The influential Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) think tank has finally actually articulated what the majority of the public, who bother to think about such things at all, had worked out some time back.
Namely that the Government has opened the UK up by it’s failure to make it worth the bother of integration to isolationist ethnic minorities.
It seems the self hating ‘great and good’, the most recent example being the arch Bishop of Canterbury, have spent so long bending over backwards effacing British institutions and ways in the name of ‘multiculturalism’ that they have virtually faded away, People naturally wish to cling to an Identity and this leaves a vacume for religion, or race, to fill - to the detriment of society as a whole, providing the fertile ground for and feeding extremism.
The RUSI state: : "That fragmentation is worsened by the firm self-image of those elements within it who refuse to integrate.
This is a problem worsened by the lack of leadership from the majority which in mis-placed deference to 'multiculturalism' failed to lay down the line to immigrant communities, thus undercutting those within them trying to fight extremism.
The country's lack of self-confidence is in stark contrast to the implacability of its Islamist terrorist enemy.
We look like a soft touch. We are indeed a soft touch, from within and without."
Predictably, as the executive arm of the Islington Tendancy and a perfect example of the problem New Labour reflexively deny any suggestion that this may be so out of hand. Attempting to claim the findings "do not stand up to scrutiny", though they actually make clear sense when scrutinised.
Muddying/diverting the point a Cabinet Office spokesman claimed: "The safety and security of our citizens is the Government's main priority and the Government rejects any suggestion that Britain is a soft touch for terrorists."
Friday, 15 February 2008
Thursday, 14 February 2008
Something you should be worried about
Someone with an over active imagination managed to mistake the MP3 player a man on his way home from work was listening to for a gun. They reported it to the police.
We all know that tinny buzzing can be annoying ;-) and it must have been playing at least loudly enough to drown out police shouting at him , as proved to be the case.
It is fortunate whoever it was doesn’t regularly use the tube, or there would be armed police running round in droves all over the place.
The police did what they are supposed to, given the circumstances (Hurrah!), fortunately they were not quite so ‘enthusiastic’ as those who dealt with poor Jean Charles de Menezes and the music lover survived the experience.
The poor guy only realised something was up when passers by and traffic reacted weirdly staring at him. He took out the earpieces and realised he had lots of policemen behind him pointing guns at him and shouting not to move. Fortunately for him he didn’t try to change tracks before he realised…
On discovering he was armed with nothing more deadly than music they still – get this – arrested him and carted him off in hand cuffs anyway.
Now in days of yore, say 30 years ago, even 15 years ago, they would have thought twice about that. But that was before New Labour - and here it all starts to become an example of a dawning fascist state at work.
They could have verified who he was and all this could have been done on the street where they stopped him, or in a police car. At worse he could have ‘assisted them with their enquiries’ at the station and sorted the matter out easily there.
Here is the bit you should really be concerned about though. By now they must have known pretty well the guy was guilty of nothing more than going home from work on the bus, speaking to the witness should have easily confirmed this.
What happened to the discretion that British police officers used to be so famous for using. All gone now under a flurry of ‘Policies’ and ‘Targets’ and ‘Initiatives’. Stuff just serving the public, serve the State. I bet it showed up as at least one extra detection, probably several.
No they had to arrest him, like a clueless call centre operator running through their script - and worst still they took his DNA and fingerprints – and the State will keep them.
We all know that tinny buzzing can be annoying ;-) and it must have been playing at least loudly enough to drown out police shouting at him , as proved to be the case.
It is fortunate whoever it was doesn’t regularly use the tube, or there would be armed police running round in droves all over the place.
The police did what they are supposed to, given the circumstances (Hurrah!), fortunately they were not quite so ‘enthusiastic’ as those who dealt with poor Jean Charles de Menezes and the music lover survived the experience.
The poor guy only realised something was up when passers by and traffic reacted weirdly staring at him. He took out the earpieces and realised he had lots of policemen behind him pointing guns at him and shouting not to move. Fortunately for him he didn’t try to change tracks before he realised…
On discovering he was armed with nothing more deadly than music they still – get this – arrested him and carted him off in hand cuffs anyway.
