Reinstate the compulsory UK Identity Cards system – finally unmask the fraudsters and incognito hoody muggers, criminals, and knifers?

Due to the UK’s uncontrollable surge in knife crime (100 knifings a day), the provocative and dangerous habit of routinely carrying knives by the young (including school children), and indeed in our cities the daily knifing and murdering of young people by young people, the authorities at long last have taken the first essential step to halt that juggernaut of death, destruction, and unbridled crime.

That step was taken just 2 weeks ago by the current Home Secretary Sajid Javid and it was to ‘reinstate’ the police’s greater powers of ‘stop and search’ so that it can become effective once more on our crime-ridden streets and keep them safe.

He has trashed disastrous Theresa May’s previous reforms of five years ago when as Home Secretary she set-about the police, undermined them, cut their funding and numbers, decided that SHE knew best about dealing with crime, and tied the hands of the police by crushing their powers of stop and search, which she determined had no discernible effect in reducing crime but poisoned community relations – all in her failed quest to appease and appeal to the liberal-minded elite, eh?

Oh yes, the use of large-scale mass stop and search operations had been highly controversial, it has to be said – not least because black people or those from minority ethnic groups, were four times more likely to be stopped and searched on the streets by the police than white people?

What May actually achieved was to play directly into the hands of the gutter criminals, because the police could no longer disrupt crime, nor take weapons of our most dangerous and notoriously crime-ridden streets, nor battle to reduce the threat of serious violence occurring there.

Well, whether or not there remains concerns in some quarters about unfairly targeting people who are black, now that the allegation of institutional police racism has been alleviated, the new Home Secretary is convinced [as are the police and the mass of the population] that stop and search has to be bulked-up with a large surge in operations to lance the boil of violent street crime – and Javid can get away with restoring such effective tactics, perhaps without too much personal criticism, because he is black himself and comes from immigrant stock


  • Statistics mid 2018 showed that almost half of murder victims, as well as murder suspects were black despite that ethnic group accounting for just 13% of London’s population
  • Twenty-one teenagers [all black or ethnic minorities] were murdered in 2018: Oluwadamilolda Odeyingbo, Hasan Ozcan, Sabri Chibani, Promise Nkenda, Lewis Blackman, Abdikarim Hassan, Kelvin Odunuyi, Lyndon Davis, Tanesha Melbourne-Blake, Amaan Shakoor, Israel Ogunsola, Rhyhiem Ainsworth Barton, Jordan Douherty, Katrina Makunova, Latwaan Griffiths, Guled Farah, Ethan Nedd-Bruce, Jay Hughes, Malcolm Mide-Madariola, John Ogunjobi, Aron Warren.



The second essential step required here in Britain, is to deal with another of the biggest problems we are currently facing in our society which is the one of the increasingly prevalent activity of gangs, drug dealers, and other criminals who are simply able to prowl the streets or lurk in the shadows, and go about their destructive business ‘incognito’, because they are being allowed to hide their identities with numerous aliases, and alter physical appearance or cover faces behind hoodies, balaclavas, full-face biker helmets, face scarves, dark sunglasses, fake tans, dyed hair, wigs, hats, and the like, or in some cases even the full face veil.

Of course, some organisations like banks ask customers to remove face helmets, hats and sunglasses before approaching tellers, but don’t enforce it, while others like garages and shopping precincts might insist that people must be physically identifiable because of the specific risks of shop-lifting, fraud and other illegal actions

However, as some people have found, being unable to actually prove your identity or right to be resident in the UK, is something of potential nightmarish proportions, yet it is claimed by the usual civil-rights scaremongers that many law-abiding citizens here would find the idea awful and ‘un-British’ of being asked to show identity at any particular time, as they would feel their lives were being suppressed under an oppressive police State. That is simply a load of bollocks though – while it indeed may be a truism for ‘some’ of those who have survived last century’s war years, or seen Hollywood war movies, so know of Nazi-Germany government agents figurative demand of “your papers please”, but it has no relevance nor standing in these modern days, does it?

Oh yes, some will say that carrying an ID card would be an unnecessarily and excessively intrusive burden, but those that so claim will of course predominately include those of the criminal element, who rely on total anonymity to get away with their crimes, don’t they?

You see, without any compunction whatsoever British people already carry a photocard driving licence, a railcard, a photocard bus pass, a library card, photocard citizencard id card, a photocard proof of age card, bank cards, credit cards, store cards, company photocards, club membership cards, residence cards, seaman books etc, which all are compulsory to show on demand when used, and even on occasion a passport has to be shown to prove identity within the UK, or when overseas.

Moreover, despite the assertion from some living in the past diehards here, that our citizens required preservation of a ‘right to remain anonymous’, some 70% of the population also readily widely disclose to all and sundry, much of the intimate details and activities their personal lives, just through multi-membership of media platforms [Facebook (the biggest @ 40million), Instagram, Google+,Twitter, Pinterest, Linkedin, Snapchat, Friends Reunited, Reddit, Tumbir, Goodreads, Myspace, et al]

Notwithstanding all of that, which clearly evidences the population’s general attitude to so-called ‘privacy’, the planned introduction and ongoing use of national Identity cards in Britain were scrapped eight years ago, following a campaign to stop such a system being fully introduced, whence the ones already issued were no longer valid and couldn’t be used as proof of identify

As you might expect that retrograde action, which has now put our society under the control of the criminal classes, was carried-out at the behest of the usual ‘screw-it-up’ human rights and liberal “do-gooder crowd”, and indeed was enacted by the bloody LibDems, who had sacrificed their principles to sneak into Government as a coalition partner to the Tories. National identity cards were in the process of being rolled-out as a personal identification document which was linked to the national identity register database, which has since been destroyed – the loss of everything that had been already put in place at enormous cost over some four years.

[Foreign nationals from outside the EU continue to require an ID card for use as a biometric residence permit]

There is a general lack of compulsory ID in the UK, as only airport workers or others in certain high-security professions are required to carry an identity card. While nobody in the UK is required to carry any form of ID, and in everyday situations most authorities, such as the police, do not make spot checks of identification for individuals, although they may do so in instances of arrest, but nevertheless you can’t actually fly anywhere even within the UK without proving identity to the airline [normally passport or diving licence – even children need to do so]

Now, such things are different in many other countries, where it is simply accepted these days as part of their current culture and custom to carry ID – so virtually nobody there bats an eyelid about it, do they?

Indeed Britain has ‘had’ ID cards before – both during WWI and for a dozen years during and after WWII. Some liberalists will say “ah, but that was when we were in a war”, won’t they? Well yes, but we most certainly ARE in a bloody war NOW, and in one which we are losing-out to drug traffickers, burglars, violent robbers, murders, arsonists, rapists, car thieves, computer cyber attackers, virus pushers & hackers, shoplifters, fraudsters & forgers, extremists, terrorists and their supporters, et all, aren’t we?

Moreover, the UK also invoked the compulsory carrying of an identity card in public areas in Hong Kong, when it still was a British colony back 40 years ago, and that continues today and seems to have never been a matter of resentment for Hongkongers.

Yes, so what is urgently needed in the UK now is a compulsory national id card that can be made available quickly. This would help cut crime and aid extra protection against terrorism supporters, in a smartcard micro-chip technology form containing sufficient biometrics to ensure that the holder of a card is who they say they are, and one which includes sufficiently adequate details to prove identity – and that with being backed-up with adequate security of issue, but without the extensive ‘interlinked database structure’ that was intended previously, and which was really the focus of almost all of the past concerns. It must not of course go down the road followed by issuing of national insurance numbers, which are so uncontrolled they are currently an unfunny joke as they are issued willy-nilly to any illegal immigrant landed at the coast, or most-wanted criminals escaping justice in the safe haven UK, eh?

Currently, the police’s hands are tied by unbridled liberal opinioned restrictions on obtaining people’s identity, as Joe public is deemed by them to resent police checks, but this leaves the criminal with the upper hand, real power, and in complete control, doesn’t it?

