Steph Cocker is a young single mother from Sheffield who has outraged a lot of people by saying that she would not work for less than £5000 per month.
I will admit that her benefits are paid out of the taxes of large numbers of hard-working people, most of whom earn nothing like as much as £5000 per month. Nevertheless Miss Cocker does at least have some logic on her side. She would need to pay £400 per week on child care if she were working, and that alone works out at around £20,000 per year.
There are of course many people in Britain who earn £5000 per month or more, and I am sure that a lot of them do not deserve to earn anything like that much.
Miss Cocker has a boyfriend who does not live with her. I have a suspicion that had she been a young mother back in the 1970s, then she would probably have shared her home with a husband or boyfriend who would have worked to support her and the children. Social norms in this country have changed quite substantially over the last forty years, and Miss Cocker is too young to be able to take any blame for that.
Steph Cocker is one of a number of people who feature in the television programme Benefits Britain. Another young mother to feature in that programme is Leona, who lives with her boyfriend and daughter in Great Yarmouth. Her boyfriend eventually finds work as a scaffolder, but even that comes after several years of fruitless jobsearch.
Come to think of it, George Osborne and Iain Duncan Smith both earn more than £5000 per month, and yet their record of achievement in respect of helping the British people into work is so abysmal that I somehow suspect that they would be overpaid if they earned only the minimum wage.
Related previous posts include:
The way out of Benefits Street
Tackling the abuse of benefits
Conservatives want jobs
Sunday 29 June 2014
Friday 27 June 2014
The cost of litigation: three case studies
Many people have their lives ruined or at least seriously disrupted by litigation. Consider these three cases.
Last year, shopkeeper Damian Markland won a lawsuit against a Porsche dealership. He sued them over shoddy repair work to his car, and while he won his case, he nevertheless found himself liable to meet the legal costs on both sides. He was financially ruined, even though he had technically won.
I will not comment on the points of fact or of law in the case, but Mr Markland did not need to bring his lawsuit. Furthermore he did not need to buy a Porsche in the first place. He could easily have bought a perfectly good car for far less money.
More recently, retired football player Malcolm White lost a lawsuit brought against him by a woman who injured herself when she stumbled over a wooden sign on a grass verge. His bill, including legal costs, is reported to be in excess of £27,000.
One of the comments on this news report is from someone who was awarded in the region of £3,000 in respect of injuries which appear to have been far more serious than those suffered by Miss Grady. Nevertheless Miss Grady is presumably not responsible for how much money she was awarded.
It was not necessary to put the sign on the grass verge. I am quite prepared to believe that people parked inconsiderately. It is common behaviour on streets where there is a primary school. Nevertheless the residents of South Hykeham could have raised the matter with their local authority. Maybe they did, but maybe the people of Lincolnshire are not in the habit of electing politicians who actually care about them.
It is not clear whether or not there was any attempt by either party to resolve the matter without going to court. Ideally the dispute should have been settled with a small payment and no legal bill.
Some readers may regard my point of view as defeatist. You are perhaps thinking that if you bring a lawsuit against me, then presumably by my own reasoning I should pay you some money to avoid the matter going any further.
In the abstract that argument may seem powerful, but exactly what lawsuit are you planning to bring against me? For example, there is no wooden sign outside my house for you to trip over.
I have long been of the opinion that the first rule of litigation is that you can never be certain of the outcome. Miss Grady could have lost her lawsuit against Mr White, in which case she would have ended up with the legal bill.
The third case is the one I find most disturbing. Andrea Calland was financially ruined by a lawsuit brought by her ex-husband's mother Evelyn Galloway. The lawsuit centred on which one of them owned a vase which turned out to be valuable.
There is some dispute between the two parties about the exact facts of the case, but it appears that Mrs Galloway brought the lawsuit, although she blames Mrs Calland for the lawsuit. It appears also that an attempt was made by the two parties to agree a settlement, and Mrs Galloway blames Mrs Callard for the failure to reach a settlement.
While Mrs Galloway won the lawsuit, the outcome could have been very different.
It appears that the vase was ultimately stolen from the Emperor of China in 1860, but neither Mrs Galloway or Mrs Callard seem eager to discuss that particular point.
I find this case disturbing because I have ornaments in my home which I cannot recall either buying or receiving as a gift. In fact I even have some items of furniture which I cannot recall buying. Surely any one of us could at some point in time find ourselves in a dispute with a family member over ownership of an ornament or item of furniture.
I currently have no plans to bring any lawsuits against anyone else, and I hope that no one will ever bring a lawsuit against me. Maybe the government should bring in legislation aimed at discouraging people from bringing lawsuits, but of course the people who bring lawsuits are clearly not discouraged either by the prospect of losing or by the prospect of the other party losing.
