Does the war in the Ukraine prove we don’t need NATO?

When NATO was formed in the late 1940s it was to counter the threat of massed soviet armour rolling into Western Europe. 

Though that was never a very realistic threat it is even less credible now.  For example, if the population and GDP of Russia is compared with that of the NATO countries.

Russia’s population is 145 million. The combined population of the NATO counties is 952 million [or 510 million excluding the USA and Canada].

Russia’s GDP is less than that of Italy.

A Russian invasion of Western Europe would be like a poor child attacking a rich adult.

The Ukraine conflict has revealed something else. It is now much easier to defend than attack.

In 1914 barbed wire made it much harder to attack and easier to defend. It produced a stalemate on the Western Front in WW1. Then tanks came on the scene and increased the power of attack.

Now new technologies in the form of drones and anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles have enormously increased defensive capabilities and allowed a small and militarily weak country like the Ukraine to stalemate Russia.

If the Ukraine can stop Russia why do we need a military alliance alliance of 28 European and 2 North American countries?  Why do we need the USA using NATO to meddle in European affairs? With current technologies Europe is more than capable of protecting itself.

IN 2019 NATO cost over one trillion US dollars  to maintain. It is expensive and outdated. It is time for it to be drastically pruned.

NATO HQ. Value for money?

Losing the right to smear

The singer Cliff Richard has won a case against the BBC for their coverage of a police raid on his house over a claim that he was a paedophile. He was never charged with any offence and both the police and the BBC have to pay him damages and his court costs.

The British media is moaning because the judgement in the case seems to rule that in future a persons name cannot be published until they have been charged with an offence.

They claim that "the case marked a "significant shift" against press freedom and an "important principle" around the public's right to know was at stake.

I don't agree.

Neither did the judge.  "In his judgement, Mr Justice Mann said a suspect in a police investigation "has a reasonable expectation of privacy" and while Sir Cliff being investigated "might be of interest to the gossip-monger", there was not a "genuine public interest" case."

A former chief constable for British Transport Police said: "Generally speaking, I see no reason for the public to know people have been arrested.  The person arrested carry the stigma of that arrest for a long time."

I think it is right that the media should not be able to damage a persons reputation by reporting they are being investigated and will now have to wait until they are charged.  If they are not charged their anonymity will be protected.

The media have lost the right to smear a person just to get a scoop.

Fran Unsworth, the BBC's director of news, said that the ruling is a "significant shift against press freedom".  No its not. Though it is a blow to the unethical who think their desire to get a scoop justifies invading someone's privacy and destroying their reputation.

Fran Unsworth

The Wikipedia article on Ms Unsworth observes 'In August 2014, Unsworth ordered helicopter filming of a police raid on a mansion belonging to Cliff Richard. The coverage led to the singer suing the BBC for breach of privacy. '

I have been following this story on the BBC web site and I cannot recall them ever mentioning who at the BBC was responsible for sending helicopters to spy on Richards home when it was being raided by the police. Could Wikipedia be right?  Was it The Franster?

I would now like to know who at the BBC decided not to settle Richard's claim out of court but instead take it to trial. The result of that brilliant decision has been legal costs and damages in the millions that will have to be met by the TV licence fee payers. Plus a court judgement that The Franster claims infringes 'press freedom'.

You might also have noticed how the BBC news department [headed by The Franster] has managed to spin the story so that it is about press freedom and not about two very expensive  and very bad decisions by the BBC.

The BBC defends

I listened to David Jordan, the BBC's director of editorial policy and standards being interviewed by a BBC journalist [senior BBC manager interviewed by more junior member of same organisation. That's the  way to get at the truth. I assume Mr Jordan's mum was not available to do the interview.]

His answer to almost every slightly tricky question was to say that the BBC would have to consider that issue. The police raid was four years ago. Haven't the BBC found time to think about the case and their actions during the past four years? No meetings? No time to put the old thinking caps on?

David Jordan said resignations were "not necessarily the right response to every mistake that every journalist makes in a news organisation". Oh, I don't know. I think applying a blowlamp to some BBC tootsies would do the organisation a world of good. If they have trouble drawing up a list of sackable people I can think of a few names.

