Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Time for me to devote my time to the family Stan, mince pies, Napoleon brandy and a good cigar or two.

So all the best to everyone this Christmas and I hope the new year brings you closer to your hopes and aspirations.

Why can't we cope any more?

It really is ridiculous that a little bit of snow can bring this country to a grinding halt. The other day I criticised the spirit of people who give up at the slightest suggestion that things may be a little difficult, but that was a little unfair. What is apparent is that, despite the adverse weather, most people are doing their damnedest to get to and from work. Unfortunately, they are having to do so without the option of public transport.

This is the real problem; not the spirit of the people, but the attitude of public services - particularly those who run public services. I expect half the problem is the fear of litigation. It doesn't seem that long ago to me that we used to laugh at the way they used to sue at the drop of a hat in the USA - now we're even worse here.

It took me almost five hours to drive home yesterday evening. All the roads were icy as hell and not one of them had been gritted - but I've driven in far worse conditions and never experienced anything like that amount of gridlock before. I can remember driving my old Riley Elf in worse and even riding a motorbike in more difficult conditions. I wasn't one of those fair weather bikers - my bike used to be my main form of transport and I can perfectly recall those days when I'd climb off frozen stiff by half an inch of snow and ice caked to my front!

But I always got to where I was going. Maybe it's the cars? Cars today are more powerful and loaded with driver aids that, although they make cars easier to drive, tend to disconnect the driver from the road - particularly power steering.

I don't know, but I do know that other countries cope OK in far worse conditions. It's actually rather embarrassing that Britain struggles so at these times and I really don't understand why.

Perhaps it's just symptomatic of the way our country is run?

BBC grovelling to the left

The failure of the left to force an agreement at the UN Copenhagen conference last week has obviously upset a lot of people in the media. The left wing newspapers (just about all of them) have been voicing their displeasure, but this wasn't so easy for the BBC who are, supposedly, impartial.

But the BBC are THE left wing media organisation. More than any other they encompass the beliefs and values of the left. They employ an almost entirely left wing staff and broadcast only left wing approved programming.

However, because they are "impartial" they are not allowed to put forward opinions on failures such as Copenhagen. So what to do? It's quite a conundrum but the BBC have now established a way around this.

What they do is they put forward a number of representatives from various left wing NGOs - such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and WWF - and ask them their opinion. As if that matters!

Greenpeace, FoE and WWF are not democratically elected organisations. Their opinions are not required and should not be sought - and they are no more valid than my opinion. The BBC should no more be seeking the opinion of these organisations any more than they should be seeking the opinion of a large multinational corporation for their views on Copenhagen.

But in the days following the failure of the Copenhagen conference the BBC trotted out various spokespeople from the NGOs I mentioned for their opinion in a shameless display of grovelling to their puppet masters.

The worst thing about this is that they aren't even subtle about it. They are quite open about their unashamed bias now - they have stopped even trying to be impartial. It's a national disgrace that this organisation is now so institutionally biased and continues to receive public funding to put forward their putrid views.

Ranting Stan's Irrational Hatred Of The Week: Jeans

I'm pretty sure this will not be a universally popular choice, but I don't care. I hate jeans.

I'm told that they have become so popular because these days it's all about comfort - but surely I can not be the only person who finds jeans the most uncomfortable choice to wrap your nether regions in? We're talking about a garment that started its life as cheap, hard wearing items for working men. They are stiff, have uncompromising seams that dig into you in the most awkward places and are held together by metal rivets! In what way is that comfortable?

I do own two pairs of jeans which Mrs Stan has bought for me, but I rarely wear them. I hate them.

The Blitz spirit

It took me just under an hour to drive the eleven miles into work this morning. This was entirely due to the adverse weather conditions. However, it usually takes me just under an hour to drive to the office due to the adverse traffic conditions - so nothing was lost. Away from the main roads the surface was slippery and treacherous, but on the whole the roads were tolerable.

And yet there were only six other people in the office.

Six.

There are usually a couple of hundred.

But only six bothered to even try to get in. I'm pretty sure that most didn't try because if they had they would have made it - there wasn't any real difficulty. The buses were running, the trains were running and the roads were manageable.

The local schools were closed and, in at least one case, the decision to close the school was taken before any significant snow had fallen!

What has happened to the British people? During the Blitz people would struggle into work through all sorts of difficulties often to find, when they arrived, that work had been bombed and there was nothing to do except help clear up. Now they give up when a little bit of snow falls.

This country is in the depths of a deep recession - a recession which I believe will still materialise into a long depression lasting a decade or more - and yet it seems that half the country can't be bothered to go to what work they do have. We deserve to end up as a third world nation if this is the sort of spirit we show - the give up and stay at home spirit.

Credit where it's due, though. The paperboy got up and delivered our paper this morning. Shame the postman couldn't make the same effort.

