Monday, November 11, 2013

US And British Military Demise - Lions Led By Donkeys

On this day when, we give thanks to those who served in the US military and remember those British warriors who made the ultimate sacrifice so that we may enjoy our freedoms, stories still abound in the media about the lack of respect shown by the top brass who are supposedly in charge of our defence.

It has been mentioned on this site before that the military is there to guarantee our freedom and defence and therefore should be exempt from the usual games played by self serving politicians who's only concern is the implementation of their own agenda.

It has also been mentioned that the left has an ideological hatred of the military and this cannot be demonstrated more clearly than following the actions of President Obama with respect to the military machine of which he is the Commander in Chief.

As the world's foremost 'progressive',  the American military machine was always going to be the number one target of his promised 'fundamental transformation' of America. This agenda, combined with the obsession of 'progressives' with sexual orientation, has spelled disaster for the US military.

President Obama has been carrying out a purge of anyone among the military top brass who is deemed to oppose his administration's plans for a feminized or gender neutral military. There are reports that many of America's most experienced military top brass have been relieved of their duty for having the temerity to disagree with the career politicians of the White House administration.

The question that is being rightly asked is, how can an administration made up of career politicians led by a community organizer, possibly know what effects their meddling with the military will have on moral and its effectiveness as a fighting force?

The debacle over the new gender neutral hat for the US Marines is a classic example of bringing sexuality politics where it doesn't belong. This is being done not to improve moral and make the US Marines a better fighting force but to satisfy their perverted ideology.

Things are no better across the Atlantic where Great Britain's media created Prime Minister, David Cameron, is busy demolishing the once mighty British military machine.

The Royal Navy has been reduced to a handful of boats including a single aircraft carrier that is incapable of launching strike aircraft. The historic shipyards at Portsmouth are being closed as a political sop to the Scottish nationalists and two Royal Navy support vessels are being built in South Korea.

Cameron also sold off, at a knockdown price, the entire fleet of Harriers leaving the  Royal  Navy/Airforce with no VSTOL capability. The Royal Airforce is now dependent upon some ageing Tornado's and the Euro fighter; this was designed over a decade ago and is fast becoming obsolete.

The Army is being reduced to eighty thousand troops with many soldiers receiving their redundancy notices while on active service in Afghanistan.

Military numbers will be below that of Germany after it was disarmed at the Treaty of Versailles. There is a purpose to Cameron's deliberate evisceration of the British military machine and it is that he is preparing it for absorption into the European Union Joint Defence Force.

This will have the effect of signaling the end of one of Great Britain's greatest institutions; an institution that gives the country its identity as a free, independent, sovereign nation.  For Cameron, Clegg and Red Ed Miliband,  their beloved United States of Europe will be one step closer, and for them it will be mission accomplished.

To drive home the country's contempt for the soldiers serving on the front line,  the Head of the Armed forces, General Sir Nick Houghton, is calling for the full weight of the law to brought down of the head of Marine A, who has been found guilty of shooting dead a Taliban terrorist.

Putting his politically correct 'progressive' credentials before the well being of his soldiers, brave Sir Nick claims that "murder is murder, this is a heinous crime, its gravity means he must be severely punished". There should be no clemency.

He then blathers on about "eroding the moral ascendancy over our enemies". By the very fact that the troops are in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban signals that they already have the moral ascendancy. If they didn't have it already, they wouldn't be there. Dispatching one terrorist to Paradise where he wants to be anyway, does not erode the moral ascendancy.

The former Chief of the Defence staff, Lord Guthrie is also calling for Marine A to be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.

Sir Nick Houghton and Lord Guthrie refuse to use the deployment from hell, the constant attacks by the enemy, the deaths of twenty three comrades, and the grisly display of limbs hung in a tree, as mitigation. They are determined to punish this Royal Marine both severely and publicly.

This appalling behavior toward a serving Royal Marine is a clear demonstration that political correctness has a much higher priority than being loyal to ones' own troops serving on the front line.

Taking the behavior of President Obama toward the American military and David Cameron toward the British, it should be easy to spot the common attitude that these two 'progressives' have toward the two greatest military machines in history. These two machines have not only kept the American and British people free, they have liberated millions of oppressed people across the planet.

These two so called 'leaders' and the donkeys that do their dirty work are not fit to polish the buttons on the uniforms of our bravest.


I am embarking on a quick tour of the homeland so blogging will be intermittent for a little while. I hope to be in a position to update my Facebook pages so please feel free to take a look. It should be fun.

Thank you for taking time to read this stuff, your patronage is much appreciated.

I hope to be visiting, Kingston upon Thames, Surbiton and Hounslow in England.

In Wales, Porthcawl, Pontypridd, Rhondda, Aberdare, Merthyr Tydfil, Dowlais, Ebbw Vale, Abergavenny,  Blaenavon, Penderyn and Brecon.

If you should see a bloke in a pub wearing a red jacket with a cartoon bunny on the right arm, feel free to say hello (and me a buy me a beer).

Friday, November 8, 2013

Royal Marine Gets Life For Dispatching Insurgent - Tony Blair Just Gets Rich

By an amazing coincidence I read only yesterday a column written by George Orwell for the Tribune newspaper dated 31 December 1943. It was in reference to 'war guilt' and the surprise that people seem to have when they discover that war is not a crime.

One of the main headlines today is that a Royal Marine has been sentenced to life imprisonment for dispatching an enemy combatant who he was trained specifically to kill.

The column by Orwell and the trial of the Royal Marine has certain parallels and these raise some issues that should be taken into consideration when officers make the decision to prosecute soldiers for killing the enemy.

Before referring to Orwell and this particular case, it is worth looking back briefly at the incident in question.

As I understand it, the accused Marines were sent to check an area for live insurgents after a helicopter had attacked a group of Taliban killers.

They found one who was barely alive and after a few expletives he was dispatched to meet his maker accompanied by a Shakespearean quote from Hamlet.

The incident came to the attention of an officer and it appears the disciplinary process started from there.

Unfortunately the action was caught on a helmet camera and one of the Marines kept a diary which was used in evidence.

The dispatching Marine also made reference to the Geneva Convention which helped seal his fate.

The prosecuting attorney, David Perry QC, stated that the incident was "an execution of a man who was entitled to be treated with dignity and respect and entitled to be treated as any British service man, or service woman, would be entitled to be treated in a similar situation".

I am not sure which planet Mr. Perry QC hails from, but what he doesn't tell us is, that although British service men and women are theoretically entitled to respect and dignity, would they get it from the Taliban?

The Taliban are a formidable, utterly ruthless enemy who, as everyone knows, 'worship death like we worship life', they show no quarter nor do they ask for any in return. They have declared jihad on the west and have threatened to behead all infidels if they do not accept domination by their desert death cult.

The Taliban butcher their own kind with no mercy, including women and children, for partaking of normal activities such as attending school or flying a kite.

The Geneva Convention does not exist for these medieval barbarians therefore one cannot expect to win a war when only one side fights by the rules.

Did Mr. Perry QC take into account the stress these Marines were under after losing seven comrades killed in action and another forty injured, some with life changing injuries?

Does he accept that only people who have experienced the heat of battle can understand what being attacked every single day does to ones mental equilibrium, let alone sustaining ten casualties in a twenty four hour period.

One of the Marines on trial described as "absolutely devastating" seeing some of his comrades killed in action and their body parts hung in trees as trophies by the same Taliban insurgents who are "entitled to be treated with dignity and respect" from the comrades of the fallen.

Would it not have been better to use the effects of these attacks as mitigation, then send the Marines on some R and R for the purpose of de-stressing, rather than putting them on trial for murder?

Training Marines to kill the enemy, then prosecuting them for murder when they do just that because they didn't kill them within the rules, smacks of posturing.

This incident could have been dealt with in-house, instead the 'powers that be' chose to parade it on the international stage; this show trial has the effect of burnishing their compassionate. 'progressive' credentials for their masters at the UN.

The lessons that should be learned by military men and women who are sent into harms way are this:

a) Always remember some of your officers will stitch you up if it enhances their 'progressive' reputation on the international stage.

b) If you are going to keep a diary, make sure to keep it well hidden.

c) Switch off the helmet camera and microphones in dodgy situations.