Cigarette product placements in US films and TV

Have you noticed the increasing number of on-screen smokers in US films and TV series?

I recently watched an episode of a US TV series in which almost everybody lit up a cigarette at every opportunity. That seemed  strange since less than 16% of Americans now smoke tobacco.

I suspect we see so many on-screen smokers because the tobacco industry is paying for product placements. Presumably they are spending their money because they think on-screen smokers make smoking look cool and to persuade the young and gullible to take up this stupid, expensive and very dangerous habit.

The UK has effective legislation on tobacco advertising. These product placements are subverting that legislation.

There is not much that the British government can do to stop this product placement in the US. What it could do is stop smoking scenes being shown in the UK by insisting on the deletion of such scenes from any production being shown in UK cinemas or on UK television. The BBC could take the lead by adopting this policy now, without waiting for government action. [The government might be slow to act because it would have to ask for permission from the US Viceroy Ambassador.]

If a no on-screen smoking policy was in place many US productions could not be shown here. US producers would then have to weigh the money they get from product placement against the loss of UK revenue.

Who took all the money? Why am I worse off than my parents?

Why are most of us becoming poorer?   Why don't the young people of today have more to look forward to?  Why are they burdened with debt and struggling to find decent work? Why do they seem destined to become poorer than their parents?

There are some short term factors at work. They will pass. More ominously, there are long term processes at work which will not pass but will make things worse.

The quoted text below is an edited extract from a column by Richard Wolff in The Guardian.

He was writing about the US, but I think the same forces are at work in the UK. The process is just more advanced in the US.


"Workers enjoyed a rising level of real wages that afforded their families a rising standard of living. Ever harder work paid off in rising consumption. The rich got richer faster than the middle and poor, but almost no one got poorer. Nearly all citizens felt "middle class". A profitable capitalism kept running ahead of labour supply. So, it kept raising wages to retain employees, across the 19th century until the 1970s.


Then everything changed. Real wages stopped rising, as  capitalists redirected their investments to produce and employ abroad, while replacing millions of workers  with computers. The  women's liberation moved millions of  adult women to seek paid employment. Capitalism no longer faced a shortage of labour.


Employers took advantage of the changed situation: they stopped raising wages. When basic labour scarcity became labour excess, not only real wages, but eventually benefits, too, would stop rising. Over the last 30 years, the vast majority of  workers have, in fact, gotten poorer, when you sum up flat real wages, reduced benefits (pensions,  etc.), reduced public services and raised tax burdens."


So, until the 1970s workers enjoyed rising living standards because the demand for labour exceeded its supply. Unemployment was low, people could easily change jobs and real living standards increased year after year.

Then, according to Wolff, three factors changed the labour supply and demand relationship.

Fake News

Having purveyed fake news for decades the British press is getting frightfully annoyed about fake news on the internet. Nobody hates a liar more than a than a lying hypocrite.

How dare these internet scallywags lie to the public. That's the prerogative of the government and the media. How else can our rulers maintain the false consciousness that is so essential to the maintenance of a well policed state.

One of the reasons that some people voted to leave the EU was that some British newspapers had been printing lies and distortions about the EU ever since we joined. The sustained drip, drip of poison finally had its designed effect.Of course, Brexit will be  bad for most people, but some chaps expect to do very well out of it once they are free of all that annoying EU regulation.

The Economist has a nice piece from Cory Doctorow identifying the most prolific purveyors of fake news about the EU.

EU lies and the British tabloids who told them

 Private Eye has a cartoon which neatly skewers the hypocrisy of the Daily Mail [and the stupidity of its readers].

Cameron makes UK an ISIS target

Interesting to see the disinformation campaign that lead up to the House of Commons vote to bomb.

First the terrormongering

Then the failure to learn from experience

1. Intervening in Iraq = disaster

2. Intervening in Afghanistan = disaster

3. Intervening in Libya = disaster

Then claiming there is no alternative
 

Yes, there is. It is none of our business. We are not the world's policeman. I listened to this Labour numpty on the radio saying that we are not the kind of country that would stand idly by. That is right. We are the kind of country that does as the US tells us to do.