Yep, the police, for instance, must have reasonable cause to ask for identification, and they do NOT have the right to demand someone’s name OR address without a ‘substantive reason’. Generally, a police officer can only ask someone to give their name and address if they believe them to have committed an offence, or are about to commit an offence. It is then a basic badge of honour for criminals, and particularly those driving stolen cars or committing driving offences, and fighting drunks or hooligans, to give false details which ties-up officers for countless hours to unravel or having to establish identities by taking them back to the police station.

ID cards have an important role to play as a deterrent in preventing fraud through identity deception, not least involving banks and retail fraud, as it would be a straightforward means of establishing identity. Also it would prevent people working in the UK who arent allowed to do so [like overstayers, illegal immigrants, asylum-seekers, etc]. While the Country’s defence against terrorism has to rely on a lot more than an ID system, it will nevertheless enable the authorities to track them and trace all criminal suspects more easily


[Many would advocate that everybody should be subject to a ‘stop and search’ and Home Secretary ‘Sajid Javid’ has stepped-up to the plate to progress that forward, and the ball is also in his court to introduce a modern ID card system – just let’s hope he is up to the task, eh?]

Primino Theresa May (prime-minister in name only)


We have had just less than 3 years of Theresa May and already

  1. She has disgraced herself and bought shame on herself as a politician
  2. She has demeaned the great office of Prime Minister
  3. She has trounced the imbedded tradition of governmental collective responsibility
  4. She has bounced the Cabinet that she personally chose and appointed but has defied their decisions
  5. She has allowed her Cabinet and MPs to thumb their noses up at democracy in a country that once was a beacon for that system of government
  6. She has overseen a shockingly alarming demise in the responsible operation of the House of Commons in a parliamentary system that has been in place and operated dutifully for hundreds of years and is widely seen as the ‘Mother of Parliaments’
  7. She has brought about a constitutional crisis whereby the Executive, that holds responsibility for governance of the State, no longer has control over the levers of power relied on by the government to manage Parliament’s legislative agenda
  8. She has undermined forever the rights of the British people and the voters’ belief in the power of the ballot-box to exercise control over the executive and elite
  9. She has acted like a sovereign dictator and has deliberately thwarted the will of the people in favour of it being ‘her way or no way’
  10. She has destroyed the Government and its credibility both in this Country and overseas
  11. She has scuppered the Conservative Party – probably forever
  12. She has humiliated our great nation on the World stage and brought the Country to its knees at the EU – again and AGAIN
  13. She has downgraded the United Kingdom from a worldwide respected nation into an international laughing stock
  14. She has turned Britain from a Major Country into a banana republic
  15. She has introduced a catalyst that has broken the UK’s political system, which will finally end the ideological dogma’s two party system, but in a manner that will allow extremist parties to flourish instead


[For the sake of the Country’s future, ‘Theresa May’ has to go as UK Prime Minister immediately and that means NOW, but NO ONE in the Tory Party has the guts to make it happen – pity that the people here don’t have the same drive as the suppressed population in the authoritarian, totalitarian, state of Sudan, who despite facing fierce resistance from the ex-military ‘Omar al-Bashir’ regime, which held all effective political power, have used their intense anti-government protests to finally remove that long-serving dictator from power]


The scandal of youngsters totally obsessed with football heading for the scrapheap – beget by courtesy of the disastrous English Football Association?


Back nearly three years ago a post here WHERE THE FA HAVE TO GO TO RESUSCITATE ENGLISH FOOTBALL – BUT WILL IT HAPPEN THIS TIME? July 20, 2016 by dadman007,  included a paragraph referencing the English league club academy system

We need a CEO charged with the responsibility of growing football from ground level roots up, and that means the FA & their underlings the League Authorities using the massive millions coming into the game to provide local facilities for young kids (like the Germans do) and abandoning current the ridiculous league club academy system that totally embroils young children from seven and ‘coaches’ them incessantly before it throws them on the scrapheap at sixteen (and no doubt teaches them on the way how to cheat like the professionals – and spit like a trouper, as well?). All the big money is currently channelled into paying obscene millions to players (most of them foreigners who don’t even pay much tax) and their bloodsucking agents, but certainly not into local football.

Well as was expected, the FA’s overpaid executives have simply sat on their hands, ignored the pitfalls and areas for improvement, and let their debilitating academy system carry-on regardless without change, oblivious to the damage being caused to the beguiled young boys and teenagers involved, eh?

You see, the English football academy system is a crock of shit that sucks-in and enslaves aspiring football players as young kids, and in one of the greatest confidence tricks of the century offers them untold fame and fortune, just for joining [and signing on when age 9], but actually the price is unknowingly for the unaffordable cost of an extortionate amount of their time and energy, a dedicated and massive commitment to a single sport, and ultimately an often unrecoverable loss of self-confidence and self-worth.

When a kid is “scouted” at primary school age, the parents and their son are over the moon, as the lad will benefit greatly from serious football involvement and free training with elite coaching in a fantastic environment, which all sounds too good to be true – unfortunately it bloody well is.

Even after a relatively short period, many of those will be ditched in an uncaring manner, leaving them in tears, confused as to why the dream of being a star has suddenly evaporated and then they suffer the nightmare stigma of being labelled a failure at early such an age too. A large number of boys though will survive in the academy development squad, some for years from infancy, only to reach an even greater level of personal destruction when crushingly tossed aside when they reach the crucial age of 16, when the cut is made for those who will be selected to join the scholarship programme


There is sufficient evidence that those who involuntarily leave the academy system because they are thrown on the scrapheap as ‘just not good enough’ casualties, are hugely damaged by the experience. They suddenly face the cold, harsh reality of the real world where football has a pretty minor role to play in life, and it is unsurprising that most children find themselves up the creak without a paddle and can’t hack it, is it? The fact is that suddenly ‘being released’ can cause clinical levels of psychological distress afterwards when boys suffer a distressing loss of self-confidence. At the bottom end, some have so lost their way that they drift-off into crime and end up in prison

Some gratuitous advice is offered here to parents of any happy sporty young kid, and that IS to ignore whatever football ability you imagine your kid has or someone has told you he has, and just let him play football and enjoy the game and forget the tempting dream that you might hold or are being fed – it aint going to happen is it? No, the statistical likelihood of a kid making it is infinitesimally small and it isn’t worth the gamble of your considerable money, time, effort, and most certainly NOT your child’s future [only 1 in 200 age 9 academy players become a footballer or make a living from the game].

Oh yes SOME few will make it and do sign as professionals, but only a quarter of them are still in the game by the time they are 21 – THAT’S WHAT ONE WOULD CALL A BLOODY SHORT CAREER, wouldn’t one? Is that what you really want for your kid, eh?

The base problem is that while football is no different from other sports which equally have a massive dropout in mid-teens when other interests take over, the pressurising academy system both ignores that and moreover gives boys totally false hopes by irresponsibly building-up their expectations that they’re going to be star footballers

Of course, the Football Association and Football League adamantly defend the professionalism of their youth processes, coaching and facilities, but that’s all codswallop, as research in a matter of major concern, has found that even boys who make it into the top elite scholarship programme at 16, results in five out of six not playing professional football at 21, eh?

When the high-pressure environment of the academy football bubble, as it normally does, ceases to be just a hobby or simply a sport, it can easily decline into being an obsession for a youngster, which can sometimes develop into an anxiety and obsessive compulsive disorder, or when it completely dominates growing up and whereby the other educational or development needs of different, essential life skills inevitably get sidelined, and where all ambition is substituted by football, football, football, it becomes a critical problem, doesn’t it?

