Ann Maguire: savage liberals kill again

The national press is currently obsessing about the murder of a Yorkshire school teacher called Ann Maguire.  It comes as no surprise to me that her teenage killer was a drug user. A lot of murders nowadays are committed by drug users.

Before I continue, take a few minutes to enjoy some music.

The singers are two sisters, Lynx and Lamb, who I believe were twelve years old at the time this video was made.  In those days they were poster girls for the white pride movement.  Nowadays they are reputed to be a couple of dope-smoking hippies who describe themselves as more liberal.

What does liberal actually mean?  Merriam Webster defines it as meaning not opposed to new ideas or ways of behaving that are not traditional or widely accepted.  Nevertheless it is a label commonly used to describe people in the USA and the United Kingdom who vote for mainstream political parties.

I find it amusing and disgusting in roughly equal measure that a lot of so-called liberals are pleased that Lynx and Lamb nowadays support relaxing already lax drug laws.

Ann Maguire is dead because Britain's evil mainstream politicians refuse to get tough with drugs.  If all convicted drug dealers in this country were hanged, then there would be far less drug-related crime, and Ann Maguire might still be alive.

If you vote for mainstream political parties then presumably you are a bloodthirsty savage with no regard for innocent human life.  Then again, maybe Ann Maguire was a so-called liberal, in which case she was far from innocent.

If you are a LibLabCon voter and you are murdered by a drug user, then maybe your death should be classified as suicide rather than murder.  Am I joking?  I'm not sure.

As for Lynx and Lamb, their white pride music remains in the public domain, and I would rather listen to their music than smoke a joint any day of the week. I am not a bloodthirsty so-called liberal.

Related previous posts include:
What is libertarianism?
Sarah-Jane and the war on drugs

Independence: Scotland must vote yes

On Thursday 18 September 2014, the people of Scotland will be able to vote in a referendum on whether or not to leave the United Kingdom and become an independent country.  It is important that they vote yes.

To be strictly accurate, First Minister Alex Salmond envisages a Scotland which is not truly independent, as he apparently wants Scotland to remain as a vassal state of both the European Union and the Council of Europe.  Nevertheless an independent Scotland could sever ties with both organisations, and I hope it will.

Many issues are being considered by floating voters, and one of them is the economy.  The simple fact however is that a sovereign Scotland could prosper economically if it merely elects a government which is committed to sound financial management - unlike the government of David Cameron.

Another issue is defence.  The First Sea Lord, George Zambellas, has apparently warned that an independent Scotland would no longer enjoy the security contribution of the Royal Navy.  Who is he trying to kid?  Following many decades of LibLabCon misrule, the Royal Navy is now about as intimidating as a cake of soap in a bathtub. 

A related issue is nuclear weaponry, as the Scottish National Party has pledged to close the Trident missile base on the Clyde.  Presumably we can overlook the fact that nuclear missiles do not actually exist.

A recent comment in a national newspaper quotes Ed Miliband as saying that he doesn't want his children to think that Scotland is a foreign country.  This is the same Ed Miliband who is devoted to turning the whole of the United Kingdom into the semblance of a foreign country through a policy of open door immigration.

Is it true that ten percent of the population of Southampton are now Polish nationals?

Another recent newspaper comment alleges that members of the Scottish Labour Party are being intimidated by nationalists over their campaign for a no vote in the referendum.  I smell hypocrisy.

I can remember Janey Buchan, for many years a leading figure in the Scottish Labour Party, refer to the SNP as the enemies of Scotland.  Can anyone explain why the Scottish Labour Party feel that they alone have the right to spout bile?

I am a pacifist, and for me the deciding issue is that in future when the evil LibLabCon warmongers send troops into an illegal war, they should at least not have access to the Royal Regiment of Scotland.

It is vital for world peace that Scotland votes for independence, and that it then follows the example of Ireland by adopting an attitude of armed neutrality.

Related previous posts include:
Questions for the warmonger Gove
George and Baldrick
The Red Shield versus Syria

The Tories - soft on crime as ever

The following quote is from a comment in a national newspaper:

More than 160,000 criminals convicted of an offence but not sent to jail during 2012 had previously committed at least 11 offences. 

Of those 160,000 almost half went on to commit another crime within a year.

That is a vast number of people reoffending.

As ever, behind the statistics lie many sad stories of misery.  For every crime there is a victim.

Although crime appears to be falling, it is fair to say that crime would almost certainly be far lower if the Conservative-led coalition government were to take crime seriously.  Harsh prison sentences for serial offenders would be a good start.  A higher deportation rate would also help, but here again the government is failing.  The following quote is from another national newspaper:

Four years ago David Cameron promised a crackdown after it emerged that more than 11,000 foreign inmates are clogging up our jails. 