Then deciding to train and arm terrorist groups in Syria

Just look how well this as worked out in the past. For example, arming rebels in Afghanistan during the Russian occupation of the country. Do you remember when Bin Laden was a CIA pinup?

My understanding is that the only groups that is might be reasonably safe to arm are such pussies that the big bad boys will soon come along and take away their new toys. Just as ISIS got all its good stuff when the Iraqi army ran away and left all their expensive weapons for ISIS to pick up.

None of the reasons that the government and their fellow travellers have given for going to war are plausible.  We have not been told the real reasons and once again we are being taken to war on the basis of a pack of lies.

How did the House of Commons ever come to vote for this nonsense?

When politicians claim to be upset that so few people vote in UK elections they might consider that it might be a consequence of them being a bunch of lying, self serving tossers.

Ukraine - is it all about gas?

What happened in the Ukraine?  Well, one group of pro Russian oligarchs was replaced by another group of [possibly pro Western] oligarchs. Interesting, but nothing to do with us. The Ukraine is a poor country with nothing much that we want. The sensible thing to do was mind our own business.

Instead, we appear willing to go to the brink of war to get involved. Already we have applied sanctions to Russia and they have retaliated. The retaliation looks as if it will cost some EU countries a lot of money. It wont cost the US or UK  because neither country buys Russian gas or sells much to Russia.

There are a lot of noisy warmongers at work in politics, the military and the media and I sense an organised campaign. But why, and who is behind the campaign?

If you want to know who is behind something fishy try applying the lawyers test of 'cui bono' [who stands, or stood, to gain from something, and so might have been responsible for it].

I came up with two possibilities.

1.  Corruption - the Ukrainian oligarchs are behind the campaign and have bribed a number of political, military and media figures to spread their propaganda.  They know they cannot oppose Russia so they are bribing people in the West to get their countries involved and do their fighting for them. The oligarchs are people with billions to spend. Tossing a few millions to some rent a ranters is nothing to them.

2.  Gas - because of fracking the US has lots of gas and it is looking for people to buy it. Germany imports $72 billion worth of gas from Russia each year.

 Do you think there might be people in the US who would like part of that business? If Germany could be persuaded to buy US gas instead of Russian gas some people would get very rich. There would also be a political advantage. Germany and the EU have been showing signs of having minds of their own. The US cannot tolerate that and making Germany, France and Italy dependent on the US for part of their energy would be a good way of bringing them to heel.

Of course, if the hidden hands get it wrong then this will be the outcome -

Don't worry. The people behind the campaign will not be anywhere near ground zero. You and I might be, but they will make sure they are in a different hemisphere. Read this post for a report on the Iron Mountain hideaway they had set up during the last cold war.

"From this New Yorker article on the Iron Mountain storage facility.

'In the sixties and early seventies, Mesick said, people sometimes slept in the mine: it contained fallout shelters, built and maintained by Iron Mountain for executives from Exxon, Shell, and other big companies.

One especially elaborate shelter, he said, had sixty-five hotel rooms, each with a private bath, and a large cafeteria with a commercial kitchen; in the mid-century-modern bedrooms, curtains obscured the concrete. According to Mesick, in the event of nuclear war, some executives, along with their families, would have been evacuated by helicopter from New York City. “They’d hired local folks to tend to them, to cook for them, to clean for them,” Mesick told me. “Their idea was to wait out the storm while the debris and radioactivity were going on overhead—then they were going to come out and sell oil to everyone who was left.”


Fortunately, in contrast to the rabid warmongering from some people in the NATO countries Putin appears to be acting sensibly and moderately. I think they are trying to provoke him into threatening gas supplies, but I think he knows that and will not bite.

ISIS v Rotherham

The UK government and their media lickspittles have been busy trying to get us worked up about ISIS in Syria and Iraq. The aim is apparently to persuade us to get involved in military action against these fiends in human form.  The latest device was to heavily publicise the murder of an American journalist. The ISIS fiends apparently chopped off his head. This is so clearly beyond the pale that we must bomb them asap. If we don't they will be over here chopping our heads off.

The BBC has been doing its best to promote the government line by making it a lead story and announcing ISIS activities in that tone of shock-horror that some of their people do so well.