Moreover, despite the fact that there are well-intentioned, hardworking coaches and welfare officers in some English football academies, in reality the system generally pays scant attention to its statutory safeguarding obligations for children there, which now seems to be restricted to ‘belatedly’ keeping young players safer from sexual assault, while completely ignoring the elephant in the room of the mental, psychological and emotional impacts on young people resulting from being in the current highly developed, ambitious, commercialised, academy system, which undoubtable is a form of abuse, isn’t it?. This abject failure to protect children ought to be properly dealt with by dealt with by the authorities, don’t you think? [The Courts issued a salutary warning about the potential dangers of English football’s youth development system, when dealing with a causal consequential mental health difficulties case]

[Under the Children Act 1989, the police, working with other agencies (such as the Local Authority children’s social care services, health and education services), are responsible for making enquiries to safeguard the welfare of any child within their area who is suffering (or likely to suffer) significant harm]

It is not just boys getting ‘released’ that causes problems though, as major difficulties persist there throughout the time a lad is in an academy, and indeed the whole family suffers years of ordeal. It is a fantasy, mad, unreal, world that the most caring of parents get sucked into, so not only does that increase pressure on the child to constantly meet the challenge of being under the constant scrutiny of performance and conduct, but severe anxiety is generated throughout the family unit because of a probability of rejection. All that comes on top of the fact that supporting an academy player requires many sacrifices which can often devastate normal family life

Indeed, it is the parents and their family who have to bear the brunt of the demands of the system, with their lives dominated by travelling long distances, as they have to transport their boy everywhere demanded by the academy, which will include travel time of up to a 1 hour to and from the academy for intensive, perhaps four‑times‑a‑week training from the age of eight, plus a weekend match which can be hundreds of miles away and require an overnight hotel stay – that kind of commitment requires families incurring substantial cost as well as often meaning a parent taking time off work as well. Inevitably, where there are other children in the family, they will suffer by priority attention going elsewhere, won’t they?

Parents who do have a child in a football academy need to be fully aware of the problems that it can cause and deal with the issues in a preventative manner. That would include ensuring that their son keeps his feet firmly on the ground, enjoys the special experience of being in the academy environment, but understand that football is not a way of life, that it is unlikely to be his career, and that it has to be ‘counter-balanced’ by other more important and significant interests, such as education

It is a glaring fact that football training takes-up a massive chunk of school related time, particularly with the result at Secondary school that fewer GCSEs are taken or done well in, and then further studies are restricted, given the amount of training the 16-18-year-olds do, to the extent that very few will take or gain A-levels, let alone going on to higher education. That kind of study drop-off further sabotages their chances of finding real career opportunities in professions like solicitors, accountants, physiotherapists, IT, tradesman, or even sports science careers.

However, if priority is switched by parents from football to school, it becomes more likely that an academy will release the boy as they tend to operate a harsh ‘total commitment’ policy, and that makes it even more essential that parents have understood the pressure on a child who is too young to know how to handle it, and have pre-prepared their son for life outside the academy, doesn’t it?

You just need to know that Premier League clubs prefer to transfer-in, to play, put on the bench, or even as well sit in the stands, predominately expensive foreign players (some ¾ are non-English), so those talented home-grown players who actually ‘make it’, still can NOT get in the team – so don’t progress unless they go abroad, and joining a German team is becoming more common for young players in the English game [like ex-Manchester City 19 year old Jadon Sancho (4 full England caps) and ex- West Ham (debut at age 16) 20 year old Reece Oxford (5 England U20 caps), or ex- Everton (scored on his debut against Man C) 21 year old Ademola Lookman (11 England U21 caps)]


[Why do the League Clubs do it all wrong with these kid academies? Well, it is simply a massive sort of sub-trial in a massive numbers game where clubs want to keep ALL their options open on ANY young footballer that has demonstrated some talent but that is not yet fully developed, so they destroy their futures by giving them hope and hanging onto them until the boys have to be paid, don’t they?]


Theresa May – FACT or FICTION? reposted


It is reposted now to explain just why BREXIT is such a disastrous mess – it was logged here nearly 3 years ago that Theresa May had neither the experience nor skills to be our Prime Minister – she had performed just a single Ministerial role and she screwed it up big time. She had shown negligence of duty in cowardly cow-towing to the European court [exactly has she had done in her dealings with the EU over the past 2 years].

The sole REASON that Britain has been offered such a bad deal by the EU is COMPLETLY down to May, who has shown the negotiation skills of a village idiot and has repeatedly overridden the objections of those who could have delivered a proper result for the UK.


[May couldn’t negotiate getting a beer during a brewery trip even after she had promised to pay £100 for it]




The front runner candidate (indeed winner), for being the next UK Prime Minister, was the one of gravitas who we were told reeks of Cabinet experience, and is of course Theresa May.

However, if the truth be known she logs up only half a dozen years at that, and that ALL has been in a SINGLE Cabinet job as Home Secretary, hasn’t it? That hardly represents the widespread mantle that makes her ‘a safe pair of hands’ which was solidly being peddled around, is it? Oh yes, she has been given a variety of ‘shadow’ roles in the proceeding, decade but that hardly constitutes ‘hands-on’ experience running things does it? No, such shadow responsibilities endows only experience in ineffectively carping at the incumbent government – all done without accountability, or decision making, or nous about implementation of policy, isn’t it?

The only matter then on which one can really judge May likely feat as PM is on her actual performance as Home Secretary, and therein she runs into a deep problem, doesn’t she? Yes, the only thing really going for her there was her relative longevity, surely? The Home Office is renowned for being the poisoned chalice ministry yet she had survived a full six years – the longest spell for well over half a century indeed. [Alan Johnson 1yr, Jacqui Smith 2yrs, John Reid 1yr, Charles Clarke 2yrs, David Blunkett 3yrs, Jack Straw 4yrs, Michael Howard 4yrs, Kenneth Clarke 2yrs, Kenneth Baker 2yrs, David Waddington 1yr, Douglas Herd 4yrs, Leon Brittan 2yrs, William Whitelaw 4yrs to name some of them].

She hardly comes out smelling of roses from her time having had a disastrously rough ride there does she? No, for example there has been the great shame of the Abu Qatada business, which May somehow boasted as one of her successes (?), despite the galling fact that she failed miserably also to deport that cleric bastard for three years. That fiasco involved both her inexplicable failure to galvanise the legal system here, as well as her negligence of duty in cowardly cow-towing to the European court over the matter.

Then there has been her wavering explanations of her derelictions and failures, on such things as the dreadful demoralised UK border agency (and its costly collapsed IT system), or the cancer of people and drug smuggling though ineffective ports, airports and private airfields, or tackling the problems of ‘failed’ asylum seekers (gone missing numbers increasing), or untold numbers of ‘illegals’ in the UK coming in through an inadequately protected extensive coastline but never deported (numbers going down), or the failure and derisory support for the elected police & crime commissioners initiative, which has risked public trust in the police, or ongoing bizarre inexplicable deportation and visas outcomes, and or even perhaps more significantly the run-ins with and the rundowns of the police, eh? Even with that she failed to address underlying policing problems such as dubious policing priorities, manipulation of crime figures, protection failures on underage girls from ethnic gangs, blind-eye ambivalence to forced marriage, and distressing ineffectiveness in imposing the law on illegal FGM, for example?

The coup de grâce on her showing HAS to be though on IMMIGRATION, surely? Not only didn’t she bring it down to her Governments target (tens of thousands) but it actual GREW to probably some six times that and she couldn’t even restrict migrants to that major ballpark target even in just non-EU people – let alone the incoming masses from the EU that she couldn’t actually legally do anything about either.[Unbelievably in the twenty-first century the Home office despite promises still relies on demonstrably bad guesswork about migrants’ comings and goings, eh? Even in poor counties like Indonesia you are checked-in and out, aren’t you?].

Had you even seen any excuse for that whatsoever in her campaign for the Tory leadership, eh? Will you see any explanation of how she now as PM will make her Home Secretary successor cut immigration when Britain exits the EU, do you think?

