Of Jews and paedophiles

As 2015 draws to a close, a national newspaper has published a list of notable people who died in the past year.  Cilla Black and Jimmy Hill are among the more prominent names, but Lord Janner is also mentioned, and with these words:

Besides being a politician, Lord Janner was also a barrister and a writer. 

He was a Labour MP for 27 years, from 1970 to 1997.

Lord Janner was president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews from 1978 to 1984 and was a prominent campaigner in the efforts to gain reparations for victims of the Holocaust.

No mention of him raping children.

Janner was first outed as a paedophile in 1991, but no charges were brought.  In April 2015, another national newspaper reported that a retired police officer called Kelvyn Ashby had been forbidden from charging Janner, apparently on the grounds that he was an MP.

Janner went on to avoid being charged in 2002, 2006, and 2013 - each time in spite of substantial victim testimony.  The Daily Mail reports that:

Ten days ago Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders announced there was enough evidence to charge Janner with 22 offences against nine alleged victims – but he could not be prosecuted because he has severe dementia.

The CPS claimed Janner was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in 2009. But analysis of his activities since then shows he went on at least 20 foreign trips, including to Israel and America as part of his work fighting anti-semitism and bringing Nazis to justice. He was still chairman of an all-party Parliamentary group two years ago.

This man was eager that one group of people - supporters of the National Socialist regime - should not escape justice (or injustice perhaps), but was also eager that he should avoid justice for his own crimes.

It is also notable that the establishment seemed eager to protect Janner all the way along the line.  Consider this timeline.

• 1979: Margaret Thatcher leads the Conservative Party to victory in a general election.  Her close friend and fellow Tory MP Peter Morrison is an active paedophile.  Allegations that Liberal MP Cyril Smith is also a paedophile result in his being questioned by police just once.  Muslim grooming gangs may already be operating in the United Kingdom.
• 1989: Mrs Thatcher's government brings in legislation for the prosecution of National Socialist veterans living in Britain.
• 1991: Labour MP Greville Janner, a Jew, is first outed as a paedophile, but is protected from prosecution.  Britain still has a Conservative government, now led by John Major.
• 1997: A Labour government led by Tony Blair allows Janner to enter the House of Lords.
• 2000: Tony Blair confirms an annual Holocaust Memorial Day.
• 2001: The British National Party becomes aware of Muslim grooming gangs operating in the north west of England, and begins campaigning for prosecutions.  Labour is still in government, and Tony Blair is still the Prime Minister.
• 2002: Janner is again protected from prosecution for his crime.  Labour is still in government, and Tony Blair is still the Prime Minister.
• 2004: BNP leader Nick Griffin is secretly filmed by the BBC talking about Muslim grooming gangs.
• 2005: Griffin is charged with inciting racial hatred, presumably to punish him for daring to talk about Muslim grooming gangs. Labour is still in government, and Tony Blair is still the Prime Minister.
• 2006: Griffin stands trial, and is cleared.  A retrial is promptly announced.  Janner is again protected from prosecution for his crimes.  Labour is still in government, and Tony Blair is still the Prime Minister.
• 2009: The BNP wins two seats in the European Parliament, and the press begin reporting the prosecution of a small number of Muslim paedophiles.  Janner apparently begins suffering from Alzheimers, but continues working.  Labour is still in government, and Gordon Brown is now the Prime Minister.
• 2013: Janner is again protected from prosecution for his crimes.  The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are now in government, and David Cameron is now the Prime Minister
• 2015: David Cameron is able to form a majority Conservative government.  Janner is protected from prosecution once again, this time on the grounds of a medical condition which does not prevent him working.

I do not want to exaggerate the connection between paedophilia and Jewry.  So far as I am aware, neither Cyril Smith nor Peter Morrison were Jews.  Nevertheless I wonder how many of the people - whether Jews or gentiles - who have campaigned for the prosecution of National Socialist veterans have also campaigned for the prosecution of either Muslim paedophiles or of paedophiles with friends in high places.

Update: this newspaper report about the trial of Jeremy Thorpe in 1979 is relevant. 

Related previous posts include:

The Church of England, race, and paedophiles

The great paedo cover up continues

Jews matter.  Does anyone else?