A related previous post is:
Jet2 at the High Court
Last year, shopkeeper Damian Markland won a lawsuit against a Porsche dealership. He sued them over shoddy repair work to his car, and while he won his case, he nevertheless found himself liable to meet the legal costs on both sides. He was financially ruined, even though he had technically won.
I will not comment on the points of fact or of law in the case, but Mr Markland did not need to bring his lawsuit. Furthermore he did not need to buy a Porsche in the first place. He could easily have bought a perfectly good car for far less money.
More recently, retired football player Malcolm White lost a lawsuit brought against him by a woman who injured herself when she stumbled over a wooden sign on a grass verge. His bill, including legal costs, is reported to be in excess of £27,000.
One of the comments on this news report is from someone who was awarded in the region of £3,000 in respect of injuries which appear to have been far more serious than those suffered by Miss Grady. Nevertheless Miss Grady is presumably not responsible for how much money she was awarded.
It was not necessary to put the sign on the grass verge. I am quite prepared to believe that people parked inconsiderately. It is common behaviour on streets where there is a primary school. Nevertheless the residents of South Hykeham could have raised the matter with their local authority. Maybe they did, but maybe the people of Lincolnshire are not in the habit of electing politicians who actually care about them.
It is not clear whether or not there was any attempt by either party to resolve the matter without going to court. Ideally the dispute should have been settled with a small payment and no legal bill.
Some readers may regard my point of view as defeatist. You are perhaps thinking that if you bring a lawsuit against me, then presumably by my own reasoning I should pay you some money to avoid the matter going any further.
In the abstract that argument may seem powerful, but exactly what lawsuit are you planning to bring against me? For example, there is no wooden sign outside my house for you to trip over.
I have long been of the opinion that the first rule of litigation is that you can never be certain of the outcome. Miss Grady could have lost her lawsuit against Mr White, in which case she would have ended up with the legal bill.
The third case is the one I find most disturbing. Andrea Calland was financially ruined by a lawsuit brought by her ex-husband's mother Evelyn Galloway. The lawsuit centred on which one of them owned a vase which turned out to be valuable.
There is some dispute between the two parties about the exact facts of the case, but it appears that Mrs Galloway brought the lawsuit, although she blames Mrs Calland for the lawsuit. It appears also that an attempt was made by the two parties to agree a settlement, and Mrs Galloway blames Mrs Callard for the failure to reach a settlement.
While Mrs Galloway won the lawsuit, the outcome could have been very different.
It appears that the vase was ultimately stolen from the Emperor of China in 1860, but neither Mrs Galloway or Mrs Callard seem eager to discuss that particular point.
I find this case disturbing because I have ornaments in my home which I cannot recall either buying or receiving as a gift. In fact I even have some items of furniture which I cannot recall buying. Surely any one of us could at some point in time find ourselves in a dispute with a family member over ownership of an ornament or item of furniture.
I currently have no plans to bring any lawsuits against anyone else, and I hope that no one will ever bring a lawsuit against me. Maybe the government should bring in legislation aimed at discouraging people from bringing lawsuits, but of course the people who bring lawsuits are clearly not discouraged either by the prospect of losing or by the prospect of the other party losing.
A related previous post is:
Jet2 at the High Court
Monday 23 June 2014
Fellow traveller comments on Islam
You may have had this experience. You open a newspaper, and the news pages are full of reports of crime, poverty, and failure. You feel frustrated, but then you turn to the comments page. You read the comment, and the columnist is inveighing against the crime, poverty, and failure that are blighting life in Britain today. Suddenly you cheer up, because someone feels the same way as you. As you finish reading the newspaper, you reflect that the world is not such a bad place after all.
The problem is of course that nothing has changed. The fact that a newspaper columnist is saying something akin to what you are thinking does not in itself make the world a better place.
A recent comment in The Daily Express serves to remind me why I will never buy a national newspaper. The comment by Leo McKinstry is about Islam, and I will quote some of his observations below along with my own response.
McKinstry starts by reflecting on the fact that hundreds of Muslims from this country are now fighting in Iraq, and the possible danger these men pose to people in this country if and when they return here.
He argues that there is nothing incomprehensible about the actions of the British jihadists. They are just doing the same as Muslim extremists all over the world, following a vile political ideology.
I dislike the word extremist, which is of course meaningless. What he calls an extremist or a jihadist is what I call a Muslim. I agree that Islam is a political ideology rather than a religion. It was invented at the end of the seventh century to hold an empire together.
The British state, especially under Tony Blair, pretended that militant Islam could be contained at home by fighting it abroad but that was a complete fallacy.
Militant Islam is Islam. Is there such a thing as non-militant Islam? Is there a non-belligerent Koran? I agree that Tony Blair was wrong about fighting Islam abroad, but is David Cameron any less wrong?
Commenting about open door immigration, McKinstry remarks that one in 10 British children under the age of four is Muslim, and I'll take his word for it that ten percent of young children in Britain are Muslims.
