It is reported that Charles Kennedy died in large part as a result of his excessive drinking over many years. It is also reported - or at least implied - that his death may have been linked to his failure to be returned to parliament at the recent general election. This is questionable, however, given that Kennedy had apparently been a heavy drinker for many years prior to his death.
Kennedy was an MP from 1983 to 2015, and was the leader of the Liberal Democrats from 1999 until 2006. I met him once many years ago, and knew he was a cigarette smoker. Reports of him having been a heavy drinker did not emerge until 2003, but were not confirmed until 2006. Kennedy was replaced as Liberal Democrat leader by Ming Campbell, who was himself replaced by Nick Clegg the following year.
The former MP Lembit Opik has written of the ousting of Charles Kennedy from the Liberal Democrat leadership, and he concludes that:
Only Nick Clegg - and others - can explain what truly possessed them to dismiss Kennedy in the fateful winter of 2006.
I was under the impression that Opik supported Nick Clegg's leadership bid in 2007. It is worth noting that Opik - having been elected to parliament in 1997 - held his seat in the general elections of 2001 and 2005 (when Kennedy led the party), but lost his seat in the 2010 general election (when Clegg was the leader).
Opik's commentary refers to alcoholism as a medical condition, but this is misleading. The word medical derives ultimately from the Latin word for a physician, and so a medical condition is one we might reasonably approach a doctor about. But what medical treatment is a doctor supposed to prescribe for a patient who drinks too much?
It occurs to me that about the time I met Charles Kennedy I also met a man who had previously been an alcoholic. He gave up drinking - completely - after walking out of a pub one evening before closing time. No medical intervention was required.
Opik also notes that: Alcoholism is not a choice, any more than other medical conditions are a choice. Does he have any evidence to support this assertion? Surely a lot of medical conditions are to some extent at least a matter of choice. No one chooses to have cancer, but many people choose a lifestyle which makes it more likely that they will have cancer at some point. No one chooses to suffer from food poisoning, but many people choose to eat food which is past its best before date.
If people do not choose to become alcoholics, then how is it that many people - whether or not they drink alcohol - manage to avoid becoming alcoholics? If people do not choose to become alcoholics, then do people who are alcoholics choose to continue or to quit? When an alcoholic quits drinking, is this a matter of choice? Or does he quit because a doctor prescribed a medicine which cures him?
I will add that at the time Charles Kennedy was ousted as Liberal Democrat leader, Opik was dating Sian Lloyd, who has since accused him of having been a drunkard. She notes that: The amount of alcohol MPs of all parties drank blew my mind.
Sunday, 7 June 2015
Monday, 1 June 2015
Who is the Liberal Democrat paedophile?
I mentioned in a recent post the case of Esther Baker, who has claimed that she was routinely raped as a child by a gang of paedophiles which included a prominent politician from the current era. It is now reported that a former Liberal Democrat MP has denied raping her.
Here are some facts. Esther Baker is thirty-two years old, and so was presumably born in either 1983 or the latter part of 1982. She claims she was abused from the age of six, which puts us in the late 1980s, and she claims that the abuse continued into the 1990s. The abuse took place in Staffordshire, but the politician was not local.
Of course she might be lying, but consider some other facts. She has provided the police with thirty-three hours of testimony. Any one of us could lie and pretend to have been abused as a child, but how many of us would have either the stamina or the imagination to invent a fake testimony which would take more than a day to recount? Also, the police are presumably accustomed to examining evidence for inconsistencies, and if Esther Baker is lying then there would be a lot of scope for inconsistency in her lengthy testimony.
At this point, you might like to take less than ten minutes to watch an interview with Esther Baker, and decide for yourself if there are any inconsistencies or absurdities in her account.
In other news, the one surviving Liberal Democrat MP in Scotland - Alistair Carmichael - has admitted lying about the leaking of a document when he was a cabinet minister in the last government. Some of his constituents have now begun legal action to try to have him removed from office as their MP, but he has been defended by party veteran Sir Malcolm Bruce, who apparently thinks it acceptable for MPs to tell lies.