The living wage and household debt

Two recent news items require attention.  The first is that a lot of businesses in the United Kingdom expect to increase their prices in the new year.  This is in response to the so-called national living wage which will come into force in April next year at a rate of £7.20.

The other news item is that household debt in the United Kingdom is rising at an alarming rate.  The Daily Mail reports that:

... families are set to spend £40 billion more than they earn this year.

In the depths of the crisis in 2009/10, families spent £67 billion less than they earned as they moved to cut their debts.

I recall that the recession of the early 1990s was preceded by a credit boom in the late 1980s when far too many families spent beyond their means.

But to return to the first news item.  It is of course true that an increase in the minimum wage might lead to higher prices in the shops.  The current minimum wage stands at £6.70, and so £7.20 represents an increase of less than eight percent - roughly equivalent to an increase of around five pence on the price of a bar of chocolate.

If a company's payroll amounts to forty percent of its total expenditure, then its overall expenditure will not need to rise by more than three percent to accomodate the rise in the minimum wage.

Where prices increase - and not all employers are threatening to increase their prices - then the British public can choose either to pay those higher prices or to reduce their spending.  Given that the increase in the minimum wage will leave many working people better off, then maybe they will tend to pay the higher prices.  By contrast, if people tend to reduce their spending rather than pay the higher prices, then the companies which raise their prices might have to lower them again in order to attract custom.

Another threat related to the living wage is that some companies expect to employ fewer people.  Nevertheless some companies are already paying the living wage, and I'm not aware that any of them are laying off staff as a result.

I am far more concerned about the rise in household debt than I am about the living wage.  I urge all readers of this blog to avoid any increase in their level of borrowing.  Any increase in personal borrowing across the economy as a whole is likely to result at some point in an increase in interest rates, thereby making borrowing more expensive.

As a final point, I will repeat the comment left on the website of one national newspaper that the living wage is only decribed as a living wage by people who do not have to live on it.

Related previous posts include:

The minimum wage and prices
To build on debt is to build on sand

Controlling inflation

Another victory for Nick Freeman

Nick Freeman is a successful lawyer who is often referred to in the press as Mr Loophole.  Over the years he has represented numerous famous clients in courts of law, often for motoring offences.

In many cases his line of defence is pretty much what any defending solicitor might use, for example arguing that singer Ian Brown should avoid a driving ban because he needed his car to go shopping for his elderly parents.  In many of the cases, however, his line of defence demonstrates a detailed knowledge of relevant law.  One example of this is the acquittal of Andrew Flintoff for speeding, on the grounds that the prosecution notice was sent two days later than the law permits.

It is not surprising that Freeman annoys a lot of people.  Like many people, I am not impressed by someone committing an offence and then escaping justice on a technicality.  Nevertheless, I wonder why people who work in the public sector cannot just do their job properly in the first place.  Should we blame Nick Freeman for Andrew Flintoff avoiding justice?  Or should we blame the prosecution for not submitting the relevant paperwork in time?

It is now reported that Mr Freeman has represented a woman pro bono in respect of a prosecution for letting her dog off the leash in a cemetary.  The Daily Express reports that:

Mrs Tweedale was issued with the £50-pound fine despite pointing out there was no sign at the entrance of the cemetery warning of the rule about keeping dogs on leads.

Mr Freeman has also made a formal complaint to police against the council for attempting to pervert the course of justice.

He said he expects the failed attempt to fine Mrs Tweedale to cost the council more than £10,000.

It looks as though someone who works for Bedford Borough Council really ought to resign - not that I expect anyone to.

Related previous posts include:
Dog owners need to get real
A small victory in Barnet
A small victory in Hertfordshire

France, Russia, Turkey

My most recent post on this blog was written just as the terror attacks in Paris were being reported in the national press.  I decided not to write about these attacks at the time, however, as I had already decided to write about student finance, and because I felt it proper to learn more about the terror attacks before writing about them.

One of the first questions which occurred to me was whether or not the attacks were a false flag.  The attacks may have been - as is widely reported - the work of Islamic terrorists linked to ISIS.  They may also have been - as the columnist Peter Hitchens has suggested - the  work of Islamic terrorists unconnected with ISIS.  The atrocities might have been the work of the French government, just as the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers was almost certainly the work of the United States government. Another possibility is that the attacks were an elaborate hoax with nobody actually dead, as happened with the Sandy Hook school shooting.