As for George Orwell, he summed up the utter stupidity of the attitude to 'official war'. He demonstrates how a soldier dispatching one enemy outside the rules gets charged with murder but the people responsible for starting the war and killing millions are not guilty of anything.

Tony Blair, who is accused by a growing number of people of starting an illegal war in which hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed, is now laughably, a multi-millionaire peace envoy.

While helmet cameras and diaries have been used in evidence against the Marines, the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, is steadfastly refusing to release documents of communications between Blair, Bush and later Brown, to the Chilcot inquiry.

This inquiry was instituted to determine Blair's justification for the Iraq war. Two previous inquiries were so obviously flawed they were dismissed as pure whitewash.

It would appear that Blair has something to hide and the people have a right to know what it is.

(I was unable to find a link so I will write his quotes as they are classic Orwell).

"Hitler, it appears, has not done anything actionable.  He has not raped anybody, nor carried off any pieces of loot with his own hands, nor personally flogged any prisoners, buried any wounded men fact he has not done any of the things which enemy nationals are usually credited with doing in war-time.  He has merely precipitated a world war which will perhaps have cost twenty million lives before it ends. And there is nothing illegal in that". 

He goes on to describe how the Kharkov trials attempted to pin the guilt on Hitler and the rest, for atrocities committed on the Russian front by his subordinates;  the fact that there was a trial, proved that Hitler's guilt was not self evident.

"His crime it is implied was not to build up an army for the purpose of aggressive war, but to instruct that army to torture prisoners".

I will conclude with Orwell's own conclusion from December 1943:

" Nevertheless, a world in which it is wrong to murder an individual civilian and right to drop a thousand tons of high explosive on a residential area does sometime make me wonder whether this earth of ours is not a loony-bin made use of by some other planet".

See a previous post on the same subject here.

Thursday, November 7, 2013

British Justice Hits A New Low - Victims Sacrificed On The Altar Of Progressivism

It is understandable how just a cursory glance at the daily newspapers is enough to make the blood of the calmest people boil with rage. Some of the headlines highlight outrageous stories that demonstrate the yawning chasm between the ruling establishment and the people they are elected to represent.

Free thinking bloggers are lucky in that they can remain calm and use their ability to wipe away the cobwebs of spin and deceit to get at the real motives of the people behind the headlines.

It is now an established fact that the political class across the Anglosphere, together with their attendant bureaucracies, are imposing a transformational "progressive" agenda at the behest of the UN/EU supranational cabal. This agenda is against the expressed wishes of the people they are supposed to be representing.

In Great Britain, it is also an established fact that all parts of the establishment have been stuffed to gunwales with like minded cronies who serve as the governments storm troopers in imposing this agenda, this includes demographic and cultural replacement.

There is no bigger part of the establishment that demonstrates this more than the bewigged, gin soaked imbeciles that masquerade as judges. They preside over a criminal justice system that is so corrupted by 'progressivism' that applying the law and establishing justice has been abandoned in favour of implementing their perverted agenda.

In the twisted minds of the 'progressives', criminals are deemed not to be bad people who do not act with malice aforethought; instead they are deemed to have been created by an uncaring society which does not pay enough attention to the wants and needs of some of their fellow citizens.

'Progressives' also believe that the British people's imperialist past is to blame for all the ills in the world and therefore they must be ethnically cleansed in order to prevent a possible repeat of their civilizing past.

They have also decided that the term 'ethnic cleansing' has too many negative connotations, therefore they use the more politically correct term, 'de-homogenising'.

This policy is continuing at a rapid pace and the latest figures show that the indigenous population are already a minority in Great Britain's largest cities, while the entire country will be past the tipping point by the year 2030.

It is safe to assume that as the political class and the establishment are aware of this fact, and because they are not taking any steps whatsoever to prevent it, they must agree with the policy of ethnic cleansing, de-homogenizing, cultural replacement or whatever fancy name they choose to call it.

Some of the bizarre judgments and sentences handed down by these misnamed guardians of justice reflect the fact that they are applying the law selectively to suit their agenda with an enthusiasm that exposes their own purpose.

The case of Lucy Walsh is a harrowing example of criminals getting preferential treatment while the victim and her family are studiously ignored. It also a clear demonstration of how low the British criminal justice system will sink in pursuit of its 'progressive' agenda.

Lucy was kidnapped then stripped, beaten and gang raped multiple times by three illegal Kurdish immigrants; they laughed among themselves as she cried out in pain. After they had finished their brutal attack, Lucy was dragged down the stairs by her hair and unceremoniously thrown into street.

Her internal injuries were so sever it was a full four days before she could be given a proper medical examination. Two of these savages were caught and the third is still on the run.

Any person who possesses even a minutest sense of justice would agree that hanging is too good for these sub-humans, but this is 'progressive' Britain, where immigrants have exalted status and the perpetrators of crime are the victims of society.

They were given indeterminate sentences but to an activist judge, who puts his 'progressive' agenda before justice or the victim's trauma, this was deemed to be too severe. He reduced their sentences on appeal to twelve years in the full knowledge they will out in six.

To add insult to injury, and to demonstrate the exalted status given to illegal immigrants, one of the savages was granted British citizenship while in prison awaiting trial.

Lucy and her family have expressed their disgust and lack of faith with the criminal justice system, while Lucy herself has emigrated for fear that the remaining rapist will track her down.

In another case, a gang of thugs severely beat and robbed a veteran of the Afghan war and this also serves to demonstrate how lenient 'progressive' judges are when dealing with people they deem to be 'victims of society'.

Five young thugs beat a soldier and continued to beat him until he was unconscious on the ground. The hero suffered multiple injuries including broken ribs and a damaged kidney.

The headline reads that the cowardly thugs were sentenced to twelve years in prison, but closer reading reveals that it was twelve years total for all of them, as opposed to twelve years each. Some of these thugs will be free in less than a year.

The case of triple killer Ian McLoughlin is a shocking example of judges putting 'progressive' politics before the interests of the people. This animal was originally jailed for killing his friend with a hammer. He was released and murdered a father of three, after which he was given a 'life' sentence.

While out on day release from this supposed 'life' sentence, he murdered a sixty six year old pensioner who caught him robbing his eighty six year old neighbor.

The presiding judge was unable to give McLoughlin a life sentence because, apparently, the unelected bureaucrats in EU deemed that this would be the killer.

Many consider these absurd rulings to be advisory and they are continually ignored by other EU countries. It would appear that British activist judges are only too happy to comply with their fellow 'progressives' from across the English Channel.

Before concluding, it's worth returning to the issue of politically active 'progressive' judges, legal and illegal immigrants and their own attitude to the long suffering British people.

Joland Giwa is a violent gang leader who arrived from Lagos in 1999 and claimed asylum; instead of being grateful to the British people for saving him from a miserable life in oil rich Nigeria, he embarked on a criminal career and was in trouble with the police by 2002. Despite this criminality, in act of contempt for the British people and in complete disregard for their safety, he was given 'leave to remain' in the country. This enabled him to continue his violent criminal career and he was subsequently jailed for robbery.

His deportation has been delayed by doubts about his country of origin and a judge has ordered that he be released onto the streets regardless of the police warning that Giwa "is a serious threat to the public with a clear propensity for violence".

The option of detaining him "at Her Majesty's Pleasure" has long been given up in favour of giving immigrants 'leave to remain' no matter how heinous their crime.  So as the option of putting him on a Nigeria Airlines flight back to Lagos from whence he came.

The case of Algerian immigrant, Aziz Lamari, is final proof, if any were needed, that British judges are either from another planet or they have total disregard for the British people while in pursuit of their political agenda.

Aziz Lamari arrived on British shores from the former French colony of Algeria and claimed asylum. Like Giwa before him, instead showing gratitude to the British people he rewarded their kindness by embarking on criminal career. He didn't waste any time and was jailed the following year for robbery.

Deportation proceedings were started but it turned out that Lamari was detained for twenty three days extra. He subsequently returned to Algeria but someone, somewhere, decided that he had been treated abominably and therefore deserves compensation from the British taxpayer, who's generosity he abused.