Alistair Carmichael is unlikely to be Esther Baker's high profile rapist, because he was a university student in Scotland at the time the abuse was taking place - and of course he is not a former MP (yet). By contrast, Malcolm Bruce was a member of parliament from 1983 until earlier this year, and he took the Liberal Democrat whip from 1988 onwards. He has no obvious links with Staffordshire.
I repeat that the former Liberal Democrat MP accused of raping Esther Baker has denied the allegation. I repeat also that Malcolm Bruce thinks it acceptable for politicians to tell lies.
Update: twenty-two MPs took the Liberal Democrat whip prior to the 1992 general election, not all of whom are suspects in the case of the LibDem paedophile. One of them - Ray Michie - can be ruled out on the grounds of her gender. Of the twenty-one men, four can be ruled out on the grounds that they died before the allegations became public. Not one remains in the House of Commons, but five of them - including the late Charles Kennedy - were still there at the start of this year. So far as I can make out, not one of them has ever been local to Staffordshire.
Another update: it appears that two other women have given a similar testimony to that of Esther Baker.
Here are some facts. Esther Baker is thirty-two years old, and so was presumably born in either 1983 or the latter part of 1982. She claims she was abused from the age of six, which puts us in the late 1980s, and she claims that the abuse continued into the 1990s. The abuse took place in Staffordshire, but the politician was not local.
Of course she might be lying, but consider some other facts. She has provided the police with thirty-three hours of testimony. Any one of us could lie and pretend to have been abused as a child, but how many of us would have either the stamina or the imagination to invent a fake testimony which would take more than a day to recount? Also, the police are presumably accustomed to examining evidence for inconsistencies, and if Esther Baker is lying then there would be a lot of scope for inconsistency in her lengthy testimony.
At this point, you might like to take less than ten minutes to watch an interview with Esther Baker, and decide for yourself if there are any inconsistencies or absurdities in her account.
In other news, the one surviving Liberal Democrat MP in Scotland - Alistair Carmichael - has admitted lying about the leaking of a document when he was a cabinet minister in the last government. Some of his constituents have now begun legal action to try to have him removed from office as their MP, but he has been defended by party veteran Sir Malcolm Bruce, who apparently thinks it acceptable for MPs to tell lies.
Alistair Carmichael is unlikely to be Esther Baker's high profile rapist, because he was a university student in Scotland at the time the abuse was taking place - and of course he is not a former MP (yet). By contrast, Malcolm Bruce was a member of parliament from 1983 until earlier this year, and he took the Liberal Democrat whip from 1988 onwards. He has no obvious links with Staffordshire.
I repeat that the former Liberal Democrat MP accused of raping Esther Baker has denied the allegation. I repeat also that Malcolm Bruce thinks it acceptable for politicians to tell lies.
Update: twenty-two MPs took the Liberal Democrat whip prior to the 1992 general election, not all of whom are suspects in the case of the LibDem paedophile. One of them - Ray Michie - can be ruled out on the grounds of her gender. Of the twenty-one men, four can be ruled out on the grounds that they died before the allegations became public. Not one remains in the House of Commons, but five of them - including the late Charles Kennedy - were still there at the start of this year. So far as I can make out, not one of them has ever been local to Staffordshire.
Another update: it appears that two other women have given a similar testimony to that of Esther Baker.
Saturday, 30 May 2015
Jewish woman wins tribunal claim
A Jewish woman called Aurelie Fhima has won an employment tribunal claim for indirect religious discrimination against a firm called Travel Jigsaw. She applied for a job which required her to be flexible about her shift patterns, but she refused to work on Saturdays prior to dusk as she said that this would be against her religion.
Travel Jigsaw refused to make an exception for her, and declined to recruit her. She then took her case to a tribunal, and The Telegraph online reports that:
Employment tribunal judges found in her favour – awarding almost £8,000 for loss of earnings, £7,500 for injury to feelings and £1,200 in fees.
(As an aside, the wording above is identical to the report of this case in another national newspaper. Could the one be a copy and paste of the other?)
Employment tribunal claims place a considerable burden on employers, and I suspect that a lot of employers would happily see employment law abolished altogether, but that would risk creating even greater unfairness.