But since then almost no progress has been made in bringing the number down. 

The Commons Public Accounts Committee found that the rate foreign inmates are sent home has dropped by 14 per cent over the past four years.

I can remember a time when the Conservative Party had a reputation for being the party of law and order.  They didn't deserve that accolade then, and they still don't deserve it today.

Related previous posts include:
More news from violent Britain
Are you a friend of the cop killer?
Prison staff don't like to be stabbed
The story of a stolen car
A question for Ajmol's father

One year on ...

This blog was launched last year on St George's Day, and the first entry was about the fact that a government minister had expressed support for using traditional county names.  My comment was that:

I suspect that most people in this country care little for traditional county names, and are far more interested in things like the state of the economy or the condition of their local roads.

The full comment can be read here.

Today I looked at the websites of the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the United Kingdom Independence Party, the British National Party, and the Green Party (of England and Wales).  Of these, only two mentioned St George's Day.

While I have no objection to the BNP and UKIP mentioning that today is St George's Day, the fact remains that there are many far more important issues.  Mentioning a saint's day does not make you worth voting for.  Not mentioning it does not make you not worth voting for.

A lot has changed in the last year, and yet so much stays the same.  Writing this blog can sometimes seem like a repetitive task, but that is no reason not to continue with it.  I look forward to its second year.

Another sad story - but do you care?

What follows is derived from two recent comments (by the same author) on the website of a national newspaper:

I am 60 and have nothing.  I can't find work and subsist on JSA.  At my time of life I was hoping for so much more, having worked for 35 years. It's hard finding a job. I have had interviews but no one wants me.  I wish people would stop knocking benefit claimants.  We are not all lazy dossers but want to work.

Although unemployment appears to be falling, there are still more than TWO MILLION people out of work in this country.  Behind the statistics are lots of sad stories, but how many people really care?  Labour and Conservative and Liberal Democrat politicians do not.  Presumably neither do people who vote for those politicians - unless of course someone can put me right, but I doubt it.

If you are in work today then you could be out of work tomorrow.  If you have money today then you could be penniless tomorrow.  If you have friends and family today then you could be lonely tomorrow.

I have a suspicion that I have written similar words before.  Maybe I have.  Nevertheless the people of Britain need to be told over and over again that they should not trust evil politicians like Cameron, Clegg, and Miliband.

Related previous posts include:
The sad story of Chris from Hertfordshire
People need to get real
Jobs: the stats remain grim
Hundred applications: who is to blame?
Do you care about dry statistics?

Jews matter. Does anyone else?

Two news items today remind me of the rather perverse nature of the world in which we live.

The first is that Jews in the Ukraine have been ordered to register with the pro-Russian authorities.  It currently appears that this is a hoax, but the press nevertheless seems to be taking it very seriously, as too is the evil government of the USA.

The second is that the war in Iraq is far from over.  The British and American troops may have long since left the country, but the killing continues.

Even if the report of the Jewish registration in Ukraine proves to be true, it would surely be far less deserving of our attention that the ongoing carnage in Iraq.  The gutter press can refer to the holocaust when talking about anything remotely anti-semitic, but do not use the word holocaust to describe the very real killing of innocent people in Iraq.

When Britain and the USA invaded Iraq, how many national newspapers denounced the war as unjust?  I can think of one British newspaper, but even that newspaper did not urge its readers not to vote for any political party which condoned the illegal invasion.

How many Jews condemned the illegal western invasion of Iraq?  Did the government of Israel?

If you vote in elections for warmongers, then you are the scum of the earth.  You have the blood of innocent people on your hands, but maybe you are not capable of caring.

Related previous posts include:
Jew couldn't make it up
Peace for more than just one day
Paxman on war, Hastings on Russia
Cameron visits Israel
A very British holocaust

Starvation Britain

At least two newspapers today are reporting that around one million people in this country have made use of food banks in the past year.  This figure is reported by the Trussell Trust, which represents most but not all food banks in Britain.  It is also reported that two new food banks are opening every week to help cope with demand.

While this might lead us to conclude that many people in Britain are living just an inch away from starvation, there are those who argue that the food banks are a symptom of a society in which many people have a sense of entitlement.  For example it has been claimed that some people take minicabs to go to food banks.

Before I continue, please take a few minutes to watch this video clip of Jack Monroe.  If you do not have time to watch all of it, then please at least watch from 3.54 at which point she describes people waiting in a queue for forty minutes to collect five items of food.  How many people would do that if they did not need to?