Instead of throwing the case out of court and saving the taxpayer some hard earned money, the judge agreed that the extra twenty three days in jail was the cause of mental problems for the poor soul and awarded the Algerian criminal $40,000 of taxpayer money. 

The pain and suffering of Lamari's victims or the much abused British people were obviously not a consideration for this so called defender of justice.

The question the British people need an urgent answer for is this: After his return to Algeria why wasn't this criminal just forgotten about? The case should have been over when he fastened his seat belt on the flight back to his homeland.

In conclusion it must be noted that there are almost four thousand foreign murderers, rapists and other criminals on the streets of Great Britain, including eight hundred who have been free for five years or more, because the judges will not allow the pathetically weak politicians to deport them.

It should come as no surprise as to who is picking up the tab for this nonsense, a tab which doesn't include the $88 million that it costs to keep fifteen hundred criminals in prison 'beyond their sentence' while awaiting deportation.

Reading though this, it is obvious that the political class, together their establishment, are more interested in showing off their 'progressive' credentials to the international elite that are blighting the lives of the British people, than doing the job that they are paid to do.

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Massive EU Corruption Exposed - Taxpayers Robbed, No Arrests, Political Crooks Go Free

There is a glaring double standard in the law enforcement and the criminal justice communities when it comes to embezzlement of public money.  On the one hand the Director of Public Prosecutions is calling for tougher prison sentences for those who claim taxpayer funded welfare benefits that they are not entitled to, while on the other hand he is silent about the billions of taxpayer money that has disappeared from the European Union Treasury.

For the nineteenth consecutive year the auditors have refused to sign off the EU accounts due to irregularities and unaccountable spending.  In the real world outside the remote political elite, heads would have rolled, jobs would have been lost and the guilty parties would be taking care not to drop the soap in the prison showers.

Politicians and their attendant armies of career bureaucrats, never have to live by the same rules and regulations that they legislate for the rest of the people to live by.  In the case of the European Union they are getting away unpunished with corruption on such a massive scale it makes Nigeria look like a paragon of probity.

The latest audit of the EU finances is so shocking it should be mandatory reading for every taxpayer across the continent.  Nine point six billion USD of taxpayer money disappeared on fraudulent, illegal and ineligible spending projects.  That is an incredible five percent of the total EU budget.

The EU Department for Foreign Affairs and Security, which is run by the unelected, professional bureaucrat, Baroness Ashton, had an error rate of over three percent or $270,000,000 out of an $8 billion budget.

A good example of the endemic waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer money is the $22,400,000 that was spent on support for female teachers in rural Bangladesh;  half of it was handed over with no documentation.  In other words it was stolen.  Surely the person responsible for handing over this money can be traced and prosecuted.  If not, then Ashton herself should be held responsible and relieved of her post, together with her gold plated, taxpayer funded pension.

Incidentally, this particular example of corruption raises two points:

a) I can't imagine there being many female teachers in Muslim dominated rural Bangladesh, what was the money allocated for and where did it go?

b) Why is British taxpayer money being given to female teachers in rural Bangladesh when they already pay a Kings ransom in development aid through their own foreign aid programme?

The British taxpayers alone are liable for $1.3 billion to cover this EU theft and corruption.

It has become a painful reality for the hard pressed taxpayers of Great Britain and Europe that there is an insatiable appetite for their money by the EU politicians and their army of professional bureaucrats.  Even bankrupt countries such as Greece, Ireland, Italy and Spain are being asked for increased contributions year on year.

Despite annual increases in the EU budget, they still overspend and go on to demand additional cash to cover the shortfall.  The politicians and bureaucrats call it a budget amendment, whereas most people would call it additional theft.

One would have thought that this being the nineteenth consecutive failed audit, the error rate would decrease as the criminals and fraudsters were rooted out and prosecuted, but alas no, to their eternal shame the error rate has increased by a an incredible twenty three percent.

This tells us that criminal behavior and corruption within the EU is increasing at an alarming rate as more and more politicians and bureaucrats get their hands on taxpayer money.  It also tells us that criminals and fraudsters have been stealing from EU taxpayers with impunity for almost two decades.

Criminality on this scale in any other walk of life would have been relentlessly pursued and the perpetrators brought to justice.  One cannot imagine any business, big or small getting away with looting their own private money, let alone taxpayers money, on such a scale and free of any consequences to boot.

It must be noted that while no corrupt official or criminal bureaucrat has been prosecuted for this monumental theft of taxpayer money, one hundred and thirty thousand (130,000) British citizens were prosecuted last year for having the temerity to watch television without a licence.

It remains painfully obvious that the EU leadership have no intention of investigating, let alone eliminating, this corruption and criminal behavior.  The Belgian totalitarian and unelected EU President, Herman von Rompuy, demonstrates his contempt for the taxpayer and the rule of law by failing to tackle this criminal behavior; instead he orders the auditors to tone down their criticism of EU spending to avoid negative press coverage and to promote a positive image of the EU.

As for the long suffering British people, the majority of whom want out of this criminal enterprise, their PR trained Prime Minister, David Cameron, a self confessed Europhile, is going to re-negotiate the terms of membership and secure them a better deal.

To this end he has appointed Ivan Rogers, a professional bureaucrat and fanatical supporter of the United States of Europe, to represent Great Britain in Europe. (Cameron obviously thinks no one will notice this appointment).

As for the British people who are trying to wrest control of their country back from the corrupt cabal of Brussels bureaucrats, Herman von Rompuy and his sidekick Jose Manuel Barrosso, have sounded a second warning.  On the first occasion they threatened war but this engendered a 'bring it on' response from the people; they are now warning the British people that they will pay financially for their freedom.

These two people more than anyone, are responsible for one of the biggest criminal enterprises on the planet and it doesn't behold a British Prime Minister to be tugging a forelock let alone groveling on his knees to these crooks.

By doing nothing to bring the criminals in the EU to justice and by handing over more taxpayer money every year, David 'Vichy' Cameron, together with his cronies, are accessories to these crimes against the British people.

When the day of reckoning comes and they are called to answer for their actions before the courts and the people, these crimes will be added to the crime of treason which they have clearly committed; and for the misery they have caused millions of people, I hope they are shown no mercy.

Update: Here is the best example yet of the EU flushing taxpayers money down the toilet.

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Welfare And Sham Marriage - They Go Together Like A Horse And Carriage



While the salaries, pensions and savings of the British people are continuing to shrink, one thing that never seems to shrink is the number of people rolling up to claim their welfare 'entitlements'. Whether they are legally entitled to other peoples money doesn't appear to bother their conscience in the slightest.

It doesn't seem to bother the collective conscience of Great Britain's inexperienced Prime Minister, David Cameron either or his equally inexperienced cronies in government.  But then again, when cultural replacement via open border mass immigration is the 'unofficial', official policy why should they care, they are achieving what they set out to do.

It goes without saying that Great Britain's welfare system is one of the most generous on planet.  It also goes without saying that it's purpose has been deliberately changed from a safety net, paid for by the sweat and toil of the British people, to a free for all for anyone who can sneak through the intentionally porous borders.

The then unelected President of the European Union, Herman von Rompuy, ordered David Cameron to make sure the British people's welfare 'entitlements' remain available to all EU citizens and illegal immigrants alike. This was to include the vilest of criminals, who cannot be deported under the EU's pernicious Human Rights law.

The rule of thumb for welfare colonists is this; once you have evaded the half asleep border guards, you've made it, you are in, and the chances are that you are in for good, then it's a free for all with British taxpayers money.

As a form of insurance, the illegal immigrant should knock up a local girl and father a child; that child will then act as an anchor baby.  Since the deliberate moral degradation of Great Britain there are plenty of willing old slappers who are only too happy to bear a child just for the extra child benefit allowance and the chance of a bigger council house.

Before the disastrous Blair government threw open the borders to all and sundry, getting access to the British peoples welfare entitlements was a tad more difficult.  Prospective economic migrants and welfare colonists would indulge in sham marriages with British women for a fee.  Once the marriage documents were secured, the couple separated and the immigrant disappeared into the underclass to carry on their chosen way of life, often criminal, financed by the British taxpayer.