Before the Referendum, she was of course still well short of retirement as HER bleeding government had just extended it, so she knew she would be forced to soldier-on, so she had therefore to find a way of hanging-on in there at Cabinet, didn’t she?. She calculated that if she joined the BREXIT ranks, her next likely post would have been ex-Home Secretary, so she had to ditch principles and agree to support Remain. What she or we never expected was that ‘Leave’ would win, that Cameron would immediately jump ship, and that events would give her the premiership, did she? What a lucky lady – so let’s hope she capitalises on it, eh?

She has latterly been described as a reluctant Remainer but one who now claims to have stopped denigrating leavers and has become a follower of BREXIT – we simply have to hope that it has been a genuine conversion on the EU road, don’t you think?

It is a worrying dynamic that May is now proposing to ditch her previous proposal to pull-out the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights (and replace it), when a major factor in the Referendum vote was the need to extract Britain from unacceptable conundrum where the European Court of Justice overrules the UK’s Supreme Court.

May will however suffer from the lack of legitimacy in having in old style ‘emerged’ as prime minister, backed by just a couple of hundred people rather than an electorate of thirty-six million. Inevitably, there will be strident calls for an immediate General Election, not least from Labour’s ranks – despite the glaring fact that they are in no position whatsoever to fight one, are they?

The Country needs a period of stability with all hands to the pumps to clear the rapids of risk in enacting BREXIT, so that requires a government of certainty, not fluidity, doesn’t it? What IS required though is a clear commitment from Theresa May that she will submit to the judgement of the people in a General Election when the UK exits the EU within 2 years time.


[Is it not a total disgrace that a deeply irresponsible ‘Cameron Government’ will go down in history for its dire criminal dereliction of its parliamentary duty and its reckless incompetence, by not having made any plans whatsoever, nor having even established a strategy, for BREXIT – despite the clear prospect of that being the peoples’ decision, wouldn’t you say?]


What constitutes a good beer or what determines a rubbish beer – THAT depends on the drinker?


A spat is underway about the way beer is brewed and served in the UK. That is because a crowed of destructive idiots are attacking the values of CAMRA, the very organisation that has spent nearly half a century promoting the UK’s ‘traditional’ method of brewing beer and serving it to its appreciative drinkers.

It would seem to all intents and purposes, that the organisation has been infiltrated by freeloading outsiders, who are attempting to hijack it and use its prominent position for their own agenda, doesn’t it?

You see, it is not an organisation that either expected to come under attack and be hijacked, nor to have the mechanisms in place to prevent such an event, it would seem? The background to all this is that CAMRA, which stands for the Campaign for Real Ale, is an independent voluntary body, which as the largest ‘single-issue’ consumer group in the UK, runs very influential campaigns, which includes promoting small brewing and pub businesses, reforming licensing laws, reducing tax on beer, and stopping continued consolidation among local British brewers.

These days CAMRA’s remit encompasses real cider production as well, since this is also a long-established traditional British alcoholic drink, which is produced ‘naturally’ from just pressed and fermented sweet apples, and is neither carbonated nor pasteurised –that compares to the mass-produced ‘cider-in-name-only’ imposters that use modern ‘artificial’ methods, and whence it contains apple concentrate, glucose /corn starch syrup (sugar) diluted with water, carbon dioxide to provide fizz, with its taste just provided by Malic acid, plus antioxidant sulphites E number additives to provide artificial colour [sounds and tastes disgusing?]

[These ‘non-ciders’ include popular well known brands like Bounders (Bath Cider), Brothers, Bulmers, Crofter’s (Aston Manor), Dry Blackthorn, Gaymer’s, K Cider, Magners, Merrydown, Old Moors (Devon Cider Co.), Pomagne, Scrumpy Jack, Stella Cidre, Strongbow, Taunton, Woodpecker]

Now, CAMRA actually came about because just a few people foresaw back in the 70s, the impending complete demise of our brewing industry as we knew it, because cheap foreign-type, gassy, lager beer, favoured by the lager-lout youths of the 1980s, had taken centre stage and was driving out traditional ale making.

That situation was combined with a downward spiral towards poor quality beer products, lacking in flavour, that had been going on for about a decade, and was powered by the beer market’s domination by just a few big ‘money-obsessed’ companies – to the extent that many other brewers [including Fullers, nowadays an enormous brewery in West London by staying traditional], had made the decision to move away from producing our more difficult, more expensive, traditional, unfiltered, beers, which get their full flavour through undergoing a secondary fermentation in the cask from which they are served (hence carbon dioxide is retained in the beer to give it liveliness, and the beer should never be flat) – the various names often used are real ale, cask ale, cask conditioned ale, or traditional ale.

Real ale is a beer brewed from traditional ingredients (malted barley, hops water and yeast), matured by secondary fermentation in the container from which it is dispensed, and served without the use of extraneous carbon dioxide

CAMRA was most certainly NOT, a campaign against lager, keg beer or beers which lose something through filtration, carbonation and pasteurisation, or anything else for that matter, nor was it about encouraging drinking, or aiding any particular brewer, as it was solely about promoting ‘real ale’ and giving British beer drinkers better variety and choice at the traditional pub or any other bleeding bar involved.

Most certainly, it was NOT a campaign to tell people what they should drink or should not drink – surely what is enjoyed depends solely on the individual drinker, doesn’t it?

You see, by the 1970s there were just 105 breweries that had survived the swamping wave of takeovers and mergers by the dominate ‘big six’ brewers (Whitbread, Scottish and Newcastle, Bass Charrington, Allied Breweries, Courage Imperial and Watneys), who scurrilously in search of even greater profit, had abandoned traditional beer making, to instead rigorously promote the blander, fizzy, keg type beer, solely because it was cheaper to brew and was ‘ready to drink’ as soon as it hit the pub under-counter – no cellar required, nor the accomplished art of cellermanship needed then, was there?

The 105 breweries have now become over 2,000, and without doubt it is through CAMRA’s incessant campaigning, that real ale brewing is now being carried out by over 1,500 UK breweries which is up by a factor of ten. Cask beer, which was nearly dead and buried in the 1970s is now the predominant style in the UK with about sixty percent of the ale market

CAMRA has been so successful in its quest that it shouldn’t really be a massive surprise then that it has been targeted by others who are not true ‘real ale’ advocates, with the devious intention of using it as a vehicle to further their different objectives, is it?

Yet, we see this kind of subversive activity even at the lowest biological level where a virus commandeers a healthy living host cell, reprogrammes it to become a virus factory, and uses the cells own resources to replicate itself, simply because it is unable to do that separately

Or consider the similar opportunist behaviour of the common cuckoo, which lays its eggs in the nests of other unsuspecting birds, basically because it is incapable of bringing-up its young itself so can only do so by hijacking the talents of others.

Then in humans, we have the glaring example in the United States where Donald Trump wanted to run for President but was unable to do that by himself, so he hijacked the Republican Party because it had the structure, and recorded success in running influential election campaigns.

While, here in Britain, we have an equally political illustration of such opportunism with Momentum’s ‘closet-Trotskyist hard-left’ successful plot to seize permanent control of the Labour party, by infiltration first, followed by its hijacking [notwithstanding ‘Militant’ having failed to do just that in 1982], as they want power, were unable to get that themselves, but knew that the centre-left Labour Party had the necessary wherewithal to do it all for them.

So it apparently seems to have been with CAMRA, eh? It was oblivious as its membership has soared in recent years to nigh on 200,000 [even on par with all the major political parties – well, the Labour Party does has more members but only due to Momentum infiltration], as to who exactly were the people joining in doves, wasn’t it? Were these new people duly paying their fees really committed believers in CAMRA’s quest to promote real ale, or were they simply parasitic interlopers intent on mischief, eh? Events would indicate that the latter definitely seems the most likely doesn’t it, when you consider their more recent dastardly actions, wouldn’t you say?

