Breaking the cycle

In case you haven't noticed, I am more than a little sceptical about the coalition governments plans to fix our economy. More than this, I am not convinced that any current political party - or coalition thereof - understands what our economy needs long term for real growth based on wealth rather than pseudo growth based on debt.

I believe that we are set for a decade of, at best, stagnation and inflation - stagflation they used to call it - and, at worst, a full blown, full on depression that will have profound and long term consequences for this nation, its people, their living standards and prosperity. Nothing I have seen from government or read in the media has changed my mind about this - indeed, I've read various articles from various sources which tend to support my view.

However, even if I am wrong and this coalition does manage to stave off the worst case scenario in the short to medium term there remains the problem of what happens in the future when we are back to where we were - say - in 2000?

This coalition - from both the Lib Dems and Conservative flanks - have made much of how they are a "progressive" government. Both the Prime Minister and his Chancellor have claimed that they are progressive politicians and dedicated to the causes of progressivism - and, by implication, the fallacies that ideology is based on.

Consequently, there is no reason to believe that once the economy is "fixed", they will not resort to throwing money into schemes and ideas which progressivism favours - and all that entails. For me there are two major problem areas with this - welfare and manufacturing.

The problem regarding welfare is perhaps the most obvious. Progressivism insists on certain universal "truths" which are either uncertain or patently wrong. For example, the belief that crime is linked to poverty and that if you give people enough money they won't commit crime is clearly daft - but it is considered a "truth" by progressives.

Hence they pour billions of pounds every year into "supporting" criminals and their lifestyles in the vain hope this will solve the problem. It doesn't, of course, because crime is not caused by poverty but by greed, avarice and laziness - and welfare supports all of these traits.

That's just one example of many, but the point I'm trying to make is that to genuinely have a hope of fixing Britain's problems in the long term we need a government committed to breaking the cycle of dependency which so many people in Britain have fallen into. That needs a government that is tough and, above all, socially conservative - because any government that subscribes to the social liberal position is going to fall into the same traps as previous social liberal governments.

There isn't a hope in hell that this coalition will have either the will or the strength needed to break that cycle so the only conclusion that can be reached is that, even in the unlikely event that they do sort out our current problems, they will only make the same mistakes as Brown, Blair and Major.

Remember, before the "credit crunch" struck and the reality of our "economic miracle" was exposed, Cameron and his party backed the Labour government spending plans completely. It was only after the dire situation was revealed that the Tories decided to change tack - and then only marginally.

They do not have the answers. They don't even understand the questions. All they have is the same misguided beliefs that Brown and Blair had and the result will be exactly the same.

Disaster

Why why?

With the events in Whitehaven and west Cumbria still very fresh in the mind, I don't want to appear insensitive, but I have a problem with the news and the ongoing investigation.

The big question on everyones lips is "why"?

What I want to know is why it is considered so important to know why he did what he did - and particularly why the police need to continue to investigate. They know the crimes committed and who did it - so surely that is the end of the investigation? They have the victims and the killer. The killer is dead so there is no need to prepare a case to prosecute and I really can't figure out what they think they will gain by knowing why he did what he did.

I could understand the need to know why if, for example, this was a politically motivated killing spree, but in these sorts of incidents the trigger will be different from person to person. Understanding why Derrick Bird flipped his lid and went around shooting people at random will not help to prevent the next nutter losing his rag and going on a murder rampage.

I'm sure the police think they are doing the right thing - after all, isn't it all about that dreadful word "closure", but I am dubious of this. Firstly because whatever reason they come up with will only be speculation - Bird is dead so you're never going to know why he did this really - and secondly because I don't think "closure" in these circumstances is achieved by knowing why someone killed your relative - only by knowing who and that is already known.

Nice to know they're listening to me

I understand that the 500 euro note (about £430) is to be withdrawn from circulation as it turns out that 90% of them were tainted by criminal activity.

It's quite gratifying to realise that the powers that be are actually listening to yours truly ;)

It is, I suppose, an example of the law of unintended consequences, but I wonder if it is in fact possible to devise a system better suited to money laundering than the euro currency?

