The real "deniers"

As someone who is somewhat sceptical of the argument that the world is warming dangerously due to human emissions of carbon dioxide, I've been following the "Climategate" (oh, blimey!) incident with interest.

If you haven't heard of this you could be forgiven as the MSM have made very little of the incident - particularly on the BBC - despite the incredible revelations that have been made. Essentially it comes down to this - someone hacked or "acquired" a large number of emails and other info from the Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA).

These emails have been confirmed as genuine and reveal - amongst other things - a conspiracy by a small number of highly politicised scientists to hide, manipulate and massage data with the clear intent of promoting the dubious Anthropogenic Global Warming theory through both the IPCC, scientific journals and the MSM. As Booker says, it is a huge scandal for science which makes it all the more incredible that the coverage has been so thin.

This small group of scientists have repeatedly sought to prevent other independent scientists from reviewing the methods and data used to promote the AGW theory, denying them access to data and computer code which would allow them to test the conclusions of this small group of AGW proponents.

It is these people who like to label sceptics as "deniers" - but now we see who the real deniers are. They are a disgrace to the scientific community.

Apologies

Sorry about the lack of posts over the last week. I haven't gone away - I've just been a bit busy.

Congratulations to Switzerland for taking a stand on the minarets issue - something which I believe Europe as a whole and Britain in particular needs to be firm on. The response of the media in Europe and of mainstream political parties including their own is expected, but is no less pathetic for it. Their way is continual appeasement and submission to Islamic demands and that way will never force Islam to reform - assuming it can actually be reformed which in itself is a debatable supposition.

Why should Britain or other European countries allow Islam free reign when Islamic countries impose such enormous restrictions on what religious minorities can or can not do in their lands? Even in those countries which do allow churches to operate they often do not permit them to have externally visible symbols of Christian faith such as bells or crosses.

To be honest, that is something that I sympathise with as it diminishes the culture of that nation bringing an alien concept into society. So why do we allow them to have their crescents, minarets and the muezzin call to prayer blasting out in our country? It is alien and obtrusive and the Swiss are right to ban it.

Probation problems

I heard on the news earlier this week - or was it late last week? (I've been busy)- that probation officers are failing to keep tabs on their charges. As a result, many offenders on probation have fallen back into criminality. This is, of course, not really news - just a convenient way for the probation service to put forward more demands for more resources and more money - but hey, with 24 hour rolling news channels they have to fill their programmes with some sort of baloney.

There were two main reasons given for why probation officers are unable to make the necessary commitments to the people they are supposed to be probationing (yes, I know it's a made up word). First of all, the amount of time spent filling in forms and administration on computers in the office. This seems incredible to me. The point of computers is that they are supposed to remove the drudgery of form filling and speed things up.

The second reason is the amount of time probation officers spend travelling to their various "clients". Presumably, when they get there they then proceed to fill in forms which they then take back to the office and transpose onto the computer system - in other words, doubling the amount of effort.

Here is my solution. Either get rid of the computer system and just file the notes/forms completed during the visit as they did BC (before computers) - it seemed to work OK before computer systems were installed so I don't see why that can't work now. Alternatively, don't bother visiting the probationers - make them come to you! Send them an appointment card and a bus pass and tell them to be at the probation office at the appointed time or they will be in breach of their probation conditions - then, while they are there, fill in the bloody computer forms while they are with you!

Problem solved. No new resources needed and millions of pounds saved in car expense reimbursement.

Polls, popularity and pictures

It would be nice if the recent poll that put the Tories just 6 points ahead of Labour could act as some sort of trigger for a proper political discussion in Britain today, but I fear it will not. Over the last couple of years, the mainstream political commentators have been telling us that Cameron's Tory party is now incredibly popular and that their poll lead was proof of this.

This was never the case.

The Tories held a significant lead over Labour not because the Tories were popular, but because Labour was unpopular - and the reason Labour became unpopular is that they were being led by a man that the media don't like. Gordon Brown's unpopularity had little to do with his policies which, by and large, are exactly the same as his predecessor who was very well liked by the press.

Gordon Brown became unpopular because the media decided this was to be the case and so began a long campaign of subtly drip feeding negativity about the man. They use tried and tested but remarkably discreet methods to do this - a favourite being a picture taken in an unflattering pose or poorly lit.