The pro-immigration brigade tells us that this is no problem, since the "vast majority" of Muslims are moderate. But that is more self-deceit at odds with the evidence. One independent survey showed that 40 per cent of Muslims here want to live under Sharia law; another revealed that 32 per cent of Muslim students at university felt killing in the name of religion is justified.
And yet The Daily Express has never urged its readers to take a stand on this issue, and neither does it do so now. McKinstry urges the government to take a tough line with Muslims from this country who go to fight in Iraq, but presumably does so in the expectation that the government will ignore him.
He concludes that we would not be in this mess if our rulers had decided to protect our society instead of feebly colluding with our enemies.
We are in this mess because the British people insist on voting in elections for political parties which support open door immigration.
I could suggest realistic solutions to the problems that Britain faces, and readers who look back over previous posts in this blog may well come across some of my previous recommendations.
The trouble is though that there is no point in making suggestions to people who think it acceptable to vote in elections for the Labour Party or the Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats. If you were to tell David Cameron about my blog, he would probably say something entirely negative about it.
The deal is this. Mainstream politicians create problems. People shouting from the sidelines suggest solutions to those problems, and the mainstream politicians then demonise anyone who dares to suggest a solution which actually makes sense.
I will not believe that Leo McKinstry is anything other than a fellow traveller, unless he will state unequivocally that the problems he identifies will not be solved unless people stop voting for either the Labour Party or the Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats.
Related previous posts include:
The Daily Express must try harder
Our fellow travelling national press
Your Muslim faith - really?
The problem is of course that nothing has changed. The fact that a newspaper columnist is saying something akin to what you are thinking does not in itself make the world a better place.
A recent comment in The Daily Express serves to remind me why I will never buy a national newspaper. The comment by Leo McKinstry is about Islam, and I will quote some of his observations below along with my own response.
McKinstry starts by reflecting on the fact that hundreds of Muslims from this country are now fighting in Iraq, and the possible danger these men pose to people in this country if and when they return here.
He argues that there is nothing incomprehensible about the actions of the British jihadists. They are just doing the same as Muslim extremists all over the world, following a vile political ideology.
I dislike the word extremist, which is of course meaningless. What he calls an extremist or a jihadist is what I call a Muslim. I agree that Islam is a political ideology rather than a religion. It was invented at the end of the seventh century to hold an empire together.
The British state, especially under Tony Blair, pretended that militant Islam could be contained at home by fighting it abroad but that was a complete fallacy.
Militant Islam is Islam. Is there such a thing as non-militant Islam? Is there a non-belligerent Koran? I agree that Tony Blair was wrong about fighting Islam abroad, but is David Cameron any less wrong?
Commenting about open door immigration, McKinstry remarks that one in 10 British children under the age of four is Muslim, and I'll take his word for it that ten percent of young children in Britain are Muslims.
The pro-immigration brigade tells us that this is no problem, since the "vast majority" of Muslims are moderate. But that is more self-deceit at odds with the evidence. One independent survey showed that 40 per cent of Muslims here want to live under Sharia law; another revealed that 32 per cent of Muslim students at university felt killing in the name of religion is justified.
And yet The Daily Express has never urged its readers to take a stand on this issue, and neither does it do so now. McKinstry urges the government to take a tough line with Muslims from this country who go to fight in Iraq, but presumably does so in the expectation that the government will ignore him.
He concludes that we would not be in this mess if our rulers had decided to protect our society instead of feebly colluding with our enemies.
We are in this mess because the British people insist on voting in elections for political parties which support open door immigration.
I could suggest realistic solutions to the problems that Britain faces, and readers who look back over previous posts in this blog may well come across some of my previous recommendations.
The trouble is though that there is no point in making suggestions to people who think it acceptable to vote in elections for the Labour Party or the Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats. If you were to tell David Cameron about my blog, he would probably say something entirely negative about it.
The deal is this. Mainstream politicians create problems. People shouting from the sidelines suggest solutions to those problems, and the mainstream politicians then demonise anyone who dares to suggest a solution which actually makes sense.
I will not believe that Leo McKinstry is anything other than a fellow traveller, unless he will state unequivocally that the problems he identifies will not be solved unless people stop voting for either the Labour Party or the Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats.
Related previous posts include:
The Daily Express must try harder
Our fellow travelling national press
Your Muslim faith - really?
Friday 20 June 2014
Bacon does not kill Muslims
Three people in Scotland have been jailed for attacking a mosque with strips of bacon. The judge ruled that there was no way to deal with this except by imprisonment.
Bacon does no harm. You can drop it on a carpet, but the carpet is not ruined. The smell of it is not harmful, although a lot of Muslims may pretend otherwise. It may not have the most pleasant smell, but air fresheners can be purchased in pretty well any grocery store.
By contrast, I have known of churches and church halls having their windows smashed, but the police take little interest. Even if the vandals are caught, they are rarely sent to prison.
