Trident is a small price to pay for continued influence

Everyone should stop moaning about Trident. People go on about the cost but really they are wobbly lefties who are against protecting ourselves on principle. This is simply not acceptable. The cost is tiny in comparison with the amount of benefits we are giving to lazy lay abouts with no jobs. If they want to continue their lay about lifestyle they will need a secure and prosperous country. The UK needs strong defence to ensure a seat at the top table of world powers. We’re punching above our weight internationally and we need to keep doing so or we will simply become a backwater.

 

With regards archbishops whinging about it – who the hell are they to voice a political opinion on this? No one goes to church anymore. This decision needs to be made dispassionately and NOT based on people who believe in a god who can create the earth in 6 days. If god exists and is so all powerful he wouldn’t have made nuclear weapons possible in the first place. The fact that human beings can destroy the planet in 6 minutes won’t be changed if we don’t have Trident, but our security will be lessened. In fact, the irony is that the religious people in this country are bleating about not having a nuclear weapon when the very people who see the world as in a religious struggle wouldn’t hesitate to use a nuclear bomb if they could get their hands on one. Oh, and don’t forget that there are nuclear powers in that part of the world. The cold war proved that self-deterrence does work. We don’t know this yet, but I suspect that the only way to ensure Nukes won’t be used against us by religious nutters is to ensure we have the power to destroy their world should they destroy ours. People, even nutters, value their families. If we don’t have the deterrent we have nothing.

 

The cost is nothing against the risk of doing nothing. Defence of the people is the government’s primary responsibility. This is regardless of party and should be without political debate. There is no case at all for disarming.

 

What did they die for?

I watched a show on the winners of the Victoria Cross during the first world war, a couple of days ago on Five. It is incredible what some people are willing to do under stress. I’ve read research that most people who “go over the top” during war time do so in support of their comrades in arms rather than for the mother country. In that sense, they are not dying for their country. Equally, it must in part be true that people signed up, knowing the dangers, because of what they saw as the greater good, and the benefit of their country, in this case England. It was a sobering show. Would I react in that way? Once, I hoped I would. I watched the show with a sense of pride for what these people were willing to sacrifice, but I couldn’t help but look around me today and wonder if their sacrifice was worth it. The England those people fought and died for only survived another few years anyway. Not thinking about the empire etc, which was already on it’s last legs, England as it exists today (and of course we are hardly allowed to even think of calling it England anymore – the political correctness brigade think that England is racist!), seems to be predominantly populated by louts, hooligans, hoodies, benefit loafers and young mums. It’s a sad sad thought, but the England that I think of doesn’t seem to exist for the vast majority of the population any more. Thank god for villages and the preservation of a corner of this green and pleasant land remaining English, green and pleasant. Maybe they did die for something after all, but I don’t think that the hoodies and lazy bast*rd benefit people deserve my sacrifice. What a sad state of affairs.

Outraged by Russian spy murder

I have no idea what options the government has at its disposal in this instance, but we have to do something to tell Putin that he cannot attack and kill British citizens with impunity. We cannot simply sit back and do nothing, claiming that we need gas from Russia and therefore cannot be seen to upset them. This isn't simply a murder. They didn't use a gun, they didn't even use Anthrax. No, they used nuclear technology. Let's put it in the right perspective. That is, as Alexander Litvinenko's father said, thta they used a minute nuclear bomb. Used one in our country. Infecting several locations with radiation. What is the true human cost of this IN ENGLAND. How dare they?

Blair you have to stand up to this tyrant. Be firm for once. Who else could have done it? Nuclear technology thankfully doesn't grow on trees.

Don't forget that Alexander Litvinenko had been granted British citizenship. If we mean to have equality he has to be treated as equal as you or I, not as though he was an ex-KGB officer. If Russia has murdered a British Citizen and endangered untold numbers of others we have to do something, even if it is just a public condemnation.

