IS MASS MURDER EXTREMISM, TERRORISM OR SOMETHING ELSE ?

Last Friday's events in New Zealand were appalling though hardly unexpected. Somewhere it was bound to happen and it will happen again. Yesterday's incident in Utrecht may have been the act of a madman or may have been another in a long line of similar events.

Our political masters, the media and the left-leaning establishments that we all seem to have to suffer all point the finger at 'terrorists' and the rise of so-called 'right wing extremism' as the problem, but in doing so they are simply denying the truth. They themselves are the principal cause. The perpetrators of the murderous rampages that have been seen in recent years may be terrorists and may have right wing political views, but they may also simply be reacting to circumstances in the only way that they see possible. 

Permitting immigration on industrial scales; allowing immigrants to establish separate 'communities' and to wholly change the character of large areas of major cities; permitting these immigrants to behave as though still in their home countries and failing to ensure any meaningful level of integration; immigrants standing apart from the pre-existing population and being so obviously different, through language, clothing, food, religion and customs; introducing ever more stringent laws to protect the immigrants while discriminating against the indigenous population; making expressions of dissent from the politically correct line criminal offences through the introduction of highly subjective 'hate crime' laws. These, and more, are the root causes of the shocking events that happen with dreadful regularity.

History tells us that incomers often take over, oppress and even decimate existing populations; one has only to consider the fate of the indigenous peoples of North America to realise this, while the Australian Aborigines and New Zealand Maoris fared little better. European colonizers around the world took over, dominated and often brutalized most of Africa and Asia, following in the footsteps of the Romans who virtually wiped out the older Celtic civilizations of Northern Europe. Given these precedents, is it any wonder that the established populations of Western nations are, to say the least, unsettled by the mass immigration and, in some cases, have taken to demonstrating their unhappiness in brutal ways ? At the same time, the incomers, feeling their cultural heritage to be under attack, fight back and some, the most ardent, become evermore entrenched in their own views, take up arms and carry out what we now call 'terrorist attacks'.

This is not say that the reactions of either have been right or justified, but it does put them in a different light. The politicians who have created the conditions for this mess simply ignore their responsibility and charge on, regardless, leaving the people to cope. They introduce more and more new laws, talk endlessly about integration, diversity, equality, discrimination, understanding and much more, while doing nothing to tackle the root causes of unrest. In a pointless and utterly pathetic gesture, the New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, has said that she will deny the perpetrator of Friday's massacre in Christchurch the notoriety that he craves by never mentioning his name; MY GOD ! Is that really the best she can do ? Will that have any effect on other potential mass murderers ? It's worthless rhetoric designed to appeal to an emotional audience, nothing more nor less.

In order to win this war, politicians need to stop being political and start becoming psychologists and sociologists, but not of the left-leaning namby-pamby type. They need to stop trying to force people to 'do the right thing', but to accept that there are limits beyond which people will not be pushed. If the right actions aren't taken very soon, quite simply, 'We ain't seen nothing yet'.

WEALDSTONE IS NOT THE PLACE I KNEW.

The latest reports of extreme violence on our streets over the weekend include a shooting in Southwark, 2 shootings in Wealdstone and another in Lewisham. The Southwark victim died although the others seem to have survived, so far at least. However, one does wonder just what is going on.

I don't know much about Southwark or Lewisham other than that they are south London boroughs; Wealdstone, on the other hand, was very familiar to me as a child. This was the local shopping area, mostly concentrated in one long street, and where my mother did her everyday shopping. It had an array of shops including an old fashioned Sainsbury's, Boots, Timothy White's and the Co-op, as well as clothes outlets, a toy shop, barbers, newsagents and lots more. It was a peaceful neighbourhood on the outskirts of the main shopping centre of Harrow. It was home to the famous Whitefriars glass factory and to a large Kodak site. 