At the moment, employment law protects employees and job applicants from discrimination on the grounds of gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, belief, and race. It also protects employees from unfair dismissal, but only after a qualifying period of employment, which is currently two years.
On the one hand I accept that employment law places a financial burden on British business, that the burden tends to manifest itself on a fairly random basis, and that small businesses are often poorly resourced to deal with tribunal claims.
On the other hand, I do not want to return to a time when employers could legally discriminate against people on a whim. Take sex discrimination. Why should any employer decide that a managerial position is for men only? Or that a secretarial post is for women only? So far as I am aware, sex discrimination in the workplace was commonplace when it was legal, and I know for a fact that age discrimination in the workplace was commonplace when it was legal.
I fail to understand, however, why a successful claimant should be entitled to large payouts, especially when some successful claimants receive quite small payouts.
Travel Jigsaw is free to lobby the government for a change in the law, but the company's directors should reflect that there would be less scope for employment tribunal claims on the grounds of race or belief if successive governments in this country had not adopted an open borders policy over the last sixty to seventy years.
They should reflect also that there would perhaps be far fewer tribunal claims if Britain had full employment. After all, if Aurelie Fhima had secured a Monday to Friday job on the day before Travel Jigsaw advertised their call centre vacancies then she would presumably have never applied for a job with them.
Travel Jigsaw refused to make an exception for her, and declined to recruit her. She then took her case to a tribunal, and The Telegraph online reports that:
Employment tribunal judges found in her favour – awarding almost £8,000 for loss of earnings, £7,500 for injury to feelings and £1,200 in fees.
(As an aside, the wording above is identical to the report of this case in another national newspaper. Could the one be a copy and paste of the other?)
Employment tribunal claims place a considerable burden on employers, and I suspect that a lot of employers would happily see employment law abolished altogether, but that would risk creating even greater unfairness.
At the moment, employment law protects employees and job applicants from discrimination on the grounds of gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, belief, and race. It also protects employees from unfair dismissal, but only after a qualifying period of employment, which is currently two years.
On the one hand I accept that employment law places a financial burden on British business, that the burden tends to manifest itself on a fairly random basis, and that small businesses are often poorly resourced to deal with tribunal claims.
On the other hand, I do not want to return to a time when employers could legally discriminate against people on a whim. Take sex discrimination. Why should any employer decide that a managerial position is for men only? Or that a secretarial post is for women only? So far as I am aware, sex discrimination in the workplace was commonplace when it was legal, and I know for a fact that age discrimination in the workplace was commonplace when it was legal.
I fail to understand, however, why a successful claimant should be entitled to large payouts, especially when some successful claimants receive quite small payouts.
Travel Jigsaw is free to lobby the government for a change in the law, but the company's directors should reflect that there would be less scope for employment tribunal claims on the grounds of race or belief if successive governments in this country had not adopted an open borders policy over the last sixty to seventy years.
They should reflect also that there would perhaps be far fewer tribunal claims if Britain had full employment. After all, if Aurelie Fhima had secured a Monday to Friday job on the day before Travel Jigsaw advertised their call centre vacancies then she would presumably have never applied for a job with them.
Tuesday, 26 May 2015
Nats annoy other MPs
Since the general election there has been a lot of negative coverage in the press of the new Scottish National Party MPs.
The 2015 general election saw fifty-six MPs returned for the SNP, and possibly as many as forty-nine of those had never previously served as MPs. The SNP is now the third largest party by representation in the House of Commons, and as such enjoys certain privileges. For example they are entitled to three opposition days each year - days on which they choose the topic for debate.
The allegations against them include that some of them have been breaking parliamentary rules by taking photographs in the House of Commons chamber, and that they have defied protocol by clapping. Clapping is apparently something MPs have traditionally agreed not to do, although it is fair to point out that MPs of most if not all allegiances have a long history being very noisy when other people are addressing the chamber. (I remember a teacher at school remarking to us once that he felt frightened to think that Britain's legislators were given to rowdy behaviour.)
Another allegation is that they have robbed veteran MP Dennis Skinner of what is widely perceived as his rightful seat in the chamber. Skinner is one of just four MPs who were first elected to parliament in 1970, and has tended to sit on the front bench for many years now. There are however no rules as to who sits where in the Commons chamber, other than that the government sits on one side and the opposition on the other.