The descent into madness

As a self confessed "paedo whore" nursery worker is jailed for just seven years after sexually abusing children in her care for pleasure, a father who defended his family and home from violent armed attack is sentenced to prison while his attacker is let free and the Ministry of Defence decides to cut Britain's air defence so as to purchase 22 new helicopters which may - just may - be ready in time to help pull our troops out of Afghanistan rather than do any good while they are still fighting there our leader is in Copenhagen pledging to give billions of pounds of British taxpayers money to foreign countries to "solve" a non-existent problem based on an unsubstantiated premise that the world is going to fry as a result of what man does.

Yes - the lunatics really have taken over the asylum.

Suicide cult

The planned Christmas strike by BA cabin crew reminds us again that the problems which beset British industry in the seventies haven't gone away and that the biggest problem of all retains its capability to be self destructive.

The problems I refer to are, of course, industrial relations and the reason they remain so bad is predominantly down to the attitude of unions who refuse to acknowledge the lessons of the past and the role that they played in the demise of British industry.

Let me say, first of all, that I am not opposed to unions. They are, in theory, a good idea - but far too often they are led by militant and, to be quite frank, lunatic left wingers who still believe that capitalism is the enemy that must be slain. Let me also point out that I don't believe that the management of BA is free of culpability either - whenever there is an economic downturn it is the usual response of a business to cut pay, bonuses and jobs even if the business remains buoyant.

If business was more honest in the way it did these things rather than always looking for any old excuse to bash their own employees then maybe the unions would be less aggressive back - but business in Britain is incapable of thinking much beyond anything other than the current share price or the short term. However, this style of management is not a uniquely British thing whereas unions hell bent on destroying the industry their members work for is.

The British car industry was destroyed by militant unionism. It wasn't that long ago that the last major British car manufacturer shuffled into the pages of history when the unions hammered the last nail into Rover's coffin. Now it appears Unite (a daft name for a union if ever there was one) is determined to do the same to BA.

BA has made a massive loss. It's going to get even worse. No ifs buts or maybes - it is on its last legs. They really do need to reduce costs or the company will collapse. When that happens, the BA cabin crew won't just have lower pay - they won't have any pay which is exactly what happened to the employees of Rover the vast majority of which now work in call centres for a fraction of the money or claim the dole. Great job protecting the workers there!

I've got no doubt that once Unite have smashed BA into the ground they will then demand that the government step in to save the company - which won't happen. What would be the point? It didn't help the nationalised car industry or the nationalised coal industry or the nationalised steel industry.

And that's another point worth mentioning. Even though I am a right winger who believes in the capitalist economic system, I believe that nationalising an industry is sometimes both right and necessary. It wasn't nationalisation that destroyed our coal, car and steel industries - it was militant unions. Of course, it wasn't helped by some of the government decisions taken along the way - such as joining the "Common Market" which is now having a similarly ruinous effect on one of our last nationalised industries; the Post Office.

Throughout the latter half of the 20th century it was militant unionism that was largely responsible for destroying British industry. It seems they are determined to keep doing the same today. I don't think they'll ever stop until the last major British industry is consigned to history, but at least then we won't have to worry about militant unionism any more.

Ranting Stan's Irrational Hatred Of The Week: Orange street lights

I don't care if they are more efficient or more effective - whoever came up with the idea of bathing our night time streets in an eerie, unearthly orange glow really deserves to swing from one of those lamp posts.

I grew up in the sixties when the majority of lamp posts used conventional white lighting. Obviously I wasn't a driver back then, but I can honestly say that I never noticed a particular problem with those sort of lights - and yet some meddling idiot decided to remove the comforting glow of simulated daylight and replace it with a sulphurous shroud of yellowy orange. For God's sake - why?

It's ridiculous and I hate it.

The double standards in demonstrations

I had hoped to post about this yesterday, but the w word intervened again (that's w for work - not wife!) and it had to wait.

Basically, it's about the double standards that exist in society today at all levels as demonstrated by the repeated calls in the media, from the police and various politicians for a group opposed to the islamification of Europe to call off a planned protest in Harrow later this month.

Personally speaking, I don't like marches, protests and demonstrations. It's not that I have a problem with them in principle - I don't - my main concern is that the vast majority of them are now hijacked and controlled by large politically motivated groups which often have no real interest in the local issue other than an opportunity to push their own political dogma.

Hence a minor protest by a group of residents concerned about council plans to turn their allotments into a block of flats gets taken over by Greenpeace and turned into a mass worldwide demonstration against "climate change". That's a bit of an extreme example, but I do know of some instances where something like that has happened and the original complaint of the protesters has been forgotten in the end.

