spoilt our day,
Wiv 'is brahn boots.
In the graveyard we left Jim,
None of us said much to him,
Yus, we all gave 'im the bird,
Then by accident we 'eard ...
'E'd given 'is black boots to Jim Small,
A bloke wot 'ad no boots at all,
So p'raps Aunt Hanna doesn't mind;
She did like people who was good and kind.
But brahn boots!
I ask yer... brahn boots!
Fancy coming to a funeral,
In brahn boots!
And we could 'ear the neighbours all remark
"What, 'im chief mourner? Wot a blooming lark!
Why 'e looks more like a Bookmaker's clerk...
In brahn boots!"
That's why we 'ad to be so rude to 'im,
That's why we never said "Ow do!" to 'im,
We didn't know... he didn't say,
He'd give 'is other boots away.
But brahn boots!
I ask yer... brahn boots!
While all the rest,
Wore decent black and mourning suits!
But some day up at Heavens gate,
Poor Jim, all nerves, will stand and wait,
'Til an angel whispers...
"Come in, Mate! Where's yer brahn boots?"
Weston & Lee wrote many songs which are familiar to most of us - including the Great War classic "Goodbye-ee" and the East End pub favourite, "Knees Up Mother Brown", but also wrote a number of delightfully working class monologues for the actor Stanley Holloway. My personal favourite was "My word you do look queer" and I wanted to post a version on here from You Tube, but, for some reason, I can't get video to embed on my blog (if anyone knows why, please tell me!).
Anyway, this is Brahn Boots - written in the vernacular so bear in mind the cockney accent when you read it. Hope you enjoy.
Brahn Boots
Our Aunt Hanna's passed away,
We 'ad her funeral today,
And it was a posh affair,
Had to have two p'licemen there!
The 'earse was luv'ly, all plate glass,
And wot a corfin!... oak and brass!
We'd fah-sands weepin', flahers galore,
But Jim, our cousin... what d'yer fink 'e wore?
Why, brahn boots!
I ask yer... brahn boots!
Fancy coming to a funeral
In brahn boots!
I will admit 'e 'ad a nice black tie,
Black fingernails and a nice black eye;
But yer can't see people orf when they die,
In brahn boots!
And Aunt 'ad been so very good to 'im,
Done all that any muvver could for 'im,
And Jim, her son, to show his clars...
Rolls up to make it all a farce,
In brahn boots...
I ask yer... brahn boots!
While all the rest,
Wore decent black and mourning suits.
I'll own he didn't seem so gay,
In fact he cried most part the way,
But straight, he reg'lar spoilt our day,
Wiv 'is brahn boots.
In the graveyard we left Jim,
None of us said much to him,
Yus, we all gave 'im the bird,
Then by accident we 'eard ...
'E'd given 'is black boots to Jim Small,
A bloke wot 'ad no boots at all,
So p'raps Aunt Hanna doesn't mind;
She did like people who was good and kind.
But brahn boots!
I ask yer... brahn boots!
Fancy coming to a funeral,
In brahn boots!
And we could 'ear the neighbours all remark
"What, 'im chief mourner? Wot a blooming lark!
Why 'e looks more like a Bookmaker's clerk...
In brahn boots!"
That's why we 'ad to be so rude to 'im,
That's why we never said "Ow do!" to 'im,
We didn't know... he didn't say,
He'd give 'is other boots away.
But brahn boots!
I ask yer... brahn boots!
While all the rest,
Wore decent black and mourning suits!
But some day up at Heavens gate,
Poor Jim, all nerves, will stand and wait,
'Til an angel whispers...
"Come in, Mate! Where's yer brahn boots?"
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Are the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems racist?
I seem to be posting a lot about the BNP these days. Believe me, I find it a little tiresome, but I find the "BNP are racist" argument even more so. The excellent blog Letters From A Tory links to yet another tirade against the BNP from Matt Wardman.
It's the usual thing - the BNP won't allow non-whites to join so they must be racist. The point being made though is that the BNP use the existence of various groups set up to promote and defend the interests of various ethnic minority groups as justification for their own policy.
I've left a comment on the post, so I'll just repost that comment here.
________________________
I’ll be honest - I’m a little tired of the “BNP is racist” argument and numerous people trying, thought various different means, to prove their already held view that the BNP are indeed racist.
Nobody seems to be addressing the fundamental point that the BNP make, though - the lack of any organisation specifically set up to defend the interests of white people. As they clearly point out - and as we all know - there are numerous groups set up specifically to promote and defend the interests, culture and traditions of various ethnic minorities. Some of these are even funded out of taxpayers money - BBC Asian Network for example.
The point is, why is it OK to have these sort of groups specifically for certain ethnic groups, but not for white people? Te question is not “are these groups racist?” - it should be “isn’t it racist to allow these groups this right but exclude whites from the same right?”
That is undeniably racist - and it is the policy of this government, the Labour Party, the Tory Party and the Lib Dems. Therefore, by definition, each of those parties is also racist.
So there you go. Every political party in the country is racist - the BNP are no different, except they are racist in favour of the one group who are now allowed to have someone represent their interests.
Has this got us anywhere? No - of course not. The problems which the BNP exploit are well known and stem from two policies pursued by mainstream parties - namely multiculturalism and mass immigration. At no point were the people of Britain consulted on these policies. They have never been openly discussed or debated about either in parliament or with the electorate. They have been foisted upon us by Labour and Tory governments. We were not asked if we want “multiculturalism” - we were told we have to be multicultural. Please note that multicultural is not the same as multiracial.
I don’t care if the BNP are racist - all the other parties are as well. So what? What worries me is that nobody is working to address the issues which allow the BNP to make their rather clumsy points.
__________________________
My point is that the BNP may well be racist - but they are not the ones who allow black and Asian people to have groups specifically set up to support, promote and defend their interests and culture while specifically excluding white people the same right.
That is the policy of all the mainstream parties - to deny a right to white people that they allow for other racial groups. That is racist - and that is the policy of the Tory, Labour and Lib Dem parties. They are, therefore, every bit as racist as the BNP.
It's the usual thing - the BNP won't allow non-whites to join so they must be racist. The point being made though is that the BNP use the existence of various groups set up to promote and defend the interests of various ethnic minority groups as justification for their own policy.
I've left a comment on the post, so I'll just repost that comment here.
________________________
I’ll be honest - I’m a little tired of the “BNP is racist” argument and numerous people trying, thought various different means, to prove their already held view that the BNP are indeed racist.
Nobody seems to be addressing the fundamental point that the BNP make, though - the lack of any organisation specifically set up to defend the interests of white people. As they clearly point out - and as we all know - there are numerous groups set up specifically to promote and defend the interests, culture and traditions of various ethnic minorities. Some of these are even funded out of taxpayers money - BBC Asian Network for example.
The point is, why is it OK to have these sort of groups specifically for certain ethnic groups, but not for white people? Te question is not “are these groups racist?” - it should be “isn’t it racist to allow these groups this right but exclude whites from the same right?”
That is undeniably racist - and it is the policy of this government, the Labour Party, the Tory Party and the Lib Dems. Therefore, by definition, each of those parties is also racist.
So there you go. Every political party in the country is racist - the BNP are no different, except they are racist in favour of the one group who are now allowed to have someone represent their interests.
Has this got us anywhere? No - of course not. The problems which the BNP exploit are well known and stem from two policies pursued by mainstream parties - namely multiculturalism and mass immigration. At no point were the people of Britain consulted on these policies. They have never been openly discussed or debated about either in parliament or with the electorate. They have been foisted upon us by Labour and Tory governments. We were not asked if we want “multiculturalism” - we were told we have to be multicultural. Please note that multicultural is not the same as multiracial.
I don’t care if the BNP are racist - all the other parties are as well. So what? What worries me is that nobody is working to address the issues which allow the BNP to make their rather clumsy points.
__________________________
My point is that the BNP may well be racist - but they are not the ones who allow black and Asian people to have groups specifically set up to support, promote and defend their interests and culture while specifically excluding white people the same right.
That is the policy of all the mainstream parties - to deny a right to white people that they allow for other racial groups. That is racist - and that is the policy of the Tory, Labour and Lib Dem parties. They are, therefore, every bit as racist as the BNP.
How many years is it since Labour came to power?
Twelve years?
By some strange coincidence, the jobless total is the highest it's been for ....... 12 years!
By some strange coincidence, the jobless total is the highest it's been for ....... 12 years!
No sympathy ....
.... for this very stupid woman.
Kimberley Vlaeminck says she fell asleep during the procedure, and only realised what had happened when she woke up.
Yeah, right! There's this big ugly tattooed brute looming over you, with his tool buzzing inches from your ear and inflicting pain over sensitive areas of your face - and you fancy a little doze? Either drunk or drugged up - or both - then sobered up and realised what a fucking mess you look.