I am not condoning bacon attacks on mosques, but surely the Muslims don't have to make such a big deal of it, and neither do the courts.
There is currently a civil war in Iraq, and Muslims are busy killing other Muslims. I am not aware of anything in Islam which requires Muslims to kill other Muslims, and there is certainly nothing in The Koran which could realistically explain what is happening in Iraq. Nevertheless, The Koran is a book which incites to violence and murder. Is it too much to argue that Muslims would be less likely to kill each other if they were less inclined to commit acts of violence in the first place?
Let's face facts. Anyone who is a Muslim is part of the problem. If you consider it acceptable to base your world view on a belief system which is founded on a book which says what The Koran says, then you are effectively encouraging people to commit acts of violence or even murder.
Even if you believe that all of the belligerent passages in The Koran should not be taken seriously, then you cannot be certain that another Muslim will not take those passages seriously. Let me give this example: Fight those who do not believe in Allah (9:29). One imam could tell you that this text actually means that Muslims should live at peace with non-Muslims, while another could tell you that it actually means that Muslims should slaughter other Muslims. Is either one of those interpretations more or less logical than the other?
A lot of Muslims from Britain have gone to Iraq to join in the carnage, and it appears that most or all of them are fighting against the government of Iraq. While I will not condone what they are doing, I cannot be entirely displeased at the sight of Muslims from this country going abroad.
I would appreciate it if Muslims living in Britain would admit that sending people to prison for bacon attacks on mosques is excessive. Surely a twenty pound fine would be more appropriate.
I would appreciate it even more if Muslims living in Britain would condemn the fact that for many years Muslim paedophile gangs operated in many parts of England while the police took no action against them, and while the Muslim community failed to condemn what the gangs were doing.
If I remember rightly, the government only started to take serious action against Muslim paedophile gangs in the summer of 2009 - at about the same time as two members of the British National Party were elected to the European Parliament. The British National Party now has no MEPs and very few councillors. Will the authorities now stop prosecuting Muslim paedophile gangs?
Let me ask the question another way. If the authorities now stop prosecuting Muslim paedophile gangs, then who among us could be trusted to campaign for prosecutions to resume?
Bacon is for the breakfast table. If you object to what Islam is doing to this country, then join a political party which seeks to tell the truth about Islam. I doubt if many people will, but feel free to prove me wrong.
Update: I have since discovered that certain remarks made above about Islam are incorrect, and I have corrected them in the post entitled Emma and Chris are veritaphobic.
Related previous posts include:
Communists hate Christianity
Islam and dogs
Now study Islam
Communists please explain
Bacon does no harm. You can drop it on a carpet, but the carpet is not ruined. The smell of it is not harmful, although a lot of Muslims may pretend otherwise. It may not have the most pleasant smell, but air fresheners can be purchased in pretty well any grocery store.
By contrast, I have known of churches and church halls having their windows smashed, but the police take little interest. Even if the vandals are caught, they are rarely sent to prison.
I am not condoning bacon attacks on mosques, but surely the Muslims don't have to make such a big deal of it, and neither do the courts.
There is currently a civil war in Iraq, and Muslims are busy killing other Muslims. I am not aware of anything in Islam which requires Muslims to kill other Muslims, and there is certainly nothing in The Koran which could realistically explain what is happening in Iraq. Nevertheless, The Koran is a book which incites to violence and murder. Is it too much to argue that Muslims would be less likely to kill each other if they were less inclined to commit acts of violence in the first place?
Let's face facts. Anyone who is a Muslim is part of the problem. If you consider it acceptable to base your world view on a belief system which is founded on a book which says what The Koran says, then you are effectively encouraging people to commit acts of violence or even murder.
Even if you believe that all of the belligerent passages in The Koran should not be taken seriously, then you cannot be certain that another Muslim will not take those passages seriously. Let me give this example: Fight those who do not believe in Allah (9:29). One imam could tell you that this text actually means that Muslims should live at peace with non-Muslims, while another could tell you that it actually means that Muslims should slaughter other Muslims. Is either one of those interpretations more or less logical than the other?
A lot of Muslims from Britain have gone to Iraq to join in the carnage, and it appears that most or all of them are fighting against the government of Iraq. While I will not condone what they are doing, I cannot be entirely displeased at the sight of Muslims from this country going abroad.
I would appreciate it if Muslims living in Britain would admit that sending people to prison for bacon attacks on mosques is excessive. Surely a twenty pound fine would be more appropriate.
I would appreciate it even more if Muslims living in Britain would condemn the fact that for many years Muslim paedophile gangs operated in many parts of England while the police took no action against them, and while the Muslim community failed to condemn what the gangs were doing.
If I remember rightly, the government only started to take serious action against Muslim paedophile gangs in the summer of 2009 - at about the same time as two members of the British National Party were elected to the European Parliament. The British National Party now has no MEPs and very few councillors. Will the authorities now stop prosecuting Muslim paedophile gangs?
