Sunday, 30 December 2012

Bring Back Fox-Hunting Now

Driving through a London suburb the other day, I saw a red fox trot boldly across the road in broad daylight with a smile on its face, as if it expected the traffic to get out of its way. It was near to a supermarket and perhaps it was interested in the contents of the shop's rubbish bins.
Thanks to Labour's anti-hunt legislation, there are now at least 250,000 foxes in the UK and about one in five of them is roaming at large through the suburbs of London and other cities. They plague every town, village and farm in the country. They can't help being carnivores, but as their numbers rise they are looking further and further afield for food. They damage crops and attack chickens, ducks, rabbits and geese if they can get hold of them. Gnawing their way through wooden sheds and steel mesh, they kill every bird in the coop, not just the one or two they can eat. They leave behind a mangled mess of blood, bones and feathers. You would have to house your poultry in a brick barn with iron doors to make it really fox-proof. Free-range poultry are particularly vulnerable.
Sentimentalists claim that foxes rarely attack humans or even other animals unless they are attacked first but this does not correspond to experience. In in Hackney, East London, recently a fox attacked and mauled two baby girls lying in a cot. The fox entered the house at night, through a ground-floor window and went upstairs following the scent of the children. Their parents Pauline and Nick Koupparis heard cries and came into the room but the fox was completely unafraid of them. By the time they fought it off, both children were badly mauled and had to be taken to the Great Ormond Street Hospital. 9-month-old Isabella was particularly badly injured, and needed intensive care, while her twin sister Lola will be facially disfigured for life.

Council pest control installed a trap in the Koupparis's garden and later turned up and shot that particular fox, but not long afterwards, another child was attacked by a fox in North London. Marius Rook, aged five, woke up screaming when a fox broke into his bedroom and bit his ear. He rushed to his mother's room and she rang the police, who merely used a rope to drag the fox into the garden, then released it. They told her that to destroy it would be inhumane.
In Brighton, in June 2010, a three-year-old boy was playing outside when he was bitten by a fox, which was living in the playground of the Dorothy Stringer nursery. The child was treated for injuries at the Royal Sussex county hospital. In 2002, mother Sue Eastwood reported that her baby boy, Louis, was injured when a fox crept into the house in Dartford, Kent while she slept. The fourteen-week-old suffered bite marks on his head.

Only last month, in November 2012, there were three cases of people attacked by foxes. In Sidcup, Mrs Louisa Power, 46, was pounced on by a fox as she walked home with her shopping. The fox ran off with her bag of food! On 21st November two teenagers, Kelly Lloyd and Jack Larkins, of Bexley, south-east London, were attacked by a fox as they stood at a bus stop. The animal bit Jack on the foot. The most serious case was that of an angler in East Sussex who woke up in his tent to find a fox sinking its teeth into his face! Andrew Thomas managed to suffocate the fox with his hands, but if he had been a child he would have stood little chance. He needed 26 stitches in his face, and nearly lost an eye.

Animal-lovers will persist in deluding themselves that all creatures are lovable and can be treated as pets. Martin Hemmington, founder of the National Fox Welfare Society, a rescue charity that treats and feeds sick foxes, admits he has been bitten many times in the line of duty, but still denies that foxes are dangerous. These people can delude themselves - but should they delude us?

The Boxing-Day meet used to be part of our British tradition, until it was outlawed by Labour, which has no love for our customs and culture, and no understanding of why hunting existed in the first place. Although I never ride and certainly never hunt (I have never killed any animal in my life apart from perhaps a few wasps) I would be happy to see the tradition revived. The anti-hunt lobby has created a problem for all of us, and the arguments they use are overwhelmingly sentimental or emotive. They know little about foxes and nothing at all about agriculture. When you tell them that foxes need to be kept down on farmland, they get hysterical and start accusing you of being a "sadist" who gets a "thrill" from seeing or contemplating an animal being hunted. If you're faced with a fanatic like that, try telling them that they are sadists who enjoy thinking about babies having chunks bitten out of their faces.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10251349
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1284505/Baby-twins-Isabella-Lola-Koupparis-seriously-injured-fox-attack.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8726282.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/21/toddler-brighton-fox-attack
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8852771/Boy-attacked-by-fox-in-bedroom.html
http://metro.co.uk/2012/11/21/couple-attacked-by-cocky-urban-fox-as-they-walked-to-bus-stop-538744/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2227681/Angler-scarred-life-fox-attack-tent.html