Kimberley Vlaeminck says she fell asleep during the procedure, and only realised what had happened when she woke up.
Yeah, right! There's this big ugly tattooed brute looming over you, with his tool buzzing inches from your ear and inflicting pain over sensitive areas of your face - and you fancy a little doze? Either drunk or drugged up - or both - then sobered up and realised what a fucking mess you look.
The Times has scored a spectacular own goal
How many times have we seen or heard journalists - on all newspapers - refer to "sources" or claim that an "insider" has revealed something to them?
Well, with The Times having used the legal process to reveal the identity of an anonymous blogger - NightJack - they have single handedly removed their right to use anonymous sources.
By their standards all sources must now be named. No longer will a journalist be able to claim that their source has a right to anonymity - if they don't believe a blogger has, then neither do their sources.
Next time you see a Times article cite an unnamed source or anonymous "spokesperson" write to them and demand that they reveal - in public - the name of that source. That is, after all, the standard they themselves demand.
Well, with The Times having used the legal process to reveal the identity of an anonymous blogger - NightJack - they have single handedly removed their right to use anonymous sources.
By their standards all sources must now be named. No longer will a journalist be able to claim that their source has a right to anonymity - if they don't believe a blogger has, then neither do their sources.
Next time you see a Times article cite an unnamed source or anonymous "spokesperson" write to them and demand that they reveal - in public - the name of that source. That is, after all, the standard they themselves demand.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Private investigations
I don't often find myself agreeing with Gordon Brown, but on the subject of the Iraq war inquiry I tend to feel that there is little to be gained by holding it in public.
First of all, the only reason we're having this inquiry in the first place is at the demand of those who've already made their minds up about the rights and wrongs of the war. Whether it is public or private, it the inquiry doesn't agree with their point of view then they'll claim it was a whitewash.
And like Brown, the only people I can see gaining anything from a pubic inquiry are lawyers - as with the Bloody Sunday inquiry debacle. There's no point in doing all that again when people have already made up their minds and will not be dissuaded one way or the other.
First of all, the only reason we're having this inquiry in the first place is at the demand of those who've already made their minds up about the rights and wrongs of the war. Whether it is public or private, it the inquiry doesn't agree with their point of view then they'll claim it was a whitewash.
And like Brown, the only people I can see gaining anything from a pubic inquiry are lawyers - as with the Bloody Sunday inquiry debacle. There's no point in doing all that again when people have already made up their minds and will not be dissuaded one way or the other.
Monday, June 15, 2009
A pile of crop
The Telegraph "reports" that the latest crop circle is predicting the end of the world.
Investigators claim more formations are referencing the possibility of a cataclysmic event occurring on December 21, 2012, which coincides with the end of the ancient Mayan calendar.
Investigators? You mean somebody actually takes this stuff seriously? There is no doubt that crop circles are ingenious and can be breathtakingly beautiful, but I can't believe that a supposedly serious newspaper gives credence to this supernatural mumbo jumbo.
After all, if the Mayans were so good at prophesy why didn't they spot their own demise 400 years ago?
Investigators claim more formations are referencing the possibility of a cataclysmic event occurring on December 21, 2012, which coincides with the end of the ancient Mayan calendar.
Investigators? You mean somebody actually takes this stuff seriously? There is no doubt that crop circles are ingenious and can be breathtakingly beautiful, but I can't believe that a supposedly serious newspaper gives credence to this supernatural mumbo jumbo.
After all, if the Mayans were so good at prophesy why didn't they spot their own demise 400 years ago?
Who are the racist fascists?
The BNP on "The Big Questions"
I watched the BBC's "The Big Questions" yesterday morning where one of the big questions considered was something like "Does the BNP have the right to freedom of speech?".
First of all, I should say that the question itself is preposterous - of course the BNP have the same right to freedom of speech as anyone else. Anyone who says otherwise IS a fascist. The very fact that we are even asking the question is somewhat revealing about Britain today where we are restricted on what we can say on a significant number of issues under threat of dismissal from our employment and even arrest and imprisonment.
Nevertheless, somebody in the BBC thought it was a question worth asking so the BBC invited a couple of people on from the BNP to be the punchbag - sorry, to argue their case - one of whom was Andrew Brons, the newly elected BNP MEP for Yorkshire (or some fake region or other).
Now, I've seen a few interviews with BNP members - including Nick Griffin - but this is the first time I can recall seeing someone from the BNP actually being engaged in a debate of sorts. Over the last few years there has been a policy of "no platform" among the mainstream parties and press which, I think, seems to mean that they refused to share a stage with someone from the BNP and debate with them.
The idea behind that policy, I believe, was to deny the BNP the oxygen of publicity - unfortunately for the mainstream establishment, this has failed and the BNP have won significantly high profile seats which now means they have to be heard.
No problem, went the argument. Once we get to hear what they say they will be condemned from their own mouths. Well, maybe this will still turn out to be so, but - on the evidence of yesterday - it's not the BNP who are going to be exposed as nasty, vicious, fascist thugs.
Brons and his companion - a vicar whose name escapes me - were reasonable, polite and measured while the "celebrity" panel were the ones with spittle flying from their lips, ranting, finger pointing, shouting and name calling (the one exception being the black poet Benjamin Zephaniah who was also entirely reasonable and polite).
It was a similar thing among the audience with a proportion being reasonably polite and dignified while a significant sections only response was to call out names, shout and repeat easily refuted misinformation about BNP policies. On this evidence, the idea of beating the BNP with argument is going to fail as abysmally as the no platform policy.
Meanwhile in South Africa
Also yesterday, I read a report in Live magazine about South Africa which, as I've mentioned before, is rapidly heading the way of Zimbabwe. Over the last few years there have been some 3000 white farmers murdered - often in horrific ways involving extreme torture as well - in what are clearly racist motivated incidents. There have been very few prosecutions for these murders.
As a consequence of this rise in violence against the white minority there have been some 900,000 white people who have fled the country - some 20% of the population. The response of the South African government to this was for the Security Minister, Charles Ngacula, to say ....
"They can continue to whinge until they are blue in the face, be as negative as they want to, or they can simply leave the country."
The old "if they don't like it, they can go home" argument. The report mentions that numerous "reforms" are being implemented under the slogan "Africa for Africans" - while it is clear that white Africans don't count in that group.
In Britain we ban a Dutch politician from entering the country because he made a film that says some negative things about Islam while we frequently welcome and fawn over the convicted ANC terrorist Nelson Mandela - a man who has been filmed singing a song imploring his followers to "kill the whites". If some leftist fools get their way, this convicted terrorist and self-confirmed racist will be given a statue in the middle of Trafalgar Square.
I watched the BBC's "The Big Questions" yesterday morning where one of the big questions considered was something like "Does the BNP have the right to freedom of speech?".
First of all, I should say that the question itself is preposterous - of course the BNP have the same right to freedom of speech as anyone else. Anyone who says otherwise IS a fascist. The very fact that we are even asking the question is somewhat revealing about Britain today where we are restricted on what we can say on a significant number of issues under threat of dismissal from our employment and even arrest and imprisonment.
Nevertheless, somebody in the BBC thought it was a question worth asking so the BBC invited a couple of people on from the BNP to be the punchbag - sorry, to argue their case - one of whom was Andrew Brons, the newly elected BNP MEP for Yorkshire (or some fake region or other).
Now, I've seen a few interviews with BNP members - including Nick Griffin - but this is the first time I can recall seeing someone from the BNP actually being engaged in a debate of sorts. Over the last few years there has been a policy of "no platform" among the mainstream parties and press which, I think, seems to mean that they refused to share a stage with someone from the BNP and debate with them.
The idea behind that policy, I believe, was to deny the BNP the oxygen of publicity - unfortunately for the mainstream establishment, this has failed and the BNP have won significantly high profile seats which now means they have to be heard.
No problem, went the argument. Once we get to hear what they say they will be condemned from their own mouths. Well, maybe this will still turn out to be so, but - on the evidence of yesterday - it's not the BNP who are going to be exposed as nasty, vicious, fascist thugs.
Brons and his companion - a vicar whose name escapes me - were reasonable, polite and measured while the "celebrity" panel were the ones with spittle flying from their lips, ranting, finger pointing, shouting and name calling (the one exception being the black poet Benjamin Zephaniah who was also entirely reasonable and polite).
It was a similar thing among the audience with a proportion being reasonably polite and dignified while a significant sections only response was to call out names, shout and repeat easily refuted misinformation about BNP policies. On this evidence, the idea of beating the BNP with argument is going to fail as abysmally as the no platform policy.
Meanwhile in South Africa
Also yesterday, I read a report in Live magazine about South Africa which, as I've mentioned before, is rapidly heading the way of Zimbabwe. Over the last few years there have been some 3000 white farmers murdered - often in horrific ways involving extreme torture as well - in what are clearly racist motivated incidents. There have been very few prosecutions for these murders.
