The evil warmonger Winston Churchill famously wrote that Islam is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog. Of course not every Muslim behaves like a rabid dog, but nevertheless two national newspapers have recently seen fit to report about Muslims being intolerant of dog owners.
A poster has recently been displayed outside a park in Tower Hamlets advising people not to take their dogs into the park on the grounds that this is now a Muslim area and Muslims do not like dogs. Meanwhile there have been many reported cases of dogs either not being allowed in taxis or not being allowed onto buses if the driver is a Muslim. Guide dogs, it seems, are not exempt.
Does anyone know how blind Muslims find their way if they dislike dogs? Is there perhaps such a thing as a guide camel for the blind Muslim? Or maybe a guide goat?
Actually, not all Muslims dislike dogs, because there are different versions of Islam based on different fictional accounts of the deeds and pronouncements of the non-existent prophet of Islam. Some of these fictional accounts are muttaphobic, but not all of them.
Anyway, I do not own a dog. If you do own a dog, then maybe you will one day be victimised by Muslims who do not like dogs. You could of course join a political party which seeks to tell the truth about Islam, but will you?
Related previous posts include:
Dog owners need to get real
What is a Muslim area?
The Express comments on Islam
Friday, 30 May 2014
Thursday, 29 May 2014
I hereby launch the Attainder Movement
The Attainder Movement is hereby officially launched. Thus far it has just one supporter - myself. Nevertheless I am hoping that it is destined to grow. I doubt it, but please feel free to prove me wrong.
I believe in justice, and it is blatantly unfair that the United Kingdom does not prosecute and punish its war criminals.
I have never been called to serve on a jury, but that could change. I have given this matter a lot of thought, and now I have reached the only reasonable conclusion. If I am ever called to serve on a jury, then I will turn up at the court, but I will state clearly that I support the Attainder Movement.
I will explain that the Attainder Movement holds that the United Kingdom should pass an Act of Attainder whereby any living parliamentarian or former parliamentarian who has ever voted for British involvement in an illegal war will be declared a war criminal and sentenced to death.
I will assert that I will not as a juror return a verdict of guilty in any case whatsoever unless the alleged victim has publicly and unequivocally expressed support for the Attainder Movement.
It is important to note that not every crime has a victim, and also that some victims are dead. Let us consider some examples.
If I am called to serve on the jury in the trial of someone accused of defrauding an insurance company, then I will not return a verdict of guilty unless the managing director of the insurance company expresses support for the Attainder Movement.
If I am called to serve on the jury in a murder trial, then I will not return a verdict of guilty unless the murdered person's next of kin express support for the Attainder Movement.
If I am called to serve on the jury in a trial which has no obvious victim, then I will probably require that the prosecuting barrister expresses public support for the Attainder Movement. An example of such a trial would be Chris Huhne lying to avoid points on his driving licence.
My justification is simple. If you do not expect justice for the victims of British war crimes, then you do not deserve justice for yourself.
Maybe I will never be called to serve on a jury. If you are ever called to serve on a jury, then I hope that you will show support the Attainder Movement. In the meantime, please show support by sharing this post on social media.
This link contains information about serving on a jury. I cannot comment on how accurate it is.
Related previous posts include:
What is an Act of Attainder?
Ian Brady is right
Peace for more than one day
Questions for the warmonger Gove
I believe in justice, and it is blatantly unfair that the United Kingdom does not prosecute and punish its war criminals.
I have never been called to serve on a jury, but that could change. I have given this matter a lot of thought, and now I have reached the only reasonable conclusion. If I am ever called to serve on a jury, then I will turn up at the court, but I will state clearly that I support the Attainder Movement.
I will explain that the Attainder Movement holds that the United Kingdom should pass an Act of Attainder whereby any living parliamentarian or former parliamentarian who has ever voted for British involvement in an illegal war will be declared a war criminal and sentenced to death.
I will assert that I will not as a juror return a verdict of guilty in any case whatsoever unless the alleged victim has publicly and unequivocally expressed support for the Attainder Movement.