Now, what CAMRA clearly determines as constituting ‘real ale’ and therefore what the whole organisation was all about, was clearly defined as far back as 1971, wasn’t it? Yep, but nevertheless the bulk of the people who are now in it, simply have joined-up under false pretences, as they obviously don’t accept the founding core values, do they? [Who, or what businesses, or types of brewers paid their fees do you think, eh?],

No, these so called ‘members’, are those who are determined to overturn all what CAMRA has achieved, use the organisation to much different ends and objectives, misuse the influence its lobbyists have with the ear of government, re-harness its existing power and marketing prowess through its innovative establishment and the running some 200 beer festivals across the UK, and re-manipulate it all.

Yes they wanted to ‘change the rules’ within CAMRA, so that the big boy excessive-profit-driven element of the brewing industry can turn-back the clock to “the old days” of tasteless beer, and now neuter the effectiveness of CAMRA to promote ‘real ale’ – they want the organisation to stand on its head, and to turn it away from a single issue group, and into an organisation that promotes ALL types of beer, irrespective of the of brewing process or method of serving. In other words, they want a complete destruction of the original goal, eh?

Oh yes, these beer fifth columnists, have already partly had their way last year at the AGM when they forced through adoption of aims designed by other wider brewing interests to finally subdue CAMRA’s campaign for real ale – which is destined to be demoted to a subsidiary role, isn’t it? [The renowned CAMRA beer festivals will now NOT be limited to serving real ale – so there will now be a cuckoo in the nest! Expect those festivals to die out within a decade!]

Yes, there are now new objectives for the CAMRA organisation, which are contradictory to its formation aims – those included amongst others, the removal of CAMRA’s former mission statement, and it now to play a leading role in the provision of information, education, and training to ALL those with an interest in beer, cider, and perry of ANY type.

Furthermore, the interloper-squatters came within a hair’s breadth of their ultimate aim which was to enact plans to extensively extend the organisation’s remit and use it to be the voice of ALL beer, cider and perry drinkers – in other words use the organisation for the first time to equally promote lager and the other false beers, that it was actually formed to compete against. The motion to make the deadly change only failed to pass after receiving 72% of the votes when it needed 75%. Oh, that hasn’t put matters to a rest of course as the younger wreckers then began a media campaign to denigrate CAMRA and its older generation members who have (temporally?) thwarted the plan – claiming it was not inclusive and is just a pensioner’s drinking club and that the organisation was riddled with accusations of sexism and cronyism. WHY DID THEY JOIN IT IN THE FIRST PLACE, do you think? To turn it into a male-only discriminatory lager-louts club, one might suspect, eh?

[REAL ALE is NOT stuck in the past as detractors might claim as the range is astonishing wide and includes less common varieties like golden ale, new versions of India Pale Ale, porter, stout, barley wine, mild, beers aged in wood and beers with herbs, spices, fruit, coffee and even chocolate – can it be preserved. UNLIKELY]

“Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus” – balderdash?

Many of us know of the phrase about men being from Mars and women from Venus, and ‘get’ the basic message that the sexes are a bit different, don’t we?

However, many ignorant or discriminatory others take it a bit further than that – or to be more accurate they take the differences between men and women to ridiculous extremes, don’t they?

Well, the American author of the book [written by a male, bought by males, and promulgated by males, perhaps?], which titled that, has made an absolute killing for a quarter decade or more by peddling around the world his supposedly intellectual knowledge about differences between us men and women, when it is actually just dreamed-up drivel without any basis in fact at all. It is all OK if one views it as simply a bit of fun or toilet humour, otherwise one would have to have doubts about the bloke’s mental normality, wouldn’t one?

You see, he asserts that men and women [one might notice that men seem to be labelled first here – is being the more prominent clearly significant?] are so different that they can be thought-of as having had even different origins.

While he not only claims that each sex is isolated and conditioned just to its own society and customs, so is not in any way attuned to those of the other, he also demonstrated abject stupidity by asserting that when it comes to problems men are only interested in ‘solving’ them but women are not, and just want to endlessly ‘talk’ about them – if that isn’t male chauvinism at its most bizarre, whence such ideas have become a part of popular culture, what the hell is eh?

[According to a report, the book was the “highest ranked work of non-fiction” of the 1990s – that MUST be a gross misnomer because it IS most DEFINITELY a work of FICTION]

This guy inexplicably invents the scenario that in male and female couple relationships, each partner not only judges the other on ‘loving’ behaviour but they keep a points ‘score’ to ensure that equality of endeavour is attained – otherwise their loving interaction is heading for the rocks, it seems? But when it comes to the book’s proponent’s hidden attitude, the devil is in the detail, isn’t it? Yep, his crystal ball apparently shows that women can ONLY work on the basis of single points allocations [because females are intellectually simplistic one must assume?], but men however are much more progressive, so their scoring method allows them the ability to assess and indeed measure the ‘true value’ of all devotion type actions, so they can accurately allot an appropriate number of points to each perceived event [because males are intellectually complex one must assume?]. How does all that drivel grab you, eh?

While we might all readily agree in the principle of free speech, it is quite possible that hawking such preposterous ideas around the globe, could be dangerous, not least as it reinforces historic widespread prejudices and a significant discrimination against women, that still exist not only in a number of counties around the world, but indeed is still clearly prevalent in multiple religions, and it also still persists within bigoted communities here in the UK, doesn’t it?

[Main discriminators: COUNTRIES – Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Malaysia, India, Iran, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Indonesia

                                      RELIGIONS – Islam, Judaism, Christianity (Roman Catholic, Protestant Southern Baptists), Mormonism, Hinduism and Buddhism]

There can be no pretence by anyone that women are not different from men, which results basically because they are the biological gender of the species that is physically designed and mentally programmed to conceive, carry, give birth to children, and to care for them, whereas men are merely physically designed and mentally programmed to deliver sperm to create a child and to incessantly want to have the sex that achieves that outcome for the essential reproduction of the human race – very much as demonstrated in the rest of the animal kingdom as well, eh?

Neither can there be any pretence by anyone, that from the start of time that woman have not been treated as equals by men but instead have most decidedly been relegated to a subservient second-class status in all societies. It has been universally deemed throughout history that women are a quite inadequate gender, as demonstrated by them having inferior intellectual capability and significantly less abilities than men – that of course being on top of the obvious fact that in general men are physically stronger [because men have higher bone density, greater body mass, and larger muscles], while the design of the female body is significantly related to the role it plays in reproduction [women are built for carrying and birthing children, so must have wider hips and keep extra fat available for potential pregnancy, with that fat stored in breasts, hips, buttocks, and subcutaneous fat in the bottom layer of skin], that in conjunction with ongoing associated hormone production differences between the two genders, isn’t it?

It is quite disturbing nowadays to think about the great loss the world has suffered by mankind’s ignorant sidelining of the countless ‘doubtless brilliant women’, who were around but were denied any opportunity to perform an invaluable role in their societies throughout the ages, isn’t it?

Nonetheless, all that inferiority tosh has been turned on its head as societies have steadfastly progressed into the 21st Century, hasn’t it? Yep, that has come about not only because us more enlightened men have come to our senses and realised that women are just as capable as us, and can make an equal contribution to society, but because many mentally strong women have stridently asserted their right to equality, have demanded release from kitchen-sink drudgery and childcare, have fought tooth and nail for female education, and have aggressively sought-out opportunities to shine in every field of endeavour

Nevertheless, despite the monumental change in gender perception, even in the so-called ‘advanced’ society of Great Britain, fully equality for women has at present fallen short in some aspects – like pay and prospects to name a couple? However, in the wider context, women, amongst other things, have triumphed and been elected heads of national governments on six continents, women have been thrust into space and fulfilled equal tasks there such as spacewalks, women have performed at the most senior levels in the armed forces, flown attack aircraft and served in elite combat units, women have become CEOs of major listed companies, women have piloted the jumbo jets and other aircraft of major airlines, women gave scaled the highest mountains or researched the deepest seas, and moreover women have won every single category of Nobel Prize, which just shows the diversity of their ability across the whole spectrum of human contribution to human life.