As a consequence of this rise in violence against the white minority there have been some 900,000 white people who have fled the country - some 20% of the population. The response of the South African government to this was for the Security Minister, Charles Ngacula, to say ....
"They can continue to whinge until they are blue in the face, be as negative as they want to, or they can simply leave the country."
The old "if they don't like it, they can go home" argument. The report mentions that numerous "reforms" are being implemented under the slogan "Africa for Africans" - while it is clear that white Africans don't count in that group.
In Britain we ban a Dutch politician from entering the country because he made a film that says some negative things about Islam while we frequently welcome and fawn over the convicted ANC terrorist Nelson Mandela - a man who has been filmed singing a song imploring his followers to "kill the whites". If some leftist fools get their way, this convicted terrorist and self-confirmed racist will be given a statue in the middle of Trafalgar Square.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Ranting Stan's Sunday Drive: Daimler SP250 Dart
Bit of an odd choice for the Sunday Drive this week - because I can't honestly say that the Daimler Dart was a car I saw a lot of when I was young. In fact, I can only remember two occasions when I ever saw a Dart in real life - and one of those was in a used car showroom.Despite it's rarity, though, the Daimler Dart is the only car ever to make me laugh out loud the first time I saw one. Before I go on, I ought to say that there were many cars from my youth which, on my first sight, made me react in some way - a cor, wow, gasp, smile, jaw-drop or shrug - but only the Dart actually caused me to laugh like a hyena and point while I guffawed.
I was only about 10 at the time and was shopping with my mother in Maidenhead one morning when we rounded a corner and were confronted with an old English white Dart sitting by the kerb. The looks of the car made me instantly think of a duck (though I'm not sure why, now - if anything it looks like a fish) and caused me to roar with laughter and point at the car much to the chagrin of the driver - a handle bar moustached, Terry Thomas look-a-like.
He was most certainly a former army officer type. The sort you could imagine would be captain of the golf club and known by his former rank - the colonel or major or something. On seeing my reaction he gave a loud "hrrummph", twiddled his moustache, jammed his flat cap firmly onto his head and roared off.
Now I'm older I can appreciate his indignation because the Dart was actually a pretty decent car for the time. Introduced in 1959 with a lightweight glass fibre body, 2.5 litre engine, a 120 mph top speed and all round disc brakes it was a decent performer too. As far as I'm aware, it was also the only GRP bodied car that Daimler produced (though I stand to be corrected).
It was known as the SP250 in the US where the name Dart caused some legal issues and enjoyed decent sales success over there - considerably better than here judging by how few I've seen on British roads.
It may have looked a little peculiar, but it was actually quite a handsome car when viewed from some angles and quite definitely a distinctive and dramatic sight. A far cry from the generic identikit cars we have today. That's one of the problems of modern cars for me. Their computer design for mass market appeal and pre-launch focus group approval means that cars like the Dart are never ever going to be made anymore.
Is it any surprise that my reaction to most new car launches is just a shrug these days? I mean, there is no doubt that dynamically modern cars are fantastic in comparison to the cars launched in my day - even the Top Gear "reasonably priced car" so universally loathed by all who drive it would have been a revelation in terms of performance, quality and kit in 1970 - but there are all oh so dull.
It's a actually slightly ironic that in this day and age of "radical" politics and social liberalism we are so much more conservative in our choice of car.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Sabre rattling or a precursor to war?
North Korea is threatening to use "resolute military action" in response to the latest UN sanctions against it as well as insisting that it will continue its nuclear weapons programme.
This isn't anything new, of course, but as North Korea becomes more and more isolated I wonder if this isn't the usual sabre rattling of a pariah state, but an attempt to justify an attack on South Korea?
When a regime like NKs is pushed into a corner and left with nowhere to go there is always the temptation for a final throw of the dice - and NKs leadership is barmy enough to go all the way. If the US or anyone else, in accordance with UN sanctions, do begin to intercept NK shipping I can see the NK government using this as justification for declaring war and invading South Korea.
Unlike most people, I don't share the view that this would result in a massive defeat for NK - if they get the strategy right. South Korea is hardly a big country being little bigger than Wales and its capital and main port are barely inside the border with NK. And with South Korea having no land borders other than that with the north they are reliant on getting reinforcements and heavy supplies from the USA through those ports.
South Korea does have huge and highly capable armed forces of its own, though, but if NK could strike fast enough and effectively enough to deprive South Korea of its main air and sea ports then they could soon have a stranglehold on the south. And if they fail, they do have the nuclear option.
This isn't anything new, of course, but as North Korea becomes more and more isolated I wonder if this isn't the usual sabre rattling of a pariah state, but an attempt to justify an attack on South Korea?
When a regime like NKs is pushed into a corner and left with nowhere to go there is always the temptation for a final throw of the dice - and NKs leadership is barmy enough to go all the way. If the US or anyone else, in accordance with UN sanctions, do begin to intercept NK shipping I can see the NK government using this as justification for declaring war and invading South Korea.
Unlike most people, I don't share the view that this would result in a massive defeat for NK - if they get the strategy right. South Korea is hardly a big country being little bigger than Wales and its capital and main port are barely inside the border with NK. And with South Korea having no land borders other than that with the north they are reliant on getting reinforcements and heavy supplies from the USA through those ports.
South Korea does have huge and highly capable armed forces of its own, though, but if NK could strike fast enough and effectively enough to deprive South Korea of its main air and sea ports then they could soon have a stranglehold on the south. And if they fail, they do have the nuclear option.
Friday, June 12, 2009
My despair for our democracy
As I look around the web at various news media sites, comment pieces and blogs I can't help thinking that the concept of democracy is being completely misrepresented again and again. One of the biggest misconceptions, in my view, is this belief that we need an elected second chamber which seems to be gaining ground. This really worries me.
Democracy is extremely hard to define in a nutshell. It is very hard to say in a single simple phrase exactly what it is. It is far easier to say what it is not and what it most definitely is not is more and more people having more and more opportunity to vote for more and more things. An elected second chamber will make us less democratic - not more. Please bear with me while I explain why.
First of all, let me just list the four things that I believe are necessary before there is even a possibility that true democracy can exist.
The first thing, of course, is the existence of a demos - a people who share a common cause. In the case of a General Election, that common cause is, of course, the interests of the United Kingdom.
The second thing is the existence of real political choice. There has to be a real alternative between option A or option B - if there isn't then democracy can not exist. It is not enough to have universal suffrage if all the people can vote for is the same. The lack of real difference between all the main parties is the single biggest influence on voter turnout and the existence of "the democratic deficit".
The third thing is popular sovereignty - the notion that the government we get is there by the true will of the electorate and govern with the true consent of the people. Again, for this to exist there has to be real choice between political options. In all honesty, it is hard to say whether true popular sovereignty is ever actually achievable - there have rarely been times when a government has enjoyed more than 50% of the vote - but there is no doubt that it has become increasingly less true in recent decades as governments govern with an increasingly low percentage of the total electorate.
The final thing is an effective check and balance on the elected government - which is where the second chamber comes in. It is, of course, impossible for there to be an effective check and balance on an elected government if that second chamber is elected too. People keep trying to tell me that they manage it in other countries - such as the USA - but this simply isn't true.
I'll use the USA as an example because I'm reasonably au fait with the principles of their governmental system - but I'm pretty much certain that just about every other country where they have bicameral parliaments with two elected chambers uses similar methods.
It's true that in the US, members of each house are much more free on how they vote than they are in this country, but even so they generally tend to vote with their party. Consequently, when you have a US President whose party dominates both houses that President is pretty much all powerful. If his party loses control of just one of those houses the President becomes almost entirely impotent and ineffectual - a lame duck President.
There is no effective check and balance in the US system of elected representatives. Where they do have a check and balance against abuse of government power is through the Supreme Court - a panel of just seven unelected people who possess extraordinary power. These people sit on the Supreme Court for life or until they step down. This is why it is extremely important for a party to have their President in power when a position becomes vacant as the President appoints the members of the Supreme Court and this gives them the opportunity to put in place someone of their choosing - a liberal or conservative.
A similar thing exists in Britain with the Law Lords, but their power is considerably more limited than the US Supreme Court. I'm not too sure how much more power the Supreme Court of the UK will have when it takes over from the Law Lords later this year, but I'm betting this is the precursor to an elected second chamber - so they will be pretty much all powerful.
What this means is that we will be reducing the check and balance on our government from some 700 persons to just 11 political appointees. I can not see how this will make Britain more democratic - on the contrary, it will make it considerably less so.
The trouble is, I don't think many people understand this concept. They think that just because they voted for a second chamber this somehow is a more representative government. It isn't because the second chamber does not govern! The government is the executive of the House of Commons - the second chamber is the check and balance against the abuse of power by that executive.