Over the years, many members of the House of Commons have either been paedophiles, or else have covered up acts of paedophilia by other members of the establishment (or by Muslim grooming gangs). To suggest that taking selfies in the Commons chamber is somehow more worthy of our disapproval is a gross insult to the victims of child abuse.
Update: since writing this post, I have become aware of the allegation that a woman called Esther Baker was routinely abused by a VIP paedophile gang in the 1980s and 1990s, and that officers from Staffordshire Police supervised the abuse.
The 2015 general election saw fifty-six MPs returned for the SNP, and possibly as many as forty-nine of those had never previously served as MPs. The SNP is now the third largest party by representation in the House of Commons, and as such enjoys certain privileges. For example they are entitled to three opposition days each year - days on which they choose the topic for debate.
The allegations against them include that some of them have been breaking parliamentary rules by taking photographs in the House of Commons chamber, and that they have defied protocol by clapping. Clapping is apparently something MPs have traditionally agreed not to do, although it is fair to point out that MPs of most if not all allegiances have a long history being very noisy when other people are addressing the chamber. (I remember a teacher at school remarking to us once that he felt frightened to think that Britain's legislators were given to rowdy behaviour.)
Another allegation is that they have robbed veteran MP Dennis Skinner of what is widely perceived as his rightful seat in the chamber. Skinner is one of just four MPs who were first elected to parliament in 1970, and has tended to sit on the front bench for many years now. There are however no rules as to who sits where in the Commons chamber, other than that the government sits on one side and the opposition on the other.
Over the years, many members of the House of Commons have either been paedophiles, or else have covered up acts of paedophilia by other members of the establishment (or by Muslim grooming gangs). To suggest that taking selfies in the Commons chamber is somehow more worthy of our disapproval is a gross insult to the victims of child abuse.
Update: since writing this post, I have become aware of the allegation that a woman called Esther Baker was routinely abused by a VIP paedophile gang in the 1980s and 1990s, and that officers from Staffordshire Police supervised the abuse.
Friday, 22 May 2015
Reflections on Britain First and the UAF
Britain First recently held a demonstration in Dudley in the Black Country to protest a new mega mosque that is to be built there. Britain First have said that they organised the demonstration because local people did not want the mega mosque, but that local councillors had approved it regardless.
At the recent general election, just short of eighty percent of all votes case in Dudley (which has two parliamentary constituencies) were cast for political parties which actively encourage the proliferation of Islam in this country. The remaining votes were cast for UKIP, which is a rather lame protest party.
Of course thousands of people in Dudley did not vote at all, but why not? If they did not vote because not one party which was standing was robustly opposed to the spread of Islam, then maybe they should join a political party which is actually deserving of public support.
Much as I admire the determination of Britain First activists, I can only conclude that the people of Dudley do in fact want the mega mosque to be built.
On a related point, Jayda Fransen of Britain First was asked by the BBC in advance of the demonstration about the disruption it might cause. I do not know how much disruption if any was caused on the day, but I do know that public demonstrations concerning Islam or anything connected with immigration is often met by counter protests from communist thugs, not necessarily connected with Unite Against Fascism.
When such counter protests do take place - or even when they are expected - the police will turn out in force. This inevitably takes valuable police resources away from other duties. If communist thugs did not organise counter protests, then the police would be free to deploy their officers elsewhere.
Communist thugs care about many things, but law and order is not one of them.
Related previous posts include:
Britain First and the fiction of a free country
A tale of two demos
At the recent general election, just short of eighty percent of all votes case in Dudley (which has two parliamentary constituencies) were cast for political parties which actively encourage the proliferation of Islam in this country. The remaining votes were cast for UKIP, which is a rather lame protest party.
Of course thousands of people in Dudley did not vote at all, but why not? If they did not vote because not one party which was standing was robustly opposed to the spread of Islam, then maybe they should join a political party which is actually deserving of public support.
Much as I admire the determination of Britain First activists, I can only conclude that the people of Dudley do in fact want the mega mosque to be built.