Throughout his time in office, hardly ever was there a poor photograph of Blair published -either in the newspapers or on online editions of MSM content. This isn't because poor pictures of Blair don't exist any more than good pictures of Brown don't exist - it is a deliberate policy by the MSM who employ experienced photo editors to ensure that the image of a person they publish conveys the image of that person they want to get across to the public.

Over the years they've got very good at this as they've had lots of practice - usually at the expense of previous Tory leaders such as Hague, IDS and Howard. Curiously, since Cameron became leader there seems to be a dearth of bad pictures of Tory leaders, but a wealth of damaging images of Mr Brown. This isn't a coincidence - the press like Cameron as he is considered the best man to continue the Blairite revolution which our press almost universally favour.

Unfortunately for the media, the electorate are not quite as gullible as they like to think so, despite their best efforts to talk up Cameron's Tory party, the Conservative party's share in opinion polls is little better than it was under Hague, IDS or Howard.

The MSM recognised this - and recognised the fact that even with a 15 point lead over Labour, the Tory share in polls was never going to be enough to translate into a victory at a General Election. Around 40% is nowhere near enough for the Conservatives. The first past the post system and constituency boundaries means that they would need to be polling somewhere over 50% to have a realistic chance of winning a decent working majority at an election.

So the MSM upped their campaign and became less subtle in their demonisation of Brown with daft stories about biscuits and then, critically, the overblown tirade over the letters to dead soldiers families. But this lack of subtlety has backfired - and rather than making Brown even less popular the electorate seems to have decided that it really isn't British to keep kicking a man when he is down. So Labour support has risen and Tory support has fallen.

I'm sick to death of a media which seems to think it has the right - as well as the capability - to decide who we elect as our leaders. Wouldn't it be nice if who we voted for was decided by the politics of the people and the policies of their parties rather than the elite of the MSM?

Ranting Stan's Irrational Hatred Of The Week: Electric Razors

Actually, it's not so much an irrational hatred - more of a continual disappointment. I'd really like an electric razor that was effective as a good wet shave - but I've never found one that even came close and I've tried all sorts over the years.

Back when I started shaving, electric razors were an expensive luxury item. They cost about a fiver for a cheap one, which may not sound a lot in the grand scheme of things, but to someone just out of school whose take home pay after tax and "lodging" (£5 a week to my mum) was around £8 it was a big outlay. So, like most youngsters just starting shaving back then, it was the old safety razor and lather for me.

The thing with that is that you get used to it - and get used to the excellent shave quality that you get from a wet shave. I didn't get my first electric razor until I was about 20 - a twin headed Phillips - by which time I'd been wet shaving for some years and in comparison it was useless. It spent most of its time languishing in its box in my drawer only coming out for holidays or times when there was no hot water of a morning - which, after I'd moved into my first flat of my own, was about one morning in three.

That was when I decided to splash out and buy one of those ones that "shave as close as a blade or your money back". It didn't and I didn't get my money back either - probably because I never asked. Since then I've tried various types - Braun, Hitachi, more Phillishave and others- and nothing has ever even come close to matching the quality of shave I get with a wet shave.

So I hate them - not because they are a bad idea, but because they are a continual let down.

Tolerance is a privilege - not a right

Tolerance is a word that is bandied about an awful lot these days - particularly by those on the liberal left - and yet little thought is given to what tolerance means and how it should be applied.

Tolerance does not mean - as some seem to think - acceptance. It actually means "to put up with" - usually for a particular behaviour with defined limits and the implied understanding that should those limits be breached then toleration of that behaviour will be withdrawn. As such, tolerance is a privilege and not a right. No one and no behaviour has a right to be tolerated - instead that tolerance has to be earned.

Consequently, tolerance can not be legislated for - as the progressives increasingly try to do. When they try to do this it is actually counter productive because the more you try and instruct people to tolerate something the more likely they are to resent being told to put up with something which they do not like - and they will say so.

So what the left then do is legislate to prevent people saying that they don't like the sort of behaviour they are being asked to tolerate which makes the people even more resentful - but worse still, rather than openly discussing their concerns, they keep their thoughts private or share them only amongst their close friends and family.