If the second chamber is elected that check and balance will not exist any more - particularly in a place like the UK where party whips ensure compliance with party policy. It is a simplistic idea to think that just having more elected representatives will make us more democratic. It won't. Indeed, by changing the House of Lords we open ourselves up to the possibility of a truly extreme government gaining power as they have all over Europe in times past.
Please do not let this happen.
Democracy is extremely hard to define in a nutshell. It is very hard to say in a single simple phrase exactly what it is. It is far easier to say what it is not and what it most definitely is not is more and more people having more and more opportunity to vote for more and more things. An elected second chamber will make us less democratic - not more. Please bear with me while I explain why.
First of all, let me just list the four things that I believe are necessary before there is even a possibility that true democracy can exist.
The first thing, of course, is the existence of a demos - a people who share a common cause. In the case of a General Election, that common cause is, of course, the interests of the United Kingdom.
The second thing is the existence of real political choice. There has to be a real alternative between option A or option B - if there isn't then democracy can not exist. It is not enough to have universal suffrage if all the people can vote for is the same. The lack of real difference between all the main parties is the single biggest influence on voter turnout and the existence of "the democratic deficit".
The third thing is popular sovereignty - the notion that the government we get is there by the true will of the electorate and govern with the true consent of the people. Again, for this to exist there has to be real choice between political options. In all honesty, it is hard to say whether true popular sovereignty is ever actually achievable - there have rarely been times when a government has enjoyed more than 50% of the vote - but there is no doubt that it has become increasingly less true in recent decades as governments govern with an increasingly low percentage of the total electorate.
The final thing is an effective check and balance on the elected government - which is where the second chamber comes in. It is, of course, impossible for there to be an effective check and balance on an elected government if that second chamber is elected too. People keep trying to tell me that they manage it in other countries - such as the USA - but this simply isn't true.
I'll use the USA as an example because I'm reasonably au fait with the principles of their governmental system - but I'm pretty much certain that just about every other country where they have bicameral parliaments with two elected chambers uses similar methods.
It's true that in the US, members of each house are much more free on how they vote than they are in this country, but even so they generally tend to vote with their party. Consequently, when you have a US President whose party dominates both houses that President is pretty much all powerful. If his party loses control of just one of those houses the President becomes almost entirely impotent and ineffectual - a lame duck President.
There is no effective check and balance in the US system of elected representatives. Where they do have a check and balance against abuse of government power is through the Supreme Court - a panel of just seven unelected people who possess extraordinary power. These people sit on the Supreme Court for life or until they step down. This is why it is extremely important for a party to have their President in power when a position becomes vacant as the President appoints the members of the Supreme Court and this gives them the opportunity to put in place someone of their choosing - a liberal or conservative.
A similar thing exists in Britain with the Law Lords, but their power is considerably more limited than the US Supreme Court. I'm not too sure how much more power the Supreme Court of the UK will have when it takes over from the Law Lords later this year, but I'm betting this is the precursor to an elected second chamber - so they will be pretty much all powerful.
What this means is that we will be reducing the check and balance on our government from some 700 persons to just 11 political appointees. I can not see how this will make Britain more democratic - on the contrary, it will make it considerably less so.
The trouble is, I don't think many people understand this concept. They think that just because they voted for a second chamber this somehow is a more representative government. It isn't because the second chamber does not govern! The government is the executive of the House of Commons - the second chamber is the check and balance against the abuse of power by that executive.
If the second chamber is elected that check and balance will not exist any more - particularly in a place like the UK where party whips ensure compliance with party policy. It is a simplistic idea to think that just having more elected representatives will make us more democratic. It won't. Indeed, by changing the House of Lords we open ourselves up to the possibility of a truly extreme government gaining power as they have all over Europe in times past.
Please do not let this happen.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
How not to prove a point
Caroline Flint says she resigned from the cabinet because Gordon Brown questioned her loyalty.
Judging by the nasty, spiteful way she did resign I kind of think he had a point. One day she's simpering that Gordy is the best man for the job, the next she's throwing a tantrum 'cos she didn't get a promotion.
Judging by the nasty, spiteful way she did resign I kind of think he had a point. One day she's simpering that Gordy is the best man for the job, the next she's throwing a tantrum 'cos she didn't get a promotion.
Implied acceptance
I'm no expert on law - as you've probably worked out by now! - but I think that there ought to be a degree of common sense applied to law or, to be more precise, how the law is applied.
As usual this summer as with every summer, the RMT and their obnoxious leader, Bob Crow, have a grievance. I'm not entirely sure what this grievance is nor do I care - as I understand it they've been offered an decent pay rise while most of us in the private sector are making do with nothing or an actual cut, but Crow and his cronies want guaranteed jobs for life - which is ridiculous.
What I do know, though, is that unions have adopted this tactic over the last decade of having short disruptive strikes rather than indefinite strikes until the grievance is addressed. It's obvious why they do this - it means minimal disruptance to the lives of the union members while maximising disruptance to the employers and, in the case of the tube, the general public.
Now I'm all for the right to withdraw you labour if you feel you have a genuine grievance, but my argument would be that should you decide to return to work for any reason then that implies acceptance of the conditions offered. Otherwise why would you return to work?
I don't know what the best way of encoding that in law would be - I would suggest that it should be made illegal to strike more than once over any issue thereby making it impossible for anyone to have a number of strikes of fixed length.
What is certain is that these tactics of short disruptive strikes repeated over weeks or months have become more common in the public sector. It's time they were stopped. They can strike until some agreement is reached or they can go back to work and accept the conditions offered - they should not be allowed to have their cake and eat it.
As usual this summer as with every summer, the RMT and their obnoxious leader, Bob Crow, have a grievance. I'm not entirely sure what this grievance is nor do I care - as I understand it they've been offered an decent pay rise while most of us in the private sector are making do with nothing or an actual cut, but Crow and his cronies want guaranteed jobs for life - which is ridiculous.
What I do know, though, is that unions have adopted this tactic over the last decade of having short disruptive strikes rather than indefinite strikes until the grievance is addressed. It's obvious why they do this - it means minimal disruptance to the lives of the union members while maximising disruptance to the employers and, in the case of the tube, the general public.
Now I'm all for the right to withdraw you labour if you feel you have a genuine grievance, but my argument would be that should you decide to return to work for any reason then that implies acceptance of the conditions offered. Otherwise why would you return to work?
I don't know what the best way of encoding that in law would be - I would suggest that it should be made illegal to strike more than once over any issue thereby making it impossible for anyone to have a number of strikes of fixed length.
What is certain is that these tactics of short disruptive strikes repeated over weeks or months have become more common in the public sector. It's time they were stopped. They can strike until some agreement is reached or they can go back to work and accept the conditions offered - they should not be allowed to have their cake and eat it.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
My thoughts on the BNP election victory
There's been an awful lot of talk about the election of Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons from the BNP to the EU Parliament. The MSM have been falling over themselves to give various political luminaries the chance to say how "sickened" or "horrified" they are by the thought that these people have been elected by British voters.
The first thing that crosses my mind is that a lot of these people - such as Nick Clegg - are supporters of the shitty PR voting system that allows for fringe parties to get elected. If you want PR, then get used to parties like the BNP winning seats, because it will happen - but don't then blame the British people for the crappy voting system you introduced.
The other thing that struck me was that if we weren't members of the EU then the BNP wouldn't be sending BNP members to Brussels to attend the mother of all mickey-mouse parliaments.
Don't blame the British people for their election - blame PR and Ted Heath!
The first thing that crosses my mind is that a lot of these people - such as Nick Clegg - are supporters of the shitty PR voting system that allows for fringe parties to get elected. If you want PR, then get used to parties like the BNP winning seats, because it will happen - but don't then blame the British people for the crappy voting system you introduced.
The other thing that struck me was that if we weren't members of the EU then the BNP wouldn't be sending BNP members to Brussels to attend the mother of all mickey-mouse parliaments.
Don't blame the British people for their election - blame PR and Ted Heath!
Cameron supporting violence?
I've managed to catch up a little bit with the events outside parliament yesterday when a group calling itself "Unite Against Fascism" disrupted a BNP press conference. Not only did they disrupt the BNP with an illegal protest, but they also used violence to do so - throwing eggs, kicking cars and hitting out with their placards.
I've listened to a couple of interviews with protesters who were there and they didn't seem to think the violence was unjustified and were entirely unconcerned about the suppression of free speech. Not only that, but it appears this group are supported by the Labour Party, the Tory Party and the Lib Dems and funded with taxpayers money!
The Labour Party have a long association with groups prepared to use violence to pursue their goals - they're called "trade unions" - but as far as I'm aware, this is something new for the Tory party. How can Cameron justify supporting a group who are prepared break the law and use violence to obtain their ends?
I would urge any Tory supporter out there to call on Cameron to disassociate himself and his party from this bunch of violent thugs.
