Drummer Rigby was beheaded and dismembered in the street in south London under the noses of Woolwich shoppers. The murderers stood there waving their meat cleavers in the air proclaiming that this was revenge for British murder of Muslims.
Tony Blair is plainly to blame. Afghanistan is his war. We have been at war in Afghanistan for twelve years, ever since 9/11, and countless soldiers' lives have been sacrificed there. All the time Osama Bin-Laden was in Pakistan, and the Taliban will come back to power the minute we leave. Under the Blair-Brown government, and Labour councils since, hundreds of millions of pounds in public money has been handed out to Muslim schools, Muslim community centres, and minority cultural grants - while conducting a war that regularly kills people. It's called confusion and it has not got any better under Cameron who is just a clone of Blair.
OK so if you go back a bit further Al-Qaeda did provoke Western intervention in Afghanistan but if people today weren't so ignorant of history they would have known better than to send troops to a place where no invader has ever succeeded - not even Alexander the Great.
So I blame Tony WMD Blair for what happened in Woolwich. Lefties will of course blame the EDL, which has never sent troops to any foreign country and never advocated invasion of anywhere.
Our deputy PM, Nick Clegg has taken the opportunity to display his ignorance. He has publicly announced that the murder of Drummer Rigby "flies in the face of the peace and love that Islam teaches". Just as eating Little Red Riding Hood is a big surprise after that peace and love wolves are famous for. If Nick Clegg can show me one Islamic text that teaches either peace or love, I will pay him as much money as David Laws swindled in expenses.
If you turn up at one of the few remaining Accident and Emergency departments of NHS hospitals these days, the first thing you see is a large notice telling you to go away.
"Do you really need to come here? Have you tried telephoning your doctor, e-mailing his surgery or asking advice from your pharmacist? " it says in big letters. In other words, get lost, you are a nuisance.
If you have been attacked with a meat cleaver in the street in Woolwich, the right thing to do is to telephone NHS Direct and ask them for instructions. If you really want to see a doctor face to face, ring up and make an appointment with your GP, some time in the middle of next week. In fact, don't even ask to see the doctor, just ask to chat to the practice nurse, or read some magazines in the waiting-room. They will probably give you the health advice you need without bothering anyone.
It's incredible how some people still have the idea that the NHS exists for sick and injured people. They ring up ambulances and ask to be taken to hospital. Sometimes after about six hours, they are. I was in a chemist shop a few days ago and there was an elderly woman at the pharmacy counter who was actually in tears, as she had suffered so many frustrations and setbacks. Just getting a prescription had turned into an ordeal, and she was worn out. After sitting down and chatting with a cojuple of other people in the queue, she told us she had been a nurse in one of the local hospitals for many years, before retiring.
Another octogenarian I know had just found a treatment that made her life bearable, in the form of some pain-killing patches, and then her GP refused to prescribe them again, without explaining why. Was it the cost?
According to the Independent newspaper, the government is making a £1 billion raid on NHS funds to pay for "social care" for the old. By social care they mean what used to be called nursing. If you're not seriously ill it's now called "social care" and 2 hours after an operation for cancer you are labelled a "bed-blocker". Those troublesome geriatrics expect help when they are too old, weak or confused to look after themselves. What strikes me is the attitude that this use of public funds is a "raid", like a bank raid or a heist. If you gave the same money to an EU bail-out, nobody would call it a raid. The NHS has got better things to do these days than look after our parents and grandparents.
Professor Robert Reich, of the University of California,
writes that global corporations have no allegiance to any country and this is
why they wriggle out of paying any taxes.
Isn't it equally true that socialists and even liberals have
no allegiance to any country? Marxism long ago damned the nation state as evil
and proclaimed that socialism was international. Liberals follow at a discreet
distance, identifying nationhood with aggressive nationalist warmongering.
Reich himself refers to nationhood as "xenophobia". The whole idea of
having any loyalty to your country or to society has been totally jettisoned by
trendies and lefties. So why should big corporations stick with it?
Reich accuses UKIP of being an extreme right-wing "xenophobic" party. But he produces no evidence from any part of the UKIP manifesto to justify this. I suspect that, like most of the people who churn out that sort of accusation, he has not even read it. If you want to see a strong nationalistic policy, compare Britain to Thailand. In Thailand, foreigners are not allowed to own property. Any business set up or registered there must be at least 51% owned by Thai citizens. State health care, social security and pensions are strictly limited to Thai citizens and nobody else. They see any attempt to muscle in on it as theft, pure and simple. Foreigners who are unemployed, too poor to pay for their medical care or convicted of any crime are just chucked out. I wonder why Professor Reich is not writing a denunciation of Thailand.