The result of this, as we are seeing increasingly in Britain today, is that there is more likely to be intolerance of certain behaviours by ever more people than there was 50 years ago. This is because those who wish to indulge in certain behaviours did so with more and more disregard for the concerns of those who were being asked to tolerate those behaviours - but successive progressive governments told those people to shut up - by law.

So they did - and that caused even deeper resentment. Once that point was reached it was inevitable that many people would kick back in any way that they could. Some did so by forming their own behaviours which others were forced to accept, while others went further and started physically attacking people or groups whose behaviour they found unacceptable.

The attempts by successive governments to enforce tolerance has led to an even more fractured society with various "tribes" establishing their own "safe havens". It's not helped by the left dictating what can and can not be tolerated - as if this was either reasonable or possible! What gives anyone - whether they are in government or not - the right to tell someone else what they can or can not find acceptable?

It's like passing a law that everyone must like the colour green, but no one is allowed to like orange. What happens if someone doesn't like green, but really likes orange?

Nobody and no behaviour has an automatic right to be tolerated. It is a privilege that they earn by moderating that behaviour in such a way so that others are not offended by it. It doesn't matter what that behaviour is - binge-drinking, homosexuality, racism, infidelity or whatever - the behaviour has to be moderated to within tolerable limits for the rest of society.

And the more militant a group is about demanding "tolerance" the more likely they are going to find that society is not willing to tolerate their behaviour any longer.

Hit the selfish where it hurts

I was absolutely flabbergasted to hear that a 22 year old single mother of four kids all aged under 5 who abandoned her children while she indulged herself in a 24 hour drink and drugs binge has escaped prison. It sends out the wrong message to both the general public and other young single serial mothers who see children as an easy way to obtain benefits, money and free housing.

All her children should be taken into care and this self-centred woman should spend the next two years in prison. Her home should be given to someone more deserving and she should be told that she will not receive a single penny in benefits ever again. Why should she when she just spends it on getting drunk and shovelling illegal drugs into her body? Why should anyone who spends the money taken from hard working tax payers on selfish hedonistic pleasure get any benefits?

Most people, including me, don't have a problem with a welfare system that provides relief for those who have a genuine need, but far too often and for an increasing number of people it is seen as a way of life which enables them to live a life of indolence and selfishness.

What we need is a welfare system which is compassionate to those in genuine need and uncompromisingly harsh on those who try to play the system. These selfish people are taking money away from the genuine needy. When they are caught out doing so they must be told that they will never ever get a single penny of state assistance ever again.

Ranting Stan's Irrational Hatred Of The Week: White collars .....

.... on coloured or striped shirts.

You know the sort of thing - often favoured by corpulent members of the legal profession or city bankers they are shirts with coloured or striped bodies with blindingly white collars - and usually cuffs too - that stand out incongruously. They became popular - I think - back in the 1980's and they should have stayed in the decade that taste forgot.

They look particularly bad when the collar is not only white, but a cutaway style too.

Revolting, tasteless and devoid of style. I hate them.

In the gutter

I've been critical of UKIP in the past for the way - when asked a question - they turn every little issue into something about the EU. Whether it is about education, immigration, defence or crime, whatever they are asked to comment on, they mention our membership of the EU.

My criticism is based on the fact that by doing so they tend to alienate potential voters. It's not that UKIP are wrong - it's just that voters are rarely able to see or comprehend the big picture required to fully grasp the implications of how our membership of the affects how some policy areas.

From my point of view, I would rather that when UKIP are asked about something - crime, for example - they would just simply and clearly explain what their policy is on crime without mentioning the EU. If, and only if, someone then says "you can not do that, because the EU won't allow it" then you explain that they can and will do it because they will have taken Britain out of the EU.

There are many, many problems and challenges facing this country. Some of them are a direct result of our membership of the EU; some are an indirect consequence of our membership of the EU and some have nothing to do with our membership of the EU. However, our membership of the EU does prevent us doing what is necessary to start putting a lot of what is wrong right.

UKIP are right to insist that we can not even begin to start sorting out the mess we are in until we leave the EU, but they must be careful not to be seen as blaming the EU for all the ills we suffer. That is what turns voters off.