I have read about people being given bags of food at a food bank, and then handing back any items of food which need cooking because they cannot afford to turn on their cookers.  Are we to believe that these people also have umpteen cans of lager in their refrigerators?

I donate food to my local food bank, and I believe that anyone who obtains a food parcel fraudulently should be arrested and either cautioned or prosecuted.  However I remain firmly of the opinion that many people in this country genuinely are going hungry, and that the government is not doing enough to help them.  I intend to carry on supporting my local food bank.

Related previous posts include:

The story of Jack Monroe makes me angry

Are you hungry?

The sad story of Chris from Hertfordshire

Patriots are not to blame for malaria

Now that the furore surrounding Sport Relief appears to have died down - and it certainly extended beyond the actual weekend - I want to make clear where the blame lies for the existence of third world poverty.

In preparation for Sport Relief weekend, four impressionable young women were sent out from the United Kingdom to visit the west African country of Liberia.  There are a number of videos of their visit available to watch on the internet, and I link to just one of them below.

The most harrowing part of their time in Liberia was a visit to a hospital where three or four out of every ten children admitted with malaria will die.  We are told that across the whole of Africa one child dies every minute from malaria, and yet a mosquito net costs just five pounds.

Time for some number-crunching.  There are just over one billion people living in Africa.  Let us assume that exactly one billion mosquito nets are needed.  The total bill is five billion pounds.  If every man, woman, and child in Britain were to donate seventy-eight pounds to Sport Relief, then that would raise the necessary money.  Child mortality across Africa would fall drastically as a result.

An obvious problem is that many people in this country are struggling, and cannot afford to donate money to help children in Liberia.  The video below gives an idea of the level of poverty in Scotland, and probably gives a fairly accurate picture of the level of poverty across the whole of the United Kingdom.

Another important point to consider is that for many years now Britain has been giving billions to the third world in aid each year. Some of this represents money donated by ordinary people to charities working in poor countries, but a lot of it is money spent by the government - money we pay for in our tax bills.

The amount of money the British government is currently spending in aid each year is roughly twice the amount of money needed to provide the whole of Africa with all of the mosquito nets it requires - but how much of that money is spent on mosquito nets?

If Britain were to abolish overseas aid, then the billions of pounds saved could be spent on lifting the British people out of poverty through a combination of tax cuts and worthwhile spending.  The British people would then have far more money to spend on non-essentials, and it is perhaps inevitable that more money would be donated to third world charities.

Money donated to charities is money that is far more likely to be spent on useful things like mosquito nets than on useless things like enriching dictators.

People who vote Labour or Conservative or Liberal Democrat are to blame for the deaths of children in Africa.  Patriots are not to blame.

Update: this press report gives an example of how aid money is wasted.

Another update: this press report gives an example of what happens even when mosquito nets are supposed to be provided.

Related previous posts include:
Black violence: a black woman speaks out
The lawsuit of Mr O
How the ConDems waste your money

The end of coal

Britain has just three deep coal mines, and it has recently been announced that two of them are set to close.  The government refuses to save them.

Hatfield Colliery will soon be the only deep pit left in this country, and yet Britain had more than five hundred coal mines as recently as the 1960s.

Labour voters might want to blame the coalition government for allowing these two mines to close, but the record of Labour governments with regard to the coal industry is abysmal.  Check the figures if you don't believe me.

The closure of coal mines has been justified on the basis that they cost a lot of money to maintain - which is true. But this country can afford to waste billions each year on membership of the European Union.  Maybe we should quit the EU and start reopening a few coal mines - or maybe even a few hundred.

Some readers of this blog may be planning to raise their voices in protest next month by voting for UKIP in the European and local elections.  So be it.  I have no idea where Nigel Farage stands on reopening coal mines, and so I will reserve comment - at least on this occasion.

Related previous posts include:
How the ConDems waste your money
Shapps and the northern renaissance

The Daily Express must try harder

I never buy national newspapers.  I cannot remember when I last bought one.  It must have been years ago. I will read them online and in hard copy provided that I can do so without parting with any money.

It is not parsimony that prevents me from buying national newspapers however, but a moral objection to the content of our national newspapers.  Before I explain further, let me draw your attention to two comments on the website of The Daily Express.

Commenting on the rise of UKIP, Leo McKinstry argues that this is mainly at the expense of the Labour Party.  He remarks that:

The party was founded more than a century ago to represent the working class but now, in the grip of its pro-EU, diversity-fixated dogma, regards traditional supporters with contempt.