As soon as I was old enough, probably around 9 or 10, I was sometimes sent to buy a few bits and pieces, walking the 1½ mile long round trip on my own and with no thought of there being any danger. The only reason that Wealdstone had ever made it into the national news was because of a terrible railway crash there in 1952; 112 people died and hundreds more were injured when 3 trains collided in what remains one of the worst rail disasters ever in this country.

The last time that I visited the area, I hardly recognised it. Inevitably, road lay-outs had undergone some changes which were confusing at first but the most noticeable thing was that the small town was not remotely as I had known it. Whitefriars and Kodak had long gone but also gone were the old traditional British shops and gone were the faces that I recognised. Instead of being a white working class area, it was now populated almost entirely by immigrants; the character of the area had changed out of all recognition. Now we read that it has changed in other ways too, with 2 young boys, aged 13 and 15, being shot there.

The passage of time brings changes but this is too much. Over the last 50 years we have seen parts of our country change so dramatically as to be unrecognisable while drug dealing, knife and gun crime seem to have become endemic in some areas. Harrow and its environs used to be a better than average location, having its famous school at the top of the hill but, apart from the continuing presence of the school, it is no more. I no longer wish to go there even though the first 35 years of my life were spent there and I have many fond memories of those years.

In a way, my past has been taken from me and replaced with something with which I have nothing in common. Some call this 'progress' but can an outbreak of muggings, knifings and shootings really be called 'progress' ? In my book, it's a step back to the dark ages and, however unpopular his views may still be, Enoch Powell was right.

HEAVY HANDED TRUMP HAS THE RIGHT IDEA.

During his election campaign, Donald Trump promised to take steps to protect his country from terrorists. Now, as President Trump, he is trying to fulfil that promise by introducing measures to control immigration; specifically, he is targeting migrants from countries which have a history of producing terrorists.

Inevitably, there has been a huge backlash from the liberal left as well as the liberal right, those who see themselves as occupying the entirely mythical 'centre ground'. President Trump is being vilified from all directions and by most of the media. In the UK, the BBC has found it almost impossible to avoid being negative about Trump, almost every comment by every newsreader being couched in a way as to indicate disapproval; ITN has similarly failed in its duty of impartiality.

President Trump's actions may have been a little heavy handed but can anyone deny that there is a serious need for much stricter border controls, not only in the US but in most other countries too ? For far too long western nations have accepted vast hordes of immigrants whose economic and cultural backgrounds are alien. These immigrants have been allowed to establish separate 'communities' in which extremists have been able to flourish and in which terrorism has been encouraged.

The vast majority of terrorism around the world now is from Islamic extremists, people who apparently want to see a world-wide Muslim Caliphate established; these people believe in abduction, rape, torture, murder and more. There are many instances of acts of terrorism being carried out by people who had previously shown no obvious signs of having been radicalised and yet we have done nothing to stem the flow of migrants, indeed, under pressure from the 'liberal elite', we have accepted more and more.

At long last, a major political figure has cried "Enough !", but has been met with almost universal condemnation. President Trump is no politician and has acted more out of a gut reaction than would other leaders, but is he really wrong ?

VOTER FRAUD : TIP OF THE ICEBERG.

We seem to be beset by lawlessness of a type which did not exist in the past, and the government's response is to invent evermore laws that restrict the freedoms of us all rather than to address the problems head on.

A few days ago, we were told that the supposed problem of 'voter fraud' is to be dealt with by requiring all voters to provide identification at their polling stations; it's suggested that we may be required to show passports, driving licences or utility bills before being permitted to cast our votes. All of this is because a handful of voters, predominantly, if not wholly, from non-British cultural backgrounds, have been found to have engaged in some dubious ballot box dealings. Rather than deal with the overtly cultural issues involved, our government plans to use the 'problem' as a way to increase its control over all of us. This is wrong.

I always take along the polling card which is hand delivered to my house; if this is no longer sufficient evidence of my identity I, for one, won't bother voting as I have no intention of being railroaded by a succession of inept governments which refuse to address the real problems in our society.