***10th February 2013. Another baby attacked by a fox in Bromley, London. Baby's finger bitten off. This situation is getting worse.


Saturday, 29 December 2012

Why Do We Hate Ourselves?

The Times weekend supplement for the Christmas season features a front-page photograph of a family, with the headline "Are you having a smug middle-class Christmas?" Inside, the cheery festive mood is kept up with a two-page quiz, "How middle-class is your Christmas? Take our test," all illustrated in full colour.
It is not only Christmas decorations and board-games with the family that are now supposed to make us squirm and cry "Bah, humbug!" The article launches a guilt-attack on everything from wood-burning stoves to Christmas cards. Guilt, guilt, guilt and snobbery galore. We are told that the bottles of wine we take when we visit friends are a "payment" and that the same ones are likely to come back to us. Rubbish, they get drunk on the spot and there is nothing wrong with being middle class. Unless we are all multi-millionaires or paupers, there is bound to be a middle class, end of story. Why is it that the people who read the Times newspaper are supposed to feel so guilty about celebrating Christmas, and why is it "smug" to have a good time? If that means it would be better not to enjoy ourselves, or to writhe in self-criticism and a sense of failure, well - stuff that!!! We don't need to hate ourselves to be moral.
The family in the photograph - mother, father and three children - are being subjected to a ritual humiliation because they are white, heterosexual, reasonably well-off and actually or nominally Christian. They are not vegetarian, unemployed, drug-addicts, in an ethnic minority, a one-parent household or anything else trendy, so they must be sneered at and snubbed like one of Anne Robinson's victims on her nasty TV quiz. I think that Britain is the only country I know that would indulge in this sort of masochism at Christmas, of all times. It reveals a national self-hatred that is unhealthy, negative and harmful.
In Saudi Arabia you are not allowed to celebrate Christmas. Last Wednesday night the religious police swooped on the house of a foreign diplomat there and arrested 41 people for doing just that. They were accused of being drunk and defying the laws against non-muslim religious observance. All the men and women present were taken away in police vans and are now in custody under conditions that will make them feel far from "smug". Is that what we want? Is that where our national self-loathing leads us?
http://rt.com/news/saudi-christmas-plot-crackdown-975/

Britain used to be a rich, proud and powerful nation. It has plummeted down in the last fifty years until it is now an omni-shambles, a poor, indebted, crippled country, that cannot even govern itself, or find homes for the injured servicemen who come back from Afghanistan and Iraq. We are torn apart by extremist ideologies, crying for the "rights" of prisoners to have votes or children or some such nonsense, and our education is lamentable. The only morality that seems to survive in some circles is a lingering guilt about being "middle class". This sort of self-hatred is the way to make our problems worse. We need to have a glimmering of self-respect if we are ever going to find our way out of the mess that we are in.
>
>
>
>

Saturday, 22 December 2012

Equally Stupid

Not content with slapping an extra £ billion or so on our contributions as a last-minute Christmas gift, the EU is now forcing women to pay far more for their car insurance. Any woman driver who renews her insurance or takes out a fresh policy will find that the cost is up to £300 more than last year, thanks to the EU's new rules on "gender equality". The change will hit young women hardest, and they are usually the ones who have the least money.
Of course insurance companies will not reduce the premiums they charge men drivers, so the result is in the aggregate for everyone to be paying more.