The fundamental cause of our decline was not our joining the EU, though. It was, instead, the result of Gramscian cultural Marxism and "the long march through the institutions" that began in the 1930's. This "long march" made some limited progress during the next thirty years, but it was slow and remained on the fringe of society. It wasn't until the 1960's when real progress started to be made and the main reason for this was the removal of the one thing that Gramsci foresaw as the biggest barrier to cultural Marxism - the presence of Christianity that underpinned societal morality.

It was only when this morality was torn down - principally, by the students of the 1960's who now sit in government of virtually every western nation - that cultural Marxism really took hold. The vast majority of Britain's problems today can be traced back to the 1960's and that cultural revolution - the explosion of crime, welfare dependency as a way of life, the assertion of rights over responsibilities, the rise of teenage pregnancies and abortion, increased violence - just about everything.

The reason was simple - Christianity was the crutch that upheld society. When you kick away the crutch, don't be surprised when it ends up in the gutter.

Gordon Brown and social history

I don't like our Prime Minister. I don't like what he stands for. I don't like the ideology he believes in, the politics he espouses or the policies that he and his disgraceful government are implementing.

I really do not like Gordon Brown.

But even I am finding the way the media hound and vilify him at every opportunity and for every little thing pretty disgusting. From biscuits to bad spelling it has now gone far beyond what could be considered reasonable and is now nothing more than the press trying to drive a man into an early grave. Yes, it is that bad. They do not just want to see him lose the election - they want to destroy the man.

Sure, the hand written letter to the grieving mother of a soldier killed in Afghanistan is slapdash, the handwriting atrocious and the spelling appalling, but isn't that just symptomatic of society today where text messaging corrupts our language and the email and word processor has meant that nobody bothers to write much of anything by hand any more?

Personally, I think that the fact Gordon Brown actually bothers to write these messages to the families of the fallen personally and by hand demonstrates that every man lost matters to our PM. He should be congratulated - not crucified. It would be all too easy for him to have some flunky draft the letter - spell checked and proof read - for him to sign, but the man actually takes the time to do it himself.

Did Tony Blair do this? I doubt it.

On a secondary note, the fact that letter writing has become something of a dying art is actually a serious cause for concern. Our historical record is based on the written or printed word and social history is particularly dependent on the handwritten letter. It is thanks to these that we know so much about our past social history - probably far more accurately than the official documented history of books which often omit the little details which can be obtained from personal letters.

In this digital age it is all too easy for these records to go missing. Who knows - in a thousand years hence they may be trying to piece together the history of these times from tiny fragments of information as so much has been lost. We could become the New Dark Ages for the people of the future simply because we ignored the skill of writing upon which our history - particularly our social history - depends.

Britain edging closer to a banana republic

The recent incident of a mother being followed home by an off-duty police officer who saw the mother chastise her children in a shop, a follow up visit by other on-duty officers to question the mother about the incident and the subsequent letter from the local council informing the mother that her brush with the law has now been recorded on council records where it will remain for the next fourteen years serves as a reminder of what a sorry state our police force is now in.

Just for a moment, try - if you can - and remember the police force how they used to be. For those of you under the age of fortyish, our police were once a tremendously well-respected organisation both at home and abroad. We used to take pride in our police force and how they were the "envy of the world". As a people we could rely on the police force to use common sense and discretion and to be on the side of the public at all times. Criminals feared the police and the public loved them for it.

Forty years of remorseless progressive liberalism later and the modern "police service" is a discredited and disliked organisation held in contempt by both criminals and the public alike. The police are ineffectual in dealing with criminal behaviour and, as a consequence of their own recognition that they are so ineffectual, the police take that out on the soft targets of the law-abiding public. The police despise the public and the public despise the police.

The sort of behaviour we now see from our police "services" is similar to that we once used to sneer at in banana republics which always seemed to be on the verge of revolution. We used to think "that could never happen here".

Well it could and it has.

No such thing as an "unwinnable" war

If you've been paying attention to the news at all over the last couple of weeks you must have noticed that the term "unwinnable war" is being applied more and more to our mission in Afghanistan.

It's a stupid phrase because there is no such thing as an unwinnable war. At the end of 1940 the war must have seemed "unwinnable" to the British people. By the end of 1941 the war must have seemed "unwinnable" to the Soviet people - but both eventually prevailed over their enemies.