These sham marriages were a trickle that turned into a raging flood after the Tony Blair government opened up the British people's welfare safety net to EU citizens.  When these are added to the child bride scandal of the Asian communities, marriage has become the access key to the British peoples welfare system for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of foreign people who have not paid into the system.

The child bride scandal involves young girls who hold British passports, being forced to marry older males, often relatives, from their ancestral village back in the home country; this entitles a whole new group of relatives to relocate to Great Britain and climb aboard the welfare gravy train.

The issue of sham marriages and the access of immigrants to welfare, and to all the other social services for that matter, became one of the biggest concerns of the British people.  These concerns would normally be studiously ignored by the political class but because they were having a negative effect on Cameron's re-election chances, he decided to make a few promises that he had no intention of keeping.

In October 2011 David Cameron announced he was listening to the British people and as a result he was going to tackle the issues and make it more difficult for sham and forced marriages to succeed as a gateway to the welfare system.

Cameron cited the example of a Pakistani man who obtained a spousal visa when he married a compatriot who had settled in Great Britain.  Once the visa was obtained he divorced the wife, returned to Pakistan where he remarried then applied for entry for his new spouse and her family.
(Story here)

This kind of abuse has been going on for decades and ignored by governments of all colours, therefore it should be apparent to all and sundry that he has been forced to act only because the issue was negatively affecting his re-election chances.

It must be reiterated that David Cameron is a career politician with absolutely no experience in the real world.  After a couple of years as a Public Relations executive for a failed television company he moved into party politics.

Apparently he was spotted as a potential leader while at University and groomed thereafter for leadership. Spotted and groomed by who is a mystery.  Whatever skills Cameron possessed after his 'grooming', it is obvious that telling the truth to the people wasn't one of them.  He is a consummate spinner, deceiver and outright liar.  Like Blair before him, everything he says has been calculated for the sole purpose of gaining political advantage.

Cameron announced his plan in October 2011; in October 2013 the situation is much worse.  One in five marriages are a sham and twenty percent of urban marriages are bogus.  Bearing in mind that legislation to deal with bogus marriages was first introduced in 2004, it is obvious that governments are not serious about ending it.
(Story here)

Previously, prospective economic migrants and welfare colonists had to find or bribe a British lady in order to gain access to the welfare gravy train; since the EU has ordered Cameron to keep the system available to all EU citizens this is no longer a requirement.

We now have a  Pakistani man marrying a Czech woman and a Pakistani man marrying a Latvian woman to gain access to the British peoples welfare system.
(Story here)

Then there is the Sri Lankan man marrying an Italian woman for the same reason.
(Story here)

In clear demonstration of the governments contempt for its own people, the men were detained for possible deportation, which experience tells us won't happen, and the women were released without charge. These attempts to defraud the taxpayer were premeditated crimes against the British people and they went unpunished.

The government now has a plan to introduce a small charge if foreigners use the British people's National Health Service but experts have issued warning that this will open the floodgates to criminal gangs.
(Story here)

These gangs already fly pregnant women from Africa to have their babies on the NHS. This is now such a big business it has been named 'the Lagos Shuttle' by health service staff.
(Story here)

If the government cannot put a stop to this flagrant abuse and govern in the interests of the British people, then this raises several important questions:

a) These are career politicians and bureaucrats, does their inexperience translate into incompetence?

b) Have they surrendered so much sovereignty to the European Union and the United Nations that they no longer have enough power to govern Great Britain in the interests of its people?

c) Are they consciously imposing an agenda dictated by these two foreign institutions?

d) Does this agenda include cultural replacement in Great Britain? (This is called de-homogenizing in UN/EU jargon)

Looking at the actions of the political class and their attendant army of career bureaucrats, the answer to all four questions is a resounding 'Yes' demonstrating once and for all that whatever they say, the politicians have no intention of ending welfare colonization or economic migration in general.

Update: Muslims can claim welfare benefits for four wives.
(Story here)

This is an edited repost.

Monday, November 4, 2013

Spending Cuts? - It's All Lies, Great Britian Is Awash With Money

I have a vivid memory from when I was a kid growing up in the late fifties; all the women in the village, and the surrounding villages for that matter, were in a panic because the price of bread, milk or some other staple food was increasing by a half penny or a penny per item.

The repercussions were enormous and they engendered all kinds of responses as a result.  The women banded together to form knitting and sewing circles to recycle worn out clothes, the men went begging to the bosses for any overtime down the pit, we all went searching the local woods for kindling and some of the worse off were reduced to picking the slag heaps for little pieces of coal to keep warm, which was illegal.

As a very last resort, food rations had to be cut and luxuries such as the Friday bottle of pop and cream cake was changed to every other Friday before being dropped altogether. (This is probably why its stuck in my mind all these years).  Similarly, plans for new spending were postponed then dropped altogether; no new shoes for school, no new clothes for anyone at all.

At this moment in time, the nation is being told that the whole country is broke because the last government spent all the money and the new government is being forced to make economies in order to ward off bankruptcy and to deal with an unsustainable national debt.

When the fog of spin, deceit and outright lies have cleared, the economies they are referring to amount to a small decrease in the rise in spending with no decrease at all in the national debt which will be at record levels when the next election comes around in 2015.

Unlike the ladies in the village,  the lack of money has not altered the spending habits of the political class at all, they carry on regardless, with impunity and without a care for the damage they are doing to future generations.

The whole disaster began with Phony Tony Blair and his sidekick Gordon Brown.  When they were booted out of office their irresponsible ways were carried on by the current 'progressive' Liberal- Conservative coalition led by a PR Executive from the defunct Carlton Television company, David Cameron.

In addition to doubling foreign aid to tyrannies abroad to $22 billion, they are still wasting billions on health tourism, welfare benefits for those that have not paid in and expenses for themselves. Then there is $110 billion in unearned tax credits and $96,000,000 per day to the EU bureaucrats but I digress.

The inexperience of these politicians shines like a beacon even on a sunny day.  Only politicians could order two aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy that are unable to use aircraft.  If that's not bad enough the costs have doubled and the delivery date put back yet again.  These two carriers will not be fully functional until 2020.

The contract was agreed in 2007 at a cost of  $5.8 billion; which has risen to $9.9 billion today.  This price does not include the 48 aircraft which aren't going to be cheap.  Thirteen years will have elapsed and an extra $4.1 billion will have been spent before the navy gets its carriers.  The Royal Navy currently has a single aircraft carrier which itself cannot deploy strike aircraft and uses helicopters only.

If the aircraft carrier debacle wasn't bad enough then the NHS computer disaster not only brings their incompetence to the fore, it also demonstrates their total lack of respect for the taxpayers and their hard earned money.

The new NHS computer system was going to revolutionise health care and save the taxpayer money.  If the taxpayer was under the impression they would get better health care and a tax rebate then they are not paying attention, nor are they looking at the historical record of politicians with regard to big capital projects.

The contract was commissioned in 2002 at a cost of $10.2 billion.  It is, or has been, abandoned some eleven years later at a cost of $20.3 billion and rising.  This failed system cost more than the Iraq military campaign.

One of biggest scandals in the history of national finances is the Public Private Initiatives (PPI's) These PPI's are an accounting trick used by politicians to spend hundreds of billions of taxpayers money without it appearing on the balance sheet;  they really are a total disaster for the nation and generations yet unborn, who will be left to pick up the bill.  The sheer size of this disaster has to be read to be believed but to give an idea of scale, the following are a couple of examples. A Coventry Hospital planned a $48,000,000 refurbishment but after government arm twisting they accepted a complete rebuild costing an eye watering $656,000,000.

Widening the M25 motorway went from a $767,800,000 project to an $8 billion project under PPI.  In total the government agreed $108 billion of PPI contracts in 2007 but are committed to paying a staggering $427.2 billion over the lifetime of the contracts.

One would think that the government would have learned their lesson, and more to the point, one would have thought that people would have learned not to trust these proven incompetents with their hard earned money.  Unfortunately this is not so.

The government wants to spend a shedload of taxpayers money on a High Speed railway link between London and Birmingham.  These career politicians and their spin doctors are claiming that the project itself, together with the decrease in travel time of fifteen minutes (15 minutes), will rejuvenate the entire economy of Northern England and decrease inequality with Southern England.