Reich argues that by
staying in the European Union, we would be stronger and more able to stand up
to the big international corporations. If so, it is strange that after nearly
forty years membership, no such outcome has transpired. The big corporations find
it very useful that we are all in the EU
so they can operate here freely while based in other EU countries such
as Ireland or Luxembourg that have lower corporations taxes. If the EU hasn't
solved these problems in the last forty years, why believe it can do so now? I
suspect that the more these giant firms pay in corporation tax, the fewer
people they will employ, and the less they will pay in salaries which generate
income tax, and the result would be that they generate fewer jobs, lowering
demand for goods and services from other businesses. There are plenty of
reasons to deplore and shun Starbucks and the others, but Google does give a
lot of people free e-mails and a free search engine - also the browser I am using now, Google Chrome, which is better than Internet Explorer, Firefox, or Opera.
seems to think that allegiance to a nation is a good thing for corporations but
a bad thing for everybody else. I don't quite see how that figures. I don't see
why massive corporations should get public subsidies, but that is another
Of all the hate-mail and death threats I still regularly get, some of the most bizarre messages have come from a person calling himself Lord Maxstead.
Hate mail from LGBT loons is usually characterized by scatological language and pathological aggression. Freakish threats, hysteria and foul language are their norms of behaviour. Lord Maxstead is not foul-mouthed and does not make death threats but his logic is so tangled that it continues to amaze me. He deserves some sort of award for utter twaddle. He sent me an E-mail in which he argued for redefining marriage by saying, "My relationship is just as good as yours! It deserves to be recognized as equal!"
It's a bit like writing to someone with a dog and saying that your cat is "just as good" as their dog (which you have never seen) and therefore the cat should be allowed to compete at Crufts. Why not hamsters as well? Why shouldn't hamsters enter for the Grand National because they're "just as good as " a horse? To a logical person, the fact is that a cat and a dog are different. People never use cats for guarding their house or rounding up sheep and dogs are no good at catching small birds.
Since I have never met Lord Maxstead (be grateful for small mercies) I haven't got any opinion about his "relationship", and I wonder how he imagines he can have any opinion on mine. How does he know I have got one at all? How does he know I haven't got an address-book full of toy-boys who meet me at country hotels for weekends now and then? How does he know that I am not a single person, widow, celibate or nun? Such logical factors do not bother him.
There is only one thing very clear about Lord Maxstead and his "relationship" - that it is with another male. In that respect, it is plainly, and significantly different from a heterosexual relationship. Whether it is a good relationship is anybody's guess. People can hate each other and fight but still be married ... that is why they need from time to time to get divorced. People can have a good relationship and not be married....that is why in those circumstances they often get married. You actually have to be unmarried, to get married. Lord Maxstead's message reveals a kind of naive vanity that makes one squirm. It is shallow and silly. He simply does not understand what marriage is. Marriage is not some sort of display, to show off to your friends what a super relationship you have got. "My relationship is as good as yours...." sounds awfully similar to "My penis is as big as yours..." or "My dress is just as expensive as yours...." Marriage is not an exercise in vanity. It is a matter of biological mating and a pledge of fidelity - two essential things, both missing from the same-sex so-called "marriage" contract now going through parliament. There will be many forms of grave harm to society if this nonsense law is allowed to go through. One of them is the farming of children for sale to rich homosexual couples, a shameful procedure not seen since the days of slavery. Another is the erosion of our understanding of marriage as a faithful, monogamous commitment. All of this arises because of bad logic - it is the result of ignorance, bad education, illiteracy and lack of clarity of thought.
It is estimated that the so-called "bedroom tax" will cut the UK government's spending on housing benefit by £500 million. At the same time, the government is going to spend £5 BILLION on re-writing all the legislation relating to marriage just to suit the vanity of a handful of deranged homosexuals. Yes that is correct - ten times as much money going on the "gay" marriage idiocy. Same-sex "marriage" is costing people such as Mrs Stephanie Botrill their homes, and driving them to suicide. The LGBT movement is snatching the money that rightfully belongs to the 98% majority of the population. It is causing hardship and cuts, cruelty and injustice. Without "gay" marriage thousands of people such as Stephanie Botrill could stay in their homes. Without the waste and extravagance of "gay" marriage, thousands of disabled and sick people would not be having their benefit payments taken away from them. Those cuts too are driving people to suicide.
The "gay" marriage folly is causing harm and suffering to the 98% majority in this country, and it will cause harm and suffering wherever its nonsense is imposed.
"In a time of universal deceit, to tell the truth is a revolutionary act." (George Orwell).
Documentary about surrogate birth industry in India.
Homosexuals pay to breed kids like animals.
If ever anybody had "something of the night" about them it has to be Peter Mandelson, the most successful crook of our time. He thinks he is a hero - remember how he boasted about his "inner steel"? Mandelson must take much of the blame for getting the appallingly incompetent Blair-Brown government elected, with all the disasters that followed.
Ed Rubberband is now making one of his regular U-turns, trying to woo voters by saying that Labout got it wrong on uncontrolled immigration. Meanwhile Mandelson is following the trend for public confession by spouting on about how the Blair government "sent out search parties" to find and drag in all the foreign immigrants they could.
Can somebody explain to me how bringing in non-unionized workers who are willing to work for low wages without security, safety inspections or pension schemes, can be in the interest of the working class here? How exactly does it make it easier for those already unemployed here to find work? Are they expected to emigrate to the Ukraine or Bulgaria, which are of course prosperous paradises because they have long been communist?