Having said all that, I do recognise the right of anyone to peaceful protest - but it seems that certain elements in society, including elements of authority, do not. The group calling itself "Stop The Islamification Of Europe" have been urged to call off their planned protest outside Harrow mosque because it is alleged that it may spark violence.

Why would it? If, as we are frequently told, Islam is the Religion of Peace then why would there be any violence? Are the protesters planning to beat each other up?

The actual concern is not with the original march - but that counter demonstrators from so called "anti-fascist" groups are planning to do whatever they can to curtail the rights of fellow citizens to hold demonstrations. Incredibly, the irony of such a plan is lost on these "anti-fascist" groups who can not seem to understand that their attempts to silence other opinions is itself fascistic in nature or indeed that they are demonstrating in favour of Islam, an ideology which embodies fascistic principles.

If the police, media and politicians are really concerned about the possibility of violence then they should be telling these anti-free speech groups to call off their protest as that is far more likely to spark violence. Indeed, it is actually the intention of these groups to provoke violence as that is the tactic which will see the protest by SIOE abandoned and increase the likelihood that future planned marches by the group will be prevented by the authorities.

But these "anti-fascist" groups are are not some cobbled together group of concerned citizens. They are funded by the mainstream parties - including the Tories - and the unions. They are made up of well known left wing political activists, communists and anti-capitalists and they have not been shy in using violence and intimidation in the past.

Personally, as I've hinted at, I'm opposed to the protest by SIOE outside Harrow mosque. If the people of Harrow want to protest then they should be free to do so, but I don't like large political groups doing this sort of thing. If SIOE want to protest they should do so outside government offices and buildings. ANY organisation or group of protesters which is not local to the place in which they are protesting should be restricted to holding their protest in designated areas - such as public parks or town squares - but that is just my personal opinion.

However, given that our regulations permit these groups to hold their protest outside a mosque in Harrow then they should be permitted to do so and not be subject to intimidation by counter protests or by the authorities to abandon their lawful demonstration.

It's official - breathing is bad for your health

That's according to the US Environmental Protection Agency after they formally declared that "greenhouse" gases endanger health. The principal gas they are concerned about, of course, is CO2 which you and I exhale every time we take a breath - so we're killing ourselves by breathing according to this ridiculous ruling.

It's also worth pointing out that by far the most prevalent greenhouse gas is water vapour. So, according to the barking mad people who make these decisions, water is a dangerous substance.

It just demonstrates how ridiculous this whole thing has become when the product of our breathing and the essential elements of life on earth are declared harmful to public health - but what would you expect when the people who perpetuate this myth are allowed to blatantly lie on TV and in our media without so much as a challenge?

Only this morning on BBC Breakfast, Sir David King - the government's chief propaganda - sorry scientific - advisor declared that they "know" man's activities are responsible for the warming we saw in the 20th century.

They know no such thing - it is supposition based on flawed computer models which have been proven to be incapable of predicting the climate even a year or two in advance let alone 100 years from now. And yet he is allowed to state this as a fact when it is nothing of the sort.

Well, he might as well make the most of it while he can. One day - not that far off in my opinion - the fallacy of the AGW argument is going to be exposed for what it is. And when that happens, the people who have sought to pull the wool over our eyes will have to face some very difficult questions - to say the least.

The cavalcade of conspiracy

So the Copenhagen stitch up - sorry, conference - is under way with much fanfare and the usual bunch of Environazis demanding that their voice be heard even though they are proven to be liars and deceivers.

Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with saving the planet. Even if these mad Canutists were correct in their assumption that increasing CO2 will result in runaway warming (which I do not believe they are as there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support that hypothesis - none at all) then all these efforts will supposedly delay the inevitable by, at best, 10 years.

The reality is that it isn't going to happen. Any contribution to global warming made by man is insignificant and whatever we do isn't going to make the slightest difference to the climate in 100 years time or 1000 years time - but this isn't really what Copenhagen is about.

The purpose of Copenhagen is not to fix any supposed problem with the climate - it is the first step in an attempt to create a socialist world order under the pretext of some half-baked hypothesis. The main purpose of the conference is to redistribute wealth - and to make that redistribution legally binding. It is, in effect, the creation of a new world government appointed - not elected - to take money from you and me and give it to someone in a far off country.

I have no doubt that in a hundred years time, people will look back on these days in with sadness and bewilderment and wonder how it could have happened. By then, of course, the whole scam will have been well and truly debunked and the mad scramble to "save the planet" will have been revealed as nothing more than a political con-trick.

Unfortunately, it will be a con-trick that will have huge implications for the world and for the west in particular. This is happening at a time when the economic system of the west is on the brink of depression - we're teetering on the precipice of total economic collapse. Don't be fooled by the massaged statistics - all of Europe and the USA remains on the brink - and our political leaders are about to sign away what little hope we had of avoiding this for the sake of a flawed and wholly political belief.