At the same time the EU is enforcing gender equality rules on annuity schemes, that will cost men up to £10,000 in their retirement. "Under the EU Gender Directive, firms will no longer be able to use a pension holder's sex as a factor when calculating annuity offers." Because men have a shorter life expectancy, they typically got an offer of a higher income in return for their premiums. But Gender Equality rules are abolishing that from this week. Result: men will pay the same, and end up getting less. Women will pay the same and be no better off. There are no winners in this game.
Two more examples of how the EU is making us all poorer all the time.

These rules of gender equality are barmy. They reveal a modern obsession with equality to the exclusion of common sense. Women, particularly young women, drive more carefully than men and have fewer accidents. This is because men and women are different. Risk-taking is only one of dozens of respects in which male and female are dissimilar. Life-expectancy is another. Modern science long ago disproved the nonsensical claim of Simone de Beauvoir "One is not born a woman, one becomes a woman." Beauvoir, writing in about 1948, had little or no scientific understanding of the matter. One is born either a male or a female baby, and only a female baby can become a woman. Our chromosomes and our hormones affect all of our mental, physical and emotional development. But the EU goes on enforcing notions that are 60 years behind the times.
The obsession with removing all discrimination is just not realistic. What is discrimination? Discrimination means treating two different things as if they are not the same. Because they're not.
Of course the lefties and EU-apologists will brush this aside. They will tell us it is "petty" to complain about financial loss when we are part of such a wonderful big scheme, and they will very likely claim that the whole story was invented by the Daily Mail!!! Before you believe them - wait till you see your next car insurance bill.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/new-insurance-rules-could-cost-women-drivers-300-a-year-16253771.html

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-2250523/Gender-equality-rules-cost-men-10k-annuity-income-retirement.html

Thursday, 20 December 2012

Miliband Stealing UKIP policies

What a very slippery, rubbery individual the leader of the Labour Party is. Flip-flop is an understatement. He can't make up his mind about the EU, he can't make up his mind about the unions, and now he is playing up to people's anxieties about uncontrolled immigration because one of his back room boys has told him that's the way the wind is blowing.
The Census results revealed that the policy of completely open borders has led to unparalleled numbers of people coming to this country, and that white Britons are now a minority in London. Well, surprise, surprise. Who didn't know that? Only somebody who never goes to London. If you stop in the street in London and ask people, "Is this Hyde Park?" the most likely answer you will get is "I don't know, I don't come from here, I just got off a plane" - that's assuming they understand English at all, which half of them don't. Quite a few people seem to be worried about this, and Ed is doubtless worried about UKIP's steady rise in the polls and the by-election results, so he went to Tooting and made a speech that said what a wonderful thing immigration was...BUT. The first part of his speech said all the usual things about how wonderful it is to be multi-ethnic and multi-cultural (note how he puts Christians last in his list of religious beliefs), then the second half said that people are coming in too fast and there is a problem assimilating too many all at once.
When he says "But at the same time we know there is anxiety about immigration. And what it means for our culture. The answer is not to sweep it under the carpet. Or fail to talk about it. Or say that people are prejudiced," this certainly makes a refreshing change. So does this mean Labour supporters will no longer be vilifying UKIP as racist?
Eddie the Unsteady is trying to have it both ways. He is a hypocrite when he says "we must control our borders". The fact is that because we are in the EU we cannot control our borders. And when he says that the answer is to control non-EU immigration more tightly, isn't that racist? After all, the black people are more likely to come from outside the EU.
http://www.newstatesman.com/staggers/2012/12/full-text-ed-miliband-immigration-speech
Ed denied that there is a problem with multi-culturism. "Some people say that what we should aim for is what they call assimilation. They say that people can come here and be part of our culture but only on the condition that they just abandon theirs. Why is this vision so wrong for our country? Because it ignores fundamental truths about the British people and who we are." The example he used was a young woman who had just enjoyed an African-style party in Leicester with her family who came from Sierra Leone. And that was fine - it was her way of being British. Ed asserted that there is nothing wrong with "The reality of our multiple identities."
So does that mean that if her community wants to force her into an arranged marriage or cut off her clitoris that's OK too?
Ed shied away from ugly problems like that.
"We must live together across communities. Overcoming division, without asking people to lose their sense of themselves. A Britain where people of all backgrounds, all races, all ethnicities, all cultures, can practise their own religion, continue their own customs, but also come together to forge a new and better identity. But here is the challenge: to make this work, we’ve all got to work at it. We are one of the few countries in Europe without a comprehensive strategy for integration."
Maybe but we are not the only country in Europe to have problems with assimilation. Many of them feel that there are separate cultures. In Holland legal prostitution, legal drugs and "gay" marriage co-exist uncomfortably with women walking around wearing the burka. In Germany and Sweden the problem of Muslims attacking and terrorizing Jews is a mounting one. What exactly is Mr Miliband's strategy for making people with incompatible views live together and successfully interact?
It is flattering that he has taken some ideas out of the UKIP manifesto. Firstly, to demand that all immigrants learn English, and make this a requirement for those working in the public sector. But he can't do that with EU migrants because they have a right to work here. And what if the communities themselves don't want to assimilate or be integrated? That is a question he did not even raise.