So much for that idea

As the government prepares to ban the "legal high" mephedrone at least there is some good that has come out of the whole sorry saga.

It puts an end to the fallacy that legalising drugs will make them safe.

To the police - a reminder

The death of David Askew, hounded to death by gangs of youths, has brought out the police to tell us that they did "everything they could" to stop his tormentors. I believe that they believe they did - but I do not believe that they did.

The trouble is, the police have forgotten what they are there for. They think - or rather, the people who determine strategy think - that the job of the police is to report offences and, if possible, solve crimes. Although that is a part of what they do it is NOT the purpose of the police force. So, just to remind the police of what their job is, here - once again - is Sir Robert Peel's first principle.

The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

Did you notice that? In case you didn't let me write it again - this time with some emphasis.

The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

Get it now?

No. I don't think you did completely. So let me add a little more emphasis.

The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

Now you see it don't you? No - I can see that you still don't completely understand it so, one last time, here it is with some added emphasis.

The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

Now you get it - so what are you going to do about it? David Askew died because the police failed in their basic mission - to prevent crime and disorder. They might insist that they did everything they could - I know they did not because they failed to fulfil even the basic purpose for their existence.

The clue is in the name

I had planned to write this post a couple of days back which is why it is rather old news now, but I think it's still pertinent. Unfortunately, thanks to the attentions of the driver of a German 4x4 I've spent most of the last two days sorting out a replacement car while the Alfa sits on my drive with its rear end in a very sorry state.

Anyway, the issue that came to my attention was regarding the response of Fiona Pilkington's local council who deemed that her problems with "anti-social behaviour" were a "low priority". To understand why they would do this it is necessary to understand what motivates local councils these days,

The reality is that Fiona Pilkington killed herself and her disabled daughter because she was abandoned by the local authorities whose job it was to protect her from what was actually persistent victimisation and criminal behaviour - not anti-social. Anti-social means urinating on the street or swearing loudly in a pub - i.e. it is not behaviour aimed at any individual, just something that society should not be expected to tolerate. What happened to Fiona Pilkington went far beyond "anti-social".

However, the thing is that most - if not all - local councils consider this sort of thing to be low priority these days. For some daft reason, most local councils don't focus on local issues anymore - their priorities are on global, and often very contentious issues. They are more concerned about the plight of some distant native of the Maldives than they are worried about the growing rat population in Acacia Avenue due to the fact that the bins haven't been emptied for six weeks.

For most councils, dealing with the issues of the people is an unwanted distraction from their real priority of "saving the environment" - but perhaps the biggest irony is that while they supposedly strive to make the environment better for people in Bangladesh or Bangalore (striving that make absolutely no difference whatsoever, by the way) the local environment descends into a chaotic morass of filth and despair. Hence bins are overflowing, rats roam the streets which are covered with broken glass and graffiti and the pleas of Fiona Pilkington go unheard while local councils worry about the plight polar bears.

Local councils and authorities need to remember what and who they are supposed to be working for. The clue is in the name.

Britain is a paradise ..... for criminals

No country is perfect, but Britain is fast becoming as near perfect a nation as it is possible to be...... if you are a criminal, that is.

There is the case of one of the men convicted over the death of Baby P having his sentence reduced which could lead to his release in less than three years, while in another case a man who killed a burglar while defending his mother's home from two teenage thugs is being prosecuted for murder.

Mass immigration has led to an explosion in organised crime and even though the police have more men and resources than they've ever had they are so stretched to cope with the high level crime that immigration has brought - terrorism, prostitution, people trafficking, drugs, gambling - that they are unable to provide the personnel to tackle the sort of crime that most people have to put up with and which has now become so common place that we just shrug it off and don't even bother to report it. Or if we do, it is only to obtain a "crime number" which we can report to our insurance companies for a claim.