I watched some videos on Youtube which argued for the Paris attacks as being a hoax, but found them lacking substance, and so I will proceed in the belief that the attacks were indeed the work of Muslims, although I will concede that Peter Hitchens might well be correct about there being no link to ISIS.

The President of France has used the terror attacks to justify air strikes against ISIS positions in Syria, which reminds me of the Renaissance writer Niccolo Machiavelli who argued that a prince who is unpopular at home should start a war.

Russia has already been attacking ISIS positions for some time, and recently suffered the loss of an aircraft shot down by the Turkish army for allegedly violating its airspace.  It is widely reported that the Russian aircraft would have been in Turkish airspace for maybe ten seconds at most, whereas the Turkish government has claimed that the Russian jet was in its airspace for around five minutes during which time several warning were issued.

Some commentators have even gone so far as to argue that this incident could trigger World War Three, but I will believe that when I see it.

The facts as I understand it are that ISIS is funded in large part by oil revenues.  Oil companies are expected not to buy from ISIS however, and so ISIS sends much of its oil in tankers into Turkey, where it can be sold on the international market as if it had been sourced in Turkey.  In other words, it appears that the Turkish authorities are helping to fund ISIS.

Predictably, Turkey objects to the destruction of ISIS oil tankers in Russian air strikes, and so it has been argued that they decided to hit back by taking out a Russian military aircraft.  Obviously, however, the loss of just one aeroplane makes little difference to the Russian bombing campaign, which leads me to conclude that either the Turkish government is planning to shoot down yet more Russian aircraft, or else that the Turkish government is in fact telling the truth about the five minute violation of airspace.

Related previous posts include:
The insanity of a war without frontiers
A war against ISIS would be savage and pointless

Glamour model with student debt

Catherine Byrne is a young woman who recently secured £14,000 in student loans, which she then spent on breast enlargement surgery so as to allow her to pursue a career in glamour modelling.

The loans do not need to be repaid until she starts earning £17,335 per year, and will be written off after twenty-five years if she never earns that much.  Miss Byrne intends never to earn that much, and never to repay any of her student debt.

So far as I am aware she has not broken any law.

Miss Byrne is far from alone.  While I am not aware of any other person who has spent their student loans on cosmetic surgery, I am aware that many graduates try to exploit the earnings threshold so as to avoid paying off their graduate debt.  I can't say I blame them.

Miss Byrne has said that her breast enlargement surgery has benefited her career more than any degree ever could, which may well be true.  There are at present many thousands of graduates in this country who are either unemployed or else trapped in poorly paid jobs which they do not enjoy.  By contrast, Miss Byrne can realistically hope to earn £17,000 per year working only fairly modest hours.

She is quoted as saying that she is probably happier than most of the people who enrolled on the course at the same time as her, and I won't argue with that.

As Omar Khayyam noted more than nine hundred years ago: Make game of that which makes as much of thee.

Related previous posts include:
The sordid truth about far too many young people

The insanity of a war without frontiers

I rarely condone war, and the ongoing international war against ISIS must rank among the most stupid wars in history.

As I write, the consensus in the press appears to be that the Russian Metrojet aeroplane which crashed in the Eyptian desert killing all 224 people on board was destroyed by a bomb.  The British government, in the person of Defence Secretary Michael Fallon, has responded by arguing for Britain to launch bombing raids against ISIS.

I have previously made some positive remarks on this blog about Russian president Vladimir Putin.  This was not because I regard him as in any way a hero, but because he is a renegade among world leaders who plays his own game while refusing to bow to pressure from other countries.

The Russian armed forces has recently been unleashing one devastating attack after another against ISIS fighters in Syria, and I expect Putin has enjoyed being able to play the tough guy.  Nevertheless I was not remotely surprised when I read that a Russian aeroplane had crashed in a country with a majority Muslim population.

Quite simply, the war against ISIS is a war without frontiers.  There is no reason to think that there are not ISIS fighters in every major country in the world.  Amost any ISIS supporter anywhere in the world can perpetrate an act of murder, possibly on a large scale, and we must expect aeroplanes to be the prime target.

An ISIS supporter in the UK, for example, could explode a bomb in the centre of London.  Such a bomb might kill a hundred people or kill nobody.  By contrast, a bomb on an aeroplane can reasonably be expected to leave not one survivor.