The original estimate in 2010 was for $52.8 billion.  The current estimate stands at $68.8 billion and experts are the forecasting a final costs of $128 billion.  The question for the people is.. who do you trust, the politicians or the experts?

These are staggering sums of money for the politicians and their bureaucrats to be spending, especially with their record of incompetence and mismanagement.

It is comforting to know that the Chief Secretary of the Treasury, Danny Alexander, has promised that the project will be delivered on time and under budget.  That comfort however must be tempered with the knowledge that Alexander is a professional politician from the Public Relations world.

In line with the current British political leadership, Alexander, completed the mandatory Politics, Philosophy and Economics degree at Oxford University.  From there he became press secretary for the Scottish Liberals, then a Public Relations wallah for a pro European Union pressure group, finally becoming the Head of Communications for the Cairngorms Nation Park in Scotland before entering Parliament.

He has no business experience whatsoever or any experience at all outside of public relations and party politics.  He has also not committed himself to be held responsible if the project is not delivered on time or under the $68 billion budget.  There will be no jail time for Alexander because politicians are never held accountable or made to pay the price for their incompetence.

While politicians continue to waste hundreds of billions of taxpayers money, bankrupting the country and committing future generations to high taxation to pay off the unsustainable debt that they have created, the Director of Public Prosecutions is calling for bigger prison sentences for welfare benefit cheats.

The government are spinning that falsely claiming welfare benefits is not a victimless crime and the
$3 billion embezzled last year is money that could have been spent on essential services.  I would suggest that politicians and bureaucrats be held accountable for the billions they waste year after year and be jailed accordingly then banned from holding public office for life.

Friday, November 1, 2013

Managed Decline - The Deliberate Transfer Of British Jobs Abroad

No one should be under any illusion that the decline of British industry began before the political class signed the Lima Declaration and committed Great Britain to a net transfer of technology, capital assets and entire industries abroad.

This post is intended to follow up and expand on yesterdays post about the United Nations stated goal of creating a New International Economic Order by centrally controlling international industry accompanied by a global redistribution of wealth.

The history of Great Britains spectacular industrial rise and even more spectacular fall raises several issues, the main issue being as how can a country that started the industrial revolution, that used its industrial might to rule three quarters of the worlds surface, then be reduced to virtual penury in no more than half a century.

The history of British industry is too enormous to go into too much detail here but to illustrate the point, a brief history with conclusions is required.

The industries that kicked off the rise of Great Britain as a global phenomenon were agriculture, ship building and fishing.  Apart from ship building the other two were eclipsed when advancement in iron and steel technology engendered an explosion in transportation infrastructure.

Canals, roads, bridges, tunnels, railways were constructed at home and abroad; the ingenuity of Victorian engineers knew no bounds and the results of their genius can still be seen today in infrastructure and follow up technology all over the planet.

Nineteenth and twentieth century world-beating British industry evolved from their genius, and the free market system, into the manufacture of ships, aircraft, motorcycles, automobiles, railway rolling stock, military hardware etc. etc.

Just a cursory look at Great Britain today will reveal that the industrial base has all but disappeared and along with it, millions of jobs.

The industrial revolution started in earnest with the iron and steel industry.  This was its backbone. The British steel industry has all but disappeared and what is left is foreign owned, mostly by the Indian conglomerate Tata.

Great Britain is nowhere to be found on the current list of the worlds steel makers; a list dominated by China which was nothing more than a deadbeat communist hellhole populated by illiterate rural peasants less than four decades ago.

The labour intensive shipbuilding industry has all but disappeared also, with Great Britain nowhere to be seen on the current list of global shipbuilders, which again is dominated by China.

So it is with the aircraft manufacturing industry, where British genius and expertise gave the world the jet engine, vertical take off, autoland, supersonic technology and the majority of its highly paid, high technology jobs.

The British car manufacturing industry is all but gone and what is left is foreign owned. How an industry that produces high quality products such as Rolls Royce and the Land Rover can only survive with foreign ownership, including India, is a mystery.

The list goes on, therefore I will conclude this section with the once proud and innovative British motorcycle industry which is gone.

Outside of manufacturing, it is worth noting that in a country that houses the financial capitol of the world, one of Great Britain's biggest banks, Santander, is owned by bankrupt Spain; an EU member country which is on the verge of financial collapse and civil strife due to high unemployment,  including youth unemployment approaching fifty percent.

It must be asked how a bankrupt country such as Spain can take control of Great Britain's major airports and one of the top six energy suppliers, the other major energy suppliers being foreign owned.

It must also be asked how Bombardier,  British manufacturer of railway rolling stock, (albeit Canadian owned) was prevented by the government from tendering for a rolling stock contract for a British railway, in favour of a German company.

During the writing of this post I have read many explanations for the decline of British industry, including:

Out of touch management too set in their ways and unable to adapt to a changing world.

Politically motivated Trade Union militancy negatively affecting competitiveness.

Socialist politicians interfering in the free market.

All are worthy of consideration and it is highly likely that these played a part in the demise: looking at the sheer size and speed of the decline, the role of UNIDO and the Lima Declaration combined with a political elite dedicated to imposing a global 'progressive' agenda must also be considered.

Judging by the behavior of modern politicians such as Blair, Brown and Cameron, it is the opinion of many that this is the most likely explanation.  Having finished their careers as domestic politicians, they are now busy pushing their agenda on the international stage while filling their personal coffers at the same time.

Whatever the explanation is, what is certain is that the people have been sold out, lock, stock and barrel by their own representatives with the sole aim of furthering their 'progressive' global agenda. This has, and will always take,  a higher priority than the interests Great Britain and its people.

Thursday, October 31, 2013

Redistribution Of Wealth By The UN - Politicians Engineered Domestic Industrial Decline

With every day that passes it becomes more apparent that national politicians are ignoring the various peoples they are elected to represent and are devoting their time imposing an internationally agreed global agenda based on equality of nations.

It doesn't take a genius to work out that in order to achieve this it will require a global redistribution of wealth on a massive scale; it also doesn't take a genius to work out that the developed world will have to suffer a severe downgrade in order to get anywhere near an equality of nations.

Conspiracy theories abound that the world is being run by Freemasons, Bilderbergers, Jewish Bankers and even shape shifting lizards.  These can be discounted on the basis of their unlikelihood, therefore I would suggest that instead of wasting valuable resources investigating these theories, attention should be switched to the United Nations.

The documents relating to 'redeploying world industry' and a global redistribution of wealth are there for all to see; one only has to look.

National politicians do not want their various populations to read these documents and to discover what their true intentions are; they rely instead on keeping their people ignorant, preferring state supplied 'bread and circuses' to divert their attention away from their treacherous actions.

After all, what kind of geek would sacrifice their precious time to plough through the Constitution of The United Nations Industrial Development Organisation and the Lima Declaration, when they could be watching football or sitting in the local watering hole imbibing on their favourite ale. (Watching football in the local watering hole is a better option).

I happen to know one such geek and my findings are as follows:

The above mentioned UN organisation is better known as UNIDO and it serves as the vehicle that was specifically constructed to bring about the 'progressive' wet dream of global equality.

I will post links at the end of this post so that people interested in knowing the truth about how and why their industries disappeared will be enlightened.

The opening paragraph on the very first page gives an indication of what is to come.

The Preamble to the UNIDO Constitution states that:

"Bearing in mind the broad objectives in the resolutions adopted by the sixth special session of the General Assembly of the United Nations on the establishment of a New World International Economic Order in the UNIDO Second General Conference's Lima Declaration and Plan of Action for Industrial Development and Co-operation......"

In layman's language, UNIDO was set up as an agency under the auspices of the UN in order to engineer a New International Economic Order.

The later Lima Declaration agreed the means and processes to achieve this.

Article 1 reiterates the Preamble:

"The primary objective of the Organisation shall be the promotion and acceleration of industrial development in the developing countries with a view to assisting in the establishment of a New International Economic Order.  The Organisation shall also promote industrial development and co-operation on global, regional and national, as well as sectoral levels" 

The UN, using UNIDO, will be involved in global industrial development and redistribution of industry at all levels, including individual industries which are based in individual countries.

Article 2 paragraph (j) goes some way to explaining how industries and jobs disappeared from the developed world.