I've listened to a couple of interviews with protesters who were there and they didn't seem to think the violence was unjustified and were entirely unconcerned about the suppression of free speech. Not only that, but it appears this group are supported by the Labour Party, the Tory Party and the Lib Dems and funded with taxpayers money!
The Labour Party have a long association with groups prepared to use violence to pursue their goals - they're called "trade unions" - but as far as I'm aware, this is something new for the Tory party. How can Cameron justify supporting a group who are prepared break the law and use violence to obtain their ends?
I would urge any Tory supporter out there to call on Cameron to disassociate himself and his party from this bunch of violent thugs.
Above the law
I've been out most of the night enjoying some local hospitality so I missed the news, but apparently the BNP held a press conference outside the Houses of Parliament which was disrupted by a protest from a group calling itself "Unite Against Fascism" (obviously, they don't do irony).
What amazes me is that this group were apparently waving placards and chanting - which is fair enough as that is what protesters do - but I thought there was a law prohibiting protests within a certain radius of parliament?
As anyone knows, the Houses of Parliament is protected by a number of armed, uniformed police officers as well as a fair few of plain clothes milling about. It should not have been possible for this group to get anywhere near the Houses of Parliament with their placards - and on having done so they should have been arrested immediately.
The fact that they did get to protest where they did and that nobody tried to stop them tells me an awful lot about that protest - i.e. it must have been condoned by somebody in authority who feels they have the power to usurp the law.
That is more scary than any BNP press conference.
What amazes me is that this group were apparently waving placards and chanting - which is fair enough as that is what protesters do - but I thought there was a law prohibiting protests within a certain radius of parliament?
As anyone knows, the Houses of Parliament is protected by a number of armed, uniformed police officers as well as a fair few of plain clothes milling about. It should not have been possible for this group to get anywhere near the Houses of Parliament with their placards - and on having done so they should have been arrested immediately.
The fact that they did get to protest where they did and that nobody tried to stop them tells me an awful lot about that protest - i.e. it must have been condoned by somebody in authority who feels they have the power to usurp the law.
That is more scary than any BNP press conference.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Meaningless sums of money
For some reason, I found myself wondering this morning why people got so angry about MPs expenses. I mean, I understand the indignation that people feel, but getting worked up about 55p bath plugs or £600 spent on a duck house is rather silly when you consider the vast sums of our money that the government wastes on their pet victim groups, various quangos and schemes.
In the end, the only conclusion I could reach was that it was conceptual. We can all relate to £600 here and there as they are sums we are all familiar with. We can even grasp the concept of a few hundred thousand or couple of million, but very few people can get their heads around the £130,000,000,000 we spend on quangos each year.
That's the problem. The sums of money which the government handle (and waste) have become so large that they've become utterly meaningless to us. We can understand a few hundred here and there or even several hundred thousand because we can relate to it - but once you get beyond a certain point there is no meaning to the money.
Furthermore, the figures become so oft repeated that you become desensitized to them. Even I can remember when a billion pounds was a rarely used figure that raised eyebrows. Today we barely even register a flicker at the mention of hundreds or thousands of billions.
I think it's time we had a redenomination of our money so that £10 becomes £1. It wouldn't completely solve the problem - £13,000,000,000 is still a bloody big sum of money - but at least we could bring back the pound note and have a decent night out for under a tenner!
In the end, the only conclusion I could reach was that it was conceptual. We can all relate to £600 here and there as they are sums we are all familiar with. We can even grasp the concept of a few hundred thousand or couple of million, but very few people can get their heads around the £130,000,000,000 we spend on quangos each year.
That's the problem. The sums of money which the government handle (and waste) have become so large that they've become utterly meaningless to us. We can understand a few hundred here and there or even several hundred thousand because we can relate to it - but once you get beyond a certain point there is no meaning to the money.
Furthermore, the figures become so oft repeated that you become desensitized to them. Even I can remember when a billion pounds was a rarely used figure that raised eyebrows. Today we barely even register a flicker at the mention of hundreds or thousands of billions.
I think it's time we had a redenomination of our money so that £10 becomes £1. It wouldn't completely solve the problem - £13,000,000,000 is still a bloody big sum of money - but at least we could bring back the pound note and have a decent night out for under a tenner!
Monday, June 08, 2009
From news hounds to blood hounds
Perhaps one of the more unpleasant features of modern journalism is the way they have turned from news hounds - genuinely interested in finding news stories, investigating them and reporting them - into blood hounds - a pack of ferocious hacks sniffing out the scent of blood before chasing after it.
Sometimes it is real blood - as in war reporting which has gone from factual information on battle progress with the goriest bits withheld (other than, perhaps, a brief mention of casualties) to lingering over blood spattered images with graphic descriptions and emotional outpourings.
At other times it is metaphorical blood - as with the hunting down of Gordon Brown. On these occasions there is often no "scent" to search after - so the media instead create the story and then tear into the subject with unremitting ferocity. Sometimes this is based on third hand tittle tattle - such as the media trying to insist that they "knew" Gordon Brown was planning to sack Alistair Darling as Chancellor. They knew no such thing for certain - but they hate being made to look foolish, so they made out they did know.
So, having been deprived of their prey for now, they are back - baying for the blood of the PM to be spilled once more and jumping on the slightest thing to prove themselves justified. They will not be satisfied until they have caught their prey, ripped him to shreds and drank their fill of his blood.
This isn't political news reporting, it's blood lust.
Sometimes it is real blood - as in war reporting which has gone from factual information on battle progress with the goriest bits withheld (other than, perhaps, a brief mention of casualties) to lingering over blood spattered images with graphic descriptions and emotional outpourings.
At other times it is metaphorical blood - as with the hunting down of Gordon Brown. On these occasions there is often no "scent" to search after - so the media instead create the story and then tear into the subject with unremitting ferocity. Sometimes this is based on third hand tittle tattle - such as the media trying to insist that they "knew" Gordon Brown was planning to sack Alistair Darling as Chancellor. They knew no such thing for certain - but they hate being made to look foolish, so they made out they did know.
So, having been deprived of their prey for now, they are back - baying for the blood of the PM to be spilled once more and jumping on the slightest thing to prove themselves justified. They will not be satisfied until they have caught their prey, ripped him to shreds and drank their fill of his blood.
This isn't political news reporting, it's blood lust.
Not making history
There was an interesting article in the Daily Mail last Saturday regarding the D-Day celebrations and the way the original event has been "Americanised".
There is no doubt that Hollywood blockbusters such as Saving Private Ryan and the TV mini-series Band Of Brothers are responsible for an unmistakable - and untruthful - Americanisation of the Normandy landings.
To be honest, I agree with most of what Ken Ford says - particularly about the average French citizen being eternally grateful to the British, American and Canadian men who sacrificed their lives to liberate France - but I do take issue over his criticisms of Hollywood. Yes, it is true that US films tend to overplay the role of the USA in the war, but as they are American companies making films primarily for an American audience then why shouldn't they?
The truth is that British film makers gave up making films like "Saving Private Ryan" decades ago - preferring instead to make dismal films filled with post-modern irony and/or leftist propaganda. Twenty seven years after the Falklands War we still haven't had a decent movie about the liberation and the incredible feats of our soldiers, sailors and airmen during that conflict.
Rather than blaming the yanks for the fact that many kids grow up today not knowing what part the British played in D-Day we ought to be wondering why our movie makers would rather celebrate the drugs culture, abortion or alcohol dependency rather than make films which tell the true story of the part played by British people in shaping history.
I should point out that this is in no way a criticism of the documentary makers who've made some very good programmes about our part in the war - such as "D-Day to Berlin" - but a more direct criticism of popular culture and the cinema which is, after all, where most kids get their ideas about history from these days.
There is no doubt that Hollywood blockbusters such as Saving Private Ryan and the TV mini-series Band Of Brothers are responsible for an unmistakable - and untruthful - Americanisation of the Normandy landings.
To be honest, I agree with most of what Ken Ford says - particularly about the average French citizen being eternally grateful to the British, American and Canadian men who sacrificed their lives to liberate France - but I do take issue over his criticisms of Hollywood. Yes, it is true that US films tend to overplay the role of the USA in the war, but as they are American companies making films primarily for an American audience then why shouldn't they?
The truth is that British film makers gave up making films like "Saving Private Ryan" decades ago - preferring instead to make dismal films filled with post-modern irony and/or leftist propaganda. Twenty seven years after the Falklands War we still haven't had a decent movie about the liberation and the incredible feats of our soldiers, sailors and airmen during that conflict.
Rather than blaming the yanks for the fact that many kids grow up today not knowing what part the British played in D-Day we ought to be wondering why our movie makers would rather celebrate the drugs culture, abortion or alcohol dependency rather than make films which tell the true story of the part played by British people in shaping history.
I should point out that this is in no way a criticism of the documentary makers who've made some very good programmes about our part in the war - such as "D-Day to Berlin" - but a more direct criticism of popular culture and the cinema which is, after all, where most kids get their ideas about history from these days.