Mr Miliband's speech was superficial and provided no real answers to our problems. Here is a tough question. Will Mr Miliband and the Labour party support Baroness Cox's Arbitration and Equality Bill, which seeks to liberate Muslim women from the self-appointed jurisdiction of Sharia courts? So far it is getting a very rough ride in the House of Lords where only Conservative and some Christian peers support it. Yet there are an estimated 85 Sharia courts operating in Britain. Integration? Assimilation?
When I see you championing this Bill in the House of Commons, Mr Miliband, I will believe that you are more than a vacillating windbag.
>
>
>
>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9621319/Sharia-courts-as-consensual-as-rape-House-of-Lords-told.html

Tuesday, 18 December 2012

Plebgate Never Happened

It looks as if Andrew Mitchell will be completely exonerated from the charges of being rude to policemen after the release of CCTV footage that does not confirm their story and proves that a so-called eye-witness was not even there.
I apologize unreservedly to Andrew Mitchell for believing the story, and I hope he gets his job back. I was too reluctant to believe that police officers lied. They lied deviously and from motives that have yet to be completely revealed. In future I will be even more sceptical of what we hear in the media.
It's nice to know that public schoolboys do have some manners after all.
>
>
>

Clegg's Brainwave

Nick Clegg has found a way of reducing our budget deficit and paying off our National Debt as fast as we can. What a genius! He was on TV today advocating a means test for the pensioner bus pass.
Until 2006, pensioners only got free bus travel within their local authority area. They could use buses free to go shopping or to their local library or even to visit their MP's surgery and interrogate him or her about how they were voting in parliament. It seemed a reasonable reward for people who had worked and paid tax all their lives. Then the Blair government decided it could afford to be generous, or maybe just buy votes, by extending this to unlimited free travel on all buses anywhere in the country. At first they could use coaches free too. So Granny and Grandpa could now trek across the country to visit their grandchildren instead of staying at home. They could go up to London and shop in Oxford Street then go home to Yorkshire all by bus. Gordon Brown thought the scheme would cost the government £250 million per year but in fact like most Labour ideas it cost far more. Very soon the costs reached £1 billion and by 2009 the free coach travel had to be withdrawn.
In the last election, David Cameron promised that he would not stoop to such ignoble levels as to begrudge a pensioner their bus-pass. He talked as if it was an immemorial right to have free travel all over the country. But Clegg sees it differently. He objects to all those filthy rich pensioners who are getting bus-passes. He says he can save the treasury a lot of money by cutting back on the free travel given to multi-millionaires. "Why should Lord Sugar have a free bus pass?" is his leftie slogan now.
Trouble is that Clegg (who has probably never been on a bus in his life) doesn't seem to know how the system works. The bus companies are only compensated by their local authority for each journey that a pass-holder actually makes. When did anyone last see Lord Sugar using a bus? How many multi-millionaires who can afford cars and maybe chauffeurs to drive them, would go and stand at a bus stop braving the rain, the snow and the germs you pick up from other people? How many pensioners are multi-millionaires anyway? Most of those I know, even those with a bit of money, are worried about having to sell their homes to pay for nursing care when they need it. I suspect that Clegg's rich pensioners are very few and far between, and most of them never go on buses. So in fact his money-saving brainwave will bring almost no savings to the Treasury.