"Promote, encourage and assist in the development, selection, adaptation, transfer and use of industrial technology, with due regard for the socio-economic conditions and the specific requirements of the industry concerned, with special reference to the transfer of technology from the industrialized to the developing countries....'

After the setting up of UNIDO, the global redistribution of wealth started in earnest and the processes were embedded into national priorities by the Lima Declaration.

This is the document that confirms the deliberate de-industrialization and downgrading of the developed world by politicians who gave the well being of their own people a lower priority than their global 'progressive' agenda.

The Lima Declaration could have been written by Karl Marx himself and ignores the fact that socialist central planning has failed in every country where its been imposed, including the Soviet Union and China.  How the political elite expect central planning to work on a global basis is a lesson in the collective lunacy of the communist/socialist/progressive community.

The following are a few extracts to give readers an idea of where the jobs went and the sheer malignant behavior of national politicians toward their own people.

The pre-planned degradation of the developed world is summed up in Para 35.

Paragraph 35. "That special attention should be given to the least developed countries , which should enjoy a net transfer of resources from the developed countries in the form of technical and financial resources as well as capital goods, to enable the least developed countries in conformity with the policies and plans for development.."

Even countries who are in the process of developing are being asked to redistribute what they have managed to accumulate:

Paragraph 36. "That developing countries with sufficient means at their disposal should give careful consideration to the possibility of ensuring a net transfer for financial and technical resources to the least developed countries".

Like any controlling bureaucracy it has an inbuilt, uncontrollable urge to expand and increase its budget; they just can't help themselves.  The following paragraph is such an amateurish attempt at justifying expansion it's embarrassing.

Paragraph 68. "In order that it may intensify and extend its activities in the manner indicated above and play the central co-ordinating role in the field of industrial development within the UN system, and in order to increase its ability to render assistance to the developing countries in the most efficient way, it is essential that UNIDO's autonomy and functions be increased and expanded substantially and that UNIDO be provided with the resources for this purpose".

It truly is pathetic and frightening at the same time.

UNIDO and the Lima Declaration were designed so that treacherous national politicians could give away the wealth, technology, industry and jobs of their own people in order to comply with the requirements of the global elite of which they hope some day to be a part.

For the record, the USA and Australia were members of UNIDO but have since resigned their membership, declaring that free market solutions would help the third world develop faster as opposed to socialist central planning by the dysfunctional UN.

It is estimated that Australian politicians transferred around 200,000 agricultural jobs alone during its short membership of UNIDO.

As far as I know Great Britain is still a member of UNIDO and its political leadership remains committed to transferring technology, industries, jobs and treasure at the expense of their own people.

UNIDO Constitution

Lima Declaration and Action Plan

What is the Lima Declaration?

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Baby Killers Go Free, Bureaucrats Get Rewarded - British Justice In The Post Democratic Age

It may come as a surprise to many people that the talk a decade ago of entering the 'post democratic age' has now become a terrible reality.

The consequences of this new age of unrepresentative democracy will be serious enough and the old adage of "you won't miss it until it's gone" is going reverberate down through history for the British people.  The British people have fallen asleep at the wheel and allowed their power to be usurped by an elite group of bureaucrats who have no intention of letting it go.

Representative democracy in Great Britain has all but disappeared and it has been replaced by Executive decree.  The will of the people is now routinely and blatantly ignored in favour of a 'progressive' agenda put together by a remote group of like minded cross party technocrats.

The British people are learning the hard way about the post democratic age as unelected, faceless bureaucrats impose themselves on every aspect of their daily lives.  Everything from weekly rubbish bin collections to parking regulations are dreamt up and imposed by bureaucrats who ignore local elected representatives or who bypass the democratic process altogether.

One dispiriting aspect of the post democratic age is the fact that these bureaucrats are identical, they think the same, they talk the same; they have all been brainwashed into believing that they are right all of the time and the people are being impertinent if they question their actions.

Sadly for the people, these automatons have been taught that they are untouchable, that they should stick together and take care of their own for good or ill.

Nothing illustrates this more than the tragic case of Baby P whose body was broken and young life was taken under the eyes of a local authority children's department run by career bureaucrat Sharon Shoesmith.

To recap briefly, 17 month old Peter Connolly was in left in the care of his abusive mother, her drunken, violent boyfriend and his paedophile friend.  They subjected the child to the most horrific violent abuse despite being visited by the police and Sharon Shoesmith's child services department on 60 separate occasions.

Shoesmith's department ignored pleas from the police to remove the child from his parents despite being in full knowledge of the abuse and the injuries inflicted on the child;  they claim they were working with the mother and she was attending parenting classes.

Peter Connelly died of his injuries, which included a broken back, broken ribs and his teeth knocked down his throat and the name of Sharon Shoesmith entered the public domain for the first time.  The people got to see a faceless, compassionless, box ticking bureaucrat up close and they didn't like what they saw.

What the people saw was an emotionless, automaton who showed no compassion for the murdered child, she showed no contrition whatsoever and was only concerned that her bureaucratic procedures had been followed, therefore she was innocent of any blame.

Baby Peter Connolly was laid to rest, the three child abusers were given derisory sentences and Sharon Shoesmith was held accountable for the failure of her department and sacked.  If the people thought that would be the end of the matter they don't know anything about modern day bureaucrats.

Shoesmith's indignation at this effrontery was palpable resulting in her launching an appeal for a $2,500,000 compensation package.  Her fellow bureaucrats on Haringey council, in a fit of compassion for their comrade, took pity and awarded her $1,120,000 of taxpayers money.

This is another example of government in the post democratic age.  This outrageous package was put together behind closed doors and all demands for the details to made public have been refused.

This is what government in the post democratic age looks like.  Sharon Shoesmith's fellow bureaucrats overturned her sacking in a secret session, then awarded her $1,120,000 of taxpayers money but refuse to give those same taxpayers any details of their largess.

The sense of immunity and entitlement beggars belief where these bureaucrats are concerned; Shoesmith obviously regards this pay out as vindication and proof of her innocence.  She has let it be known that she would like to work with children again; the people should take this to mean that Shoesmith will quietly emerge in a local authority somewhere in the country on a six figure package and expense account.

Baby Peter Connelly's killers also benefit from trendy 'progressive justice.  Jason Owen was sentenced to six years for his part in Baby Connolly's death but was released by the Parole Board after three years as it was deemed he was no longer a danger to the public.  The Parole Board obviously ignored the fact that in addition to being an accessory in the horrific death of a child, Owen was also a paedophile, a convicted arsonist, a burglar and a thief.

Owen has now been recalled to prison for breaking the terms of his parole but the authorities are sticking together and looking after their own by refusing to release the details to the public they are supposed to be serving.

Baby Connolly's mother Tracey is due for release after serving six years.  Her original appeal for release in August 2012 was refused because she was still considered a danger but in October 2013 she is now, in the view of the Parole Board, safe.  What a difference a year makes.

The third killer is an abhorrent piece of knuckle dragging sub humanity.  Steven Barker was jailed for 'life' with a recommended minimum of ten years, for raping a two year old child and twelve years for killing Baby Connelly.  He should be eligible for parole in four years time.

In conclusion, it's worth reiterating that these bureaucrats who have been trained to govern beyond authority in the post democratic age, look alike, think alike and talk alike.  Readers are invited to open the links and compare

Here is the notorious Rotherham bureaucrat, Joyce Thacker who removed children from foster care because the parents didn't agree with her political views.

Here is the Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police 'Service' Cressida Dick, who suffered no repercussions when an innocent member of the public was shot dead by armed officers under her command during a hunt for Muslim Terrorists.

Finally here is Kathrine Kerswell, a career bureaucrat who recently won the jackpot with a taxpayer funded $950,000 pay off from Kent Council together with her sidekick Clare Sumner.

The British people can rest assured that these people are imposing a pre-planned agenda and any objections they may have will be studiously ignored.  The post democratic age is here, representative democracy has gone and it isn't coming back until the people wake up take action.

Update: Taxpayers stung for another $320,000 for Shoesmith case lawyers fees.