On the other hand, there has been an enthusiastic search over centuries by idiots for proof that women are ‘different’ [by that, many many actually mean ‘inferior’?] to men, and disturbingly that is still ongoing, but the reasons for that hunt bamboozles many of us – what blooded difference would it make anyway to mankind if each sex was a completely different species, do you think? As some would say it is simply in the wind, isn’t it?

It appears that our cousins over the pond have researched the development of the brains of babies in the latter stages of the foetuses in the womb and have recently concluded that female and male brain brains are differently ‘hardwired’ – so to the delight of sex-difference theory advocates there is ‘definitive evidence’ at last that men and women are innately different, eh?

Perhaps not, it would seem? An eminent neuroscientist and professor of cognitive neuroimaging has poured scorn on the conclusions drawn on what she admits is important research, as she says that there are glaring holes in some aspects of the data obtained. You see, considering the alternatives, it has been a long recognised fact amongst the thinking classes that there is a complex relationship between nature and nurture when it comes to an individual’s development.

Various studies DO show differences in gender performance in various tasks, but conclusions on the reasons for that are not always clear-cut nor obvious, but unenlightened men immediately jump to the one being that females and males must be ‘born different’ – they do so without recognising just what brain ‘conditioning’ occurred in the years after birth, do they? Young or adult people performing tasks do so with brains that have been utterly socialised and conditioned by their environments, particularly when at a very young age, so specific brain pathways are particularly strengthened – that can completely account for female and males differing task performance abilities

In the recent past, after centuries of patriarchy, we had the situation in the UK where major professions like say medicine, and law were the sole domain and bastion of males, yet within just the last fifty years or so, the medical schools are now predominately full of female trainee doctors, while senior lawyer positions have increasingly been captured by women. The belief used to be widespread that women’s intellectual capabilities differed and were inferior to men’s, whereas we see nowadays, despite the fact that prejudices continue to hamper girls, that they do better than boys both in school and at university [Indeed, it is said that in the US their elite colleges are widely having to admit male applicants with much lower grades just to try to even up the numbers].

The fundamental reason that girls and boys end up ‘different’ and with contrasting skills, is that in most countries there is a hidden bias of assiduous stereotyping in the way they are brought-up, whence they are nurtured in dissimilar ways and exposed to diverging environments – and all of that of course means that their brains develop in a way that favours the things that they have already been strengthened, doesn’t it?

Boys are expected to be noisy, climb trees, enjoy violent video games, read comics about unlikely zombies or imaginary sport heroes, play with guns and toy motor vehicles, and kick footballs, while girls are expected to be sweet, skip well, enjoy helping Mum in the kitchen, read storybooks about unlikely princesses or imaginary animals, play with dolls and toy prams, and chalk-up hopscotch.

Is it any wonder then that girls better boys in literacy, and so many women in the past had low expectations so saw their role as wives, homemakers, and mothers, or at best primary school teachers, rather than professional sports players or rocket scientists, or computer experts, or whatever, which are seen as male strongholds, eh?

Or that boys shine in mathematics and science, and so many men in the past had exaggerated expectations of male superiority, so saw their role as head of the family, breadwinners, and leaders, rather than professional harp players or acting performers, or junior school teachers, or whatever, which are seen as female domains, eh?

So it is basic upbringing prejudices that legitimises institutional sexism, which then result in boys being put-off getting involved in (sissy) things that girls tend to favour and dominate, like singing, drama and music and are more likely to follow interests in what might be regarded as cocky pursuits that promote masculinity, and equally that girls are put-off getting involved in (macho) things that boys tend to favour and dominate, like physics, chemistry and engineering and are more likely to follow interests in what might be regarded as girlie pursuits that promote femininity


[While undoubtedly the direction of travel for our British society, and indeed many others, is towards gender irrelevance in all aspects of life, there is still a long way to go, and resistance from those luddites who are wedded to past inequality and so persist in trying to retain some form of a male dominant society will unforgivingly prolong the task]

Murdered, Raped, Molested, Beaten-up – so what, she’s just a prostitute?

The unfortunate women who turn to prostitution, sexual activity in exchange for payment, are publically and privately pilloried, and when they get savagely attacked and abjectly abused, they seemed to be portrayed as just worthless trash, rather than the tragic real-life victims they actually are, don’t you think?

It is a source of constant annoyance to some of us that the newspapers NEVER fail to mention in their reports of attacks on females that the person suffering the outrage was or is a prostitute, if that was indeed her background. Now just WHY that is deemed to be relevant to the situation by the press is a mystery, but it is certainly done with the intention of subliminally implying that “she deserved it” or “she knew the risks”, or “she’s just a whore anyway”, it would seem?

Well, prostitution is often said to be “the oldest profession in the world”, but of course that phrase is applied these days not as an accolade but as a derogatory euphemism to belittle those involved in it. That phrase only began to acquire its scandalous sense a hundred-and-thirty years ago, as before then in earlier times it was tagged to various work and trades such as farming and tailoring.

Oh yes, prostitution has been around forever, like ‘in ancient Rome, ladies used to go to baths to meet a certain class of men, while men resorted thither to meet a certain class of ladies’, while back in 1900 the morals of the aristocracy was questioned when ‘the most ancient profession in the world is carried on in Piccadilly, Regent street, and other parts of London with great energy every night’. We see even in the Bible that prostitution in ancient times was equally fair game for scorn, with the likes of ‘A prostitute is loud and brash, and never has enough of lust and shame’, ‘Come home with me, she urges simpletons’, [thought subsequently it has been claimed that revered Mary Magdalene was herself a repentant prostitute, eh?].

There are of course also a number of other ways used by the media and ‘polite society’ to refer to prostitutes, with euphemistic descriptions such as – on the game, working girl, sex worker, call girl, model, escort, masseuse, moll, hooker, hustler, tart, streetwalker, woman of the night, scarlet woman, courtesan, strumpet, harlot, trollop, woman of ill repute, lady of pleasure, etc, but they are similarly deployed in a manner to deride and stigmatize the women involved.

Just recently there has been a public spat regarding the vile killing escapade in Victorian London’s Whitechapel, carried out by the still-unknown ‘Jack the Ripper’, back in 1888. A historian’s years of diligent research has been published and claims that four of the five killed and knife mutilated victims were NOT prostitutes at all, as has been constantly reiterated for the past century and more, but were simply working but homeless women, cruelly slain while lying down in their sleep.

One might understand why back in those days, it was convenient for the sexist police of the times to reassure the city’s frightened public that the maniac killer was targeting only prostitutes, but there can’t really be any excuse for those amateur sleuths, fascinated with the prospect of identifying the actual killer, to have perpetrated that myth about the slaughtered women, even to the modern day, can there?

Apparently, the female author of the research has faced persistent attacks and attempts to discredit her by “raging” others, who wish to justify their personal fascination with the psychopathic Ripper and the unsolved murder mystery, together with defending their own less diligent work on the victims, and somehow obsessively viewing it significant to maintain the record that prostitutes were the targets for those brutal murders. One notable and illuminating contribution to the learned debate from such a male chauvinist moron was “I think you need to get your facts right young woman. I have no flawed view of women, other than you need us men, because vibrators can’t cut the grass”.

In more modern times though, we get a similar scenario, with the 1970s police failure on the sensational case of serial killer Peter Sutcliffe (dubbed the Yorkshire Ripper) who was convicted of murdering 13 women and attempting to murder another seven over a period of five years [those are just the ‘known’ murder and attempted murder victims – others may be in the many dozens?].

A number of women were indeed prostitutes, so were vulnerable. If you read the Wikipedia article about the attacks and murders though, you will see that even today it records “…the public were especially shocked by the murders of women who were not prostitutes.” So, the implication there HAS to be that the ones who WERE ‘good-time girls’ had it coming, eh?