Let me ask the question another way. If the authorities now stop prosecuting Muslim paedophile gangs, then who among us could be trusted to campaign for prosecutions to resume?
Bacon is for the breakfast table. If you object to what Islam is doing to this country, then join a political party which seeks to tell the truth about Islam. I doubt if many people will, but feel free to prove me wrong.
Update: I have since discovered that certain remarks made above about Islam are incorrect, and I have corrected them in the post entitled Emma and Chris are veritaphobic.
Related previous posts include:
Communists hate Christianity
Islam and dogs
Now study Islam
Communists please explain
Wednesday 18 June 2014
Pompous claptrap from Tory veterans
The evil former Prime Minister John Major has urged Scotland to vote against independence.
Apparently he is concerned about Britain's special relationship with the USA, which is strange. I thought the special relationship died last year when the Commons refused to back the evil warmonger Cameron in waging war on Syria.
He is concerned also about nuclear weapons, even though they do not exist.
He has also argued that the USA would not forget or forgive Scotland for seeking independence. That could be construed as hypocrisy, given that the USA fought the British for independence in the eighteenth century. Maybe the USA will bomb Scotland into submission if it votes for independence. I wouldn't put it past them.
Norman Lamont served as a cabinet minister under John Major, and has now spoken out about immigration. While a lot of what he says is quite reasonable, I must point out a few flaws in his argument. He begins:
Norman Lamont was a minister in the government of John Major when Derek Beackon was elected as a councillor in Millwall in 1993. Beackon was elected on a platform of opposition to immigration, but his election was not welcomed by the British government. In fact he was subject to a lot of victimisation, but he did not receive any support from the evil government of John Major. I'm not aware that The Daily Mail gave him any support either.
Lamont concludes that to dismiss justified public concern on this question as nothing more than bigotry or xenophobia is to play into the hands of genuine extremists.
Lamont does not explain what he means by the word extremist, and neither can he. The word is after all meaningless.
In short, Lamont's essay can be summed up as follows:
Immigration harms Britain, but nobody must ever be tolerated in saying so unless they don't actually want to do anything about immigration or the problems it causes.
Apparently he is concerned about Britain's special relationship with the USA, which is strange. I thought the special relationship died last year when the Commons refused to back the evil warmonger Cameron in waging war on Syria.
He is concerned also about nuclear weapons, even though they do not exist.
He has also argued that the USA would not forget or forgive Scotland for seeking independence. That could be construed as hypocrisy, given that the USA fought the British for independence in the eighteenth century. Maybe the USA will bomb Scotland into submission if it votes for independence. I wouldn't put it past them.
Norman Lamont served as a cabinet minister under John Major, and has now spoken out about immigration. While a lot of what he says is quite reasonable, I must point out a few flaws in his argument. He begins:
For years, those
who dared question the policy of mass immigration — including this
newspaper — were shouted down as reactionary or plain racist.
Has The Daily Mail ever questioned the policy of mass immigration? It may occasionally make an issue about immigration, but only to try to boost circulation. Norman Lamont was a minister in the government of John Major when Derek Beackon was elected as a councillor in Millwall in 1993. Beackon was elected on a platform of opposition to immigration, but his election was not welcomed by the British government. In fact he was subject to a lot of victimisation, but he did not receive any support from the evil government of John Major. I'm not aware that The Daily Mail gave him any support either.
Lamont concludes that to dismiss justified public concern on this question as nothing more than bigotry or xenophobia is to play into the hands of genuine extremists.
Lamont does not explain what he means by the word extremist, and neither can he. The word is after all meaningless.
In short, Lamont's essay can be summed up as follows:
Immigration harms Britain, but nobody must ever be tolerated in saying so unless they don't actually want to do anything about immigration or the problems it causes.
Monday 16 June 2014
Street violence in Worthing and Hackney
Two news items catch my eye today. The first is that four man have been jailed for a stabbing in August 2012. The second is a stabbing which recently occurred in Hackney.
The two places are on the face of it very different. Worthing on the south coast is a traditional Conservative stronghold, whereas Hackney in Greater London is a traditional Labour stronghold.
In August 2012, a black man called Ernest Moyo was attacked by four men as he left a party in Worthing. Apparently the attack followed on from a row about a mobile phone. His injuries were so terrible that he subsequently had to have both of his arms and both of his legs amputated.
The four men who have been jailed for attacking him appear to be all either non-white or at least mixed race.
More recently, on 14 June 2014, a man entered the Bonneville public house in Hackney. He had been stabbed and was bleeding from his left arm. The staff wanted to call an ambulance for him, but he was aggressive towards them. Apparently he wanted to call his friends so that they could go out as a pack and attack whoever had stabbed him.
He subsequently refused to assist the police with their enquiries.