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Looting The Public Purse Is Now An Epidemic - No Cure In Sight

After years of spinning to the contrary, British politicians are being forced to admit that living standards are falling dramatically for most people but more so for the hard pressed middle class.

This is the same group of people who always bear the brunt of the economic illiteracy that is endemic among the political class and their cronies;  a political class who always seem to be immune from the consequences of their own incompetence.

As is the case with the welfare addicted 'entitlement' junkies, for this privileged group of people there is no recession and their living standards only ever go up. The fact that there is no money left in the Treasury and the government is supposedly embarking on a series of government spending cuts, this group of cronies continue to loot what money is raised in taxes and award themselves public money which is borrowed from future generations.

Never has there been such a shamelessly dishonest soundbite than the one uttered by the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, that "we are all in it together".

It was mooted that he was referring to himself and the public sector fat cats who all have their snouts in the public trough together, but alas no, he was referring to the country as a whole even though he knew we are most definitely "not all in it together".  (Having the ability to lie with a straight face is an essential skill for a career in politics and the public sector).

The Parliamentary expenses scandal is documented elsewhere but as an example of the contempt for the taxpayer and the overbearing sense of entitlement displayed by a politician, one only has to take a cursory look at the Jacqui Smith scandal.

This venal freeloader was appointed Home Secretary which came with a grace and favour apartment in the classic Admiralty Arch and a salary/expenses package worthy of a lottery winner. Smith turned down the accommodation and went on to claim that a box room in her sister's home was her primary residence.

According to the 'rules', she was thus 'entitled' to a series of taxpayer funded allowances and expenses for her personal residence.  She maximized these to the full including 80p sink plugs and pornographic movies for her husband to pleasure himself with while she herself slept blissfully in her sister's box room.  (Smiths husband was also employed as her secretary on an eye watering $67,300 per annum, care of the taxpayer).

Smith's constituents did the right thing and booted her out at the next election but the public teat is addictive and taxpayers are an endless source of money.  She has been given work by the BBC, ironically making a documentary on porn, and she is currently in possession of a sinecure with KPMG, care of her old boss Phony Tony Blair.

The extent of the looting is enormous,  it is being carried out with impunity and with complete disregard for the fact that this money has been earned by someone else then confiscated by the government under threat of imprisonment.

After a series of scandals, the disgraced senior management declared open season at the taxpayer funded BBC;  six figure payoffs were the norm, including $800,000 for one executive alone.  The Metropolitan police 'service' were called in but refused to open an investigation due to lack of evidence.  The politicized Metropolitan Police only investigate 'hate crimes' these days, in the interests of political correctness and community cohesion.

Another bottomless pit of taxpayer loot can be found at local council offices across the country.  Serving the public appears not to be a priority for these fat cats.

Council bureaucrat and career parasite Mark Hammond walked off with a $410,000 payoff before re-attaching himself to the public nipple with an appointment to the taxpayer funded Equality and Human Rights Commission, a short time after.

Kent County Council leader Kathrine Kerswell walked away with a staggering $950,000 payoff after only 20 months work.  Kent taxpayers doled out a massive $17,280,000 in exit payments for council bureaucrats in 2011/12 alone.

The giant socialist monstrosity misnamed the  National Health Service (NHS), is tailor made for looting bureaucrats. The public are being led to believe that the NHS is short of funding for patient care, yet the sky's the limit for paying off parasites.

Nine hundred and fifty managers have walked away with six figure payoffs, many of whom have resurfaced in another part of the NHS shortly after. The NHS has paid out a scandalous $2.2 billion since 2010 in severance packages for bureaucrats.  This is pillaging of the public purse on an enormous scale and from an economy the people are told has no money.

For more looting of the public purse, see here,  here and here.

Government ministers have acknowledged that there is a problem with excessive payouts to bureaucrats but have so far failed to do anything about it or to recoup any of the money on behalf of the taxpayer.

The sad fact is that politicians, thieving bureaucrats and government ministers are all part of the same machine that regards the public as it's servants and their hard earned money as their own to do with as they please.

I live in hope that one day the people wake up from their self induced slumber and hold these shysters to account, then vote the bums out once and for all.

Update:  To add insult to injury the odious career bureaucrat, Sharon Shoesmith, who's department's incompetence resulted in the horrific death of Baby Peter Connolly, walked away with a $960,000 pay off after challenging her sacking.

This package was arranged by her fellow bureaucrats on Haringey Council. Who says the political class doesn't look after its own?

Update II: Taxpayers gouged for another $320,000 for lawyers fees in Shoesmith case.

Update III: Looting at its worst. NHS give husband and wife team $1,600,000 taxpayer funded payoff and re-hires them shortly after.

There is no recourse for the taxpayer.

Monday, October 28, 2013

Islam In England - Watching The Abuse Of A Much Loved Friend

To say that the English people are being taken for granted by an unscrupulous gang of ruthless politicians would be an understatement.   Listening to the words and watching the actions of the weasels that claim to represent the English people, is an unedifying experience that taints Parliament and insults the very concept of representative democracy. 

It should not be a challenge to anyone's intellect to work out that England is being fundamentally transformed with the connivance of the political class and without the consent of the English people. They have been continuously lied to about the nature and intent of the open border mass immigration policy and they are now paying the price of this duplicity in blood and treasure.

If one gives it a moments thought,  multi-culturalism has got to mean the surrender of traditional English customs,  practices and values;  it must also mean the adoption of practices,  customs and values that are so alien they actually turn the stomach of anyone possessing an iota of decency.

As an unashamed Anglophile who spent many years living and working in England,  I believe I am right when I state that if there is one characteristic that epitomizes the majority of the English people it is their fundamental decency.  They also have a sense of fair play and an inherent desire to play by the rules and obey the law.

Like England itself,  this may have altered somewhat with the expansion of welfare 'entitlements' and the 'free stuff for all' industry,  but the underlying decency among the majority English people remains.

It is this fundamental decency that the political class has used to push through its 'progressive' agenda of ethnically cleansing English culture,  better known by the global 'progressive' elite as
de-homogenizing.  They are, in effect, abusing the English people for their own perverted ends and this is unforgivable.

Some of the cultural practices that the English people have been forced to adopt under threat of smear, demonization and ultimately prosecution, range from harmless curiosities such as Holi and Diwali, to the downright revolting and barbaric such as female genital mutilation,  paedophilia and spousal murder in the name of 'honour'.

Until the advent of government forced multi-culturalism,  most ethnic minorities had a tendency to group together for mutual support, which is understandable;  they went about their business unhindered and uncomplaining.  Generations later, many of their children have adapted, integrated and make a valuable contribution to British life.

That all changed with open border mass immigration, especially of the third world Muslim community.  This wave brought with them their religious obligation to subjugate all other cultures and religions under the threat of bloodcurdling violence.

They also brought with them customs and practices that would not be acceptable in any semi-civilized society let alone a country as civilised as England.

The English people are being forced to accept practices that would have been considered barbaric (not to mention illegal) a decade or so ago.  These practices are now familiar as household words and accepted by the authorities if not by the people.

The initials CSE are a classic example.  The grooming of underage white girls for sexual slavery and abuse by Muslim paedophile gangs was tolerated by the authorities,  including the police.  Even today when the authorities are forced to act they refuse to call it what it is:  Muslim paedophile gangs grooming underage white girls for sexual abuse is referred to by the initials CSE.  This stands for Child Sexual Exploitation because the true terminology is considered to be culturally insensitive.

It is obviously of no concern to the same authorities that the whole issue of Muslim paedophile gangs is not just highly sensitive to every decent English person,  it is an insult to the very core of English culture.

The English people are being conditioned by force to accept spousal abuse, facial mutilation and murder, as quaint cultural practices.

The status and systematic abuse of women would not have been tolerated by the women's liberation movement a decade or so ago.  They burned their bra's in protest at their status, so why are they not burning the burkas today,  in an act of sisterly solidarity?

Inciting violence or stirring up hatred, be it racial or otherwise, is supposedly against the law.  Threatening to behead anyone who does not accept Allah and his prophet obviously doesn't count.

The English (and the British as a whole in this case) are a nation of animal lovers and have standards for the butchering of meat. These are studiously ignored in the case of halal where animals have their throats slit without pre-stunning.