However, there are a few problems with the government's cunning plan.

1. Nobody here cares about headless Americans.

2. If we bomb ISIS that will make it more likely they will attack us, not less.

3. We have had enough of lying bastards taking us to war to last us for a long time.

I don't really blame David Cameron. The UK is a vassal state of the US and Dave has to do what the Yanks tell him to do.  If he ever does discover his testicles he could tell the Americans that the civil war in Syria and the creation of ISIS was a result of an Israeli black operation to topple the Syrian government and cut off arms supplies to Hamas. Now it has gone wrong and produced something worse than the Syrian regime they, as usual, want us to do their dirty work for them.


Rotherham is a different matter. Fourteen hundred young girls have been sexual abused over many years by gangs of Pakistani men. The activities of these gangs was covered up by members of the local council and South Yorkshire Police. The government has shown little inclination to do anything about this and is apparently hoping it will all go away and they can get back to doing more useful things like obeying their master's orders.

However, there are a few problems with the government's cunning plan.

1. The British public really does care about Rotherham.

2. The government needs to launch a massive arse kicking operation on the council and South Yorkshire Police.  A lot of people need to lose their jobs and some need to go to prison.

3. The government, in their little Whitehall bubble, are completely out of tune with the British public.

The Scottish Referendum: why Salmond wants to lose and Cameron wants him to win.

A referendum on whether Scotland should be an independent country will take place on Thursday 18 September 2014.

Alex Salmond, the leader of the Scottish National Party [SNP], appears to want a YES vote. David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party, appears to want a NO vote.

I suggest that, in reality, Salmond wants a NO vote and Cameron a YES vote.

The SNP is committed to a referendum on Scottish independence and Salmond has no alternative but to appear to support that. However, Salmond is a very astute politician and he must realise that independence would be economically disasterous for Scotland.

In addition to not being able to use the pound as its currency, Scotland would find it very difficult to join the EU.

'European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has said it would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible" for an independent Scotland to join the European Union. He said an independent Scotland would have to apply for membership and get the approval of all current member states.'

 There are several major EU states that are worried about parts of their own countries splitting off.  They would not want to encourage that by giving Scotland an easy entry. They would want to make an example of Scotland to discourage imitators.

Despite all the SNP blustering they must realise that even if Scotland managed to get EU membership it would be on disastrous terms. It would include none of the special deals that Britain has negotiated. It would have to take what it was offered, on tax and other matters.  Imagine the howls when independence enthusiasts realised that part of the deal included putting VAT on food and children's clothes.  Or when they realised that independence, whether in the EU or not, meant fewer jobs and higher taxes.

As Walpole said of another event, "they are ringing their bells, soon they will be wringing their hands"

The SNP is in government now but with a very slender majority [the Scottish electoral system makes it difficult for any party to get a big majority].   When the hoopleheads who had voted YES realised how much independence was costing them I suspect there would be a big swing away from the SNP and we would see the newly independent Scotland ruled by either Labour or a Labour/LibDem coalition. It might be a very, very long time before the SNP got back into office.  

Meanwhile, Cameron is in a 'win' or 'win big' situation.

If there is a NO vote then the threat of Scottish independence is removed and London can afford to be much more dismissive of Scotland. No more need for appeasement. The SNP would have shot its bolt. In fact, by going for a referendum the SNP has screwed itself whether it wins or loses the vote.

If there is a YES vote and Scotland becomes independent then there would be no more Scottish MPs in the Westminster Parliament. The Conservatives would lose one MP but Labour would lose 41 out of 258.  That could be enough to give the Conservatives a clear majority at the next election and much better prospects at all future elections.

The missing word

I am searching for a word, but I do not know if the word exists in the English language. If it doesn't, it should. My missing word could be defined as follows

Definition - an action or policy, ostensibly undertaken for the public benefit, but actually done to protect officials [politicians or civil servants] from possible criticism. The public may actually be harmed by such actions or policies, in any case, any benefit they receive is incidental to the real purpose.