I was not at all surprised to read that a Thomson flight from Stansted narrowly avoided being destroyed by a missile on 23 August.  David Cameron is well known for his support of war in Syria, as a result of which no British aircraft is safe.

If Britain steps up its illegal war against ISIS, then the main impact will be to increase the danger to the British people, not reduce it.  A war against ISIS cannot be won through armed aggression.  If every ISIS fighter in the world were to be killed tomorrow, then the organisation could be resurrected by the end of next week.  This war is ideological, and needs an ideological solution.

Related previous posts include:
A war against ISIS would be savage and pointless
Emma and Chris are veritaphobic
A triple murder in Syria

The proper limits of government

Once again I find myself with many things to write about, but I am drawn to a press report on the case of a prison chaplain called Barry Trayhorn who is taking HMP Littlehey in Cambridgeshire to an employment tribunal because they objected to him reading out loud a passage from The Bible concerning homosexuality.

My first reaction is to wonder what the point is of having chaplains in prison if they are not allowed to quote the book which is after all foundational to their religion.  I also wonder what the prison's reaction would be to an imam quoting an Islamic source about homosexuality.

However what really interests me here is one of the comments left on the website of a national newspaper, which reads as follows:

If the Bible contains text that breaks the law, it should be removed from sale and public viewing, so should any other religious book that does the same. Why should people be subject to abuse by medieval practices and literature.

An immediate response is that this comment is a classic example of Britain's ongoing slide into communism. If communists do not like a text, then no one should be allowed to read it.  As it happens I do not like The Koran, but I do not seek to ban other people from reading it, although I have previously advanced a case for banning it from prisons.

I then found myself pondering the question of the proper limits of government.  In Britain, governments enact laws with the support of parliament.  On the whole I feel that laws are there to be obeyed, even if I do not agree with them.  Nevertheless there may be exceptions.  For example it is illegal to beg in public, but I wonder how many people would refuse to beg if they had no other source of income.

So far as I am aware, it is not currently illegal to give money to a beggar.  If it were, I wonder how many of us would never break that particular law?

If people are expected to obey laws, then it is perhaps reasonable that governments should tend not to enact laws which people are unwilling to obey.  A failure to understand this simple point appears to be one of the hallmarks of a communist.

Update: Barry Trayhorn's employment tribunal claim was unsuccessful.  I merely observe the fact.

Related previous posts include:
Now ban The Koran

Communism in Oxford and also in central London

It is reported that a student at Oxford University has avoided arrest and prosecution for publishing and distributing a magazine which claims to champion the cause of free speech.

Officers from Thames Valley Police approached the magazine stand while it was unattended and took all 150 copies ‘to assess whether the content was obscene’.

A spokesman said they were warned that a magazine containing ‘offensive and distressing’ material was being distributed. An officer deemed it was not obscene and arranged for the issue to be left at a university college. The student union and university declined to comment.

I have not read the magazine in question, and so I cannot comment as to its contents.  Nevertheless I have some questions.  First, I would like to know why the police took 150 copies of the magazine in order to assess its content.  Surely they could have taken just one copy.  Taking all of them suggests that they were treating the publishers of the magazine as if they were guilty until proven innocent.

Second, I would like to know why the student union felt it necessary to report the magazine to the police.  If they deemed that some part of it was illegal, then maybe they could tell us what exactly they thought was illegal.

It is also reported that a communist demonstration in central London turned violent.  

The protesters tried to enter the railway station, which is the UK terminal for Eurostar services to Europe, to call for a relaxation of borders.

However, they were stopped by officers from the Met and British Transport Police as they tried to get on to Eurostar platforms and the demonstration turned violent when paint and smoke bombs were thrown.

In other words, the communist police found themselves in a fight with another bunch of communists who objected to the establishment being less than wholehearted in its dedication to the communist ideal.

I can't help but wonder how many of the communist thugs who stormed the Eurostar terminal studied at British universities dominated by communist idiots who appear to disregard free speech.

Related previous posts include:

Communism in Oxford

Do Oxford and Cambridge matter that much?

Should we safeguard our heritage?

There is a campaign in the town where I live at the moment.  I am not sure of the exact details, but it appears that a historic building is under threat.  I don't know how old the building is, and neither do I greatly care.  This is not because I do not care at all about Britain's heritage, but rather because I have a strong sense of futility.