The majority of crimes are never solved. Don't let the official figures fool you - the police administrators are happy to join in the illusion that they are "solving" crimes by using various statistical tricks as reported by various professional police blogs - the reality is that the vast majority of crimes will not even be investigated, let alone solved. Even if the police do investigate the crime and catch the criminal, the chances are that it won't go to court.

And with the prisons filled to overflowing, the justice system is under pressure not to send criminals to prison - so even in the unlikely event that a criminal is caught, prosecuted and convicted they are more than likely going to walk free to re offend. And, contrary to popular myth, criminals who aren't in prison are far more likely to commit another crime than criminals banged up inside.

Britain has become a haven for the criminal and this is not likely to change as long as we continue with the progressive nonsense that has dominated politics for the last 50 years. It's no coincidence that the rise in crime has happened at the same time as we've followed the road of social liberalism.

When Britain embarked on this journey into progressive hell we were far from being a perfect nation - but we had achieved the best possible balance that could exist for the majority of people. The irony of this - the irony of leftism in general - is that the socialist attempt to create Utopian society has made things far worse than it was when they began. The more socially "liberal" we've become, the more authoritarian the government needs to be.

That isn't going to change until this progressive experiment is ended once and for all. Only then can we start to undo the huge damage wrought upon our nation by the left.

The art world has no shame

Once again, a policy of the USA has brought uproar to the world. There is widespread news coverage of the demonstrations, protests and condemnations against the US by people upset by its actions and the way their own governments appear to capitulate to US demands.

Only this time it is the art world -and the policy in question involves bringing a predatory paedophile to justice. When he was well into his forties, the film director Roman Polanski admitted having sex with a 13 year old child while in the USA - and then went on the run to escape justice. Now, after travelling to Switzerland to receive an award, the dirty old git has been arrested and faces extradition to the US.

Good!

But the art world is in uproar. How dare the Swiss arrest one of their great and good? How dare they give in to the demands of the US bullies? People appear on TV to denounce the US and the Swiss for their actions in pursuing a celebrated director.

Let's put this into perspective. If Roman Polanski were just a normal every day 76 year old paedophile nobody would give a damn. They'd all be glad that this disgusting creature was finally facing justice for his despicable acts - but because he is something in the art world this somehow makes statutory rape OK?

To be honest, the reaction from the art world doesn't surprise me. Art long ago gave up trying to reflect the culture that created it and started trying to shape the culture it existed in. Art became all about "pushing the boundaries" and being "challenging" - codewords for obscene and ugly. In a world where a pile of shit can be considered worthy art it is not a surprise that a predatory paedophile is so revered.

But to me, the reaction to the arrest of Polanksi is the ultimate shaming of the world of art. At least it would be if the art world had any shame.

Guilty

It's been two weeks since the incident that led to this post occurred. During those two weeks I have struggled to reconcile my feelings towards what happened and it has been difficult - God alone knows how hard it must be for the victim.

I have in turn fluctuated from simmering anger to all out rage coupled with frustration and feelings of helplessness. Some people seem to think that, as a Christian, I should forgive - but it is not my right to forgive those who perpetrated this hateful crime. That is between them, their God and their victim - I have no role to play in that process.

What has become apparent over the last few days is that my overwhelming emotion is guilt and shame.

Why guilt? After all, I didn't take part in this heinous act. No - but it is my generation that has allowed this country and our society to degenerate to such an extent that this sort of thing can happen in broad daylight and in front of witnesses - and is now so commonplace that it doesn't even warrant a mention in the local newspaper, although, as I hinted at before, there are other reasons why it is being kept quiet.

My generation is the current generation of power and we are going to have an awful lot to answer for when the history of our time is finally written. That we have taken an ordered, peaceful and moral society developed over hundreds of years and turned it into a hedonistic cesspool of vice, degeneracy and violence in the space of a generation is scarcely believable.

We've all heard stories of crimes and moral bankruptcy that have sickened and disgusted us - whether it be Baby P or greedy bankers - but people of my generation can shut ourselves away in our ivory towers and pretend that the world out there is somehow better than the one we inherited. It isn't.