While the nanny-employing, restaurant-using, property-renovating classes squeal with delight at cheap foreign labour, British workers find themselves squeezed out of the job market or forced to endure lower living standards, while public services, especially housing, the NHS and schools, are put under intolerable pressure.

He continues:

Labour tries to cover its attacks on the working class with endless anti-Tory, toffbashing rhetoric. But this class war language is deeply hypocritical, for Labour is awash with privilege.  (He then lists senior Labour MPs who went to fee-paying schools.)  He concludes that:

Enveloped in politically correct ideology Labour can no longer claim to be the party of the people. That is why Miliband should be terrified of Ukip’s rise.

As an aside, McKinstry also comments on what he calls the noble impulse which helped win two world wars against tyranny, and yet he fails to explain what is noble about murdering innocent people.

In a comment about the Islamic community in Britain, Peter Hill observes:

I wonder if Muslim countries go out of their way to cater for other faiths. Actually, I don’t wonder.

They think “unbelievers” don’t even belong to the human race.

This is inflammatory.  In fact I think it is the only inflammatory comment about Islam I have ever read in a national newspaper.

There is a lot to admire in the comments by McKinstry and Hill, and yet I refuse ever to give money to The Daily Express.

If Leo McKinstry truly feels that the Labour Party has abandoned the cause of ordinary people, then will he state publicly and unambiguously that no one should ever vote for the Labour Party?

If Leo McKinstry cares about the impact of open door immigration on this country, then will he offer public and unambiguous support for a political party which seeks to end open door immigration?

(In case anyone is wondering, UKIP is not that party.  It has never sought to end immigration; it had no immigration policy on its website earlier this year; and its current policy statement on its website is vague and does not mention asylum seekers.)

If Peter Hill considers himself entitled to state publicly his opinion of Islam, then maybe he would like to condemn the fact that Nick Griffin was prosecuted twice for expressing his opinion of Islam.  Did The Daily Express call for either of those trials to be abandoned?

The Daily Express must try harder if it wants my money.

Related previous posts include:
Your Muslim faith - really?
Our fellow-travelling national press
Paxman on war, Hastings on Russia
The Daily Express comments on Islam

What is an Act of Attainder?

An Act of Attainder is an act of parliament which allows for certain named persons to be found guilty of stated crimes, such as treason, and to be punished in a variety of ways - including the death penalty.  Closely related is the Act of Pains and Penalties which allows for certain named persons to be found guilty of stated crimes, and to be punished in ways which exclude the death penalty.

No Act of Attainder has been passed into law in this country since 1798, although a Bill of Pains and Penalties was passed in the House of Lords in 1820.  It was not debated in the Commons however, and so did not become law.

I noted in my blog entry of the third of April that more than seven percent of the money we pay in taxes to the government is spent on repaying debt - or at least the interest on the said debt.  I repeat that if the national debt were to be eliminated, then the NHS budget could be increased by more than a third.

One simple solution to the problem of our national finances would be for an incoming government to refuse to repay the debts incurred by previous governments.  An act of parliament could be passed which stated that ministers in the previous government were personally liable to meet the repayments.

The one drawback with this scheme is that a government which refused to make repayments on a previous government's debt might find it hard to borrow money.  In fact it would almost certainly find it impossible to borrow money.  Nevertheless a government which managed the national finances sensibly would have little or no reason to borrow any more money.

Tackling the abuse of benefits

It is generally accepted that one of the causes of poverty in this country is the tendency of some people to spend money on alcohol and cigarettes and lottery tickets in preference to food and clothes and so on.  It is hard to ascertain to what extent this is happening, but I will accept that the situation exists and that something ought to be done.

As an aside, I am aware that poverty is increasingly affecting working families.

One solution that has been urged is to make benefits available in a form which precludes the purchase of certain things, and I quote here from a comment in The Daily Mail:

Meanwhile, Left-leaning think-tank Demos ... advocated that prepaid cards, rather like debit cards, should be given to claimants for some benefits.

Such a system would involve cards being loaded with money whenever a benefit payment is due. They would work by being pre-programmed so claimants can only buy essential goods — and withdraw just a small amount of cash.

Demos ... said that such cards might ‘remove temptation’ from people to waste welfare money, and would also help them with savings and budgeting.

My first comment - I will start with a positive - is that such a scheme could be helpful to people who do not have a bank account.  I remember many years ago reading about a man who cashed in a benefit cheque at his local post office, and then was mugged while walking home.  He lost all of his money.  If his benefits had taken the form of a payment card, with little option for obtaining cash, then he would presumably have been in a stronger position.