Many years ago I was reading a magazine which reported a survey into people's attitudes to Britain's heritage.  The magazine's editor noted with regret that a black woman who was interviewed said That is the white man's - appearing to imply that she did not care about it.

I do sometimes feel a surge of pride when looking at - for example - a Victorian railway bridge.  Although it is unlikely that any of my ancestors helped to build it, I know that British minds designed it, and that British hands built it.    Immigrants who look at the same bridge are unlikely to feel that sense of pride, but they might nevertheless admire the achievement.

But do they?  I have just looked at the websites of English Heritage and the National Trust, complete with photographs of children visiting their various properties.  Just one photograph features a non-white child.

Being indifferent to our heritage is not the same as being opposed to it, but I cannot help but wonder if an ongoing policy of open door immigration to this country is really conducive to protecting our historic buildings.  Also, the fact that ISIS fighters are destroying historic monuments in Iraq makes me wonder if the same thing could happen here.

But then I have to reflect that this is ultimately an issue of little importance in the great scheme of things.  As I write, a Slovakian man is about to be sentenced for the particularly vicious rape of a teenage girl in Leeds.  I've got a good idea.  Maybe the authorities should lock him inside a historic building, and then knock it down.

In praise of mathematics

It is reported that this year's Scottish Highers maths exam was too difficult.  The Daily Mail quotes two questions, one of which concerns a frog and a toad in a well, while the other concerns a crocodile swimming across a river.

The frog and toad question is one which is at about the level of a year eleven pupil, although a lot of younger pupils would be able to tackle it if they have a good grasp of mathematics.  Access to a computer spreadsheet helps as well.  If I've got it right, the toad escapes from the well on the twelfth day, whereas the frog never rises above two feet below the top of the well.

The crocodile question is far harder, and the reader might find this video helpful.

I was pleased I could make sense of it.

A lot of the comments on Mail Online are to the effect that no one needs to understand this kind of mathematics, and it is true that most people do not - but most people do not work in engineering or accountancy.

Actually you do not need to be a mathematical genius to be an accountant.  At the heart of accountancy is the trial balance, which is two lists of numbers.  Each list should add up to the same total as the other.  You do not need to be able to understand complex algebra to add up two lists of numbers.  Nevertheless accountancy is often complicated, and requires tenacity.  Therefore someone who can leave school able to tackle the crocodile question would probably be better prepared for a career in accountancy than someone like myself who could only manage the frog and toad question.

As for engineering, it was reported during Tony Blair's tenure in Downing Street that many first year engineering students could not cope with the mathematical content of their courses - and these people are presumably now in charge of building the nation's infrastructure.

If exams are getting harder under the present government, then that is surely to be welcomed.  Then again, this is Scotland we are talking about, and so I'm not sure that David Cameron can take any credit whatever for this.

The demonisation of Josie Cunningham

Josie Cunningham is a young British woman who is famous for having had her breasts enlarged at public expense.  I can understand that this might not endear her to people who are waiting for hip replacement surgery, but on the other hand it was not by her choice that the taxpayer paid for her breast enlargement.  You might like to remember that next time you vote in an election.

It is now reported that Josie Cunningham- a mother of three - had an abortion after being denied cosmetic surgery on the grounds that she was pregnant.  Apparently she wanted the cosmetic surgery so that she could pursue a career as a pornographic actress. At the time of writing, the comments in the newspaper are overwhelmingly negative.

Since 1967, around eight million babies have been slaughtered in abortion clinics in this country.  Does anyone know how many of those babies died so that their mothers did not have to adjust their career plans?

We live in a society in which we are expected to condemn murder, except when our political masters want us either to condone it or ignore it. Josie Cunningham is a product of a society saturated with hypocrisy, and she is no more worthy of demonisation than millions of other people.

Related previous posts:
A stupid fuss over immigrant abortions
Do we really want what we vote for?

Crime in schools

Much as I dislike David Cameron, I believe in giving credit where it is due.  Since he took office there have been numerous reports in the press about school pupils being punished for what might often seem to be minor infringements of their school's uniform policy.

My argument has been that classroom discipline is important, and that any attempt to improve discipline has to be considered favourably.  Neverthless it is now reported that the level of crime in Britain's schools is on the rise, with over fifteen hundred sexual assaults in one year. 