EU elections prove nothing
As expected the media have gone into a frenzy over Labour's dismal performance in the EU elections with many people suggesting that this could translate into a whitewash in a General Election. I'm still not convinced.
First of all, the "constituencies" and the method of voting in these elections are nothing like those at a General Election meaning that it is all but impossible to draw comparisons. As a rule, the Tories tend to do well in larger, more rural constituencies while Labour tend to dominate in large towns and cities. The only real place where you could make some sort of judgement is in London where the Labour vote held up surprisingly well all things considered.
Secondly, despite the Labour Party vote share collapsing, it was clear that the Tories were not the beneficiaries of defecting Labour voters - and nor were UKIP. It's true that UKIP tended to pick up seats that Labour lost, but on the whole it appears to me that the biggest beneficiaries of Labour disaffection were the Greens and BNP.
If anything, the results are as much of a body blow to Cameron as they were to Brown. There is no indication from these polls that the Tories will achieve anything near the required swing to gain even a modest majority in parliament - and if they want a working majority they are even further from the mark.
What is also clear to me from this is that it is highly unlikely now that the Labour party would ditch Brown. They could not possibly have a new leader and not hold an immediate General Election. I really believe there would be widespread revolt if they tried - and even if there wasn't, people would be so infuriated by such disregard for the electoral process that they'd give Labour an even bigger kicking when the election did come.
I suspect a lot of people will look at the way UKIPs vote held up and judge that these voters would normally vote Conservative in a General Election giving the Tories more than enough to achieve the required swing. Possibly, but the vote share of both groups is roughly the same as it was in the previous EU elections and that wasn't enough to defeat Labour in 2005.
I've no doubt that there is some serious soul searching going on at Labour HQ today, but if I was Cameron I'd be even more concerned and wondering what it is I need to do to convince voters to support the Tories - because on this showing the best he can hope for is a hung parliament.
First of all, the "constituencies" and the method of voting in these elections are nothing like those at a General Election meaning that it is all but impossible to draw comparisons. As a rule, the Tories tend to do well in larger, more rural constituencies while Labour tend to dominate in large towns and cities. The only real place where you could make some sort of judgement is in London where the Labour vote held up surprisingly well all things considered.
Secondly, despite the Labour Party vote share collapsing, it was clear that the Tories were not the beneficiaries of defecting Labour voters - and nor were UKIP. It's true that UKIP tended to pick up seats that Labour lost, but on the whole it appears to me that the biggest beneficiaries of Labour disaffection were the Greens and BNP.
If anything, the results are as much of a body blow to Cameron as they were to Brown. There is no indication from these polls that the Tories will achieve anything near the required swing to gain even a modest majority in parliament - and if they want a working majority they are even further from the mark.
What is also clear to me from this is that it is highly unlikely now that the Labour party would ditch Brown. They could not possibly have a new leader and not hold an immediate General Election. I really believe there would be widespread revolt if they tried - and even if there wasn't, people would be so infuriated by such disregard for the electoral process that they'd give Labour an even bigger kicking when the election did come.
I suspect a lot of people will look at the way UKIPs vote held up and judge that these voters would normally vote Conservative in a General Election giving the Tories more than enough to achieve the required swing. Possibly, but the vote share of both groups is roughly the same as it was in the previous EU elections and that wasn't enough to defeat Labour in 2005.
I've no doubt that there is some serious soul searching going on at Labour HQ today, but if I was Cameron I'd be even more concerned and wondering what it is I need to do to convince voters to support the Tories - because on this showing the best he can hope for is a hung parliament.
Friday, June 05, 2009
No more early releases
The turmoil in the probation services as revealed by the case of the two murdered French students demonstrates a fundamental flaw in the justice system.
With the prison capacity stretched beyond the limit, the government have turned to the idea of releasing prisoners before their sentences have been properly served or discouraging courts from applying prison sentences at all.
Unfortunately, such a system has placed considerably more stress on the probation service while at the same time providing no additional support or capacity for that service to cope with the extra burden imposed on it by government policies.
The options are limited, but clear. There must be an immediate cessation to the policy of automatic early release. Prisoners should serve their full sentence and any shortening (or lengthening come to that) of that sentence should be linked to their behaviour while behind bars.
Secondly, the government must find some way of increasing the capacity of the prison service - whether that means prison ships or turning a disused barracks into a prison is up to them, but they must do it and do it quickly.
Thirdly, they must instruct courts to apply prison sentences where they are justified rather than doing all they can to avoid custodial sentences.
Finally, we must get away from this belief that "prison doesn't work". It does if you understand what it's purpose is and the purpose of prison is NOT to rehabilitate offenders, but to punish them and remove them from the general population so that they cannot commit further crimes while incarcerated.
It's actually very effective at the latter, but less so as a punishment. Once more, what is needed is a return to prisons which are austere places where prisoners are expected to perform hard work and where luxuries such as access to entertainment or are earned not expected.
With the prison capacity stretched beyond the limit, the government have turned to the idea of releasing prisoners before their sentences have been properly served or discouraging courts from applying prison sentences at all.
Unfortunately, such a system has placed considerably more stress on the probation service while at the same time providing no additional support or capacity for that service to cope with the extra burden imposed on it by government policies.
The options are limited, but clear. There must be an immediate cessation to the policy of automatic early release. Prisoners should serve their full sentence and any shortening (or lengthening come to that) of that sentence should be linked to their behaviour while behind bars.
Secondly, the government must find some way of increasing the capacity of the prison service - whether that means prison ships or turning a disused barracks into a prison is up to them, but they must do it and do it quickly.
Thirdly, they must instruct courts to apply prison sentences where they are justified rather than doing all they can to avoid custodial sentences.
Finally, we must get away from this belief that "prison doesn't work". It does if you understand what it's purpose is and the purpose of prison is NOT to rehabilitate offenders, but to punish them and remove them from the general population so that they cannot commit further crimes while incarcerated.
It's actually very effective at the latter, but less so as a punishment. Once more, what is needed is a return to prisons which are austere places where prisoners are expected to perform hard work and where luxuries such as access to entertainment or are earned not expected.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
The meaning of life
How long is life? The Bible says three score years and ten - i.e. seventy years, but our justice system thinks different.
A serial sex attacker who preyed on women in south-west London over a six-year period has been jailed for life.
Kirk Reid, 44, was convicted at Kingston Crown Court of two rapes and 24 sexual assaults and must serve at least seven-and-a-half years.
Seven and a half years? That's pathetic. Life should mean life.
This isn't justice - it's a travesty.
A serial sex attacker who preyed on women in south-west London over a six-year period has been jailed for life.
Kirk Reid, 44, was convicted at Kingston Crown Court of two rapes and 24 sexual assaults and must serve at least seven-and-a-half years.
Seven and a half years? That's pathetic. Life should mean life.
This isn't justice - it's a travesty.
From Blair babes to Brown boobies?
Driving home last night I was listening to the PM show on Radio 4 when a discussion began on why it is that it only seems to be women who are dropping out of the Brown cabinet - Smith, Blears etc.
The discussion centred around whether or not this was because Gordon Brown has a "problem" with women. Yes, said one forgettable Labour party representative. No, said the other utterly unremarkable Brown supporter - both of whom were female.
What nobody mentioned, however, is that apart from being women all those who have resigned have another factor in common - they were crap at the job. Not only that, but in the case of Smith she actually knew she was crap and completely out of her depth. She was a prime example of a woman promoted to a position purely on account of her gender - she had no discernible talent for the job and is quite probably the worst Home Secretary we've had that I can remember - and given the hopelessness of her predecessors, that is no mean feat!
There are other reasons why it is only women who are standing down from the Cabinet. Perhaps women are less adept at handling the pressure or maybe women are less loyal than men? I don't know, but it's a sign of the times that when women fail at a job the reaction is to assume it's the fault of a man.
The discussion centred around whether or not this was because Gordon Brown has a "problem" with women. Yes, said one forgettable Labour party representative. No, said the other utterly unremarkable Brown supporter - both of whom were female.
What nobody mentioned, however, is that apart from being women all those who have resigned have another factor in common - they were crap at the job. Not only that, but in the case of Smith she actually knew she was crap and completely out of her depth. She was a prime example of a woman promoted to a position purely on account of her gender - she had no discernible talent for the job and is quite probably the worst Home Secretary we've had that I can remember - and given the hopelessness of her predecessors, that is no mean feat!
There are other reasons why it is only women who are standing down from the Cabinet. Perhaps women are less adept at handling the pressure or maybe women are less loyal than men? I don't know, but it's a sign of the times that when women fail at a job the reaction is to assume it's the fault of a man.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Are we opening the door to extremists?
Alice Miles thinks that denial is going to open the door to the "extremists" of the BNP.