You can see how useful such a word might be. Think of all the security theatre that we have had in airports and elsewhere since 9/11. Think of the raft of oppressive security legislation that was introduced in the UK, the main purpose of which seemed to be to protect the Blair government from the possibility of criticism if another terrorist act occurred. Think of the  TSA airport scanner controversy in the USA.

We do have phrases that express the idea, but they are clumsy. We can refer to officials protecting their own backs. In the UK we talk of officials being more concerned with protecting their own arses than benefiting the public. both In cases the terms presumably derive from the idea of protecting backs or buttocks from a public whipping.


If my missing word is not in the English language I thought it might exists in some other language and I turned to my copy of Rheingold [Rheingold, H., 2000. They Have a Word for it, Sarabande Books].  This is a lexicon of useful foreign words which have no direct English equivalent.

For example, we have adopted Zeitgeist and Schaddenfreude from the Germans because they express in one word a concept that would need an entire phrase in English.

Rheingold has other words we might adopt -

Bricoleur [French] - a person who makes things by random messing around and without following a plan.

Drachenfutter [German] - a peace offering from guilty husbands for wives.

Razbliuto [Russian] -  the feeling of affection that a person has for someone once loved.

Fisselig [German] - flustered to the point of incompetence.

Rheingold contains lots of useful words. Unfortunately none of them fitted my definition. Maybe there is a Latin word, or something from Strine. The latter must be a real possibility. The Australians have such expressive slang. For example

Bludger - lazy person, usually applied to one who lives on the dole and who doesn't try finding work.

Drongo - stupid male. Spangled drongo -  stupid female.

Lurk - something taken or done in an illegal or underhanded manner. Lurks and perks - illegal and legal benefits of an employment.

Shark biscuit - somebody new to surfing

Stickybeak - nosy person


For the moment the matter rests. If you can think of a suitable word please add a comment.  The world needs this word.

UN investigator says Syrian rebels used Sarin gas

In an interview with Swiss-Italian TV on Sunday, Ms Del Ponte, who serves on the UN's Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, said: "Our investigators have been in neighbouring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals.

"According to their report of last week, which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated."

Carla Del Ponte said testimony from victims and doctors had given rise to "strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof" that the rebels had used Sarin.

 This is all very disappointing for those who have been busy trying to push the USA and UK into war with Syria.  It also raises the question as to who supplied the rebels with the gas and why they did it.

It was interesting to see how the British media treated the story.

The BBC web site put and kept the story on its front page but revised the story substantially over today in a obvious attempt to cast doubt on Ms Del Ponte's comments.  The BBC has been accepting rebel statements as gospel and publishing them without any clear attempt to verify them. Proper journalistic standards have been abandoned when it comes to presenting the rebel case but all of a sudden the BBC's critical facilities have been restored when it comes to rubbishing an inconvenient truth. Was there a call from Number 10 to the state controlled media?

The Telegraph also had the story on its front page this morning. By the evening it had been cut and moved to an inside page and placed alongside a story about British tourists in Italy being overcharged for ice cream.

The Guardian web site never had the story at all. Not important enough for you, chaps?

 Humbert Wolfe said

You cannot hope to bribe or twist, thank God! the British journalist. 

But, seeing what the man will do unbribed, there's no occasion to.

Unfortunately, the first line is not true.

The CIA's criminal stupidity

"In its zeal to identify bin Laden or his family, the CIA used a sham hepatitis B vaccination project to collect DNA in the neighbourhood where he was hiding. The effort apparently failed, but the violation of trust threatens to set back global public health efforts by decades.

The deadly consequences have already begun. Villagers along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border chased off legitimate vaccine workers, accusing them of being spies. Taliban commanders banned polio vaccinations in parts of Pakistan, specifically citing the bin Laden ruse as justification. Then, last December, nine vaccine workers were murdered in Pakistan, eventually prompting the United Nations to withdraw its vaccination teams. Two months later gunmen killed 10 polio workers in Nigeria—a sign that the violence against vaccinators may be spreading."

Full Scientific American story here

The CIA scheme was grossly irresponsible.  It has already lead to dozens of deaths amongst health workers. In the future it will kill or cripple  thousands of unvaccinated children.

Presumably the scheme was thought up by some wannabe who didn't think or care about the consequences. He or she probably just wanted to earn some brownie points with their bosses.