It is also reported that schools are dealing with unruly pupils by suspending them - sometimes repeatedly.  Teachers as well as pupils are being assaulted and in some cases seriously injured.  This may lead some of us to wonder how bad the situation has to become before schools move beyond suspension as a form of punishment.

What is not reported is the extent to which immigration is a factor in the school violence equation.  It is however reported that nearly forty thousand immigrant children are starting school this year.  Let's hope they all wear the correct school uniform.

Related previous posts include:
School uniforms: think before complaining

What is a patriot?

Jeremy Corbyn has received a lot of negative press coverage this past week, and in particular a lot of people are questioning his patriotism.  This is related partly to his being a pacifist, and partly to his failure to sing the national anthem at a service to commemorate the Battle of Britain.

I consider myself to be a patriot, by which I mean that I care deeply about my country.  Being a patriot is not the same as being a monarchist.  Jeremy Corbyn is a republican, but that does not make him not a patriot.  I can understand that someone of a republican persuasion may not want to sing the British national anthem.

To be fair, a lot of people who are not republicans also dislike the British national anthem.

Another issue of contention is that Jeremy Corbyn does not want Britain to maintain its non-existent stock of nuclear weapons. He has also opposed British involvement in various illegal foreign wars, and has even called for Britain to leave NATO.

Being a patriot is not the same as being an apologist for war.  If anything it is the opposite.  I will not vote to send British troops into illegal foreign wars, partly because I respect the right of every country on earth to determine its own affairs.  The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is a murderous organisation which interferes in the affairs of other countries.  (On reflection, that seems to be rather a silly thing to write, given that it appears to imply that NATO is itself a country, which it is not.)

At least one political commentator has compared Jeremy Corbyn with George Lansbury, who led the Labour Party from 1932 until his resignation in 1935.  Lansbury was a pacifist who believed that world peace could be achieved through nation's disarming rather than rearming - a point of view I find hard to take seriously.

But of course Lansbury was a communist, and so presumably wanted the forces of the Soviet Union to be able to invade Britain without encountering any military opposition.

If you are a patriot, then you love your country.  If you love something, then presumably you seek to protect it.  I want my country to maintain a high level of military capability so as to discourage other countries from going to war against us.  That is not the same as saying that I support war.  I support the defence of my homeland, and not the wanton destruction of other countries.

There is however little point in maintaining our armed forces if we are just going to sit back while immigrants take over our country.  I understand that, but Jeremy Corbyn appears not to.  On that basis, he comes across to me as no more of a patriot than David Cameron.

Related previous posts include:
A reasoned approach to war

Is there really just one race?

We often hear it said that there is only one race: the human race.  Other people assert that there are many races.  Which is correct?

First, it is reasonable to point out that people who maintain that there is only one race are almost always hypocrites.  With very few exceptions if any, they are the same people who support a multiracial society in which people of all races are expected to mix together harmoniously.  Quite how this is possible if there is only one race is never explained.

Second, no word in the English language is confined to just one meaning.  Therefore just because a word has one accepted definition does not justify us in regarding other definitions as spurious.

The meaning of any word can be deduced from the context in which it is used.  Therefore when we talk about the human race, then we are presumably talking about the human species.  When we talk about races, we are talking about different ethnic groups.  These groups are founded upon shared ancestry and on shared racial characteristics.

On the one hand, I am inclined to argue that both of these definitions are equally valid; but then it occurs to me that the people who talk about the human race never seem to talk about the canine race or the feline race.  Until they do, I will feel justified in concluding that their talk of the human race is foolish.  There are many races, and I for one am proud to be a member of the white race.

Related previous posts include:
The church of England, race, and paedophiles

This item on Western Spring is also of interest.

The murder of Jeremy Corbyn

As I write, Jeremy Corbyn has recently been announced as the new leader of the Labour Party.  His victory was decisive.

Many people have argued that he is unfit to lead Britain, but consider some facts.  Many MPs on both sides of the house have lined their pockets at the public expense to a quite shameful extent, whereas Jeremy Corbyn has practised more restraint than most.