--

All or nothing on religious paraphenalia

On the one hand I can't believe how foolish BA have been, on the other I want to hug them. Firstly I must point out that I am an atheist who strongly believes the gospel according to Richard Dawkins. Organised ignorance is at the heart of so much of what is bad with this world. As I am a liberal, but don't believe in a god, it therefore doesn't matter to me whether other people want to wear items that express their beliefs. However, when people sign up for work they do so with an understanding of the expected dress codes. The woman who lost her case today knew what she was signing up for. On the other hand, how ridiculous is it that other faiths are allowed to wear their clothing and bangles? This is simply wrong, and smacks of inequality. If I had written the rules, I would have outlawed ALL religious dress. Sadly I didn't write them, and in this instance my liberal values are appalled that Christians are being discriminated against. Surely this is a rule that should be clear: all or nothing. Shame on you BA

Holland takes common sense approach

It is such great news that the Dutch want to ban Muslims from wearing the Burqa.  It's sad that it has come to this -> Holland has always been the most liberal of countries, but it really is time for European governments to stand up and defend the way of life here. Yes, in principle, everyone should be able to wear whatever they like, but in this instance it is so clear that the Muslims who "choose" to wear this garment are doing so to make a political statement. No western woman could wear western clothes in a Muslim country. In my opinion most muslims are not extremist, but they should now stop seeing everything that happens as victimisation, and they should start to "out" those evil people who are using religion for evil purposes. It takes all parts of society to pull together to get through what is happening - we simply cannot turn the other cheek any more, integration needs to be the future. Multi-culturalism is just separatism by another name

--

Struggling to care about Farepak

Is anyone else struggling to understand why the collapse of Farepak is getting so much coverage? I mean, really, do you think it would have got so much coverage if it had been a hedge fund? I appreciate that the savers are poor people, probably putting aside a few pounds from their benefits, but by all accounts this saving scheme only pays for Christmas presents. I know it's not ideal, but it's not like anyone is going to go hungry because of it (apart from employees who seem mostly to be demonised by the BBC). Who cares!! Let's move on to bigger more important issues - the world is overheating, thousands of our troops are engaged in a seemingly unending series of conflicts (did anyone else think that Spooks "Aftermath" theory was just a little too close to the truth???), and our kids are getting fatter, more unhealthy, and more unruly than ever before.

For fuck sake BBC, please get things in perspective for once!

Government MUST hold firm on School dinners

One of the “big” stories today is that the healthier school dinners are not working. Is this really true? Did we really expect kids to prefer healthy food to chips? Of course not. Is it an option to return to chips? Of course not.

 

For once, just once, this government, and the whole country, needs to take a common-sense decision. Kids to not have a “human right” to choose to kill themselves with chips and junk food. Parents, government and society have a duty of care to ensure that children are fed properly. If parents are failing in this, it does not excuse society or the government. Now is the time to stand firm on this issue. The government must ensure that it does whatever necessary, even if that means bailing out the catering companies financially, to ensure that this initiative works. As Jamie Oliver showed on his “School Dinners” TV show, the kids will rebel at first, but they do come round. Firstly they run out of money for Chips at lunchtime, and secondly, their taste buds come round to the new flavours.

 

We cannot allow the Turkey Twizzler back into schools. Enough namby pambying.

 

BBC biased on Muslim political correctness

The BBC is reporting that “Paris airport bars Muslim staff”. With no further knowledge of the story than the BBC’s own story it is crystal clear to me that this is yet another example of the BBC’s stance of political correctness at the expense of public safety and the facts. Read slightly further down the article and it becomes clear that the 70’odd staff who have had their security levels reduced had been under surveillance for some time, and I quote “Airport officials say some of the workers had frequently visited Pakistan and Afghanistan the previous year.” Visiting those countries is not a crime, but doing so frequently, when you have a high security clearance at an international airport does of course put you under suspicion. The French should be commended for being willing to confront difficult issues to protect the safety of their people. This common sense approach doesn’t fit with the BBC’s agenda of multi-culturalism and political correctness. We have to face up to the fact that a significant proportion of Muslims in this country (and I can only assume in France as well), want to completely overturn the laws and customs of the countries in which they have been made welcome. You only have to look at any of the surveys in the newspapers in recent months to see that behind the public face of Islam in this country is a highly dangerous culture of isolation and an acceptance of violence as a way of changing how the majority live their lives.