Another reason for the USA to be ashamed.

Amazon v John Lewis

I have just bought a Samsung Galaxy Note tablet to replace my iPad. I had the choice of buying online from Amazon, or  either online or offline from John Lewis.

For non UK readers, John Lewis is a highly rated [by consumer groups] chain of department stores. They were a few pounds more expensive than Amazon but I bought offline from them for the following reasons.

John Lewis pays UK tax. Amazon is reportedly dodging paying its fair share by moving its profits offshore. I don't like that.

John Lewis is owned by its employees and is British.  Amazon is neither.

Amazon provides good service. John Lewis provides even better.  They are well known for their ethical behaviour and the quality of their staff [aka owners].  There is a big difference between the quality of JL staff and those of other retailers. Owning your own business really does make a difference.

Amazon is getting too big. The danger is that they will start to abuse their dominance. We have recently had a spate of bankruptcies by UK High Street retail chains and there are now lots of empty shops.

BTW - My first impression of the Galaxy Note is that it is a cracking piece of kit that shows just how overpriced and outdated the iPad has become.

Are the UK police and media trying to bring down a minister?

In September 2012 Andrew Mitchell, the UK Government Chief Whip, had an altercation with policemen on guard at the gate of Downing Street. There is some dispute at what was said but Mitchell has apologised to the policemen and his apology has been accepted.

Since then the UK media has pursued the story ad nauseam.  The public has long since lost interest, in what is by any rational standards, a very trivial story, but still the media struggle desperately to keep the story alive, aided by the police and the Labour Party.

It is all clearly a fuss about nothing, so what is really happening?

I suspect that the incident is being used to try and bring down a government minister and each of the three parties, police, press and Labour, have their own agenda.

Police agenda

When Labour were in power the police had power and privilege. The government gave them whatever they wanted and made no attempt to disturb the UK's last bastion of Spanish Practices [Spanish Practices is a UK expression that refers to irregular or restrictive working practices].

Times have  changed and they are finding life harder under the Coalition. They are grumpy and sullen. I suspect they want to bring down Mitchell to show the Government they are still a power to fear.

I think they have made a big mistake in picking this fight with the Conservatives. Even if the police succeeded in forcing Mitchell out that will not save them and the Conservatives will take a terrible revenge. The police should remember what happened to the miners after they humiliated Ted Heath's Government in 1974. As Walpole remarked "they are ringing their bells, soon they will be wringing their hands".

The Conservatives bear  grudges.  If they are unhappy they do something about it. They will exact their revenge on the police at some later date in a compelling and thorough fashion. 

Press agenda

Why are the press pursuing the story? Partly for the same reasons as the police. The internet has greatly diminished their influence and they would like to show they are still a power in the land. Also, they fear that they are due for a giant ass whipping for past misdeeds [phone hacking, corrupting public servants etc.]. What is puzzling is why they think annoying the government is the best way to mitigate the ass whipping. It isn't.

Also, like the scorpion in The Scorpion and the Frog story, they cannot help themselves.

The BBC has foolishly joined in the press campaign and will also  have their panties taken down in the future, probably via the Jimmy Savile affair.

Incidentally, the press have claimed that Mitchell called the police plebs. I do not believe that for a moment. That sounds like an invention by a tabloid journalist [or the police].   The BBC has repeated the pleb claim over and over again without once, to my knowledge, questioning whether it is true.

Labour agenda

These losers think they can score some political points off the Conservatives. That might have worked at first but now they just seem like weak and tiresome political opportunists. They need to give it a rest and stop flogging a dead horse.

Hypocrisy

Meanwhile, a 61 year old blind man who has suffered two strokes was tased by Lancashire Police who claim they mistook his white cane for a samurai sword.  Apart from reinforcing my belief that it is a mistake to arm the stupid, it will be interesting to see how the police, media and  Labour Party respond to  the incident. It is clearly much more serious than the Mitchell affair. Will the Police Federation call for PC Taser to be sacked? I doubt it. Did the media give this appalling incident the same attention as the  Mitchell affair. No, they did not. Will Miliband  mention it in Parliament. Don't hold your breath.