Now in days of yore, say 30 years ago, even 15 years ago, they would have thought twice about that. But that was before New Labour - and here it all starts to become an example of a dawning fascist state at work.
They could have verified who he was and all this could have been done on the street where they stopped him, or in a police car. At worse he could have ‘assisted them with their enquiries’ at the station and sorted the matter out easily there.
Here is the bit you should really be concerned about though. By now they must have known pretty well the guy was guilty of nothing more than going home from work on the bus, speaking to the witness should have easily confirmed this.
What happened to the discretion that British police officers used to be so famous for using. All gone now under a flurry of ‘Policies’ and ‘Targets’ and ‘Initiatives’. Stuff just serving the public, serve the State. I bet it showed up as at least one extra detection, probably several.
No they had to arrest him, like a clueless call centre operator running through their script - and worst still they took his DNA and fingerprints – and the State will keep them.
Wednesday, 13 February 2008
Lib Dem election promises “not subject to legitimate expectation” either
Those who voted Liberal Democrat in the last general election presumably did so on the basis of their manifesto – that, Like New Labour’s, promised a referendum on the European Constitution.
Now their new Leader, Nick Clegg, who holds his seat as a result of that election, is also disingenuously claiming, like Gordon Brown, that the microscopic differences in the Lisbon Treaty somehow remove any need for a popular vote. He wants Liberal Democrat MPs to help New Labour block an amendment demanding a referendum and force the treaty through.
So now you know. With Nick Clegg in charge you can’t believe the lies the Fib Dems print in their manifesto any more than you can New Labour’s.
They will apparently say whatever is expedient to persuade people to vote for them - and then do as it suits them with no regard to their vain promises.
And they wonder why the citizen is loosing faith in politicians…
Now their new Leader, Nick Clegg, who holds his seat as a result of that election, is also disingenuously claiming, like Gordon Brown, that the microscopic differences in the Lisbon Treaty somehow remove any need for a popular vote. He wants Liberal Democrat MPs to help New Labour block an amendment demanding a referendum and force the treaty through.
So now you know. With Nick Clegg in charge you can’t believe the lies the Fib Dems print in their manifesto any more than you can New Labour’s.
They will apparently say whatever is expedient to persuade people to vote for them - and then do as it suits them with no regard to their vain promises.
And they wonder why the citizen is loosing faith in politicians…
Quote of the day
“ If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.”Thomas Jefferson
Private treatment initiative underutilised by NHS, rollout halted.
It seems that Independent sector treatment centres (ISTCs), created in a bid to cut waiting lists, to take care of minor surgery and diagnostic tests such knee and hip replacements, hernias and cataract operations, are being under utilised. Some are being passed only half the work they agreed to handle.
This is hardly surprising when you realise that it is not in the interests of cash strapped NHS hospitals to pass them patients - as they are paid per person treated and have to compete for the patients.
Under this arrangement It makes economic sense for NHS hospitals to hang on to as many patients as possible, even though this may disadvantage the patient, as it may involve, at a minimum, much longer waits for treatment.
Thus the contractual arrangements have the, presumably, unintentional side effect of sabotaging the initiative.
David Worskett, representing private health providers, pointed out that part of the problem was also due to GPs being reluctant to utilise them in some areas.
There have been two waves of ISTCs opened since they were announced in 2003. Health Secretary, Alan Johnson, has scrapped some of the second wave because of ‘lack of demand’, despite waiting lists. He has also pulled the plug on the third wave.
This may not necessarily be seen as entirely bad, or to be avoided, by NHS supporters who are vehemenently opposed to any private sector involvement on ideological grounds. It is also likely some employed within in the NHS may closely identify their interests with it’s remaining as it is.
Karen Jennings, of Unison stated: "This is money that should have gone into the NHS."