Shockingly, this matter is but another in a series of such cultural clashes which we face. We have forced marriage among some immigrant populations and slavery amongst others; we have abduction, imprisonment and gang rape carried out by still others. Parts of some of our once-great cities are now unrecognizable and are virtual 'no-go' areas for their former indigenous populations. In some places we have 'community leaders' who act almost independently of the official forces of law and order, imposing their own codes on the people.

Our governments have done nothing about any of this, all in the name of 'multiculturalism', equality, diversity and other such nebulous terms. Having allowed millions of immigrants to come to our country, they have done nothing to encourage, even demand, integration into our culture but have, instead, allowed the growth of what amount to separate communities with their own ways, customs and laws. This is madness.

There can be no doubt that the lack of leadership from our government, the lack of enforcing a true national identity and national laws, and the growth of separate sub-cultures within our society is destructive. It will lead to terrible times ahead.

EU REFERENDUM : THERESA MAY SITS ON THE FENCE.

Before the Referendum campaign got under way, Theresa May was thought to be a likely 'Brexiteer', but, apparently, not now.

When push came to shove, Mrs May joined the 'In' campaign though it has to be said that she's not been hugely in evidence over the last few weeks. Yesterday, she gave an interview to the BBC in which she spoke about her careful weighing of the evidence and eventual decision to support 'Remain'. However, she also did a huge amount of 'fence-sitting' when it came to one of the central planks of the European Union, the free movement of people.

As Home Secretary, Mrs May knows all about immigration and has previously made fairly loud noises about the need to introduce greater controls, while failing miserably to do anything effective; it is, after all, her department that has responsibility for this area of government. What she now says, while arguing for 'Remain', is that she wants to see reform of the rules that govern the free movement of people and believes that this can be achieved as other countries want it too.

One wonders. There is no doubt that the people of some countries want to see curbs on free movement, but the people of many others certainly don't as they see much greater opportunities in the UK, France and Germany than they do at home. Critically, however, the project to create a United States of Europe can't, and won't, allow any genuine restrictions to be introduced. After all, people move freely between Yorkshire and Lancashire so, in the future single country of USE, people must be allowed to move freely between Hungary and Austria, France and Spain, Poland and Bulgaria and of course, the UK and anywhere.

Mrs May has been trying to tread a fine line, looking to her own political future which once looked very bright. Sadly for her, the last year or so has seen a serious downturn in her prospects and she clearly saw a chance to improve her position by joining what seemed to be the 'right' side; now she's trying to reposition herself yet again by moving more towards the standpoint of the 'Out' campaign on its major issue of immigration. Oh, Perfidious Albion !

VOTE LEAVE !

EU REFERENDUM : LIES, LIES AND MORE LIES.

As the EU Referendum campaigns continue to develop, we, the poor old voters, are being assailed by regular salvoes of the usual political bilge. We are being fed a diet of the lies, damned lies and statistics, half-truths and distorted 'facts' so beloved of politicians. Worst of all, hordes of foreign politicians, ex-politicians and miscellaneous bureaucrats are lining up to tell us what we should do, what is 'best' for us.

How do voters pick the bones out of all of this ?

The simple answer has to be that we ignore all of the politicians and their assembled acolytes, and look at the real facts. As members of the European Union. the UK is subservient to its assorted organs, whether it be the Commission, Court, Parliament or anything else. While we have representation on these bodies, ours is but one voice amongst 28; we are able to apply a veto in certain areas, but these powers are limited. We are required to abide by a raft of EU rules and regulations, whether we like them or not. Essentially, our sovereignty has been severely comprised by our membership.

Few of us can name our MEPs, and yet these are meant to be our representatives in the European Parliament. These 'representatives' are largely anonymous, few of them seeming to make much real attempt to communicate with their constituents but spending much of their time travelling backwards and forwards to Brussels or Strasburg and claiming considerable expenses in addition to their generous salaries. Exactly what they do is a mystery, certainly to me, as it seems that most of the main decisions are made outside of the Parliament, with MEPs merely required to rubberstamp what their masters have already agreed.

