Thoughts from an active pensioner who is now somewhat past his Biblical "Use-by date"

"Why just be difficult, when with a little more effort you can be bloody impossible?"



Thursday, 23 March 2017

Murder in Westminster

By now, no-one in this country can be unaware of the mass murder committed in London yesterday by a follower of Islam. Politicians say the attack was nothing to do with Islam and that few Muslims support such actions. If this is so, why aren't there any Muslims out on the streets protesting against this maniac committing such a horrendous crime in the name of their religion? If someone had done something similar shouting "This is in the name of Jesus", I sure there would be plenty of condemnation from Christians as well as sermons in Church on Sunday. But Islam? Not a whisper from other than other than MPs who seem to believe that the murders at Westminster had nothing to do with Islam.

On this occasion I'm fully in agreement with Katie Hopkins in the Daily Mail
Welcome to London: We can say we’re not afraid, light candles and make hearts of our hands but the truth is that we can’t go on like this.
The full piece can be read in the Mail using this link.

It's important to note that the killer was middle-aged; it's not as if he was some hot-blooded, immature guy who just got taken in by his imam. He was living in Birmingham and had apparently rented the 4x4 locally. This was not an 'impulse attack', it was clearly carefully planned by someone who already had a sting of convictions for crimes of violence.

The truth is we just can't continue to go on like this. Our MPs make me very angry when the give our money as aid to the very countries from which these evil people originate. They make claims like 'extremism is born out of poverty'. Maybe, but this man was born in Kent and as far as I'm aware, the county isn't noted for its poverty.

I do not think Theresa May responded well to the attack. Empty hollow words repeated year in and year out without any substantive action to tackle the issues which led to this tragedy.  It's all right for our MPs,  cocooned in the safety of the Houses of Parliament to feel nice and safe, but what about the rest of us? If asked, they immediately say "What about Joe Cox?" and prefer to overlook the fact that she was killed by a person with genuine mental problems who had previously been treated in hospital. Jo's killing 'proves' to them that the threat is not just from Islam.

I get angry when MPs won't adequately fund our security services so they can only manage to watch 'potentially active' terrorists, preferring to give the money as foreign aid to the very countries for which most of these terrorists, or their families, originate.

I get even more angry when they place restrictions on what our security services do in terms of monitoring the communications of suspects citing their 'Human Rights'. We need to fight this battle with all the tools at our disposal, not fight with one hand tied behind our backs.

I have not found one person amongst my friends and acquaintances who would object to their phone calls, e-mails or use of the web being monitored by the security services as long as it was only the security services and not every government department, local council or quango that feels it would like to know what we are up to. It was the misuse of RIPA by local councils that have made people oppose surveillance, but I feel that we have reached a point where something needs to be done and where electronic surveillance is probably a very cost effective thing to do.

A major problem is that, unlike when we were fighting the IRA, who had no burning wish to die for their cause, fighting suicide killers is a far more difficult task by virtue of their belief that if they die fighting for Islam, the will immediately go to paradise.

Perhaps we should learn from the Japanese. Some years back they had a spate of attacks by Muslims using knives and where the attacker was invariably killed by the police. They started to bury the bodies of the dead attackers wrapped in pigskins or doused the body in pig fat. This apparently stopped the attacks quite rapidly; what is the point of committing suicide if your enemy renders it impossible for you to go to paradise?

Finally, it goes without saying that my thoughts are with the victims and the families of those killed and injured, and I'm sure we will all pray for them at our Sunday Service at my Parish Church, as I expect they will in most churches around the country.

Tuesday, 21 March 2017

Martin McGuinness is Dead

IRA Terrorist-in-Chief Martin McGuinness is dead.

Good, I hope that he burns in hell.

I've been listening to all the hypocritical apologists on television trying to tell us that he was really a saint in disguise and they made me feel sick. The only person prepared to speak his mind and tell the truth was Lord Tebbit who said:
'I'm just pleased that the world is a sweeter and cleaner place now.
'He was not only a multi-murderer, he was a coward. He knew that the IRA were defeated because British intelligence had penetrated right the way up to the Army Council and that the end was coming.
'He then sought to save his own skin and he knew that it was likely he would be charged before long with several murders which he had personally committed and he decided that the only thing to do was to opt for peace.
'He was a coward who never atoned for his crimes. There can be no forgiveness without a confession of sins. I hope he'll be parked in a particularly hot and unpleasant corner of hell for the rest of eternity. My thoughts are with the many many hundreds of people murdered by McGuinness and his friends during the Troubles'.
I felt saddened that our Queen felt it was appropriate to to shake hands with this evil man when she visited Belfast in 2012 just as I feel the same sadness today reading that she has sent her condolences on his death to his widow.