Clegg is a posh boy from a sheltered background and considering that he went to Westminster, it was a poor show only getting into Robinson College, Cambridge. I mean, Robinson, seriously, I ask you? The top Cambridge colleges have names like Pembroke, Queen's and Christ's, not Robinson. Anyway he is now so well-heeled with his EU jobs and EU pensions clocking up that when he retires, he will be able to afford to go everywhere by private helicopter, never mind cars and buses.
This reminds me of a joke about a posh boy who wrote home to his father, an Arab sheikh, from university: "Oxford is wonderful and I love it here, but I feel a bit embarrassed arriving everywhere in my Lamborghini when all the other students, and even the lecturers, travel by train." The reply was, "My dear son, I have transferred $20 million into your account, buy yourself a train."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10657515


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6151868.stm

Saturday, 15 December 2012

Lefties Demonstrate their Ignorance

On December 8th there were 45 demonstrations at Starbucks cafés all over the UK organized by the group UK Uncut. They were protesting at the way that Starbucks avoids paying corporation tax and blaming this for the fact that all over the country services such as refuges for victims of domestic violence are been closed down.
Starbucks responded by offering to pay £20 million in tax that it doesn't actually owe, because nothing they are doing is illegal. Will this make any difference at all to the cuts? Of course not. The EU has just wished us Happy Christmas by slapping another demand for an extra £1 billion per annum on our contributions to its budget.
http://www.martaandreasen.com/?p=1884

The piddling little £20 million from Starbucks will vanish into the gaping black hole of EU extravagance and nobody will notice any difference.
Very few of the people who protest at tax avoidance even understand the difference between avoidance (legal) and evasion. They are simply not aware of the fact that the big multi-national corporations such as Vodaphone and Google are just taking advantage of EU legislation. They are entitled to register and operate in any European country and pay their corporation tax in the one with the lowest rates (which may be nil). What would happen if consumers here used people power to urge Vodaphone to pay more tax? They could organize a boycott of buying Vodaphone handsets. Probably it would just close down its manufacturing, making thousands of people in the UK redundant, and set up in China, where there is no corporation tax whatsoever. They would find a massive market for their products in China, India and the oil-rich Middle-Eastern countries.
So is this a solution to our problems with cuts? No way. Actually I have been boycotting Starbucks for a long time, firstly because their coffee is ridiculously over-priced and I know places where you can get takeaway coffee for £1. Secondly I think it is impertinent for a string of mere cafés to tell us what our definition of marriage ought to be. If they want to put froth in their coffee it is one thing, but I don't want to fund their frothy and specious arguments about politics. Just making lattes does not mean you are a legal expert.

The people who demonstrated against Starbucks think that getting more tax into the Inland Revenue will solve our problems. It won't. I think that looking at where the money is going is the first step and generating more jobs is the next. It might well be more helpful to abolish business taxes and thus encourage smaller enterprises to expand than to chase the odd £20 million here or there. But then I am one of those eccentrics who STILL don't realize that the entire EU is a fiction invented by the Daily Mail...
>
>
>

Wednesday, 12 December 2012

So Who Are the Racists?