On matters of defence and security which have been raised by both sides in the argument, one has to wonder what role the EU has. Defence is a matter for individual governments and NATO, while security is a matter for individual governments and their respective police and security services. There is no overarching EU security or defence organisation, so why all of the noise about the horrors that would arise should the UK dare to vote to leave ? The normal international cooperation would continue, unhindered, whether the UK is within or without the organisation. David Cameron's recent suggestion that a vote to leave could so destabilise Europe that it might lead to war is so ludicrous as to deserve no further comment beyond saying that he must be incredibly desperate to resort to such hyperbole.

On immigration, while the UK remains within the EU it has no effective control over its borders. All EU citizens have an automatic right of entry here and such a right will also attach to however many migrants from troubles in the middles east, north Africa or wherever else, are granted EU citizenship in the future. Already, migrants from eastern Europe have seriously distorted our economy and placed huge burdens on our public services and housing; thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, more immigrants could be catastrophic. The issue of assimilation into our society has been far too poorly managed and very many immigrants have established themselves in ways which serve to create separate micro-communities that have little or no interest in, connection with or loyalty towards our nation. Why would we vote to allow this situation to continue ?

Both sides in the debate have made claims about the economic effects of being in or out of the Union.

Many of these claims seems to be designed to terrify us into voting in one way or the other, but the true facts are few and far between. It is a fact that we have to pay a substantial amount of money to the EU every year; we do get some of this back but only to spend as directed by EU officials. We do benefit from being in a 'free trade' area but, as we import significantly more than we export, what credence can be placed in claims that leaving would lead to the imposition of tariffs ? Would Germany or France really risk causing major damage to their car manufacturers, wine growers, cheese makes and other industries, by insisting that tariffs be levied on British imports to the EU, a move that would surely result in retaliatory action by the UK government ? It seems highly unlikely.

It has been suggested by no less a personage than the US President that the UK would not be offered any special treatment by the US  and would find it difficult to negotiate a free trade deal. Given that the negotiations between the EU and US  on a trade deal have dragged on for years and seem now to have stalled, would this really be a problem ? In fact, it would surely be much easier for a UK unencumbered by the rest of the EU to negotiate trade deals all over the world, without having to first agree details with 27 other nations.

Forget the numbers, forget the hyperbole and scare tactics; ignore the rhetoric, half-truths and outright lies. Voting to remain in this stagnant pool is a vote for death by a thousand cuts; there is only one way forward and that is to VOTE LEAVE.

EU REFERENDUM : IGNORE THE SCAREMONGERS.

We are told, by those who want the UK to remain within the European Union, that a vote to leave will result in horror. We will suffer mightily on issues of trade and security and will still be unable to reduce immigration as we might wish. Is any of this true ?

On the issue of trade, we have a huge trade deficit with the rest of the EU, that is, they sell far more to us than we do to them. Are they really going to suddenly stop selling their cars, wine, cheese, olive oil and all the rest to us, at a huge dis-benefit to themselves ? Of course not. With regard to the USA, we are one of their 2 or 3 biggest trade partners world-wide; would they really refuse to enter into trade agreements with us ? Of course not. On the other hand, leaving the EU would open up massive opportunities for the UK to enter into its own trade agreements with the rest of the world; the countries of the Commonwealth that we treated so shabbily when we joined the EU, and the countries of the developing world, such as China, India, Brazil, Indonesia and so on. To my mind, the trade issue is a one way street - leave, and we benefit.

When it comes to security, it has been said that leaving the EU would be a huge risk and open us up to more terrorist threats. Why ? The EU actually has little to do with matters of security, in fact, the Schengen agreement reduces the ability of European countries to prevent terrorists from moving freely around the continent, as the people of Belgium recently discovered and those of France found out a year or so ago. Security is not one of the main issues handled by the EU; it is Interpol, and cooperation between the police and security services of all nations which provides civil security, while our membership of NATO deals with militaristic matters. Many countries within the EU have poor and inefficient security services of their own and actually rely heavily on information from the British security services; are they likely to risk losing this support / Of course not.