It is important to note that not every crime has a victim, and also that some victims are dead. Let us consider some examples.
If I am called to serve on the jury in the trial of someone accused of defrauding an insurance company, then I will not return a verdict of guilty unless the managing director of the insurance company expresses support for the Attainder Movement.
If I am called to serve on the jury in a murder trial, then I will not return a verdict of guilty unless the murdered person's next of kin express support for the Attainder Movement.
If I am called to serve on the jury in a trial which has no obvious victim, then I will probably require that the prosecuting barrister expresses public support for the Attainder Movement. An example of such a trial would be Chris Huhne lying to avoid points on his driving licence.
My justification is simple. If you do not expect justice for the victims of British war crimes, then you do not deserve justice for yourself.
Maybe I will never be called to serve on a jury. If you are ever called to serve on a jury, then I hope that you will show support the Attainder Movement. In the meantime, please show support by sharing this post on social media.
This link contains information about serving on a jury. I cannot comment on how accurate it is.
Related previous posts include:
What is an Act of Attainder?
Ian Brady is right
Peace for more than one day
Questions for the warmonger Gove
Monday, 26 May 2014
Farage's glorious bank holiday
Today is a bright sunny bank holiday - at least where I live. Something tells me that it is also a bright sunny bank holiday for Nigel Farage - but of course I am not referring to the weather.
The results are now in, and UKIP has won more votes and more MEPs than any other party. Labour is in second place on both vote share and seats won. This is possibly the first time ever that the Conservative Party has not polled either first place or second place in a nationwide ballot in this country. It is also - if I've got it right - the first time since 1918 that the top two places in a nationwide ballot in this country have not been taken by the Labour Party and the Conservative Party.
It is all the more remarkable when you consider the UKIP has never had a single MP, and has never previously enjoyed the status above that of a fourth party. It is not that many years ago that the British National Party was routinely humiliating UKIP in council elections up and down the country, but now the tables are turned. The BNP has retained not one single deposit, and won not one single seat.
UKIP's continued success will depend upon a number of factors. First, it will depend on the extent to which the Conservative Party and the Labour Party adjust their policies so as to appeal to the millions of people who rebelled by voting UKIP. Another factor is the extent to which Nigel Farage can keep his party's MEPs and councillors on his team. His past record of achievement in this respect has been pretty poor.
Another factor is that the decline of the BNP may allow another political party with similar views but more effective leadership to emerge and challenge the dominance of UKIP among disgruntled members of the electorate.
But for the time being, Nigel Farage enjoys his pint of beer in the sunshine.
There were also many interesting developments elsewhere in Europe, as outlined in this Heritage and Destiny report.
The results are now in, and UKIP has won more votes and more MEPs than any other party. Labour is in second place on both vote share and seats won. This is possibly the first time ever that the Conservative Party has not polled either first place or second place in a nationwide ballot in this country. It is also - if I've got it right - the first time since 1918 that the top two places in a nationwide ballot in this country have not been taken by the Labour Party and the Conservative Party.
It is all the more remarkable when you consider the UKIP has never had a single MP, and has never previously enjoyed the status above that of a fourth party. It is not that many years ago that the British National Party was routinely humiliating UKIP in council elections up and down the country, but now the tables are turned. The BNP has retained not one single deposit, and won not one single seat.
UKIP's continued success will depend upon a number of factors. First, it will depend on the extent to which the Conservative Party and the Labour Party adjust their policies so as to appeal to the millions of people who rebelled by voting UKIP. Another factor is the extent to which Nigel Farage can keep his party's MEPs and councillors on his team. His past record of achievement in this respect has been pretty poor.
Another factor is that the decline of the BNP may allow another political party with similar views but more effective leadership to emerge and challenge the dominance of UKIP among disgruntled members of the electorate.
But for the time being, Nigel Farage enjoys his pint of beer in the sunshine.
There were also many interesting developments elsewhere in Europe, as outlined in this Heritage and Destiny report.