On a related point, Jayda Fransen of Britain First was asked by the BBC in advance of the demonstration about the disruption it might cause. I do not know how much disruption if any was caused on the day, but I do know that public demonstrations concerning Islam or anything connected with immigration is often met by counter protests from communist thugs, not necessarily connected with Unite Against Fascism.
When such counter protests do take place - or even when they are expected - the police will turn out in force. This inevitably takes valuable police resources away from other duties. If communist thugs did not organise counter protests, then the police would be free to deploy their officers elsewhere.
Communist thugs care about many things, but law and order is not one of them.
Related previous posts include:
Britain First and the fiction of a free country
A tale of two demos
Saturday, 9 May 2015
The aftermath of the general election
The
general election is over, and the Conservatives are the clear winners, while
the opinion pollsters are being portrayed in the national press as losers . It appears that nobody predicted the late
surge in support for the Conservatives, although I’m pleased to say that I was
not too far out.
The parliamentary constituency of Chatham and
Aylseford is the closest I can find to a barometer constituency. At the
last general election it returned a Conservative MP with Labour in second
place, the Liberal Democrats in third place, and with UKIP and BNP candidates
on roughly equal votes.
Based on the logic of retained votes, the
next general election will see a Labour MP returned in Chatham and Aylseford
with a majority of at least two thousand votes. UKIP will take third
place from the LibDems ... It is almost certain therefore that Ed Miliband will
be our next Prime Minister.
As
it turns out, the Conservatives held the seat, although I was right about UKIP
taking third place. My analysis was
based on retained votes in parliamentary byelections up to that point in time,
but the Conservative Party’s retained vote increased thereafter, and so I was
aware that a Conservative victory was a real possibility.
Another
clear winner in the general election was the Scottish National Party, which
secured nearly all the seats in Scotland, leaving the Labour and Conservative
and Liberal Democrat parties with just one seat each. It has been argued that the Conservative
victory was largely owing to people in England not wanting to be governed by a
minority Labour government supported by the SNP. Nevertheless I am not sure that anyone is
suggesting this was the cause of the late surge.
The
British National Party is claiming to be responsible for the late surge in
Conservative support. They credit it to
their Punish Labour onslaught in the last forty-eight hours of the
campaign. While I am not at all
convinced that a party with fewer than 200,000 Facebook followers could have
achieved such a coup, I am nevertheless not aware that anyone has come up with
a more plausible explanation.
One
of the more memorable events of the election was the failure of Labour
front-bencher Ed Balls to be re-elected to parliament, and I will concede that
the Conservative victory – by a margin of less than one percent of the vote –
could perhaps have been influenced by BNP activity.
It appears
that a lot of people in the patriotic community are ridiculing the claims of
the British National Party, but it is fair to point out that people who have
left the BNP to support other parties are perhaps unlikely to want to credit
the BNP with any success.
Another
interesting feature of the general election was the rise of UKIP support. Although they won only one seat, this was an
improvement on the zero seats they won in every previous general election that
they have contested. It is reported also
that UKIP now has 120 second places, and I am prepared to believe that. After the results were published, I chose a
cluster of seven constituencies in the north of England pretty much at random,
and it turns out that UKIP is in third place in six of them.
The
big losers in the general election appear to be the Liberal Democrats, who were
outpolled by UKIP across the country.
While this could result in a situation in which UKIP permanently replace
the Liberal Democrats as the third party in British politics, a note of caution
should be sounded. The Liberal Democrats
currently have more than six times as many councillors as UKIP.
Here
is a quote from the website of the British National Party concerning their campaign strategy for the general election (which saw them contest just eight
seats):
It has
resulted in the BNP being the only political party in this country to come out
of this election DEBT FREE.
The comparison to five years ago could not be more stark.
We had the
strength to resist the pressure of standing hundreds of candidates in seats
that could not be won at this time – which Ukip have found to their detriment.
Ukip went in
to this election with two MPs having thrown away £millions fighting hundreds of
unwinnable seats.
Not only
have they lost one of their only two MPs, but Ukip leader Nigel Farage has been
forced to resign in humiliation.