Regarding immigration, our country remains a haven for hundreds of thousands from all over Europe and the rest of the world. We have long accepted immigrants from anywhere and everywhere, but generally in relatively small numbers at a time, though there have been exceptions, notably the influx of Asians from East Africa in the 1960s and 1970s. Today, however, we are confronted with hundreds of thousands of people arriving from all over Europe, primarily for economic reasons of their own; simply put, the UK is a richer country than theirs. The consequences of this mass influx are many and not necessarily all negative, but they include a depressing effect on wages and a vast increase in the pressure on all public services - health, education, transport and housing in particular. As members of the EU, we have no power to control this influx, or its effects; leaving would restore at least some ability to do so.

On all 3 of these critical issues, leaving the European Union will be far less traumatic than the 'Remain' side would have us believe. We must ignore their scaremongering. VOTE LEAVE.

VICKY PRYCE : JURY FOUND WANTING.

Vasiliki Courmouzis, otherwise known as Vicky Pryce and the former wife of disgraced Liberal Democratic bigwig, Chris Huhne, has seen her trial for attempting to pervert the course of justice crumble around her. It seems that the jury or, at least some of them, were unable to understand the judge's instructions and the basic principles of how a jury works.

 

Exactly what happened in the jury room will probably never be known, but it's obvious from the list of questions that were passed to the judge that there was a shocking breakdown in the system. For a jury to feel it necessary to ask whether or not matters that were not presented in evidence, and for which there was no evidence, could be taken into account in arriving at their verdict is incredible; for them to have asked whether the defendant's religious beliefs, which also were not presented as evidence, could be considered is unbelievable. That they found it necessary to question the meaning of 'reasonable doubt' shows such an appalling lack of understanding of our legal system that one wonders if they were actually British at all.

 

The truth may be that there was one, perhaps 2, difficult jurors with whom the rest were trying to get to grips. If this is the case, how did these individuals get onto a jury in the first place ? If they were unable to follow the judge's directions or to grasp basic English language, what were they doing there ?

 

However, given that the jury was unable to reach even a majority verdict, one must assume that the problem went far deeper than 1 or 2 awkward jurors. The conclusion one then has to draw is that this was a particularly dreadful bunch of jurors, poorly educated, quite possibly mostly of recent immigrant origin and wholly unsuited to their task. The implication from this for our present system of justice is quite frightening.

 

In recent times, governments have made a few noises about the possible introduction of 'juryless trials' for certain particularly difficult, long or sensitive cases. While this would be a nonsense and wholly contrary to centuries of British jurisprudence, one can now, perhaps, see why they may have had such thoughts. If jurors in a simple case can be quite so stupid, how can they possibly be expected to deal with complex frauds, or to sit through months of detailed evidence in other cases such as those involving matters of national security ?

 

It may be that successive governments have been a little ahead of the rest of us on this particular issue. They, more than anyone else, know just how much our nation has changed in recent years with the vast influx of immigrants, many of whom bring their own culture, customs and language with them while having no desire whatsoever to assimilate ours. Such people are as liable to be called for jury service as anyone else and there must now be large parts of our major cities where there is no one else to be called. The Government also knows, only too well, how general educational standards have collapsed to a point at which huge numbers of younger people have little or no understanding of anything beyond what is needed to achieve the most basic of exam passes, allied with large dollops of left-wing training in subjects dressed up with fancy names, such as 'sociology' or 'PSE'.

 

Should I be unfortunate enough to be put on trial, I would expect to be tried by a 'jury of my peers' and I would expect this to mean people such as myself, not a ragbag of socialist leaning, semi-literates with no understanding of the British way of life or legal system. Ms Pryce may count herself lucky that the jury in her case couldn't reach a verdict - on another day they may well have had her burned at the stake.