Mandelson says that they wanted to "rub British noses in diversity". I wonder how many of the Eastern European arrivals are Roman Catholics who have a deep dislike of socialism. When Mandelson went partying on yachts among the EU elite he did not meet the grass roots and he has little idea of what they are really like.
A few days ago Stephanie Botrill, a grandmother in Solihull, West Midlands, committed suicide because of benefit cuts here that meant she was being pushed out of her home. She had an auto-immune disease that made it harder for her to work as she was in frequent pain. A mass influx of cheap labour did not help people like her to get jobs or to earn the extra £20 per week that would have enabled her to pay her OWN rent and stay in her home, with her network of friends. Mrs Botrill walked under a lorry.
Peter Mandelson does not have to worry about being kicked out of his home (the one for which he got a mortgage from a close political colleague - remember?) To Mandy with his millions and his vast EU pension the whole situation is academic.
Labour sent out ‘search parties’ for immigrants to get them to come to the UK, Lord Mandelson has admitted.
In a stunning confirmation that the Blair and Brown governments deliberately engineered mass immigration, the former Cabinet Minister and spin doctor said New Labour sought out foreign workers.
He also conceded that the influx of arrivals meant the party’s traditional supporters are now unable to find work.
By contrast, Labour leader Ed Miliband has said his party got it wrong on immigration but has refused to admit it was too high under Labour.
Between 1997 and 2010, net migration to Britain totalled more than 2.2million, more than twice the population of Birmingham.
The annual net figure quadrupled under Labour from 48,000 people in 1997 to 198,000 by 2009.
Lord Mandelson’s remarks come three years after Labour officials denied claims by former adviser Andrew Neather that they deliberately encouraged immigration in order to change the make-up of Britain.
Mr Neather said the policy was designed to ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity’.
He said there was ‘a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural’.
Senior Labour figures have been reluctant to concede they deliberately engineered the influx of migrants who have transformed communities over the past decade.
But, at a rally for the Blairite think-tank Progress, Lord Mandelson said: ‘In 2004 when as a Labour government, we were not only welcoming people to come into this country to work, we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging them, in some cases, to take up work in this country.’
He said: ‘The problem has grown during the period of economic stagnation over the last five, six years.’
What a remarkable coincidence. The Coalition government gets a disastrous local election result and one week later Mr Abu Qatada, the impudent hate preacher and enemy of this country, decides "voluntarily" to leave.
After so many years of struggle, so many court hearings and appeals, so many Yuman Rights decisions that have humiliated this country and made Home Secretary Theresa May look weak and idiotic, Mr Omar Othman ( to give him his real name) has had a change of heart. He has of his own volition decided to go back to Jordan and remain there. How strange. Am I the only person who suspects that a large bribe must be the reason he has finally agreed to go? I rather imagine that on his return to Jordan Mr Qatada will not be living in poverty or looking for paid work. Somebody will have passed him a nice lump sum - at least ten million - which will be stashed in a secret numbered bank account. And that somebody is somebody very, very concerned about last week's proof of the rise of UKIP.
For twenty years this nasty, aggressive man has leeched off Britain and taken full advantage of the soft-touch system socialists put in place. An open terrorist and jihadist, who despises the West and encourages its over throw by violent means, he lives on our state benefits and exploits the "Human Rights" tosh imposed on us by foreign courts as a price of belonging to the EU (as if that wasn't bad enough in itself). When he first came to this country in 1993, on a forged passport, he already had five children. Then he revealed himself to be a radical jihadist and started to advocate violence. In 1995 he issued a "fatwa" calling for all those who left Islam to be killed, along with their wives and children. Yuman Rights, you see. In 1995 he was convicted on terrorist charges in Jordan but simply refused to leave the UK. He went on openly preaching hate and violence including the murder of Jews. He also ran a fund-raising campaign to aid jihadists in Chechnya, keeping at one time £170,000 cash in his house so as to avoid income tax, company tax, or any other inconvenient tax.
For twenty years, he and his polygamous family have lived in an £800,000 four-bedroom house in West London entirely at the expense of the tax-payer. No under-occupancy rules for him! They claim thousands of pounds per month in benefits, do no work and pay nothing in tax. Qatada has also cost us millions in legal aid fees. He employs a QC on his behalf to defy and deride our common laws, and has a security guard at the public's expense. No wonder he can afford seventeen mobile phones!
Anybody who raises any objection is sneered at by soggy-brained socialists as a "Daily Mail reader". Yes, the lefties really believe that the Daily Mail invented Abu Qatada, and all his family, along with Abu Hamza, benefit fraud, fake asylum-seekers, health tourism, the euro-crisis and the riots in Greece, Spain, Italy, France and Portugal. All inventions, all non-existent...
In 2009 Qatada humiliated the British government yet again by getting a compensation award for wrongful imprisonment. The ECHR tells us that holding this poor little man with his yard-long beard in prison is a breach of his "Yuman Rights" for gawd's sake.....
And now, days after their bad election results scared the Tories, somehow Mr Othman has chosen to return to Jordan of his own free volition? Pull the other one, it's got bells on it. This deal has got money in it somewhere and when Abu-Qatada finally does climb on a plane out of here, he will be flying First Class and going back to a champagne lifestyle, not a gaol.