Also, Prime Minister David Cameron - like Tony Blair and Gordon Brown before him - is obsessed with Britain taking part in illegal foreign wars, regardless of the cost in human life and in taxpayers' money.  By contrast, Jeremy Corbyn has for many years been fairly steadfast in his opposition to foreign wars.  If Britain were to stay out of illegal wars, then it could save us many billions of pounds, and yet I don't see the Conservative front bench urging restraint in this particular area.

Criticism of Jeremy Corbyn often revolves around his welcoming attitude to asylum seekers, but it is fair to point out that the Conservative Party also supports open door immigration.  Also, the huge levels of migration currently being experienced in Europe have a lot to do with the illegal wars which Jeremy Corbyn professes to oppose, and also to the free movement rules of the European Union.  It is worth noting that Jeremy Corbyn claims that he voted no to Britain's membership of what has become the European Union in the referendum of 1975.

And so to the question of murder.  Recent opinion polls show the Conservatives ahead of Labour by a margin which is not huge, but nevertheless impressive for a party in government.  At the moment therefore it does not appear likely that Jeremy Corbyn will be our next Prime Minister.

Nevertheless, public opinion can shift, and support for Labour may increase in the next few years.  However I cannot see Jeremy Corbyn becoming Prime Minister, as I feel confident that he would be murdered if he ever looked set to lead his party to victory in a general election.

Not content with being opposed to war, he has also hinted at the possibility of Tony Blair being prosecuted as a war criminal.  Tony Blair has many rich friends, and I can easily envisage one of them hiring an assassin to dispose of Jeremy Corbyn rather than let him become Prime Minister.  Also, David Cameron must be worried that he too might be prosecuted as a war criminal under a government led by Jeremy Corbyn, and it would be very easy for him to arrange for the security services to have him murdered.

To make matters clear, I do not support the Labour Party.  Nevertheless I do not condone the murder of politicians by people who want their evil friends to avoid justice for their crimes.

Update: at least two former leaders of the Labour Party have died while serving as Leader of the Opposition.  Hugh Gaitskell died in January 1963 aged 56, and John Smith died in May 1994 aged aged 55.

It has often been suggested that Gaitskell was murdered, possibly by agents of the Soviet Union who wanted someone else to lead the Labour Party.  I am not aware that anyone has ever claimed that John Smith was murdered.

A triple murder in Syria

The front pages of the national press today are dominated by the murder of three Muslim men in Syria.  They were killed by a missile fired from a drone which was remotely guided by RAF personnel in England.

I have no problem in saying that these killings were an act of murder.  David Cameron has described the killings as an act of self-defence, but this does not make sense. These men were in Syria, and were not in a position to attack the United Kingdom - or are we to believe that they too had access to missile-laden drones?

While the Prime Minister maintains that the killings were lawful, he currently refuses to publish the exact legal advice which he received, and it is reported that the relatives of the murdered men - two of whom were British nationals - can now be expected to seek legal remedies against the British government.

It is true that Article 51 of the United Nations Charter permits acts of self defence, but that I hope I am correct in assuming that this refers to situations where one country is clearly attacked by another.  I find it curious however that no one ever uses Article 51 to argue for the British government sinking any Spanish military vessel which dares to enter British waters off Gibraltar.

It is however fair to point out that the United Nations is an unelected body, which is not the same as saying that its dictates should be ignored.

I have previously written extensively about the murder of Lee Rigby.  Two Muslim men killed a British soldier on the streets of London, and were then shot - although not fatally - by police marksmen.  They were then arrested and put on trial, were conviced of murder, and were sent to prison.

By contrast, the Muslim men who were killed by the RAF drone had not been convicted of any crime.  They were sentenced to death without any trial.

I have yet to hear anyone explain the difference between Muslim men killing a British soldier in London and British soldiers killing Muslims in far-off countries.

If the killing of these three men was legal, then logically it must also be legal for the British government to kill anyone anywhere at any time - including you right now.

Related previous posts include:
Hear the words of a killer - and learn
Woolwich: more bad press coverage

Was there ever a black holocaust?

The Black Holocaust Museum was founded in 1988 in the city of Milwaukee, in the American state of Wisconsin.  Financial difficulties forced it to close in 2008, but it has since been relaunched as a website.

The late James Cameron - who founded the museum - was sometimes told by sceptics that there never was a black holocaust.  It is nevertheless true that around five thousand black people were murdered in the USA in lynchings by white people, and Cameron knew this only too well as he survived a lynching in the city of Marion in 1930.  He is widely reported to have been the only survivor of a lynching in the USA.