Saturday, 24 May 2014
The revenge of the UKIP hamster
Much as I dislike UKIP, I will admit that I may have underestimated them. Here is what I said about them just over a year ago:
Basically there are two problems with UKIP making an electoral breakthrough. The first is the unwillingness of many people to vote for them in elections other than for the EU. The second is the fact that the party has a history of being very badly led.
On the one hand, UKIP won 163 council seats in the elections on Thursday, compared with 427 for the LibDems and 1359 for the Tories - both of whom are supposed to have done badly. Then again, the Tories and LibDems have both lost large numbers of seats, whereas Labour has increased its number of seats, but not by the sort of margin which suggests that they are on course for great things in the year ahead.
The increase in the number of seats held by UKIP is impressive, and it is notable that the Green Party is trying to talk up a far smaller increase in its number of council seats.
The impact of the surge in support for UKIP has been felt by other parties, and in two ways. First, when UKIP win a seat from another party, it makes it harder for that party to control the council outright, or at all. Second, even where UKIP do not win any seats, they can take sufficient votes away from one or more of the three main parties to determine who controls the council.
Then again, UKIP have had false dawns before. Seats won are often lost soon after. For example UKIP have lost councillors by defection and by their refusing to stand for re-election. If UKIP want to flourish, they should support their councillors.
One Tory MP has been quoted as saying that many UKIP voters said on the doorstep that they were merely protesting, and that they would return to voting Tory at the general election next year. If we leave aside the fact that many UKIP voters are disillusioned former Labour voters, then the possibility remains that people who are disillusioned with either the Labour Party or the Conservative Party today may become more rather than less disillusioned between now and the general election.
There has been a lot of criticism of UKIP in the press, and the party has also come in for a lot of abuse from communists. Nevertheless this assault on two fronts has proven largely ineffective, and the press response to the surge in support for UKIP appears to be along the lines that the three main parties had it coming to them.
One former council leader has blamed UKIP voters for allowing Labour to win control of the council. It might be more productive for him to blame the Conservative Party for alienating their voters. It is probably true that the UKIP voters in that particular borough did not want a Labour council, which is what they got. Nevertheless they presumably did not want a Conservative council either.
If you want UKIP to run your local council, then you will not achieve that by voting tactically for the communist Conservative Party.
Then again, maybe not all of the UKIP voters in that borough actually wanted a UKIP council. Maybe none of them did. Maybe they were merely registering a protest, in which case what were they protesting against?
There are of course many issues, but underlying all of them was a belief that the leaders of the three main parties just do not care about ordinary people. One of the important issues is immigration. Many people in recent years took to voting for the British National Party to express their disgust at Britain's ongoing policy of open door immigration. The reaction to this from the establishment was one of undisguised contempt. Mainstream politicians demonised the BNP, as did the fellow travelling national press, trade unions, and church leaders.
I remember at least one columnist in a national newspaper urging people who were unhappy about immigration to vote UKIP rather than BNP. He did not however urge the three main parties to abandon their policy of open door immigration.
Now that columnist's wish has come true. The digruntled voters of this once proud country have turned to UKIP, and in impressive numbers. UKIP now have far more councillors than the BNP ever had, even at its peak of popularity. Let the establishment rejoice. I don't suppose they will, but this situation is entirely of their own making.
The results of the European Parliament elections will soon be announced, and we will then see the full extent to which the three main parties have suffered at the hands of a frustrated electorate.
Previous related posts include:
The UKIP hamster - who is to blame?
The return of the UKIP hamster
Cameron is no better than Miliband
Demon words aimed at UKIP
Basically there are two problems with UKIP making an electoral breakthrough. The first is the unwillingness of many people to vote for them in elections other than for the EU. The second is the fact that the party has a history of being very badly led.
On the one hand, UKIP won 163 council seats in the elections on Thursday, compared with 427 for the LibDems and 1359 for the Tories - both of whom are supposed to have done badly. Then again, the Tories and LibDems have both lost large numbers of seats, whereas Labour has increased its number of seats, but not by the sort of margin which suggests that they are on course for great things in the year ahead.