The curious case of Climategate and auto-suggest

Harold Ambler on Talking About The Weather has discovered something curious about the Climategate scandal and goings on at Google. He noticed that when the row first broke, the Google auto suggest feature would kindly fill in the word climategate as soon as you typed the first few letters into the search box.

This no longer happens. Indeed, as you can see from the images below, even if you type the whole phrase in you get no hints - instead getting something about "climate guatemala" (which doesn't even match the letter sequence!) - and yet the query yields 30,000,000 hits.














As Ambler points out, this curious anomaly only appears to afflict the phrase "climategate". Ambler has been in contact with Google who have assured him that there has been no policy decision to suppress the scandal - I'm not convinced.

Indeed, following on from the leaked CRU emails, this adds even more fuel to the Anthropogenic Global Warming conspiracy theory which is unfolding before our eyes. We can now see that the conspiracy does not just include various politicised scientists and environmental groups, but major media organisations as well - and not just the BBC either!

Banks, bonuses and bosses

Apparently the directors of RBS are threatening to resign en masse if the government acts to prevent them paying huge bonuses to the "workers".

OK - bye then. Good luck finding a new job in Dubai or Saudi Arabia.

Let's just get one thing straight about this. The "workers" we are talking about here are not the clerks and cashiers that you or I meet in the branches up and down the country and earn something around the average national income. The ones in line to receive huge bonuses are highly paid already, have a large 5 bed family home in the suburbs, a holiday home in Cornwall and retain a flat in the City for the occasional overnighter with a mistress or a line of coke - or both.

It is claimed that they are owed big bonuses because they have made such a great profit this year. Whoopee! Hang on a minute though - weren't they making huge profits in previous years as well - by "investing" in dodgy unsustainable deals? How do we know that they aren't doing exactly the same again now - except they are now doing it with taxpayers money?

We don't - and they quite probably are. So, no - they shouldn't get big fat bonuses this year. However, I have no problem with their bonus being deferred until such a time when the company they work for has finally repaid the debt it owes to the taxpayer. About 30 years time or so.

The bosses argue that they are contractually obliged to pay these bonuses. More fool them. But they should point out to these people who awaiting their huge bonuses that the rules of the game have changed - and they can either lump it or leave. The other thing the bosses claim is that if they don't get their huge bonuses they may leave and Britain will lose "talent".

Look, financial institutions don't choose Britain as the base for their operations because we have a huge pool of talent. They choose Britain because our legal and financial systems are such that they can operate pretty much how they like - something they can not do in other countries. The "talent" might leave, but where are they going to go? Unless they all have a hidden talent for speaking Mandarin then I think their options are pretty limited.

Finally, although I'm not usually given for government interfering in the way private businesses operate, I think there is a case for a restriction on the bonus culture. A simple law restricting any annual bonus to a maximum of 10 or 20% of a person's annual salary is all that is needed. I think that is more than fair and perfectly reasonable.

Predictable and pointless

A task force set up to investigate the state of social work in Britain after the murder of Baby P under the very noses of social workers has come up with some wholly predictable and pointless recommendations.

Basically, they suggest more pay and higher status for social workers.

Yes, really. The reason Baby P wasn't helped, apparently, is that social workers - as well as, presumably, the police officers and health care workers who also ignored Baby P's sorry plight - failed to act because they don't get enough money or social status.

The leader of this task force was one Moira Gibb - a member of the social work profession for some 25 years herself. It's like asking MPs to investigate the expense scandal (yes, I know they did - and I know they came up with the idea of more pay and status for MPs).

I'll tell you why social work is failing. There are two fundamental causes.

First is the feminisation of social work. I have no idea what the percentage is, but the majority of social workers seem to be female. The vast majority also happen to be left wing which is the second problem.

The way to solve the crisis in social work is not to throw yet more money at the industry, but to rebalance it. More men and more right wingers in social work.

Why will this help?

Because men (heterosexual men, anyway) are more likely to be emotionally dispassionate and right wingers are far more likely to be judgemental and be more balanced in that judgement. Left wingers are, by their own admission, non-judgemental - except when the person or thing they are judging conflicts with their left wing ideology in which case they come down on it like a ton of bricks.

Hence a married Christian couple who dare to expose their child to the "horrors" of Catholicism are much more likely to have their children taken away than a drug-addled single mum who has a succession of psychopath boyfriends with a taste for extra strong ultra cheap supermarket lager and a penchant for tattoos.

Social work, though, is a self-perpetuating industry. It's very existence depends on having the right social conditions in place to need a social work industry. It needs a drug culture, a welfare culture, a binge drinking culture, a domestic violence culture, a single parent culture and so on to enable it to grow and expand. Other peoples misery is the life blood of social work - social workers need it to justify their employment and pay.

The last thing they want to do is actually solve anything.