My generation are not the ones who are suffering most from what we have wrought. The victims tend to be young and vulnerable or old and vulnerable. Occasionally, someone from my generation falls victim too - beaten to death by a feral gang of youths, but mostly it is the young and the old who have most to fear.

It is my generation that have allowed this situation to arise.

We are guilty. We should be ashamed.

Defining moments in our lives

I mentioned yesterday that we had some family news, but what I didn't say was that the news was bad. It was only much later in the day when we found out just how bad the news was, however. I'm not going to go into detail - no one has died - but a family has been left devastated by a criminal act.

What I will say is this. There are things happening in this country which the authorities, including the police and with the collusion of the media are making sure we are not being informed about. They are doing this for political reasons and they are doing it to disguise the fact that this country has descended into a feral cesspool of vile, immoral criminality as a direct result of the policies pursued by this and previous governments over the last forty years or more.

More and more of us are now discovering the truth about just how bad things are - but only because something has happened to someone we care about.

This is not good.

Criminal failure

Sometime back in the last century when NuLabour stormed to power, the then leader of the party promised that his government would be "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" - a soundbite aimed at those suffering from Attention Span Deficit Disorder - or as they prefer to be known - journalists.

Well, Labour lived up to their promise and have, since coming to power, introduced 36 billion new offences* to criminal law including the offence of improperly weighing a herring. One wonders how we survived all this time with rogue herring weighing going on - thank Gord we've put a stop to this heinous crime.

Meanwhile, real crime - from petty low level stuff to violent assaults and life threatening attacks - has risen inexorably. Now I do not believe for one moment that this is what Labour wanted. I'm sure that - like most politicians - they really believed they had the ideas to tackle the crime and social disorder that blights the lives of more and more people in Britain today - but when it actually came to doing something about it they discovered it was a lot harder than they thought.

This is my problem with the position of "libertarians" who claim that they can somehow impose law and order on society by having fewer rules and laws. I've no doubt that there is plenty of scope for removing laws from our statute books, but the issue of dealing with real crime and disorder will still remain and I have never seen anyone provide an answer for dealing with that.

Labour introduced these myriad of new laws simply because they felt they had to be seen doing something. They genuinely want to reduce real crime and social disorder, but they have no plan for coping with the the thing which breeds crime and social disorder.

When Labour promised to be "tough on the causes of crime" they did so based on the belief that crime is caused by poverty but they ignored the fact that the bulk of their supporters in the first half of the last century were genuinely poor people - considerably poorer than the poor of today - who never ever felt the need to resort to criminal activity as a consequence of being poor.

Poverty does not cause crime. Moral collapse causes crime. Unless and until someone does something to address the issue of morality in society today then nothing they do will have a significant impact on crime and disorder - and this is as true for libertarians as it is for Labour.

Up until the 1950's, that morality was provided by Christianity but this was systematically dismantled by social revolutionaries in the years since leaving a moral vacuum which remains today. Something needed to fill that vacuum on society but never has and this has led to the explosion in crime and disorder.

The response of the government has been to do the only thing any government can do - invent new laws and put in place more measures to try and catch criminals. The result is that we are far less libertarian than we were in the 1950's and are now the most watched, monitored, tracked and scrutinised nation in western civilization.

The only way you are going to be able to change that is to instill some sort of morality back into society so that the government no longer feel compelled to watch and monitor us and to dream up new ways to catch criminals such as DNA databases or ID cards (neither of which will be effective).

The instilling of that morality has to be done from an early age and the state has the ideal way to do that through state education - but that risks accusations of "indoctrination" or, worse still for the progressives, being judgemental. Besides which, how can teachers teach things which they don't believe? Such as that sex is illegal if you are under 16 and confined to marriage.

I'm a Christian, so it is no surprise that I believe the teaching of the Christian faith is the best way of restoring our morality. I'm open to new ideas, but there are none forthcoming except from other faiths - particularly Islam. Let me make it quite clear that I am not arguing for religion in government - just for the restoration of morality in society.