TIME FOR BRITAIN TO STOP THE GRAVY TRAIN.

Why the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union is a mystery to me.

 

In order to join this largely socialist, and even communist, organisation, the UK was required to cut most of its trading links with its Commonwealth allies, including Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Instead, we were tied to a union which imposed ridiculous trading arrangements on its members and which has continuously expanded its sphere of operations, not to mention the extent of its bureaucracy.

 

Today, the European Union is a bloated and vastly inefficient organisation dedicated to imposing its socialist philosophy across the continent. Its policies are largely backward-looking, maintaining highly unprofitable practices in farming and fisheries at the expense of developing new tecnologies, and promoting the most damaging of employment policies in pursuit of a socialist utopia that never did and never will exist.

 

The UK's interests are not well met by those of the countries of continental Europe and certainly not by those of the more easterly nations. In fact, the UK's interests have been positively damaged by the vast influx of migrant workers from those eastern European countries and more are soon to follow as the next tranche, from Bulgaria and Romania, will be able to come here unfettered, from January 2014. Many of those who have already come here have taken jobs previously carried out by British workers, have enjoyed the same state benefits as thos paid to workers who have lived here all of their lives, and have sent many thousands of pounds back to their own countries, thus stripping resources out of the British economy. This cannot possibly be in the UK's best interests and it is time we stopped it.

 

It seems to me that the current impasse over the EU's grossly extravagant budget demands is a perfect opportunity for Britian and others to impose some order in the chaos that is the EU. The UK is one of only 7 or so countries which are net contributors to the EU's financial pot, while around 20 countries are net recipients of funds. Inevitably, this latter group are in favour of an increased budget, meaning more money for themselves, while the former are less enthusiastic. The French, in typical fashion are both in favour and opposed, depending on which specific elements of the budget are under discussion; they favour a budget cut but want their own farming subsidies protected, while demanding a cut in the UK's rebate. All very messy.

 

More and more, the UK finds itself at odds with the demands of the EU, the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights, discrete organisations that feed off of one another in their attempts to impose outdated socialist philosophies on all of their member states. More and more, we are left in a state of impotence as ludicrous judgements are handed down or rules imposed; our own government and courts are no longer supreme but are subservient to their masters in Brussels and Strasbourg. This has to stop and the budget stalemate points the way out.

 

If David Cameron has any balls, he would tell his 'colleagues' in the EU that enough is enough; the UK is cancelling all of its contributions to the Union with immediate effect and until they come to their senses, meaning until they produce a properly audited set of accounts for the last 20 years and until they bring their practices up to date. Furthermore, he should be telling the ECHR that the UK will, in future, look upon its judgements as no more than advisory and that the UK Parliament will be the final arbiter in all matters affecting the UK. In the event that these positions prove to be unacceptable to the other member nations of the relevant organisations, Cameron should give notice of the UK's withdrawal from membership within 12 months but, of course, he will do none of this; he will, instead, be another Neville Chamberlain, eventually returning from some meeting in Brussels waving a meaningless and useless piece of paper while his opponents celebrate.

 

Michael Fabricant, a Tory MP, has suggested that Cameron should attempt to forge an alliance with UKIP in advance of the next General election, an alliance which would see UKIP candidates standing aside in marginal seats in return for a guarantee of a refendum on EU membership; Nigel Farage, for UKIP, has put up 2 metaphorical fingers to this idea, rightly so in my opinion. The Tories have already reneged on one promise to hold such a referendum and there is no reason why they would not do so again; UKIP would have nothing to gain and everything to lose from such an arrangement. The people of Britain would also lose the ability to vote for the only party which stands four-square in its opposition to the assorted European insitutions.

 

UKIP is a far from perfect organisation but is the only real hope of salvation for the people of the UK. It is UKIP that we should all vote for whenever the opportunity arises and, in particular, in the elections to the European Parliament in 2014; a resounding vote for UKIP then would set alarm bells ringing throughout the corridors of Brussels and Strasbourg.