The political class and their useful idiots around the country are so flushed with success that even the most outrageous demands of the Muslim community are being treated as normal and spared no expense.

It came as news to many that there is a requirement for Muslims to shave their pubic hair or face going to Hell.  That shouldn't be a problem with the availability of cheap razors so why it should cost the taxpayer almost $500k?  In modern, transformed, multi-cultural England shaving ones private parts is now a public issue.

An unfortunate Muslim lady with special needs, who was in the care of the local authority, was to be released to the family who demanded that her pubic hair be shaved.  The local authority objected because the lady was not in a fit mental state to consent and a court case ensued.

Why the family didn't accept her and get out the Gillette and shaving soap at home is not explained, but the taxpayer was forced to pay $500k over a cultural practice that should have been left in the desert.

Out of curiosity, the pubic hair requirement for Muslims can be found here and here.  When it comes to pubic hair, Allah knows best apparently.

Despite the incompatibility of cultures, the violent Sharia controlled ghettos and the objections of the English people, the political class are showing no inclination to stop the de-homogenization agenda. It would appear they have set the course at the behest of the global elite and are determined that within a few more generations the England of old will be gone for ever.

The obvious question for the reader is why is England being singled out for attention rather than Great Britain as a whole?

The other nations that make up the United Kingdom are numerically small and consequently enjoy non English privileged minority status in their own right. They are already in the 'progressive' bag so to speak.

The negative effects of open border mass immigration are only apparent in the larger population centres such as Cardiff, Swansea, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Belfast.  The more rural areas of these countries remain relatively untouched by multi-culturalism.

England is by far the biggest influence on the Anglosphere and therefore it has attracted the attention of the global 'progressive' elite and their de-homogenization agenda.

(Due to time constraints, this is a repost from October last year)

Friday, October 25, 2013

British Government's War On The Military - Heroes Prosecuted, Enemies Rewarded

It should be obvious to anyone who pays attention that any issue or institution will be used by the cynical and unscrupulous holders of power to gain electoral advantage over their political enemies. This covers everything from sport to the NHS and the BBC; it includes the police 'service', the Church of England,  schools,  social services,  charities, the art world, etc.

Nothing escapes the attention of politicians if there is the possibility of gaining political advantage or, in the case of the communist/socialist/progressive community, advancing their own ideological agenda.

One institution that should be free from political games is the country's military.  The men and women of the armed forces are willing to sacrifice their lives on behalf of the country and its people and therefore they and their families deserve the best support it is possible to give.

A previous post discussed how the hatred of the military by the 'progressive' community has its basis in their perverted left wing ideology but it would appear that politicians of all colours are now guilty of disrespecting the military and using it for political ends or to secure political advantage.

Shocking as it may be,  news that the British government is prosecuting three soldiers for dispatching a Taliban terrorist to hell will come as no surprise to anyone who watches the antics of the elite as it sacrifices its own soldiers to appease its enemies.

Politicians sent the military to fight a war against the Taliban on their home turf;  these are a ruthless enemy that civilization passed by in the course of history; an enemy that worships death like civilized people worship life, an enemy that spares no quarter nor expects none in return, an enemy that will never, ever give up.

Incredulously,  the government expects to defeat this formidable enemy using a stiff upper lip and the Marquis of Queensbury rules; they must think it's like a game of cricket or a few friendly sets at the Wimbledon Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club.

They claim that by topping an enemy combatant when he's vulnerable or is unable to fight back is lowering ourselves to their level and illegal;  no it isn't, killing the enemy is an unfortunate requirement necessary to win a war.

It is being claimed that the soldiers broke the rules of war as laid down by the Geneva Convention but it must be acknowledged that in any conflict or contest that is governed by rules,  both sides must adhere to those same rules.  It would be a lop sided boxing match if only one fighter obeyed the rules and the result wouldn't be in much doubt.

The three school kids that make up the current leadership of the British people don't have the first idea about conditions in a war zone or what its like to be shot at.  They won't have a clue about the fear or the adrenalin rush that results from the heat of battle, they won't know the feelings of utter despair as one sees a comrade lose his or her life and their remains repatriated to abuse from the enemy within.

Cameron, Clegg and Red Ed Miliband only care about politicking and securing the approval of the international 'progressive' community abroad and the Muslim community at home.

If the prosecution of the three soldiers from the Afghan war isn't an indication of the animosity against the military and the politicking of the political class, then the proposed prosecution of the soldiers of the Parachute Regiment for the so called Bloody Sunday Massacre should prove the point beyond all doubt.

This unfortunate incident happened forty years ago in the heat of battle;  a two hundred million pound (200,000,000),  20 year long investigation didn't prove any intent to murder but the government continues to hassle the soldiers concerned and is now threatening to prosecute.  This is a disgraceful act on behalf of the government and the British people should demand that they desist.

The Irish Republican Army (IRA) were, like the Taliban, a ruthless enemy who had a total disregard for innocent human life.  They murdered anyone, man or woman, young or old, and in the case of the Omagh outrage, the yet unborn.  These are the terrorists that brought the Improvised Explosive Devise (IED) onto the streets of Great Britain with such terrifying effects.

While the government is threatening prosecution against the men they sent to fight the IRA, the IRA terrorists and its leaders have been given amnesty;  some have even reached the upper echelons of the government itself and are funded by the people against whom they waged a bloody war.

If any action demonstrates the utter stupidity and naivety of the school kids that run the British government, then it's the proposal by the European Court of Human Rights to extend their attitudes to cover the battlefield.

This is worth repeating, they want to extend human rights legislation, together with health and safety rules,  to cover the battlefield.  Who are these people and what in Heavens name are they thinking? The biggest question of all is, why is the British government even considering this nonsense?

The biggest indication of the governments attitude to the military (and to its own public servants) is the cuts to military funding.  Putting modern technology to one side, all branches of the British military have been depleted to such an extent that they are smaller than the German military after they were disarmed by the Treaty of Versailles.

It is now accepted that it is unlikely that the British military could mount an operation to liberate the Falkland Islands should they be invaded in the near future.

On the part of British Prime Minister, David Cameron, and his Europhile government of Quislings, his evisceration of the military is in preparation for its absorption into the European Defence Force. (the EDF).

Cameron is a born and bred bureaucrat and he knows how to look after his fellow bureaucrats no matter how ridiculous and embarrassing it is.  If the Royal Navy has spent billions on an aircraft carrier that has no aircraft and has reduced its fleet to only 19 ships, it is not scrimping on officers.

The Royal Navy, once the scourge of the enemy, protector of the seven seas, the fleet that permitted unhindered global commerce and the guarantors of freedom around the world, still employs 40 Admirals and 260 Captains for its 19 ships.  The world can sleep safely in their beds knowing that the Admiralty is fully manned with Chiefs even though Indians are in short supply.

As always it is worth pointing out that our cousins across the Atlantic are being similarly embarrassed;  they are watching helplessly as their once mighty military machine is not only being eviscerated but it is being used as a huge social engineering project by their 'progressive' Commander in Chief.

Permitting open homosexuality in the ranks and feminizing the image of the military is progressing apace.  The once feared Marine Corps is about to be made a laughing stock with the release of its softer, gender neutral hat. The new hat makes a Marine look more like a member of the French gendarmerie or a railway porter at Grand Central Station.

As one commentator so rightly pointed out, they haven't got enough money for bullets but the Defence Department can find millions for a new girlie hat.

The Taliban and the enemies of civilisation around the world will be emboldened and they will lose any residual fear they may have had by watching the antics of the British and American political class......if they can stop themselves laughing that is.

Update: The prosecution reminds of the movie Breaker Morant.

Update II: I have been informed by a fellow Dissenter and renown wit that the defenders of Rourke's Drift are to be posthumously stripped of their Victoria Crosses for using rifles when the Zulu's only had spears. This is a clear case of unfairness on the battlefield and racism.

Update III:  Not to be outdone, a Scottish wit has informed me that the Scottish army of William Wallace are to be dishonourably discharged posthumously, for lifting up their kilts and showing their a*ses to the English enemy at the battle of Bannockburn. This was considered as awfully rude and using weapons of mass distraction.

Unless an Irishman has a military anecdote, there will be no further updates to this post.