My belief is that this is best achieved through Christianity, but I am certain that if we do not make a conscious effort to restore that to society then Islam will be the moralising force that will fill the vacuum left by Christianity and Britain will become an Islamic state. Then you really will see religion in government!

* A rough estimate

How the left admit they've failed on education

The left never actually admit they are wrong on anything. It's one of the features of left wing thinking that any real world evidence which falsifies a wide held left wing belief is either wrong or can be reinterpreted to demonstrate that their belief is correct. Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) - very much a left wing belief system - being a prime example of that technique.

However, they frequently admit their failings by accident. Or, to be more precise, by their incoherent thought processes. For example, it is a long held belief of the left that poverty causes crime. Is this true?

Well, if it is true then it is obvious that fifty years of progressive liberalism have failed - because crime is considerably worse than it was fifty years ago when there was far more poverty than there is now. But the left counter that by adjusting the way we measure poverty so it appears that there are more poor people today than there really is - in which case, fifty years of progressive liberalism and the welfare state has failed again.

To prove their theory - that poverty causes crime - they have to demonstrate that there are plenty of poor people which is why crime is so much higher today than it was fifty years ago, but by doing that they admit the failure of another left wing plank. It's an implicit admission of the failure of the left - but one they will never own up to.

It's a similar thing with education. According to the left, comprehensive education has been a great success. It is fairer and delivering higher standards than ever before - so they say.

But then comes the admission of failure again. You see, another one of their theories on crime is that it is caused by poor education. Time and again I hear someone from the left saying that "prison doesn't work" - what is needed, they insist, is education to stop people falling into crime.

This stark admission ignores the fact that everyone has access to a state education from the age of 5 until they are 16. If it is true that poor education is more likely to result in a rise in crime then it is demonstrable evidence that comprehensive education has been an abject failure because - as we know - crime was considerably lower before comprehensive education.

So, either the theory is bunkum or the policy is failing? Which is it lefties?

Of course, both theories - that poor education and poverty cause crime - are rubbish. A century ago we had considerably more poverty and poorer education, but far less crime - but a century before that we had even poorer education and even more poverty - and crime was rife.

What causes crime? The absence of morality is what.

At least we're still world leaders in some respects

Shame it happens to be for violent crime.

Once upon a time - not so long ago as it happens - we led the world in technology, innovation and enterprise. Our science was the most respected in the world; our police the envy of all and our parliament the model for every self-respecting democracy wannabee.

We're now a bankrupt nation of debtors with nothing to sell except what little remains of the family jewels. Our scientists work towards political ideals rather than empirical evidence; our police now look like a paramilitary force who behave like the sort of thugs we used to sneer at in banana republics and our parliament has become a global joke.

What a difference 50 years of progressive liberalism has made.

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.

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.

Robbing hoods

Quietly slipped out beneath the radar of the MP expenses scandal comes the revelation that some 700,000 hone owners have been paying too much council tax year - and ministers knew about it!

Officials have known since at least 2005 that many homes were in the wrong tax bands and may have overpaid by tens of millions.

But ministers tried to keep the details secret because publicising them would have embarrassed the Government and reduced its tax income.

That is disgraceful. Furthermore, I'd question whether it is legal - surely it constitutes theft or fraud to knowingly take money which did not belong to you? There's certainly been enough of a furore over that NZ couple who disappeared after their bank wrongly put 10 million dollars into their account - if it's illegal for them to take money paid to them incorrectly then it must be illegal for our government to do the same?

Regardless of the legal implications, the sheer contempt for taxpayers is the issue here. They've known about this issue for at least four years (it doesn't say how many years this has been going on - only how long they've known about it). They weren't concerned about how this would affect the people paying the tax - only about how it would look in the media!

The minutes read: "Concern was expressed about the possibly knock-on implications for billing authorities and adverse press coverage this could generate in the current climate."

Who was in charge of the Treasury in 2005?

A certain chap called Gordon Brown.