All wars can be won - it just depends on the strategy and tactics applied. What you actually have are losing strategies and tactics or winning strategies and tactics. If your strategy is failing to achieve the objectives and the tactics are resulting in severe casualties then you need to address that strategy and those tactics - or take advantage of your enemies mistakes in their strategy and tactics.

The truth of Afghanistan - regardless of whether you think we should be there or not - is that our strategy is undefined and our tactics are obviously wrong. First of all, you can not win a war with a political strategy. The overriding strategy must be military. If we insist on pursuing this mission we must face the fact that the Afghan people are neither ready nor capable of governing their country themselves.

The discredited President and his abject, corrupt government must be replaced by a military governance. We ARE an occupying force and an occupying force must take control. Military commanders must have complete control over all areas and be free to take the decisions necessary to achieve objectives.

As for our tactics - well, we keep taking areas which we then withdraw from allowing the enemy to reclaim that land without any effort. Imagine if we had done the same against Nazi Germany? We'd still have a million soldiers camped on the borders of Holland, Belgium and France today!

Our strategy and tactics in Afghanistan are not working. It's always hard - if not impossible - with this style of warfare to achieve success. The only way you can do it is to apply tactics that work and we have only one example where this has been done to a successful conclusion - Malaya.

What we need is an updated version of the "Briggs Plan" - whereby the strategy was to deprive the enemy of resources and safety. Deprive them of food and people and harass them at every opportunity so that they never have a moments respite.

We're not doing that now and as long as we don't do that this war will remain unwinnable.

Ranting Stan's Irrational Hatred of the Week: 'gates

Not the five bar things you're supposed to close behind you in the countryside or the metal things at the end of your garden path - but the media's insistence on appending the word 'gate' to any story that has the whiff of scandal about it. For heaven's sake - why?

I suppose it all started with the Watergate scandal of the early 1970's that eventually led to the impeachment of President Nixon, but as that centred on an office complex called "Watergate" there was a genuine reason for it. And as far as I remember there wasn't a sudden flurry of scandals having the word 'gate appended to them immediately after that. In fact, the earliest example I can recall of this strange journalistic quirk was the "Dianagate" (Squidgygate) incident of the early 1990's - but since then it seems to be happening more and more.

More often that not it doesn't catch on with the general public, but this doesn't seem to stop the press from doing it. It's typical of the lazy, jokey style of modern journalism which continues to amaze me with its ever lowering standards.

Just stop it.

Never the twain

If there is one thing that we can learn from the Moslem Major rampaging through a US camp shooting some forty people and killing thirteen, it is that Islam and liberal democracy are totally incompatible.

Here we have a man who had risen to the rank of Major - a doctor and supposedly moderate Moslem - who chooses to massacre his fellow countrymen because he sees them as a threat to his true nation; the nation of Islam. It's nothing new. We've had doctors and primary school teachers in this country do similar things.

Of course, the authorities will try and play down the role that Islam played in this. Just like we've seen in this country when Moslems kill fellow citizens indiscriminately the Islamic "community leaders" crawl out of the woodwork to express their concerns - their concerns that their religion will be blamed - and the national leaders fall over themselves as they rush to explain that this is nothing to do with Islam.

It is everything to do with Islam. There may be moderate Moslems, but there is no moderate Islam. Until there is then we will have to accept that the west and Islam can not get along together. As long as we pretend otherwise they will keep killing us and we will keep killing them.

We should get out of their lands and they should get out of ours.

Will UKIP take the opportunity?

Despite the best efforts of the media to minimise the damage to their appointed successor to Tony Blair becoming Prime Minister at the next election, David Cameron's Tory party is in complete disarray.

Call Me Dave's "cast iron pledge" has turned out to be nothing more than a sandcastle washed away by the tide of EU integration and he knows damn well that his promise of a referendum over future powers being ceded to the EU is pure hogwash. The Lisbon Treaty is designed to make it possible for the EU to take new powers without the need for future treaties and therefore bypass member states requirements to hold referendums.

Meanwhile, many current and experienced Tory MPs are furious over the way they've been treated by Cameron regarding their expenses. While Cameron has stamped hard on certain MPs for their misdemeanours he has let those close to him off with the merest slap on the wrist and Cameron himself is far from squeaky clean on this matter. Consequently, some MPs have decided to stand down at the next election while others have been forced out against their will .