.... mainstream political leaders need to talk more about race, poverty and migration. Continuing to triangulate gingerly around the issues is leaving the door open to the extremists.
Actually, it is because successive Labour and Tory governments have left the door wide open to extremists coming here from all over the place that people have finally had enough of unrestrained immigration. That is why a British tourist was murdered in Mali - because we let in a dangerous extremist Moslem "cleric" and terrorist. That's why some of the world's most wanted criminals are believed to be in Britain.
That's why we have to submit to having our hard won and centuries cherished traditional freedoms and liberties being eroded. It's because there are countless thousands of Moslem extremists now living here that our police forces are unable to concern themselves with tackling crime and disorder as they are so busy tracking terrorists.
That's why organised crime - almost entirely run by foreign extremists - is rising significantly and why slavery is once more a regular feature in Britain today.
When it comes to worrying about "extremists" the BNP are the least of the concerns for the ordinary British person. If the mainstream media and the main political parties are serious about tackling extremism then lets see them start kicking out some of the scum like Quatada who infest our country and leech off our welfare state while orchestrating the demise of our nation.
It was the Labour and Tory parties who "opened the door to extremists" when they allowed unrestricted immigration into our country - without ever asking us what we thought of that. When they start to take the real and foreign extremists seriously then they can start talking about the concerns they have over the policies of a legitimate and British political party.
.... mainstream political leaders need to talk more about race, poverty and migration. Continuing to triangulate gingerly around the issues is leaving the door open to the extremists.
Actually, it is because successive Labour and Tory governments have left the door wide open to extremists coming here from all over the place that people have finally had enough of unrestrained immigration. That is why a British tourist was murdered in Mali - because we let in a dangerous extremist Moslem "cleric" and terrorist. That's why some of the world's most wanted criminals are believed to be in Britain.
That's why we have to submit to having our hard won and centuries cherished traditional freedoms and liberties being eroded. It's because there are countless thousands of Moslem extremists now living here that our police forces are unable to concern themselves with tackling crime and disorder as they are so busy tracking terrorists.
That's why organised crime - almost entirely run by foreign extremists - is rising significantly and why slavery is once more a regular feature in Britain today.
When it comes to worrying about "extremists" the BNP are the least of the concerns for the ordinary British person. If the mainstream media and the main political parties are serious about tackling extremism then lets see them start kicking out some of the scum like Quatada who infest our country and leech off our welfare state while orchestrating the demise of our nation.
It was the Labour and Tory parties who "opened the door to extremists" when they allowed unrestricted immigration into our country - without ever asking us what we thought of that. When they start to take the real and foreign extremists seriously then they can start talking about the concerns they have over the policies of a legitimate and British political party.
Oh, brother!
Over on The Telegraph, Stephan Shakespeare announces the saviour of democracy - a voters union.
Voters must be a central part of the renewal process and the National Union of Voters will be a democratic movement that makes it easier for people to represent themselves.
I don't actually think many people want to represent themselves - they are generally too busy getting on with the day to day things like earning a living - they want their elected MP to represent them. That is, after all, what they are there for.
The union starts with the belief that there are four big weaknesses in our democracy.
Indeed there are.
First, the problem of too many MPs thinking they have a safe seat for life.
Err, no - that's not on my list. That's a problem with constituency boundaries, but nothing to do with democracy per se.
Second, the political class has hidden important information about its income, expenses and connections for too long. We need complete transparency.
Nope, not on my list either. Transparency is important, but our democratic system more or less has that. Politicians on the take is nothing new.
Third, political parties rely on a few big donors for their money. They would be a lot more responsive to voters if they had to raise their funds from them.
Well - sort of. Some of the "big donors" are actually private individual voters who happen to be wealthy and anything above £5000 has to be declared. I'm all for limiting donations from individuals to £500 and making it illegal to accept donations from business or corporations (including unions and NGOs), but more important for me is to end the professional lobbying that goes on from these groups.
Fourth, the mainstream parties agree on too many big issues, denying debate as they cling to each other like spent boxers.
At last we agree on something! The biggest problem in our democracy that I can see is the lack of choice and the replacement of real argument and debate with mud-slinging and name-calling. The three main parties each believe in our membership of the EU which means they each have more or less the same political agenda give or take some minor detail differences.
In recent years two significant parties have emerged that differ from that viewpoint - BNP and UKIP - and have tapped in, in differing ways, to the groundswell of disillusionment and disinterest in our political system with varying degrees of success.
They both agree on withdrawal from the EU and share a belief in some form of British nationalism, but other than that there are few similarities between the two parties. It would make a huge difference to our democracy - in my opinion - if those two parties were somehow able to make a meaningful breakthrough that actually led to real debate about the issues that concern British people.
Unfortunately, both BNP and UKIP have reverted to modern political styles and opted for exchanging insults rather than meaningful debate. Were they to pursue the latter rather than the former I think we could see a real grass roots democracy movement grow in this country.
Imagine what would happen if UKIP and BNP arranged to have a series of political debates in various towns and locations up and down Britain where ordinary people - rather than the media - were able to hear them debate, proper debate, and ask questions. Don't bother with the other parties - chances are they wouldn't take part anyway - just UKIP and BNP for now.
The important thing would be to keep the meetings civil and restrict discussion to genuine political issues - not name calling or spurious arguments about party constitutions or the misbehaviour of various current or former members.
The debates could be filmed and posted on You Tube as well as the parties websites allowing more and more people to see and hear for themselves some real political dialogue.
UKIP and the BNP represent the only true opposition to government - whichever party is governing at the time. If they were to unite - not politically, but strategically - they could seriously invigorate our politics and our democracy much more than some half-baked, ill-conceived "union" of voters.
Voters must be a central part of the renewal process and the National Union of Voters will be a democratic movement that makes it easier for people to represent themselves.
I don't actually think many people want to represent themselves - they are generally too busy getting on with the day to day things like earning a living - they want their elected MP to represent them. That is, after all, what they are there for.
The union starts with the belief that there are four big weaknesses in our democracy.
Indeed there are.
First, the problem of too many MPs thinking they have a safe seat for life.
Err, no - that's not on my list. That's a problem with constituency boundaries, but nothing to do with democracy per se.
Second, the political class has hidden important information about its income, expenses and connections for too long. We need complete transparency.
Nope, not on my list either. Transparency is important, but our democratic system more or less has that. Politicians on the take is nothing new.
Third, political parties rely on a few big donors for their money. They would be a lot more responsive to voters if they had to raise their funds from them.
Well - sort of. Some of the "big donors" are actually private individual voters who happen to be wealthy and anything above £5000 has to be declared. I'm all for limiting donations from individuals to £500 and making it illegal to accept donations from business or corporations (including unions and NGOs), but more important for me is to end the professional lobbying that goes on from these groups.
Fourth, the mainstream parties agree on too many big issues, denying debate as they cling to each other like spent boxers.
At last we agree on something! The biggest problem in our democracy that I can see is the lack of choice and the replacement of real argument and debate with mud-slinging and name-calling. The three main parties each believe in our membership of the EU which means they each have more or less the same political agenda give or take some minor detail differences.
In recent years two significant parties have emerged that differ from that viewpoint - BNP and UKIP - and have tapped in, in differing ways, to the groundswell of disillusionment and disinterest in our political system with varying degrees of success.
They both agree on withdrawal from the EU and share a belief in some form of British nationalism, but other than that there are few similarities between the two parties. It would make a huge difference to our democracy - in my opinion - if those two parties were somehow able to make a meaningful breakthrough that actually led to real debate about the issues that concern British people.
Unfortunately, both BNP and UKIP have reverted to modern political styles and opted for exchanging insults rather than meaningful debate. Were they to pursue the latter rather than the former I think we could see a real grass roots democracy movement grow in this country.
Imagine what would happen if UKIP and BNP arranged to have a series of political debates in various towns and locations up and down Britain where ordinary people - rather than the media - were able to hear them debate, proper debate, and ask questions. Don't bother with the other parties - chances are they wouldn't take part anyway - just UKIP and BNP for now.
The important thing would be to keep the meetings civil and restrict discussion to genuine political issues - not name calling or spurious arguments about party constitutions or the misbehaviour of various current or former members.
The debates could be filmed and posted on You Tube as well as the parties websites allowing more and more people to see and hear for themselves some real political dialogue.
UKIP and the BNP represent the only true opposition to government - whichever party is governing at the time. If they were to unite - not politically, but strategically - they could seriously invigorate our politics and our democracy much more than some half-baked, ill-conceived "union" of voters.
Monday, June 01, 2009
Always listen to your grandmother
The weekend marked the 15th anniversary of my maternal grandmothers death. Born while Queen Victoria was still on the throne, she remembered when cars were still a rare sight and most people travelled either by foot or by horse drawn vehicles and lived through two world wars. Despite the lack of modern conveniences back in those days she still managed to bring six daughters and two sons into this world.