This is hardly surprising when you realise that it is not in the interests of cash strapped NHS hospitals to pass them patients - as they are paid per person treated and have to compete for the patients.
Under this arrangement It makes economic sense for NHS hospitals to hang on to as many patients as possible, even though this may disadvantage the patient, as it may involve, at a minimum, much longer waits for treatment.
Thus the contractual arrangements have the, presumably, unintentional side effect of sabotaging the initiative.
David Worskett, representing private health providers, pointed out that part of the problem was also due to GPs being reluctant to utilise them in some areas.
There have been two waves of ISTCs opened since they were announced in 2003. Health Secretary, Alan Johnson, has scrapped some of the second wave because of ‘lack of demand’, despite waiting lists. He has also pulled the plug on the third wave.
This may not necessarily be seen as entirely bad, or to be avoided, by NHS supporters who are vehemenently opposed to any private sector involvement on ideological grounds. It is also likely some employed within in the NHS may closely identify their interests with it’s remaining as it is.
Karen Jennings, of Unison stated: "This is money that should have gone into the NHS."
Tuesday, 12 February 2008
New Labour Manifesto Promises are: “Not subject to Legitimate Expectation”
This has been aired elsewhere - but quite frankly can’t be drawn to the attention of the voters often enough, so I make no apology for raising it here.
UKIP took Gordon Brown to court over his reneging on New Labour’s manifesto promise to hold a referendum on the EU Constitution now renamed the Lisbon Treaty.
The case was brought by former New Labour activist, Stuart Bower. He stated:
"From the papers I have been sent, it seems that the Prime Minister is denying the pledge made in his government's manifesto. Surely this is a desperate act as everybody knows the commitment was made and that is why many people gave their votes to his party.
"To me, it is a clear case of breach of contract. They made a written promise and broke it. That was a contract between the government and the people. “
Everybody does know the commitment was made - and it certainly was a factor that many of those who in the end voted New Labour took account of when they voted.
What is (hat tip to the ‘Is there more to life than shoes?’ blog) soooo worth noting though - and seems to be of such little interest to MSM, was Gordon Brown’s Barrister; who blithely informed the court that: "manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation "!!
In other words, the Prime Minister’s personal representative, is saying in open court, that the electorate can’t really expect any manifesto promises to be kept.
Now we all know that it may not be possible to deliver of a manifesto promise, due to unforeseen circumstances, including the non co-operation of opposition MPs, but there is a world of difference between that and actively wriggling out of keeping them, deliberately avoiding keeping them.
Even these days, we at least expect them to make the effort.
So there you have it. You don’t just have to rely on personal observation any more - It is official.
You would have to be a mug to be swayed by the blandishments contained in any future New Labour’s manifesto - you really can not expect them to even attempt to honour them.
Gordon, the Pork Pieman, may have been reading his Machiavelli again; Perhaps: “The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present.”.
UKIP took Gordon Brown to court over his reneging on New Labour’s manifesto promise to hold a referendum on the EU Constitution now renamed the Lisbon Treaty.
The case was brought by former New Labour activist, Stuart Bower. He stated:
"From the papers I have been sent, it seems that the Prime Minister is denying the pledge made in his government's manifesto. Surely this is a desperate act as everybody knows the commitment was made and that is why many people gave their votes to his party.
"To me, it is a clear case of breach of contract. They made a written promise and broke it. That was a contract between the government and the people. “
Everybody does know the commitment was made - and it certainly was a factor that many of those who in the end voted New Labour took account of when they voted.
What is (hat tip to the ‘Is there more to life than shoes?’ blog) soooo worth noting though - and seems to be of such little interest to MSM, was Gordon Brown’s Barrister; who blithely informed the court that: "manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation "!!
In other words, the Prime Minister’s personal representative, is saying in open court, that the electorate can’t really expect any manifesto promises to be kept.
Now we all know that it may not be possible to deliver of a manifesto promise, due to unforeseen circumstances, including the non co-operation of opposition MPs, but there is a world of difference between that and actively wriggling out of keeping them, deliberately avoiding keeping them.