My second comment is that many people who are on benefits are sensible with their money.  Should they be required to take their benefits in the form of a payment card if they are already capable of making sensible spending choices?

My third comment is that one of the causes of poverty in this country is the high price of gas and electricity for people with prepayment meters.  Generally speaking, the lowest prices for gas and electricity are enjoyed by people who have credit meters and pay by direct debit.  Presumably someone whose benefits take the form of a payment card would not be able to pay any of their bills by direct debit.

The idea of payment cards is worthy of consideration, but perhaps such cards should be given only to those benefits claimants who either want them or who have shown themselves to be incapable of making sensible choices with their money.

For those who are interested, here is an example of what one family on benefits spends money on.

Related previous posts include:
Stop being nasty to those less fortunate
Gambling ruins lives
On benefits and in debt

How the ConDems waste your money

The government is planning on sending working people statements of how much tax they are paying and how the money is spent.  For example, a worker who pays £6781 in tax will contribute £882 to education, and so on.

There is a lot here that is of interest to the patriot.  Consider overseas aid.  This accounts for little more than half a percent of your total tax bill, and so it is easy to dismiss it as unimportant.  By contrast, less than three percent of your money goes on transport, which you might find annoying - especially if there are a lot of potholes in the roads where you live.

Suppose overseas aid were abolished, and the money spent instead on transport.  The transport budget would increase by nearly twenty percent.  How many miles of road could be resurfaced with that money?

Just over seven percent of your tax bill is spent on the interest on the national debt.  If the national debt were to be eliminated, then think what else we could spend the money on.  The health budget could be increased by more than a third.  Think how many hip replacements that might pay for.  Alternatively, the transport budget could be increased to nearly four times it current level.  Potholes might even become a distant memory.

The lion's share of your tax bill is spent on welfare, which of course includes payments to people who are out of work but who could be in work if the economy were better managed.  It also includes payments to people in poorly paid jobs who could be earning more if the economy were better managed.  Some of the money is paid to foreigners.  If the welfare budget were to be reduced even by as little as ten percent, then it would free up more than two percent of your tax bill to be spent elsewhere.

That alone could allow the transport budget to be increased by just over eighty percent, or the health budget to be increased by around twelve percent.

Here is a simple game plan for the government. Stop wasting money, and start spending tax money only on things that actually benefit the British people.

The Express comments on Islam

A comment in The Daily Express is critical of the Church of England.  I quote:

Anglican leaders spout dreary Left-wing pieties that pass for socialist thought, whether on Europe, immigration, or welfare.

This is true, but is it any less true of any of the other major denominations in this country?  The main difference between the Church of England and other denominations with regard to current affairs is surely the fact that the Church of England attracts far more press coverage than the other denominations.  In fact, with the exception of the Roman Catholic Church, I cannot think of any other denominational leader being quoted in the national press.

Take the issue of poverty.  In recent weeks at least two Roman Catholic bishops have spoken out in defence of what we might call the deserving poor.  (I do not imply that they deserve to be poor, but that they are poor and deserve our sympathy.)  It is curious though that I cannot think of any church leader of any denomination ever speaking out about what we might call the undeserving poor.

The Bible condemns indolence, even to the point of denying food to the undeserving, but do you ever hear any church leader talking in these terms?

The comment writer then remarks on the failure of the Church of England to address the persecution of Christians by Muslims.

There is a crisis facing the world’s Christians as a result of mounting persecution by Muslim hardliners.

Yet the Anglican Church prefers to show solidarity with environmentalists in pursuit of a green agenda rather than with its co-religionists in defence of their faith and lives.

Commenting on the situation here in the UK, he notes that:

Last week the Law Society, the governing body for British solicitors, issued official guidance that enshrines sharia requirements in wills written for Muslims, treating women as second-class citizens and making a mockery of all our anti-discrimination laws.

The disturbing process of Islamification can be seen in other ways such as the remorseless campaign by hardliners to take over certain state schools by driving out secular head-teachers and promoting Islamic practices.

This is not the first time that The Daily Express has published an incisive and reasoned comment on an important topic.  The sad truth though is that The Daily Express no more cares about the issues at stake than any bishop does.  If anyone would like to challenge me on this point, then I have two questions for them.

First, has The Daily Express ever urged its readers to join a political party which actually recognises the very real dangers that this country faces as a result of open door immigration?

Second, has The Daily Express ever given serious attention to why Muslim hardliners even exist?  I put it to the reader that what The Daily Express calls the Muslim hardliner is actually the true Muslim.

Related previous posts include:
Christians could do more
Now ban The Koran
Now study Islam
The future of the Muslim world