I am not aware of the ethnicity of either the stabbed man or his attackers, but I refer the reader to this record of murders in Greater London. Between 2006 and the present day, there have been fifty-four murders in Hackney. Check the names, and you will see that most of them are clearly of immigrant stock.
The site does not record the ethnicity of the murderers, but it is a fact that many murders in Britain today are committed by immigrants.
Related previous posts include:
Black violence: a black woman speaks out
The fruits of immigration
A question for Ajmol's father
The two places are on the face of it very different. Worthing on the south coast is a traditional Conservative stronghold, whereas Hackney in Greater London is a traditional Labour stronghold.
In August 2012, a black man called Ernest Moyo was attacked by four men as he left a party in Worthing. Apparently the attack followed on from a row about a mobile phone. His injuries were so terrible that he subsequently had to have both of his arms and both of his legs amputated.
The four men who have been jailed for attacking him appear to be all either non-white or at least mixed race.
More recently, on 14 June 2014, a man entered the Bonneville public house in Hackney. He had been stabbed and was bleeding from his left arm. The staff wanted to call an ambulance for him, but he was aggressive towards them. Apparently he wanted to call his friends so that they could go out as a pack and attack whoever had stabbed him.
He subsequently refused to assist the police with their enquiries.
I am not aware of the ethnicity of either the stabbed man or his attackers, but I refer the reader to this record of murders in Greater London. Between 2006 and the present day, there have been fifty-four murders in Hackney. Check the names, and you will see that most of them are clearly of immigrant stock.
The site does not record the ethnicity of the murderers, but it is a fact that many murders in Britain today are committed by immigrants.
Related previous posts include:
Black violence: a black woman speaks out
The fruits of immigration
A question for Ajmol's father
Saturday 14 June 2014
A dilemma for the war pigs
As I write, the British people have recently commemorated the seventieth anniversary of the Normandy landings. Later this year we are expected to commemorate the outbreak of the Great War. It appears that this will be a very emotional year for the lovers of war.
Also at this time the evil warmongering governments of the United Kingdom and the USA are facing a dilemma. In 2003 they went to war against Iraq. I expect some readers of this site would prefer me to say that they went to war in Iraq, but I reserve the right not to be brainwashed.
The war supposedly ended a long time ago, but the truth is that Iraq today is still very much a war zone. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was apparently codenamed Operation Iraqi Freedom, and sure enough the people of Iraq are now free. They are free to flee in terror from Sunni militias. They are free to join the Shi'ite militias which aim to hold back the Sunni insurgency. They are free to get caught in the crossfire.
It seems however that there are no plans to send British or American troops back into Iraq in order to try and resolve what may well be an insoluble situation.
Update: it has since been reported that the USA is planning to send military personnel back to Iraq to defend its embassy. I regard that as a hostile invasion. Either the embassy should accept what security is afforded it by the Iraqi authorities, or else the embassy staff should be repatriated.
Related previous posts include:
A reasoned approach to war
The future of the Muslim world
Thursday 12 June 2014
The hate speech of a private landlord
Just as one national newspaper reports that a woman left a rented house in a mess, so another newspaper reports that she did not.
If you do not have time to read these two press reports, the basic story is that a single mother on benefits called Christine Lucas used to live with her two (or three - it isn't clear) children in a house owned by private landlord Sean Feeney.
She vacated the property when she was offered a council house, where she now lives with her children and her mother. Mr Feeney alleges that she left the house she rented from him in a terrible state, while Miss Lucas alleges that she left the house spotless. Any damage was caused by vandals after she left.
I do not know whether or not Miss Lucas is telling the truth, but I wonder if Mr Feeney does either. Can he prove that people other than Miss Lucas did not trash the property?
Mr Feeney has been quoted as saying that they haven’t worked hard for anything in the house so they have no respect for it. How is this not hate speech?
If Mr Feeney were to talk about black people the way he talks about benefit claimants, then he would probably be arrested.
Does he honestly think it is polite to imply that people who have to depend upon welfare payments are by nature morally deficient?
Also, Miss Lucas argues that Mr Feeney did not maintain the property. Is that true?
It appears that Miss Lucas fell behind with the rent, and that she borrowed money to pay the arrears, but it was stolen. Maybe the lender could have given her the money in the form of a cheque made payable to her landlord. Surely that would have been safer.
Mr Feeney may well have a point when he complains about the government paying housing benefit to tenants rather than landlords, but that state of affairs is the fault of the government, not the tenants. In fact it is the fault of the millions of people in this country who insist on voting in elections for worthless politicians.
Related previous posts include:
What exactly is hate speech?
This hate speech shames Britain
Stop being nasty to those less fortunate
A large family versus private landlords
If you do not have time to read these two press reports, the basic story is that a single mother on benefits called Christine Lucas used to live with her two (or three - it isn't clear) children in a house owned by private landlord Sean Feeney.