 

Politicians need to remember that while protecting the minority is key to democracy, (and I 100% support this), the job of protecting the majority is equally important. These “communities” cannot be allowed to hold the rest of us to ransom, and it seems perfectly sensible that people under suspicion should not be given high security clearance. It’s not like they have been thrown in prison for their views – as would have happened in Saudi Arabia or other middle eastern countries. In fact I’m fairly confident that those who might have lost their jobs are currently enjoying benefit handouts from the French state. This is right and proper – as is protecting people of all faiths and backgrounds who fly in and out of Paris.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6108574.stm

 

Immigration out of control

Figures issued today on immigration prove something many of us have suspected for several years, that is that immigration is totally out of control. The Labour government tells us that the economy has grown due to this influx, and there surely must be some truth in this, however the corresponding increase in costs for Council services, the NHS, education and policing is crippling the economy. Britain PLC is spending more than it is getting in, and as a result our public services are struggling. Anyone in business knows that this situation cannot continue – but of course Britain PLC is not run by business minded people, but rather by politicians and local councillors who have little or no grasp of practical economics – the answer every time from Labour is simply, put up taxes.

 

Sure, many of these so called “economic migrants” come to this country to work (and pay tax), but their families who come with them do not. They all use services, without putting anything in. And this doesn’t even take into account the increased number of people on benefits. Immigrants cannot go straight onto benefits, however if they are willing to take a lowly paid manual job, it is very likely that someone else will no longer have work. I don’t blame the immigrants. In the same situation I would do the same thing. However, in Britain today it is too easy for British people to “sponge” off the state. If your job goes to someone willing to work for less money, you’ll quickly get benefits, a council house etc. You have to remember that in our society today being able to afford a TV/Holiday/Sky etc is now considered a human right. It’s crazy. Sadly the problem is actually that our underclass is lazy and cannot wait for an excuse to get onto benefits. The immigrants themselves are not to blame, but by allowing them in, you accentuate a problem with our lay-about society. What happens? More people on benefits, expecting the state to do everything for them (remember New Orleans in the US?), blaming immigrants for taking their jobs, not educating their children and you end up with the lawless city estates that we need to face up to.

 

So I say to the immigrants from Eastern Europe, “I’m sorry, it’s not you, it’s us.” It’s nothing personal - in fact in this case it really is our fault, but you really should go home. Our country is falling over because there is no incentive for British people to do the work that you are willing to do.

 

Parliament ignores voters on Brown coronation

When the Speaker of the House of Commons (Mr Martin, Labour MP) dismissed Tory leader David Cameron’s question as to whom would replace Blair as leader, he was effectively banging another nail in the coffin lid of British democracy. Given the “presidential” nature of Blair’s primacy, how can it still be acceptable for the party in question to chose the leader without consulting the population? We are lucky of course that Blair does not actually have presidential powers, however the focus on personalities is such that surely we, the people, should have some say in what happens next once Blair, finally, leaves office?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6106038.stm

 

Given the fact that Scottish MPs continue to vote on English affairs (ie the smoking ban), yet English MPs cannot vote on similar issues which affect Scotland (ie Parliament didn’t discuss Scottish Smoking ban), and with the potential for an almost exclusively Scottish executive with a Brown PM, where exactly does the power lie? English people seem to have little or no power over our own future.

 

No taxation without environmnental action

The government is at the forefront of world efforts to reverse climate change. The vast majority of scientists agree that climate change is happening and that we need to do something urgently. However, as the Sun pointed out on 30^th October, “I’m going to save the world, and you lot are paying” seems to be Tony Blair’s message to the British public. We have a situation where the developing world will not put in place curbs on emissions without the western world doing the same. For western world, read America -> but they have already said they won’t do so. QED the UK will be paying a tax, hampering our economic growth, for world benefit, when no-one else will be doing the same. The government’s explicit moral stance on this issue is commendable, but why won’t they commit that the money raised from taxing everything from fridges to cars will go into developing better green technologies – why not say that the taxes will be used to subsidise domestic wind turbines or solar power?

We are now at the stage where we need to face up to the fact that we should all be producing our own energy. At B&Q at the moment you can buy a wind turbine for c£2K. Who’s going to pay that? But with government taxes and increased fuel prices, if the cost could be brought down, surely more people would switch? Sharing the renewable burden across the country, with each house storing some energy in rechargeable battery form might actually reduce the need for coal and gas power stations. Sure, domestic turbines are not pretty, but neither are satellite dishes, but we’ve all got used to those.

What simply isn’t acceptable, is that Blair, Brown, Milliband et al look likely to raise billions of pounds from additional taxation and rather than using the funds to save the world, they could well just end up further subsidising the health service, council services and schooling for immigrants from Eastern Europe who have flooded our into Britain in the past two years. The inequality in this country has to stop. The middle classes can’t shoulder any more burden without something in return. Yes to environmental taxes, but not without environmental action in return.

Paul: 31^st October 2006