CCTV fails where police on the beat works

Home Office research has revealed that CCTV has little or no effect on deterring crime.

Cameras in town centres, housing estates and on public transport 'did not have a significant effect', a report concluded.

This won't come as a surprise to many of us who've thought this for years. One of the problems of CCTV is that criminals can use technology to circumvent it. This technology comes in the form of a cloth attachment to an upper garment known as a "hood". The hood covers the head and makes it very difficult for the CCTV to distinguish the features of a criminal. This device is often used in conjunction with another device known as a "baseball cap" which features a large peak further obscuring facial features.

It is believed that many of these devices are easily available to the criminal underworld through a system of outlets known as "shops" and can often change hands for as little as a pound or two.

Further research has revealed that even when a criminal commits a crime and is captured doing so by CCTV they can escape justice by employing a measure called "running away" completely fooling the police who arrive at the scene ten minutes later - after negotiating the heavy traffic, road works and traffic calming measures that surround town centres - expecting to find the criminal waiting patiently to explain their actions.

It's actually quite astounding that apparently sensible people can believe that a static device mounted 50 feet above the ground on a pole can replace a constable patrolling the streets on foot.

The savage streets

Another day, another dad beaten to death by a gang of youths.

The youths launched their attack just a few yards from Mr Wass's home in Loxley, Sheffield, after he came out of his house at 11.30pm on Saturday night and asked the gang to be quiet.

The police, of course, were nowhere to be seen as they long ago retreated from the streets to the comfort of their motor cars and corporate headquarters. That really doesn't matter much anyway as the march of the "rights" brigade and the awareness of these rights by such youths usually means that the police, even if they are around, can do nothing except arrest the homeowners who "take the law into their own hands".

As it's usually a group of "youths" - rarely one on his own - they can then make up whatever story they like and get the dad arrested - usually claiming an assault. In the absence of the rule of law, the tyranny of the mob will reign supreme.

But if the police aren't around, the trouble making youths will just kick, beat and stone the dad to death - or, if he's really unlucky, into a dribbling vegetable. They know they are unlikely to get caught and punished and they know that even if they are it will only mean a few months in some cushy youth offending institute.

No doubt there will be more pleading for understanding from the bleeding heart liberals; more claims from the progressives that crime isn't really that bad - it's just our imagination and "fear"; more social scientist statistics to demonstrate that crime is falling .... honestly, and more assurances from the distant police forces that they are "determined" to bring those who commit such acts to justice - followed by more arrests of people trying to stop gangs of youths pissing in their gardens.

The only reason crime falls is because the law-abiding take more and more steps to avoid being victims of crime. What that means in real terms is that more and more people are locking themselves into their homes and not venturing outside for any reason - particularly at night.

That's the Britain of today - the social liberal Britain where we are forced to imprison ourselves every night because the criminals rule the streets.

Another feminist myth goes down in flames

What was it they were saying - if women ran banks we wouldn't be in this shit?

Murderous apathy

I've been holding off on commenting on this for a few days waiting to see how it developed.

Officers started a murder investigation after the body was found in an alleyway off Cumberland Avenue in Manor Park, Slough, on Friday.

Personally, I find the lack of coverage regarding this attack incredible. What has happened to our country that a young man can be hacked to death in a modest English town and it barely warrants a mention?

The reports all mention that the victim was Asian and the fact that very little attention has been given to the crime gives some clue to who the killers may have been - or rather what race they weren't.

The arrested men, one in his late 20s and the other in his early 40s, are being held by police.

Pound to a penny that they weren't white men. If they had been then this would be splashed all over the front pages of the newspapers and their web sites as a "racist murder" by now. However, from what I understand, several witnesses reported the attackers as being Asian as well. Curiously, this is not mentioned on either the BBC or the local web sites.

I don't know how we got to this situation. I'm not that old, but I'm old enough to remember when a murder - any murder - would be the lead story on the national news. How did we get to the situation where murders have become so common that there simply isn't the time and space to give them coverage? Why did we allow this to happen?

More importantly, what are we going to do to stop it?