Meanwhile, we still have to contend with investigations into the actions of our soldiers in Northern Ireland during the troubles 'in the interests of justice'. What justice was there for all McGuinness' victims?

Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams. One down and one to go.

Monday, 20 March 2017

Brexit (Continued)

Two points from today's news.

The Daily Mail headlines reveal that Juncker is boasting that no-one else will want to leave the EU after they see how badly the UK is punished for Brexit.

The problems with making boasts like that are twofold:
Firstly, in order to 'punish' the UK it seems likely that the EU would have to do itself more harm than that which it could do to the UK. Will the other countries who sell us their goods support such a crazy idea?
Secondly, What happens if we do well without being in the EU, as I believe we will? Surely this will encourage other countries to follow us.

The other matter reported today is that Theresa May has chosen March 29 as the day she will trigger Article 50 to start leaving the EU.
My only concern is about what appears to be even more delay; why give some Remoaner time to find an excuse to go to the courts and get an injunction for some spurious reason. If Churchill had fought WW2 with all the delays of the present government, the war would probably still be in progress!

Sunday, 12 March 2017

Brexit

One of the more interesting items of news this week was the comments by Mervyn King, the previous Governor of the Bank of England, on Brexit. These don't seem to have been widely reported and certainly I didn't hear them on the BBC news.

In essence he said that  
"We don't need to negotiate over Brexit, but that the EU needs to negotiate with us".
This is what many of us have been saying for years, that the EU has far more to lose than Britain if no agreement is reached, but up to now, few of those in positions of power have actually said so. Coming from Lord King, it is all the more important as he is an economist, has his place in the Lords and is not beholden to the EU for a pension or anything else.

In a situation where the EU has some three million citizens in the UK as against around one and a half million British citizens in the EU, any threats against our citizens abroad would be rather foolish. Even those living on pensions contribute considerable sums to various countries with their expenditure on goods and services. In terms of the balance of trade, this expenditure is the equivalent of exports to that value as the money is coming in from abroad. I suspect there are very few UK citizens within the EU who are claiming benefits, unlike a large number of EU citizens in the UK. Why the House of Lords is so keen on protecting EU citizens in this country without having any concerns about our citizens in the EU is a complete mystery to me, and I personally take the view that many might regard it as treason!

There is also the matter of trade. At present they sell us more than we sell them which is not in our best interests and they need to realise that when we have free trade, we could source many of the goods that they sell us from elsewhere. (Personally, I enjoy a good Australian red wine far more than bottle of French wine costing the same!)

We also, as a country, should be able to save money by no longer having to obey all the various EU regulations which are quite expensive to implement and enforce.

As Lord King is reported to have said "We don't need to negotiate over Brexit - but YOU do".

The Daily Mail report can be read HERE.

Tuesday, 7 March 2017

Money and the NHS

We are forever being told that the NHS needs more money to cope with its ever increasing workload and that all possible economies have been made.

Is this true? Economies may have been made, but the waste appears to continue.

A typical response to any comment about the high salaries of senior administrative staff is that they have to be paid to attract the necessary talents. But is this so? This report from yesterday's Daily Mail surely says it all.

A builder who built his life on 'staggering lies' has been jailed for two years after making more than £1 million over the course of a decade by pretending to have a PhD to become chairman of two NHS Trusts.

The Walter Mitty style health chief fudged his CV in 2004, adding a doctorate which he did not have, and became the chief executive of St Margaret's Hospice in Taunton, earning nearly £100,000 a year.
He chaired the Torbay NHS Care Trust for nearly ten years, from 2007 to 2015, before becoming the chairman of the Royal Cornwall Hospital Trust in April 2015. 
But more interesting is the statement that he was said  to have beaten "117 rivals to become chair of Royal Cornwall Hospital Trust."

Surely all this demonstrates the poor quality of the people at the top. With 117 candidates for the post, he was deemed to be the best by the selection committee! Surely this says as much about those who chose him than the man himself. Then perhaps we should also ask about the qualifications of the staff working under him; if he is the best (as no doubt some of the senior staff would have applied for the posts), how good are they?

There are some 200 or more NHS Trusts in the UK, it would be interesting to know about the qualifications of those holding the senior management posts in all of these. How many more totally unqualified people are at the top of some of these trusts? How many got their jobs because of "The Old Pals Act"? How many more hold the posts because they submitted a false CV, or were promoted to a post for which they were not qualified?

I suppose of more concern from a prospective patient's point of view, a relevant question is "How many doctors within the NHS are not really doctors and totally unqualified to treat patients?" If a trust can't be bothered to check up on  a candidate for appointment as chairman, how well does it check candidates for medical roles?