She vacated the property when she was offered a council house, where she now lives with her children and her mother. Mr Feeney alleges that she left the house she rented from him in a terrible state, while Miss Lucas alleges that she left the house spotless. Any damage was caused by vandals after she left.
I do not know whether or not Miss Lucas is telling the truth, but I wonder if Mr Feeney does either. Can he prove that people other than Miss Lucas did not trash the property?
Mr Feeney has been quoted as saying that they haven’t worked hard for anything in the house so they have no respect for it. How is this not hate speech?
If Mr Feeney were to talk about black people the way he talks about benefit claimants, then he would probably be arrested.
Does he honestly think it is polite to imply that people who have to depend upon welfare payments are by nature morally deficient?
Also, Miss Lucas argues that Mr Feeney did not maintain the property. Is that true?
It appears that Miss Lucas fell behind with the rent, and that she borrowed money to pay the arrears, but it was stolen. Maybe the lender could have given her the money in the form of a cheque made payable to her landlord. Surely that would have been safer.
Mr Feeney may well have a point when he complains about the government paying housing benefit to tenants rather than landlords, but that state of affairs is the fault of the government, not the tenants. In fact it is the fault of the millions of people in this country who insist on voting in elections for worthless politicians.
Related previous posts include:
What exactly is hate speech?
This hate speech shames Britain
Stop being nasty to those less fortunate
A large family versus private landlords
Tuesday 10 June 2014
As the war criminal said to the actress ...
It is reported in the press today that cabinet minister William Hague has appeared in public alongside actress Angelina Jolie to discuss the issue of rape in combat zones.
Angelina Jolie should realise that the best way to tackle rape in war zones is for the war zones not to exist in the first place.
William Hague is a warmonger. He is a senior figure in a government which sends British troops into illegal wars. In a just society he would be tried for his crimes and hanged.
This is also the same William Hague who when he was leader of the Conservative Party said that he hoped that Britain's first Muslim Prime Minister would be a Conservative.
Britain's first Muslim Prime Minister will be an adherent of a belief system which permits rape within marriage (The Koran 2:223) and which permits a Muslim man to rape any woman whom his right arm possesses (23:1-6).
But will Britain ever actually have a Muslim Prime Minister? If the British people continue to vote for political parties (such as the Conservative Party) which support open door immigration, then the answer would appear to be yes.
Angelina Jolie should realise that the best way to tackle rape in war zones is for the war zones not to exist in the first place.
William Hague is a warmonger. He is a senior figure in a government which sends British troops into illegal wars. In a just society he would be tried for his crimes and hanged.
This is also the same William Hague who when he was leader of the Conservative Party said that he hoped that Britain's first Muslim Prime Minister would be a Conservative.
Britain's first Muslim Prime Minister will be an adherent of a belief system which permits rape within marriage (The Koran 2:223) and which permits a Muslim man to rape any woman whom his right arm possesses (23:1-6).
But will Britain ever actually have a Muslim Prime Minister? If the British people continue to vote for political parties (such as the Conservative Party) which support open door immigration, then the answer would appear to be yes.
Saturday 7 June 2014
Does teacher training improve schools?
What follows is a comment posted on the website of a national newspaper.
I went to a grammar school in Birmingham in the 1960s. None of my teachers went to teachers training college. They either came from University with a first class degree in the subject they taught or they were ex officers from the armed forces who knew how to instill good discipline and command respect. The school had an outstanding record for the numbers of its students achieving university places. By not going to TTC, they were not indoctrinated with the usual left wing liberal claptrap that seems to be the case nowadays. And yes, we did have corporal punishment but it was used only as a last resort. That ultimate sanction prevented the more unruly boys from stepping too far over the line of bad behaviour.
For many decades now, British schools have had little choice when recruiting teachers. So far as I am aware, they have been required by law to recruit only teachers who have acquired certain documented qualifications, and yet this policy has not prevented us from having many failing schools over the years.
Suppose you are the chair of governors at a failing school. You want to dismiss those staff members who are letting the side down, but you know that you will then have to recruit people to replace them, and your choice will be limited. What if the replacement teachers also let the side down?
Maybe now is the time to consider the likelihood that legal restraints on teacher recruitment do more harm than good. Regardless of whether or not it is true that trainee teachers are indoctrinated with the usual left wing liberal claptrap as is implied above, it is nevertheless true that legal restraints have not delivered world class schools.
I went to a grammar school in Birmingham in the 1960s. None of my teachers went to teachers training college. They either came from University with a first class degree in the subject they taught or they were ex officers from the armed forces who knew how to instill good discipline and command respect. The school had an outstanding record for the numbers of its students achieving university places. By not going to TTC, they were not indoctrinated with the usual left wing liberal claptrap that seems to be the case nowadays. And yes, we did have corporal punishment but it was used only as a last resort. That ultimate sanction prevented the more unruly boys from stepping too far over the line of bad behaviour.