Even these days, we at least expect them to make the effort.
So there you have it. You don’t just have to rely on personal observation any more - It is official.
You would have to be a mug to be swayed by the blandishments contained in any future New Labour’s manifesto - you really can not expect them to even attempt to honour them.
Gordon, the Pork Pieman, may have been reading his Machiavelli again; Perhaps: “The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present.”.
Quote of the day
“ Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true.”Demosthenes
Diana Death enquiry pushed to £6 Million and rising
It emerges that £6 million has been spent investigating the death of the Princess of Wales – and that is only so far. You can be absolutely sure the final figure will be considerably more than that .
Why? Largely because one sad grieving old man, being fed what people think he wants to hear by people who can collect money from him, plus some fully paid up members of the tinfoil hat squad, will never accept an outcome that does not fit in with their pre conceived conspiracy theories.
No matter how many enquiries, investigations, whatever, they will not be satisfied with the truth they will only be satisfied with what they want to hear, what they sadly imagine to be the truth.
Any reasonable person can not escape the fact that this junket has gone on long enough – far too long and spent far too much taxpayer’s money.
No body with a realistic understanding of the world can imagine anyone would plan an assassination like that. That is the stuff of convoluted best selling novels. There were simply too many random factors at play and too many witnesses.
Much of what happened that night was clearly chance resulting from decisions made on the fly by Dodi Fayed, his driver and the random actions of the paparazzi. No one in their right mind would rely on so many random factors coming together to plan for them.
One can empathise with Mr Fayed for thinking the way he does and he may have some excuse.
He employed the driver, his beloved son made many of the key decisions that lead to the accident. He will be desperate to believe it was anyone or anything, other than himself, or his son that may have been responsible for this sad accident.
His idea of the way Royal families behave may be influenced by how certain middle eastern royal families who actually govern their countries do react and judge their honour. It would be understandable if a grieving old man, a man who’s understanding of the way some things work in the UK may be less than clear, were to project what he is familiar with, his expectations, on another princess.
With the best will in the world it is difficult to equate the plain speaking Prince Philip with King Khalid.
If Mr Fayed wishes to continue to flog a dead horse indefinitely perhaps it would be better done at his own expense rather than the put upon British Taxpayer’s.
Why? Largely because one sad grieving old man, being fed what people think he wants to hear by people who can collect money from him, plus some fully paid up members of the tinfoil hat squad, will never accept an outcome that does not fit in with their pre conceived conspiracy theories.
No matter how many enquiries, investigations, whatever, they will not be satisfied with the truth they will only be satisfied with what they want to hear, what they sadly imagine to be the truth.
Any reasonable person can not escape the fact that this junket has gone on long enough – far too long and spent far too much taxpayer’s money.
No body with a realistic understanding of the world can imagine anyone would plan an assassination like that. That is the stuff of convoluted best selling novels. There were simply too many random factors at play and too many witnesses.
Much of what happened that night was clearly chance resulting from decisions made on the fly by Dodi Fayed, his driver and the random actions of the paparazzi. No one in their right mind would rely on so many random factors coming together to plan for them.
One can empathise with Mr Fayed for thinking the way he does and he may have some excuse.
He employed the driver, his beloved son made many of the key decisions that lead to the accident. He will be desperate to believe it was anyone or anything, other than himself, or his son that may have been responsible for this sad accident.
His idea of the way Royal families behave may be influenced by how certain middle eastern royal families who actually govern their countries do react and judge their honour. It would be understandable if a grieving old man, a man who’s understanding of the way some things work in the UK may be less than clear, were to project what he is familiar with, his expectations, on another princess.
With the best will in the world it is difficult to equate the plain speaking Prince Philip with King Khalid.
If Mr Fayed wishes to continue to flog a dead horse indefinitely perhaps it would be better done at his own expense rather than the put upon British Taxpayer’s.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