Surely a wide-ranging enquiry is called for into the NHS recruitment procedures and their effectiveness.


Saturday, 18 February 2017

Fake News

"Fake News" is very much in the news these days although it has always been around since time immemorial. Probably the main reason for it being more prevalent now is the expansion of social media and "Instant News" sources such as Twitter which make it far easier so spread such news.

For me, the original fake news was, of course, Lord Haw Haw during WW2, and it was only when I got older and started to read books involving the occupied countries did I realise how desperate people were for news and the risks that they were prepared to take to obtain something like the truth.

In those days, the BBC was the main source of reliable news worldwide. Yes, during the wartime it might have been guilty of the sin of omission at the behest of the censors, but as far as I'm aware it never actually told lies.

But why is it happening now and who is responsible?

I would argue that once respected news organisations such as the BBC along with certain once well trusted newspapers are largely to blame. Far from delivering the impartial wide ranging news that people would once risk their lives to hear, we now seem to get only that what the BBC wants us to hear. They would claim that the choice of news is a matter for editorial judgement, which of course is true provided that the choice is made in an impartial manner.

But I would question whether the selection is impartial. Since Trump was elected in the US, news from the US seems to have occupied far more air time than all the news from the rest of the world put together. But nothing much from Europe, nothing of events in Sweden or Austria or even Paris. Nothing about the very serious problems with immigrants or the major disturbances that they are causing in Paris. Last week Breitbart reported that hundreds of violent thugs took to the streets of Paris near to the Gare du Nord on Wednesday night burning some 47 vehicles but I didn't see anything about this in the UK media. In UK media there has been lots of coverage about Trump's wall, but virtually none about the fences that many European countries are building along their southern borders.
 
Indeed, the previous week, Breitbart was accused by many many news outlets of itself peddling fake news. The news? Breitbart reported that rioting migrants had set fire to Germany's oldest church. "Fake" they all screamed! Yes, it wasn't Germany's oldest church, it was their second oldest!!

The only news about immigrants seems to be that our hard-hearted prime minister is refusing to let in some unaccompanied, suffering, destitute children whose only wish is to come to Britain. Nothing about the fact that Sweden, having let in a number of such 'children', found that they were raping genuine children and that subsequent medical examinations and bone scans revealed that most were nearer thirty than twenty.

But even if you don't spend your time searching the internet for news and are not aware of the BBC's omissions, you only have to watch one of their discussion or documentary programmes on television to recognise the bias. Discussion panels are invariably biased well to the left and questions  frequently start with a biased assumption. And when we come to documentaries, man-made Global Warming is a proven fact.

So what is "Fake News"? Apart from a few items that can be almost instantly disproved, such as the recently reported death of some "celeb" who was seen a few hours later on television, most seems to be either news that has not been reported by the usual media sources or a totally different slant on reported news. This is clearly why the media and governments are getting so alarmed. In this brave new world, we should believe all that we are told by approved news outlets and not believe what I prefer to refer to as "Independent" news sources. It is surely indicative of the decline in our media when one can watch "Russia Today" and feel that there is more truth in some of their news than that offered by the BBC.

Tuesday, 7 February 2017

Bercow and Trump

A major item in today's news seems to be the rant decision by Speaker Bercow that President Trump was not a suitable person to address the Houses of Parliament. This seemed to be a personal decision, no doubt egged on by some lefties, but he has been forced to apologise to the Speaker of the House of Lords for speaking out on the subject without consultation, as any invitation would normally be a consensus decision of the two Houses,

But, care of the Guido Fawkes blog, I now have a list of many of the rather unsavoury people that have been invited by the Speaker to the Commons where he has entertained them since his appointment.

Invited to tea in the Speaker's House at public expense
Vietnam - Vice Chairman Luu
North Korea - A party of four including the “Speaker of North Korea”

Invited to address Parliament
China - President Xi Jinping
Kuwait - Emir of Kuwait
Indonesia - President Susilo Yudhoyono
Singapore -  President Tony Tan Keng Yam

In all these countries there are major Human Right abuses and many basic freedoms are severely restricted.

Compared with these the alleged failings of Trump are trivial in the extreme.

I think that if I were Trump I would get the US embassy to organise some kind of spectacular "not-to-be-missed" event during his visit. Something like hiring the Albert Hall or the O2 Arena for a day and putting on a show of the best of America (and I don't mean all the so-called celebs who boycotted his inauguration). Invitations should go to "ordinary people",  and could include some MPs but certainly not Bercow and his Labour supporters!