The increase in the number of seats held by UKIP is impressive, and it is notable that the Green Party is trying to talk up a far smaller increase in its number of council seats.
The impact of the surge in support for UKIP has been felt by other parties, and in two ways. First, when UKIP win a seat from another party, it makes it harder for that party to control the council outright, or at all. Second, even where UKIP do not win any seats, they can take sufficient votes away from one or more of the three main parties to determine who controls the council.
Then again, UKIP have had false dawns before. Seats won are often lost soon after. For example UKIP have lost councillors by defection and by their refusing to stand for re-election. If UKIP want to flourish, they should support their councillors.
One Tory MP has been quoted as saying that many UKIP voters said on the doorstep that they were merely protesting, and that they would return to voting Tory at the general election next year. If we leave aside the fact that many UKIP voters are disillusioned former Labour voters, then the possibility remains that people who are disillusioned with either the Labour Party or the Conservative Party today may become more rather than less disillusioned between now and the general election.
There has been a lot of criticism of UKIP in the press, and the party has also come in for a lot of abuse from communists. Nevertheless this assault on two fronts has proven largely ineffective, and the press response to the surge in support for UKIP appears to be along the lines that the three main parties had it coming to them.
One former council leader has blamed UKIP voters for allowing Labour to win control of the council. It might be more productive for him to blame the Conservative Party for alienating their voters. It is probably true that the UKIP voters in that particular borough did not want a Labour council, which is what they got. Nevertheless they presumably did not want a Conservative council either.
If you want UKIP to run your local council, then you will not achieve that by voting tactically for the communist Conservative Party.
Then again, maybe not all of the UKIP voters in that borough actually wanted a UKIP council. Maybe none of them did. Maybe they were merely registering a protest, in which case what were they protesting against?
There are of course many issues, but underlying all of them was a belief that the leaders of the three main parties just do not care about ordinary people. One of the important issues is immigration. Many people in recent years took to voting for the British National Party to express their disgust at Britain's ongoing policy of open door immigration. The reaction to this from the establishment was one of undisguised contempt. Mainstream politicians demonised the BNP, as did the fellow travelling national press, trade unions, and church leaders.
I remember at least one columnist in a national newspaper urging people who were unhappy about immigration to vote UKIP rather than BNP. He did not however urge the three main parties to abandon their policy of open door immigration.
Now that columnist's wish has come true. The digruntled voters of this once proud country have turned to UKIP, and in impressive numbers. UKIP now have far more councillors than the BNP ever had, even at its peak of popularity. Let the establishment rejoice. I don't suppose they will, but this situation is entirely of their own making.
The results of the European Parliament elections will soon be announced, and we will then see the full extent to which the three main parties have suffered at the hands of a frustrated electorate.
Previous related posts include:
The UKIP hamster - who is to blame?
The return of the UKIP hamster
Cameron is no better than Miliband
Demon words aimed at UKIP
Thursday, 22 May 2014
Jet2 at the High Court
A frustrated traveller has taken Jet2 to court for failing to pay compensation for a delayed flight. The ruling in his favour is now being contested at the High Court.
First of all, he appears to have the law on his side. The law requires that compensation be paid for cancelled flights or for flights which are delayed by more than three hours. There is a get-out clause for exceptional circumstances, which Jet2 believes covers the technical fault which delayed the flight in question. The claimant however argues that exceptional circumstances refer to events outside the control of the airline, such as severe weather conditions.
Second, the outcome of the case will set a binding legal precedent. Unless it is overturned at a higher court, then all lower courts will be required to determine similar cases in the light of the ruling in this case.
Third, this lawsuit is based upon European Union law, and so the ruling in this case could be disregarded in future if Britain were to leave the European Union - which is not to say that it necessarily would be.
Fourth, the comments on the Mail Online website are mixed. Some are praising the lawsuit, while others complain that the ruling, if upheld, will force airlines to increase their prices to cover the cost of paying compensation. This is probably true, and the ruling could prove to be a particular burden to smaller airlines.