I'm offended

Apparently giving offence is now a criminal offence and giving offence to someone's religion justifies them acting violently.

Dim witted Chief Constables appear to believe that they can arrest anybody whose Facebook posting offends their delicate sensibilities.

Religious bigots appear to believe that if media in another country 'insults' their religion it is OK to kill, break and burn.

That all seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I am offended by -

1.  Jackass policemen who abuse their office and ignore our rights of free speech.

2.  Anybody who gets carried away by their favourite superstition.

3.  A really long list of  people, particularly the officious, stupid and intolerant.

I want them all punished because they are making me cry.  Fencing off Sussex as a giant prison camp should be enough to hold all the people who have come between the wind and my nobility.  I demand immediate action.

Or, I could just get a sense of proportion, shrug and get on with my life. 

Maybe I will do that. Any day that brings nothing worse than offence is a good day.

Policies devised to protect politicians, not us.

Aviation officials have questioned the need for such a strong permanent police presence at airports, suggesting they were there simply "to make the government look tough on terror". 

One senior executive said in his experience, the officers were expensive window-dressing.

"When you add the body scanners, the ritual humiliation of old ladies with knitting needles and the farcical air marshals, it all adds up to billions of dollars to prevent what? A politician being called soft on terror, that's what," he said.

From this article.

How many other policies, not just anti terrorist ones, are there to protect politicians from political criticism.  In the UK we had a lot during Labours period of office, plus a lot of oppressive new laws.

NHS not safe in Tory hands

I assume David Cameron would like to win the next election and keep on being Prime Minister. It was going to be a big ask because our perilous financial state means there will be very little money to hand out in electoral bribes. Still, it was doable. Most people realise our present state is a present from Gordon Brown and don't seem to blame the Tories.

The Labour Party was very helpful. They elected a snotty kid as their leader. Someone who often sounds like a cheeky little public school fag, but never like a Prime Minister.

The big issue in British politics is the NHS. The British electorate love the NHS and they don't trust the Tories to look after it.

Any politician with more cunning than a  dead squirrel would have known to leave the NHS strictly alone. Give it a funding increase in line with inflation, but otherwise keep their hands off it. If cuts were needed, make them elsewhere. The aim should have been to not give Labour a cudgel to beat them with at the next election. To not allow Labour to say that the NHS was not safe with the Tories.

Did they do that?

No, of course they didn't.

You can just imaging the conversation in Downing Street.

Q. What musnt we do?

A. Mess with the NHS.

Q. What are you going to do next?

A. Mess with the NHS.

Cameron put a wackjob in charge of the NHS and allowed him to come up with a radical plan which is opposed by just about everybody, including doctors and nurses. A plan which demonstrates beyond any doubt that the NHS is not safe with the Tories.

Cameron's next stroke of genius was to treat the issue as a virility test. He seems to think that if he does not get the plan through Parliament people will think he has a very small dick [as opposed to thinking, as they do at the moment, that he has a very small brain].

I really do despair. There was just one issue that the Tories had to treat with loving care; the NHS. Instead they have managed to dig a very large hole and throw themselves in it. Wasn't sixteen years out of office enough? Do they want another stretch on the opposition benches?

Maybe Cameron was over promoted. It is hard to see that a more experienced and cunning politician would be making such a pigs ear of the NHS.  Can you imagine Alex Salmond making such an elementary mistake? Nobody will ever get to suggest that NHS Scotland is not safe in with the SNP.

It is obvious what Cameron needs to do. Lets see if he is capable of doing it.

Crocodile tears over Syrian casualties

American and British indignation over civilian casualties in Syria seem hypocritical when one considers the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan killed by American and British forces. I don't remember Hillary Clinton or William Hague saying anything about those deaths. Nor have they seemed very concerned about Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.

The indignation about civilian deaths is just prolefeed.  If Syria was an American vassal state we would not be hearing a squeak of protest. The real agenda is regime change in Syria. Not only as a worthwhile objective in itself, but also as a way of removing a friend of Iran.