This not
only demonstrates the political naivety of Ukip, but highlights the political
maturity of the BNP and the advantage gained from our years of fighting
elections at every level.
The British National Party did not poll well in any of the eight seats in contested, but I for one am not prepared to write them off. After all, I seem to remember that I was inclined to write off UKIP this time five years ago. I can also remember people trying to write off the Labour Party in the late 1980s.
There are two reasons why the recent general election can be seen to have changed the political landscape in the UK. The first is that Scotland may soon be an independent country, in which case the Conservative Party should find it easier to win a majority in the remainder of what had previously been the UK.
There are two reasons why the recent general election can be seen to have changed the political landscape in the UK. The first is that Scotland may soon be an independent country, in which case the Conservative Party should find it easier to win a majority in the remainder of what had previously been the UK.
The second is
that the government is now free to alter the constituency boundaries so as to end the advantage the Labour Party has traditionally enjoyed from its relatively small constituencies.
Another significant change is that UKIP has shown that it can not only win a seat in a parliamentary byelection, but also hold onto it in the subsequent general election. Maybe the next few years will see more MPs defect to UKIP.
Another significant change is that UKIP has shown that it can not only win a seat in a parliamentary byelection, but also hold onto it in the subsequent general election. Maybe the next few years will see more MPs defect to UKIP.
Finally,
a lot of people are complaining about the unfairness of an electoral system
which allocated just one seat to UKIP, eight to the LibDems, and fifty-six to
the SNP - despite the fact that UKIP polled far more votes than either the
LibDems or the SNP. I am however reminded
of the words of Shakespeare:
The
fault ... is not in our stars, But in ourselves (Julius Caesar Act 1 scene two)
I
did not vote in the general election, because not one of the parties which
contested my home constituency had policies which aligned with my strongly held
beliefs. Had there been a candidate with
similar beliefs to my own, however, then he or she would have had my vote.
If
you want at the next general election to be able to vote for a political party
whose policies you support, then find such a party this year and join it – or at
least donate some money to it. If you
cannot do that, then maybe the fault is in yourself.
Related previous posts include:
Sunday, 3 May 2015
Communism in the USA: North Charleston and Baltimore
The deaths of two black men in the USA have dominated the news in recent weeks. The first is the fatal shooting of Walter Scott by a white police officer called Michael Slager in the city of North Charleston in South Carolina. The second is the death in police custody of Freddie Gray in the city of Baltimore in Maryland.
The death of Walter Scott appears to have no justification in law, and Slager has been charged with first degree murder. There does not appear to be any racial dimension to the shooting, however, as Slager was assisted by a fellow officer called Clarence Habersham, who is black.
Freddie Gray died apparently as a result of injuries sustained during an unlawful arrest, and six officers have been charged with various crimes in connection with his death. Three of these officers are non-white, and so once again there does not appear to be a racial dimension to the death.
I find it curious that the communist troublemaker Al Sharpton has said that the death is not a matter of black versus white, but has also called for more black police officers in South Carolina.
I also find it disturbing that many black people took part in a riot in Baltimore following the death of Freddie Gray. Apparently a lot of black people in that city feel it proper to react to the injustice of a black man's death by trashing a grocery store and stealing lots of junk food. If someone can explain the logic ...
Related previous posts include:
Communism in the USA: Ferguson
The death of Walter Scott appears to have no justification in law, and Slager has been charged with first degree murder. There does not appear to be any racial dimension to the shooting, however, as Slager was assisted by a fellow officer called Clarence Habersham, who is black.
Freddie Gray died apparently as a result of injuries sustained during an unlawful arrest, and six officers have been charged with various crimes in connection with his death. Three of these officers are non-white, and so once again there does not appear to be a racial dimension to the death.
I find it curious that the communist troublemaker Al Sharpton has said that the death is not a matter of black versus white, but has also called for more black police officers in South Carolina.
I also find it disturbing that many black people took part in a riot in Baltimore following the death of Freddie Gray. Apparently a lot of black people in that city feel it proper to react to the injustice of a black man's death by trashing a grocery store and stealing lots of junk food. If someone can explain the logic ...
Related previous posts include:
Communism in the USA: Ferguson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)