No amount of debate is likely to influence the eventual ruling of the High Court, however. It is possible that it will be easier in future for airline passengers to claim compensation for cancelled flights, and it is also possible that fares will increase. It is also possible, but less likely, that we will continue to pay relatively low prices for air travel, but risk being delayed without compensation.
My final point is that litigation can be expensive, and the claimant could end up having to pay a huge legal bill. I was once told by a law lecturer that the first rule of the law is to keep away from it.
Related previous posts
Angry customers of HSBC
School uniforms: think before complaining
First of all, he appears to have the law on his side. The law requires that compensation be paid for cancelled flights or for flights which are delayed by more than three hours. There is a get-out clause for exceptional circumstances, which Jet2 believes covers the technical fault which delayed the flight in question. The claimant however argues that exceptional circumstances refer to events outside the control of the airline, such as severe weather conditions.
Second, the outcome of the case will set a binding legal precedent. Unless it is overturned at a higher court, then all lower courts will be required to determine similar cases in the light of the ruling in this case.
Third, this lawsuit is based upon European Union law, and so the ruling in this case could be disregarded in future if Britain were to leave the European Union - which is not to say that it necessarily would be.
Fourth, the comments on the Mail Online website are mixed. Some are praising the lawsuit, while others complain that the ruling, if upheld, will force airlines to increase their prices to cover the cost of paying compensation. This is probably true, and the ruling could prove to be a particular burden to smaller airlines.
No amount of debate is likely to influence the eventual ruling of the High Court, however. It is possible that it will be easier in future for airline passengers to claim compensation for cancelled flights, and it is also possible that fares will increase. It is also possible, but less likely, that we will continue to pay relatively low prices for air travel, but risk being delayed without compensation.
My final point is that litigation can be expensive, and the claimant could end up having to pay a huge legal bill. I was once told by a law lecturer that the first rule of the law is to keep away from it.
Related previous posts
Angry customers of HSBC
School uniforms: think before complaining
Wednesday, 21 May 2014
Racism and riots: one day to go
As I write it is the morning of the day before the European Parliament elections. There is only one day left in which to try to discourage people from voting UKIP by calling them racists. Of course a lot of people have already voted by post, and so any allegations of racism at this late stage will have limited impact.
UKIP have failed to impress with a mini carnival in a shopping mall in multiracial Croydon. In particular some Romanan immigrants protested at remarks made by Nigel Farage about Romanian immigrants.
In other news, a mini riot in Sheffield involving Romanian immigrants has been met by this comment among others:
strange when david blunkett last year warned of riots due to Romanians and no comments accusing him of being a racist,but when nigel farage mentions Romanians he is instantly branded a racist.
UKIP have failed to impress with a mini carnival in a shopping mall in multiracial Croydon. In particular some Romanan immigrants protested at remarks made by Nigel Farage about Romanian immigrants.
In other news, a mini riot in Sheffield involving Romanian immigrants has been met by this comment among others:
strange when david blunkett last year warned of riots due to Romanians and no comments accusing him of being a racist,but when nigel farage mentions Romanians he is instantly branded a racist.
Sunday, 18 May 2014
Cameron versus the EU
A leading German politician has warned David Cameron he will be unable to renegotiate Britain's relationship with the European Union reports The Daily Express.
Renegotiation is in fact simple, as is withdrawal. The British government is free to ignore any or all of the dictates of the European Union. It is free also to give no more money whatever to the European Union. The EU can order Britain to do this or pay that, but it cannot force Britain to do anything.
If I am wrong about this, then please leave a comment.
The same rule applies to the Council of Europe.
The Daily Express also reports that leaders of rival parties today responded to a row sparked by Ukip leader Nigel Farage's remarks that he would be concerned if a group of Romanians were to move in next door to him. I can't help but wonder what the likelihood is of a group of Romanians moving in next door to David Cameron, or Ed Miliband, or Nick Clegg.
Related previous posts include:
Austerity versus democracy
Come to the Forest of Dean, dear Roma
The new power house in Europe
Euro-troublemakers want us to increase benefits
(This last post relates to the Council of Europe.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)