It is obvious that there are hidden hands at work in Syria. Some agency is organising the political and military activity. Some agency is supplying the rebels with arms.  The state media in Britain just shows unarmed protesters chanting in the streets, but the rebels must have heavy weapons. If the Syrian government has to use tanks and artillery they must be facing heavily armed rebels. No government would shell its own cities if less violent methods would work. No government sends in the army if they can send in the police. Where did the arms come from?

Innocent civilians in Homs

One hidden hand is obviously American. I suspect that another is Israeli. Israel has a clear interest in overthrowing the Bashar al-Assad regime but I have seen no suggestion in the UK media that their busy little hands might be at work. Our reporters know their place [and the power of the Zionist lobby in UK media].

There has been a lot of official ranting about Russia and Chinas veto of a UN resolution. It is a good thing that the USA or the UK have never  vetoed any UN resolutions aimed at Israel. If they had their indignation would just seem like cant.

The BBC's coverage has been  disgracefully unbalanced. Ministerial rants have been  broadcast ad nauseam, along with plaintive cries from the rebels. I have still to hear any BBC reporter or interviewer ask any critical questions.

Normally the BBC is the home of tricky questions, but not on this issue. There is clearly an organised media campaign and at times like this it becomes obvious that the BBC, for all its claims of independence, is a state controlled media outlet.

The assumption is that everybody in Homs is in favour of the rebellion. Perhaps most of the population of Homs would like to kick out the armed troublemakers and live in peace, even if it is under a rather unsavoury regime.

I hold no brief for the Assad government, they seem a nasty bunch. What worries me is that the aim of the current campaign seems to be to prep us for military action.  What will be the next step? A no fly zone?  Supplying arms to the rebels?  Military intervention by some US proxy?

Bradfordistan

The BBC has announced that the northern city of Bradford has been taken over by Muslim extremists [Bradford has a large Muslim population]. The rebels appear to be armed with rocket propelled grenades and assault rifles.  They have announced the formation of the Islamic state of Bradfordistan.

A resigned Prime Minister said that the government would not be taking any action to recover Bradford.

"Any attempt to take Bradford would obviously result in civilian casualties so is out of the question, " he said. "We cannot have any fighting so we will probably let them keep the place."

"And anywhere else they fancy," he added. "We don't want to seem aggressive."

A peace to end peace

A peace to end peace,” commented Sir Alfred Milner, that powerhouse of the British war cabinet, as he surveyed the disastrous terms of the WW1 Versailles treaty.  I was reminded of Milner's observation when I heard this piece of news.

The BBC reports that "An Iraqi judicial committee has issued an arrest warrant for the mainly Shia Arab country's Sunni Arab Vice-President, Tariq al-Hashemi. 

The warrant was issued under anti-terrorism laws, interior ministry spokesman Adel Daham said.

The main Sunni political bloc is reported to have said it will boycott the cabinet in response."

This has got to be very bad news. It is bad if Tariq al-Hashemi has been correctly accused of terrorism.  It is bad  if he has been falsley accused.

It is less than 48 hours since the Americans claimed they had set up an workable government and pulled out of Iraq.

So much for their peace.

Still, that's the nice thing about being a giant clumsy bully.  You can completely ruin a country and then just wander off, tootling your trumpet and singing patriotic songs.

Proportionate sentencing

Judge Elgan Edwards sentenced Sutcliffe-Keenan, 22, to four years imprisonment after he used his Facebook account in the early hours of 9 August to design a web page titled The Warrington Riots. The court was told it caused a wave of panic in the town. When he woke up the next morning with a hangover, he removed the page and apologised, saying he had been drunk and it had been a joke. His message was distributed to 400 Facebook contacts, but no rioting broke out as a result.

Let us compare this sentence with those given to the MPs who stole from us with fraudulent expense claims. These were men who were in positions of trust. They didn't steal whilst drunk, but over several years.  Most of them were sentenced to about one year in jail.

I might also suggest comparing  Elgan Edward's sentences to those given to the greedy bankers who caused the financial crash.  After all, if the riots had lasted months they could not have caused a tenth of the  damage to the country as the City of London managed.

Unfortunately, no comparisons can be made. As far as I am aware, no banker has been jailed.

Setting an example

I agree that Britain is broken, but not in the way the Prime Minister and the judiciary appear to believe.