She smoked like a trooper and was physically active up until the last few weeks of her life when a minor fall resulted in complications and a rapid demise. The last time I saw her was a week before her death when I visited her as she lay in her hospital bed with tubes sticking out of her and looking desperately pale and frail.
Even though I was well into my thirties when she died I was still shocked by how quickly this remarkable and formidable woman had faded away. Though barely five feet tall, she seemed much bigger than that to me - even when I was an adult - as she carried an enormous presence as well as a healthy, ruddy complexion and quite a few extra pounds.
Formidable as she was, as a kid I remembered her most as an incredibly jolly woman - always ready with a smile, a hug, a treat for her grandkids (of which she had many) and an incredibly booming laugh. Apart from smoking she seemed to have only one other vice - she liked a flutter on the ITV Seven on a Saturday afternoon.
It wasn't until I was well into my teens when I actually saw my grandmother lose her temper - with my sister in law. My sister in law was a product of her time - ultra left wing, ultra feminist. I'd cycled round that Saturday afternoon to see my grandmother and she'd asked me to nip down the bookies for her. I was still under eighteen, so technically it was illegal, but no one seemed to mind (nor did they mind at the fag shop when I bought 20 Senior Service for her either).
When I got back I saw my brothers Vauxhall Viva outside so knew he was there. As usual I made my way around the back (nobody used their front doors much down that street - everyone went straight around the back where it was always open) where I was just in time to hear my sister in law making some rather snide comments about "a life of drudgery like in your day".
Well, my grandmother exploded. "Don't you dare to presume to know what my life was like, you stupid girl" she raged before telling my sister in law that she'd had a wonderful life and that she regretted nothing. As my sister in law and brother beat a hasty retreat, my grandmother yelled one prediction at her "the time will come when you regret losing what we had!".
There was a lot more than that - stuff about material things and so on - and that probably wasn't exactly what she said, but that was the general gist of her comments. My sister in law never went back (though my brother frequently did) and she eventually divorced my brother so I never got to find out if she ended up regretting what my grandmother had - however, this study suggests that women are starting to.
Women are less happy nowadays despite 40 years of feminism, a new study claims.
Despite having more opportunities than ever before, they have a lower sense of well-being and life satisfaction, it found.
Always listen to your grandmother, I say.
She smoked like a trooper and was physically active up until the last few weeks of her life when a minor fall resulted in complications and a rapid demise. The last time I saw her was a week before her death when I visited her as she lay in her hospital bed with tubes sticking out of her and looking desperately pale and frail.
Even though I was well into my thirties when she died I was still shocked by how quickly this remarkable and formidable woman had faded away. Though barely five feet tall, she seemed much bigger than that to me - even when I was an adult - as she carried an enormous presence as well as a healthy, ruddy complexion and quite a few extra pounds.
Formidable as she was, as a kid I remembered her most as an incredibly jolly woman - always ready with a smile, a hug, a treat for her grandkids (of which she had many) and an incredibly booming laugh. Apart from smoking she seemed to have only one other vice - she liked a flutter on the ITV Seven on a Saturday afternoon.
It wasn't until I was well into my teens when I actually saw my grandmother lose her temper - with my sister in law. My sister in law was a product of her time - ultra left wing, ultra feminist. I'd cycled round that Saturday afternoon to see my grandmother and she'd asked me to nip down the bookies for her. I was still under eighteen, so technically it was illegal, but no one seemed to mind (nor did they mind at the fag shop when I bought 20 Senior Service for her either).
When I got back I saw my brothers Vauxhall Viva outside so knew he was there. As usual I made my way around the back (nobody used their front doors much down that street - everyone went straight around the back where it was always open) where I was just in time to hear my sister in law making some rather snide comments about "a life of drudgery like in your day".
Well, my grandmother exploded. "Don't you dare to presume to know what my life was like, you stupid girl" she raged before telling my sister in law that she'd had a wonderful life and that she regretted nothing. As my sister in law and brother beat a hasty retreat, my grandmother yelled one prediction at her "the time will come when you regret losing what we had!".
There was a lot more than that - stuff about material things and so on - and that probably wasn't exactly what she said, but that was the general gist of her comments. My sister in law never went back (though my brother frequently did) and she eventually divorced my brother so I never got to find out if she ended up regretting what my grandmother had - however, this study suggests that women are starting to.
Women are less happy nowadays despite 40 years of feminism, a new study claims.
Despite having more opportunities than ever before, they have a lower sense of well-being and life satisfaction, it found.
Always listen to your grandmother, I say.
Yeah, no, um, er ....
Since early April, your humble host has been "transitioning" to a new role in his job. I have to say that this is entirely against my will, but was the decision of my managers (yes - plural, I have lots of managers). I've been in my current role for some five years or so and have built up good relationships with my clients and service providers which, to be honest, makes my job pretty easy.
Nevertheless, my managers have decided I need a new "challenge" and are moving me to a new role - so over the last few weeks I have been assisting my replacement in getting "up to speed" - i.e. training her.
Yes, my replacement is a she meaning that my current department will become an all female department at long last. Over the last few years I've sat and watched while every other male has been made redundant leaving me as the sole representative of my gender. She's a pleasant enough woman, late twenties and just back from maternity leave (for the second time). She's been working part time as she eases herself back into the rigours of employment so the transition has taken a little longer than it really ought to.
The thing that infuriates me, though, is the way she speaks. Ask her something, anything, and she always starts her reply with "yeah, no .....".
"Did you have a nice weekend?"
"Yeah, no ...... we had a barbecue on Saturday"
"Lovely! It was the perfect weather for it!"
"Yeah, no .... it was really sunny"
"Just you and the family?"
"Yeah, no ... we had some friends over too."
And so on. Which is it - yes or no? What is with the indecision? To be fair, this seems to be a common practice among people of that age group - the "yeah, no" along with a rather annoying habit of adding "Aussie" stress to the latter part of a response to make it sound as if they are asking a question back - or somehow expecting you to give your approval.
On top of all that, she intersperses her sentences with copious amounts of "ummms" and "errrs". We all need to think a little sometimes and we all sometimes ummm or errr, but seriously, this is so frequent it drives me potty.
"When you .... ummm .... prepare the ....... errrrr ....... report ....... ummm .... for .......errr..... for the ..... ummm ...."
Jeeeeeeezzzzzzzusssssssss!!!! Just spit it out for God's sake!
Anyway, today I start my new role. So if my posts become a little less frequent I hope you'll understand why. As it is an entirely new role which no one has done before I don't have anyone to help me "get up to speed" - I'm just expected to deliver on it straight away. The reason I used the quote marks for "transitioning" in the first paragraph is that I didn't get any transition time to this new role at all.
I was doing my old job - while training my replacement - up until Friday and today I start a completely new job with no preamble. It's funny how, in business, it's always us old dogs who are expected to learn the new tricks on our own.
Nevertheless, my managers have decided I need a new "challenge" and are moving me to a new role - so over the last few weeks I have been assisting my replacement in getting "up to speed" - i.e. training her.
Yes, my replacement is a she meaning that my current department will become an all female department at long last. Over the last few years I've sat and watched while every other male has been made redundant leaving me as the sole representative of my gender. She's a pleasant enough woman, late twenties and just back from maternity leave (for the second time). She's been working part time as she eases herself back into the rigours of employment so the transition has taken a little longer than it really ought to.
The thing that infuriates me, though, is the way she speaks. Ask her something, anything, and she always starts her reply with "yeah, no .....".
"Did you have a nice weekend?"
"Yeah, no ...... we had a barbecue on Saturday"
"Lovely! It was the perfect weather for it!"
"Yeah, no .... it was really sunny"
"Just you and the family?"
"Yeah, no ... we had some friends over too."
And so on. Which is it - yes or no? What is with the indecision? To be fair, this seems to be a common practice among people of that age group - the "yeah, no" along with a rather annoying habit of adding "Aussie" stress to the latter part of a response to make it sound as if they are asking a question back - or somehow expecting you to give your approval.
On top of all that, she intersperses her sentences with copious amounts of "ummms" and "errrs". We all need to think a little sometimes and we all sometimes ummm or errr, but seriously, this is so frequent it drives me potty.
"When you .... ummm .... prepare the ....... errrrr ....... report ....... ummm .... for .......errr..... for the ..... ummm ...."
Jeeeeeeezzzzzzzusssssssss!!!! Just spit it out for God's sake!
Anyway, today I start my new role. So if my posts become a little less frequent I hope you'll understand why. As it is an entirely new role which no one has done before I don't have anyone to help me "get up to speed" - I'm just expected to deliver on it straight away. The reason I used the quote marks for "transitioning" in the first paragraph is that I didn't get any transition time to this new role at all.
I was doing my old job - while training my replacement - up until Friday and today I start a completely new job with no preamble. It's funny how, in business, it's always us old dogs who are expected to learn the new tricks on our own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)