For many decades now, British schools have had little choice when recruiting teachers. So far as I am aware, they have been required by law to recruit only teachers who have acquired certain documented qualifications, and yet this policy has not prevented us from having many failing schools over the years.
Suppose you are the chair of governors at a failing school. You want to dismiss those staff members who are letting the side down, but you know that you will then have to recruit people to replace them, and your choice will be limited. What if the replacement teachers also let the side down?
Maybe now is the time to consider the likelihood that legal restraints on teacher recruitment do more harm than good. Regardless of whether or not it is true that trainee teachers are indoctrinated with the usual left wing liberal claptrap as is implied above, it is nevertheless true that legal restraints have not delivered world class schools.
Thursday 5 June 2014
When fat cats kill
Jaye Bloomfield is dead. She was killed as she crossed a road in Manchester in August 2013. She was killed by a speeding car driven by a black man called Michael Campbell.
Michael Campbell has not however been prosecuted for killing Miss Bloomfield because it appears that the thirty mile per hour speed limit on the road in question was not clearly marked. In other words, Campbell did not know he was driving too fast.
I remember a few years ago walking in a town I rarely visit. There was a paved footpath alongside the road, which was fine, except that it ran out shortly before a major roundabout. I then had to walk on a grass verge, and was lucky that the ground was dry. Then when I came to the roundabout, I had to make my way across a busy road without any crossing facilities. Had I been in any way frail or disabled, then it would have been a frightening experience.
I reflected at the time that whoever designed this roundabout was either a moron or else someone with no concern for the welfare of pedestrians. I reflected also that whoever designed the roundabout was probably very well paid.
Jaye Bloomfield is dead because the people responsible for road signage in Manchester made a mistake. I wonder how much the people responsible for the mistake are paid. I suspect that they are more likely to be fat cats than paupers.
In short, it appears that Jaye Bloomfield was killed by fat cats. There are far too many people working in positions of authority in this country who seem to care more about the perks of the job than about their responsibility to do their job well.
Do you vote in elections for political parties which refuse to take a stand against fat cats? If you do, then you could be voting for your own premature death as you walk across a road. You are certainly voting for your money to be wasted.
Michael Campbell has not however been prosecuted for killing Miss Bloomfield because it appears that the thirty mile per hour speed limit on the road in question was not clearly marked. In other words, Campbell did not know he was driving too fast.
I remember a few years ago walking in a town I rarely visit. There was a paved footpath alongside the road, which was fine, except that it ran out shortly before a major roundabout. I then had to walk on a grass verge, and was lucky that the ground was dry. Then when I came to the roundabout, I had to make my way across a busy road without any crossing facilities. Had I been in any way frail or disabled, then it would have been a frightening experience.
I reflected at the time that whoever designed this roundabout was either a moron or else someone with no concern for the welfare of pedestrians. I reflected also that whoever designed the roundabout was probably very well paid.
Jaye Bloomfield is dead because the people responsible for road signage in Manchester made a mistake. I wonder how much the people responsible for the mistake are paid. I suspect that they are more likely to be fat cats than paupers.
In short, it appears that Jaye Bloomfield was killed by fat cats. There are far too many people working in positions of authority in this country who seem to care more about the perks of the job than about their responsibility to do their job well.
Do you vote in elections for political parties which refuse to take a stand against fat cats? If you do, then you could be voting for your own premature death as you walk across a road. You are certainly voting for your money to be wasted.
Sunday 1 June 2014
John Major is wrong about UKIP
UKIP's
stunning election victories last week will help David Cameron win
concessions from Europe, former Prime Minister John Major claimed today.
Sir
John said European leaders could no longer ignore rising euroscepticism
and return powers to Britain in the Prime Minister's renogotiation.
So reports The Daily Mail. The report is uncritical, but not the attached comments.
I am also puzzled that John Major regards support for UKIP as transient. While I have no problem with UKIP losing support, I wonder why the leaders of the European Union should no longer ignore rising euroscepticism if it is based on a one-off protest vote.
Of course this may prove to be far more than a one-off. In a few days from now the people of Newark have the power to send a clear message to the EU and to David Cameron by becoming the first ever constituency to return a UKIP MP.
Many people around the country are doubtless wishing that they too could have a by-election and a chance to return a UKIP MP. However we can all make our voice heard for change by joining a political party which supports Britain leaving the EU. Traditionally in this country the Conservative Party and the Labour Party have enjoyed far more members than any other party, but that could change. In fact membership of the Conservative Party has been in steep decline for some time now.
If just ten percent of people who voted UKIP in the recent elections were to join UKIP, then it would be easily the biggest political party in the UK. If just five percent of people who voted UKIP were to join UKIP, then it would either be the largest party or at least a close second.
I do not support UKIP, and I will not join them. Nevertheless I will admit that if people actually joined UKIP, then it might help David Cameron to realise that people are fed up with his leadership.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)