The Rotherham fostering scandal has had some interesting repercussions. The children in question were from an Eastern European gypsy family and the parents had never wanted to give them up into council care. So why were they interfered with? It looks very much as if Rotherham Social Services has got a policy of picking on gypsy families and telling them they are having too many children and are bad parents.
Sounds racist to me. Of course there are plenty of families of all sorts whose children have been snatched from time to time by bossy social services under a variety of pretexts. There is far too much of this going on. When people say that we need more couples to adopt, as there are so many children in care, they should stop and consider whether those children should ever have been taken from their parents in the first place. A lot of parents even flee this country just for the sake of hanging on to their own kids. We ought to do everything we can to support the natural parents who want to keep their children, helping them solve and cope with problems, not just taking their children away.
When Winston McKenzie, UKIP parliamentary candidate for Croydon North, heard about the Rotherham scandal, he was indignant and made some unguarded remarks about modern-day priorities when it comes to adoption and fostering. He is reported to have said that giving a child to a male homosexual couple is a form of "child abuse". I don't know whether Winston has been reading the research of Professor Mark Regnerus, which would lend some support to his views, but I do think that he is entitled to have his opinion and the fact remains that nobody has a "right" to adopt. Nobody has ever had any such "right" and the welfare of the children is the uppermost concern.
It is the lefties, trendies and Guardianistas of course, who have introduced this barmy notion of a "right to adopt". An academic has just warned the Home Secretary that even convicted paedophiles on the sex offenders register should have this "right to adopt" because otherwise we are denying their Yuman Rights.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/8201521/Sex-offenders-including-paedophiles-should-be-allowed-to-adopt-Theresa-May-told.html

Thank goodness there are still some people like Winston McKenzie who, although maybe a bit brusque, have got common sense, and having met him I would say that his heart is in the right place.
The reactions to Winston's comment were so blatantly racist that I didn't know whether to laugh or puke. Here is one typical remark found on Facebook:-

murphypresents Tom Murphy 15h
Look at this black boxking cunt says gay adoption is like child abuse ! Go back up the tree u came down ! pic.twitter.com/02VGDZNj
Details Reply Retweet Favorite

Hundreds of similar messages appeared on "gay"-rights pages all over the internet, calling Winston a "nigger", a "wog", a "black sh-t", a "foreigner" because he comes from Jamaica and a "monkey-faced moron". They told him to "go back to the jungle" and "go back to where you belong" and one said "he's probably a cannible" (sic) Charming. I love the spelling!
>
>
>

Tuesday, 11 December 2012

Goodbye, Sir Patrick, We Are Missing You Already

"Will be sorely missed...." How often do we hear that polite cliché about public figures when actually we are rather glad to see the back of them?
Not Patrick Moore. He really will be missed. What a marvellous Englishman and what a marvellous character. For years of my childhood he broadcast The Sky At Night and was renowned for talking faster than anybody else on television. The reason was simply that the BBC gave him such a short slot and he was determined to fit the maximum amount of information into it. This was easy to burlesque and he was great parody material - please nobody mention Uranus - but still he genuinely fascinated millions with his astronomical lore. The planets, the stars, the constellations, the comets, the galaxies, the Moon which nobody then had yet set foot on, and even the moons of other planets... he packed incredible amounts of knowledge into his programme and incredible amounts of enthusiasm for his subject too.
Patrick was a great patriot and lied about his age and his health to get into the RAF in Word War II. As a navigator in a bomber crew, he took huge risks and was lucky to get through alive. His fiancée didn't. She was killed in an air raid and he never forgot her.
A few years ago I heard Sir Patrick speak live at a UKIP meeting. He was a loyal, active member of the party from its earliest days, and had no time for any politician who wanted to throw away what so many brave people of his generation had fought and died for - our national sovereignty. He was never taken in by the soft soap and the sugary promises of the political class. What a redoubtable man and if only there were more like him in the younger generation...
>
>
>