The holocaust was not confined to lynchings, however.  Huge numbers of Africans - the museum estimates at least ten million - were taken as slaves to North America.  Many of them died in the horrendous conditions of the slave ships, and many more died as the result of being forced to work long hours on plantations.

In short, yes there was a black holocaust.

Nevertheless, I feel obliged to point out certain facts.  First, the victims of lynchings were not always morally innocent.  James Cameron for example took part in an attack on a white boy and his girlfriend, in which the white boy was fatally injured.  Cameron's two accomplices were hanged by a lynch mob before they could be brought to trial, and Cameron was spared the same fate only because his involvement in the attack was limited.

I have no problem with the fact that Thomas Shipp and Abram Smith were hanged for the murder of Claude Deeter, except that they should have been given a fair trial first.

The treatment of black slaves in North America was cruel, but in many cases the perpetrators were Jews or free blacks.  Slave takers were usually black, and slave traders and slave ship captains were often Jews.  In the USA, Jewish families and free black families were more likely to own slaves than white gentile families.  Nevertheless I cannot find any mention of these facts on the museum website.  If anyone else can, please leave a comment.

It is also fair to point out that it was not only slaves who were worked to death prior to the abolition of slavery, and neither was it only black people.  White people in Britain and elsewhere often had to work hard for very long hours, and often in unsanitary conditions.  Life expectancy was low, and those who did live a long time often had to watch their children die of preventable diseases.

There was indeed a black holocaust, but by the same logic there was also a white holocaust - but one which as yet has no museum.

Related previous posts include:
Racism at the movies
The Jews are afraid, but what about the rest of us?
A very British holocaust 

The denial of Stalin's holocaust

Patriots are often labelled in the national press as holocaust deniers, meaning that they do not believe that Hitler's National Socialist regime murdered six million Jews in the period from 1942 to 1945. It is implied that anyone who objects to their country being changed for the worse by open door immigration is a denier, and also that denial is necessarily wrong.

I know from my own experience that many people in the patriotic community do indeed recognise that Hitler's holocaust of the Jews never took place, but maybe that is because they have at least a modicum of regard for logic and for the truth.  The implication that holocaust deniers are necessarily bad people, however, is one that I has yet to be adequately explained.

If I've got it right, there are seventeen countries in the world where it is illegal to question the German holocaust, with imprisonment being among the forms of punishment for violation.  Examples of prosecutions arising from these laws include the case of the French politician who was fined over one million francs for saying that the holocaust was a mere detail in the history of World War II - which does not sound to me like denial.  Another example is the case of the German historian who was prosecuted and fined for questioning the whereabouts of a door.

These prosecutions strike me as cruel and oppressive, but not at all surprising in countries run by communists or their fellow travellers.

The British servicemen who fought to overthrow Hitler were on the same side as Stalin, and were in effect fighting to keep Stalin in power.  It is widely held that Stalin was responsible for the deaths of millions of people - mostly in Ukraine - in the early 1930s.  This event is known as the holodomor, and took the form of an enforced starvation.

I have recently come across an essay on the internet which argues that the holodomor never happened.  My reaction was to read it.  I could have declined to read it, on the grounds that the author was clearly a wicked person, but I am not a communist.

The essay writer argued among other things that a photograph of starving children which has been used as evidence of the holodomor is in fact nothing of the sort.  He maintains that the photograph was taken not during the holodomor, but rather during a period of natural famine in the 1920s.

I have a question.  How many natural famines have taken place in western Europe in the past hundred years?  Does anyone know?

It is true that there have been times in the past hundred years when large numbers of people in western Europe have been hungry, but so far as I am aware these tended to be the consequence of periods of war or of particularly poor government.

I remember when the Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990s.  People from Ukraine were able to visit relatives in Britain, and there were incidents reported of Ukrainians bursting into tears in supermarkets because there was so much food on the shelves.  Their homeland is a fertile country, but under communist rule food was always in short supply.

Hunger and starvation have long been weapons favoured by communists, and it is no surprise that there are many people relying on food banks in both Britain and Greece.

Related previous posts include:
The holocaust continues ...
The Jews are afraid, but what about the rest of us?
The politics of The Hunger Games