There can be little doubt that 1970s community and police attitudes towards women [and prostitutes in particular, as demonstrate by some of the language used to label them like ‘a good-time girl’ that differentiated them from ‘respectable’ women!] allowed the Yorkshire Ripper free to kill, don’t you think? [The police categorised Wilma McCann, the first woman murdered, as just a prostitute, and assessed the killer as a “whore hater” [but Sutcliffe was a man who actually regularly used their services, eh?] – THOSE PROFILES PROVED TO HAVE A DISASTEROUS OUTCOME as many many more (?) women were murdered or attacked as a consequence].

Furthermore, Sutcliffe‘s seven ‘attempted murder’ victims, for which he is actually convicted, have simply been air brushed out of the scene and their names and memory don’t even figure in current reports of those events – perhaps because they were all deemed just prostitutes, do you think?

You see, the problem our society creates when women who work as prostitutes get attacked, is that all the focus reverts to the wicked attacker and their background, rather than the sympathetically review and reporting on the lives and real stories of the victims, doesn’t it?

[In Great Britain, prostitution itself (the exchange of sexual services for money) is legal, but a number of related activities, including soliciting in a public place, kerb crawling, owning or managing a brothel, pimping and pandering, are crimes].

But make no mistake about it, but prostitution is most certainly NOT a ‘job’ – use by men of the sexual internals of a woman’s body is anything but equivalent an employer using a man muscles and sweat in manual work. Once society classifies prostitution just as “sex work”, then logically, rape must merely become theft – a minor misdemeanor?

Women don’t voluntarily CHOOSE ‘prostitution’ instead of say ‘floristry’ as a profession, but they for one reason or another they are thrust into it. Increasing numbers are migrant women or are trafficked, with others basically forced into prostitution, but many sex workers essentially do it to get money because they face financial hardship, and a significant number of them are single mothers who entered that sordid world to support their families. Many sell sex intermittently to meet occasional financial needs like debts – even university students can get dragged into that way of funding their lives due to inadequate financial support. Some women have a drug habit, often encouraged and supported by criminals and pimps, so have to do sex for money to buy their drugs or repay the suppliers.

For many prostitutes it is indeed ‘a choice’ but a horrible one nevertheless. Those women in that so called ‘industry’, are to be pitied, if not admired for their self sacrifice, and courage working within a dangerous environment often involving unstable, violent and abusive individuals, yet us safe, superior, better-off others in society, denounce and condemn them as immoral sluts who shame us all – how dare we? [Sex workers are often victims of crime, but rarely report such incidents to the police as they are in an essentially covert industry]

It is OK apparently in wider society for ‘reputable’ men to ogle ‘respectable’ women’s breasts in their low cut tops and indeed for the women to dress like that socially, but not for street women to use sex for money? It’s equally fine for newspapers and magazines to show women unclothed with their breasts fully exposed as long for some unthamonable, incomprehensible reason the nipples are covered? Women are permitted to use body displays and casual sex to attract a male and thereby enjoy free expensive entertainment, weekends in hotels, obtain gifts and holidays, or even end-up with a long-term partner to provide for them and children for life – but that’s not seen as equivalent to actual prostitution because cash isn’t ‘initially’ passed over, is it?

Worst still is the male hypocritical elite who publically rant against prostitution while surreptitiously in their hidden private lives, use strip clubs, lap dancers, private sex parties, and the like for personal sexual gratification, or even use high-class hookers to get their sexual thrills, and do it all behind their wives and families backs, eh?

[While prostitution is not an activity to be encouraged in any which way, it is not going to go away while there is a market for it and where vulnerable women can be exploited, or alternatively they have a survival need for it. However, the least our society should do is to protect and treat those women who ply that trade with respect for their right to be treated with exactly the same regard as afforded to all other women who don’t. That can start with the media desisting from EVER identifying women as working or past prostitutes, can’t it?]




‘You don’t have to be Disabled to be Different – Everyone’s Different’ aren’t they? REPUBLISHED

Someone two days ago read this post I had published 5 years ago and I thought it might be worth others reading it and thinking about it as well?

different2American Kim Peek was quite a ‘different’ personality indeed in the flesh. He had both amazing ability and commendable insight about life.

He had a strange capacity to read two book pages separately with each eye, and had probably the most astoundingly powerful memory ever encountered. Mr Peek could speed read & memorise books (some twelve thousand of them at least), and they say could recall the day of the week for any birth-date together with the newspaper headlines for that day.

We might, in this divisive world of ours dwell on his advice that ‘recognising and respecting differences in others, and treating everyone like you want them to treat you will help make our world better for everyone’. He also observed that ‘no battle is ever won… the field only reveals to man his own folly and despair, and victory is an illusion of philosophers and fools’.

The subject heading of this post was also a thought provoking quote from Kim Peek

Oh yes, Kim was a very special person, a very unique person, a person of immense abilities. Oh yes, we should mention that he was severely disabled, severely handicapped, severely congenitally brain damaged.

[He was of course the inspiration behind the eighties film ‘Rain Man’ with Dustin Hoffman playing his character].

Society is strangely ignorant about the disabled and astoundingly discriminately about them as well isn’t it? Why is that? Well it emanates, like most prejudices, from being badly informed of course. You see it is not something that we are all taught about in the home as we grow up, or at school when we are educated, nor even as we subsequently go about our normal life later, in work and recreation, is it? Like sex it is a topic that is not openly talked about, explored, or understood – brushed under the carpet no less.

It would be very strange though if any of us actually could go through life without personally encountering the disabled (after all there are at least ten million in Britain) – so then often we are ill-equipped to deal with situations arising aren’t we? Distressingly, some of us will have a Partner who suffers a heart attack, a son or daughter who suffers a brain haemorrhage, a child who gets a cancer, a brother or sister injured in a road accident, a cousin who suffers a traumatic sports injury, a family member who becomes severely mentally ill – all though still loved, cared for, worried about, fussed over, but then different, disabled.

Disability however comes about in different circumstances for different people. Some of us are born with a disability – either because of a genetic variation, or complications in development (due to impact of disease or drugs for example), some of us suffer an acquired disability in life (through accident of illness perhaps), and some of us will become disabled due to the aging process (dementia becoming more prevalent these days as people live longer). So-called ‘able bodied’ folks need to be aware that they themselves, or their loved ones, can easily cross the divide and join the ranks of the ‘disabled’.

An astounding change in respect for the disabled came about during the 2012 London Paralympics. The watching British nation, like many others, was enthralled and spellbound with the impressive physical & mental competitive exploits of the nearly five thousands athletes, taking part in a mega multi sport event, from over one hundred and fifty countries– many competitors with quite debilitating conditions.

We often forget don’t we that the successful development of life itself has been based on ongoing generations un-expectantly throwing up ‘variations’ in new generations? This natural technique allows creatures to adapt to new circumstances and new environments. We know for instance that mankind has changed considerably over millions of years. Even in our own lifetime we can witness the dramatic changes that occur in other species that have an extremely short reproductive cycle – like say bacteria that develop to become resistant to antibiotics that we have developed to eradicate them. We shouldn’t be surprised therefore that we sometimes come across differences in human developments- what we chose to judge as ‘damaged’ because it isn’t the ‘norm’.

We tend to be wary and afraid of anything that isn’t the norm don’t we? Oh, and we are particularly uneasy about anyone with a mental issue aren’t we, so we react accordingly? A charity has recently warned that adults with autism are the victims of abuse, even by those they trusted, and as a consequence simply ‘stay at home’ – are we proud of that?