All of this provides a huge opportunity for UKIP. I said after two Tory peers defected to UKIP a couple of years back that UKIP now need to get similar defections from MPs - but, as usual, UKIP missed the opportunity preferring instead to indulge in another round of internal wrangling and argument.

But now they have the perfect opportunity to snap up a number of disaffected and highly experienced Conservative party members. UKIP need to be reaching out to those Conservative MPs who feel hard done by and convince them to join UKIP and to stand for UKIP in the next election.

It will only take a couple of successful defections of former Tory MPs to make others consider their options and if by doing so UKIP manage to capture a seat or two in parliament then the conservative grass roots support which the Tory party relies on may well start to support UKIP in growing numbers.

Will UKIP seize this fantastic, once in a lifetime opportunity? I have my doubts. The problem is that the UKIP leadership will worry that a bunch of experienced former Conservatives - particularly if there are one or two well known names - will represent a challenge to their own ambitions.

It would be great if, for a change, UKIP could actually put the future of this country ahead of their own personal ambition, but I fear this will not be the case. It's a shame - because I believe this is a golden opportunity for UKIP and if they fail to take it then they will fail as a party.

A fatal flaw

Can someone explain to me why we have men risking their lives trying to defuse IEDs in Afghanistan?

I mean, surely the safest thing to do - once an IED is discovered - is to get everyone safely away and blow the damn thing up from as far away as possible?

I could understand why they would try and defuse an unexploded bomb in a London street - but in a dump like Afghanistan I really don't see the point. You find the things, you evacuate everyone, you blow the sodding thing up then you get the locals to fill in the hole. Job done - move on.

So who can you trust?

I suppose it depends on your viewpoint that decides how you would react to the fairly predictable news that the Tories are going to abandon plans to offer a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

There are people like me who were always sceptical of Cameron's pledge and never believed for one minute that he or his party planned to honour it - but then I think Cameron is a lying, manipulative populist who will say whatever those he is talking to at the time want to hear while meaning absolutely none of it.

Then there are those who still support the Tories and will accept the excuse that, once the treaty is ratified by all 27 countries there is nothing we can do about it. That same argument applied in 1975 when we last had a vote on our relationship with the EU, but somehow the promised referendum managed to be held.

But there are many who will see this as the final stab in the back. Once upon a time - quite a long time ago now, but still in my lifetime - a manifesto pledge was exactly that. If a party made a promise in its manifesto, then the leaders of that party felt honour bound to abide by that promise.

But honour means nothing to today's breed of politician. We're talking about people - like Peter Mandelson, Chris Patten and Tony Blair - who swear an oath that "no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm" which they then ignore and, worse still, they then go and work for that organisation which they swore an oath to defend this country from!

So who can you trust? UKIP or the BNP? Not really. Both those parties claim they want to take us out of the EU, but they then stand for and win seats in the EU parliament. I'd have more respect for their position on the EU if they refused to have anything to do with it - but they take their place on the gravy train like all the others. If they were genuine then why do they feel the need to stand for the EU parliament?

I really don't think there is a single political party in existence today that I feel I can trust. Does anyone disagree?

Isn't that the most damning indictment of modern politics possible?

Ranting Stan's Irrational Hatred of the Week: Dishwashers

Not so much a hatred - more of a "what's the point?". I mean, I can see the point of a washing machine. Doing the laundry used to take all day long, but with washing machines it can be taken care of in a couple of hours. Dishwashers, though ......

For starters, if the dishes are particularly soiled, you need to rinse them down first of all. Then you have to load them into the dishwasher - load up a ridiculously expensive dishwasher tablet and then two hours later you have to unload it all. It takes about two and a half hours in total - half an hour of which is manual labour and yet you could have done the washing up in 15 minutes!

Really - what is the point of a "labour saving" device that requires more labour than the task it is supposed to replace? Not only that, you can not out anything too large in there or things like roasting trays (they rust) so you end up having to wash those up anyway. So not only does it not save you any time, you end up still having to do the job it is supposed to do anyway.

Mrs Stan loves the dishwasher, though. It must be a woman, thing.