One of the saddest areas of life is children ‘unborn’ with the genetic condition (disorder?) of Downs’s syndrome. These days the hospitals can detect the condition, or risk, in the womb. It has become an increasingly common condition as women pursue other interests and delay having their children (three times the likelihood of a Downs baby in the mid-thirties compared to the mid-twenties). Fear results in nearly up to a thousand terminations a year in the UK. The stories of those that are born though can be heart-wrenching – parents who say that their Downs child is the most loving and rewarding gift they could ever imagine; the mother who says she could not have known what a good life her Downs son could lead. It is nevertheless clear that having, caring for and bringing up a Downs child is extremely hard work – perhaps which is why the rewards can be so great?

The problem with society’s tagged as ‘disabled’ people, is that they can’t fit into society and have a life, can they? Blind people can’t play football can they? YES. People with no legs can run and race can they? YES. People with no arms can’t swim can they? YES. People disabled can’t become public figures can they? YES, because we all know about – blind as a bat David Blunkett an ex-Foreign Secretary et al & Sheffield MP (and a bit of a naughty one on the side), or crunched-up wheelchair bound with no speech, world renowned Cambridge scientist Steven Hawkins, gaining worldwide awards galore, but with motor-neuron decease, or deaf as a post (following an operation) Jack Ashley MP & Lord a tireless disability campaigner, or countless others making their contribution, as best they can, to society and making their way through life with mixed success – like the rest of us surely?

In history we have the psychiatrically mentally ill depressive but possibly the greatest painter Van Gogh (whose disability did for him – he shot himself), or deaf Beethoven who arguably produced his greatest musical works despite having lost his hearing, or physically deformed Joseph (John) Merrick known as Elephant Man who became a high society celebrity but died trying to sleep like other people lying down.

In our household in times of trials and tabulations someone ends it all by saying remember “No arms and legs” which stops us all off short. It is a sobering thought when one is feeling hard done-by isn’t it?

[Joanne: extraordinary, awe-inspiring, humbling, born with no arms or legs… but with the heart of a lion, and now grown up]MoS2 Template Master

‘Theresa May’ Prime Minister 2019 in an attempted abuse of Parliamentary Practice is stuffed by ‘Erskine May’ Clerk of the House of Commons 1844 – it took the Government by surprise, eh?


PM Theresa May has brought her “meaningful vote” motion to the floor of the House of Commons three times:

  • first last year on 11 December but then pulled the vote when she accepted that she would lose massively,
  • she prevaricated for a month and brought it back on 15 January, only for it to get the most massive defeat in history [FIRST DEFEAT]
  • last week on 12 March, so over 3 months of running-down the clock, and after getting some meaningless changes from the EU, she tried again and it was thrown out once more by substantial majority (149 votes) [SECOND DEFEAT]
  • her obtuse answer was to ‘try’ to bring it to the floor AGAIN this week for the 4th time and 3rd vote – when if passed she would delay BREXIT by two months; if defeated again she would delay BREXIT for 2 years or even longer and bring it to the floor AGAIN later for the 5th time and 4rd vote

Now, ‘apparently’ Speaker John Bercow has upset the apple cart by making a statement yesterday and ruling that the present, clear, and published parliamentary proceedings, prevent blackmailing confidence trickster May from presenting the same proposition again and again – if something is voted down an identical motion can’t be voted on again until the next parliament.

Erskine May: ‘Treatise upon the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament’ [first publication in 1844]; the book is the definitive guide to parliamentary procedure and constitutional conventions, so has frequently been updated – the 24th edition was published on 30 June 2011 [the 25th edition, to be published on 28 May 2019, will even be freely available online (indeed this work has been influential elsewhere and particularly in countries using a Westminster type system)]

Well you see, May has only been an MP for 22 years, including serving as a shadow minister for 11 years (7 posts), a government minister for 6 years (4 posts), and prime minister for 2 years – so she, like the rest of the disloyal Cabinet and her Remainer ministers just didn’t know about the basic rules, eh?

However, both she and the other proven incompetent ministers, were in the Chamber last Thursday when an opposition single MP tabled a motion to prevent her presenting her meaningful vote again – because it was against the ‘Erskine May’ rules. As Bercow responded by saying that he WOULD be making a ruling concerning that matter later, the motion was withdrawn

So, it would seem that not only is the May Government very ignorant, but it is completely deaf as well – or are its MPs just stupid believers in myths, so are a bunch of frightened ostriches burying their heads in the sand in the hope that trouble will pass them by?

Oh yes, No10 have disingenuous announced that it had had NO warning of this move to deny May another chance of tabling her motion, and that everyone there had been caught by surprise – claiming ambush it seems, despite the clarity of the rules, the pre-warning of precedent, the impending judgement of the Speaker, and the glaring fact that the pitfall was widely exposed in the media over the weekend

As is delusional May’s normal modus operandi, she simply ignored everything going-on, brushed aside all BIG setbacks, and ploughed-forward regardless – in her usual way secretly plotting in the bowels of Downing Street to replace BREXIT with BRINO (Brexit in name only) and find ways of coercing MPs to vote for her despicable Withdrawal ‘deal’.

The Government troops are on the march to transfer to Bercow, May’s totally wretched blame for the fiasco of her devious new plans lying in tatters. Anger is directed at Bercow describing him as arrogant and hypocritical simply because he has done his duty – that is NOT to say that he isn’t a biased bugger, both against BREXIT [he is a committed Remainer after all], and also anti the May Government [well its derisory treatment of parliament has been despicable]

May has as political scorched earth policy of targeting anything that might be used to cower those who oppose her will. She like the dictators of old is DETERMINED to unilaterally control people and events – just as evil disputed Venezuelan President Maduro does, and she is also one who doesn’t give shit about the devastation policies inflicted on the Country and its peoples, does she?

Regarding BREXIT with typical isolationism, May insists that it is her way or no way. So far she has failed in her quest to achieve her way, and a solution is nowhere near evident

The so-called deal is not any kind of deal, as the deal that has been the subject of abject negotiation and May’s unwarranted concessions over the past 2 years, was to agree a ‘trade deal’ – that failed utterly, and no such deal will EVER be secured over the next 2 years, except by giving-in to the unacceptable demands that the EU will make if we now accept the Withdrawal agreement. The UK will HAVE to accept whatever the EU decides to include as the government [whoever led by] will have no choice as it has to escape the Backstop [that is precisely why the EU put it there and won’t remove it]

Even previously committed Remainers now say that they not only support BREXIT but want us to Leave on a ‘No Deal’ basis – they have seen what the EU is like, you see? Those who want a second referendum should be carefully for what they wish for – the result would be an even GREATER vote to LEAVE.

The PM has abused the ministerial power she has to derail BREXIT, and to threaten BREXITEERS to do just that very thing, if they refused to vote her way – indeed she has already embarked on that mission, in betrayal of the British people, and will on Thursday seek at the EU to cancel leaving on 29 March and delay the UK’s departure until June, but only then if the MPs who describe her Withdrawal deal as rubbish, surrender and vote for it next time round – otherwise she says she will kick BREXIT into the long grass so that the Establishment, BIG business,  and the Remainers achieve the holy grail of staying in the EU

[Valentine’s Day 2019: Commons motion to extend article 50 (a move intended to avoid parliament from taking steps to prevent a ‘no-deal Brexit’ by extending any re-negotiating period with the EU) – DEFEATED by 315 to 93

14 March 2019: Commons motion PROPOSED BY MAY HERSELF to extend article 50 (a move intended to force parliament to accept her deal) – APPROVED by 412 to 202


A large number of committed Leaver MPs have been bullied and suffered coercion, blackmailed, bribed, and feel cornered, so say that they will hold their nose but will have to capitulate and vote for this disastrous unbreakable Treaty – history will show them no understanding nor kindness, will it? Accepting May’s proposal sells the UK down the river and belittles our world status, and her despicable use of blackmail and running the clock down for over 3 months since 11 December is disgusting. Politics is in the gutter and the Tory party is heading the way of the LibDems once BREXIT is over – and there’s no way that Corbyn is going to be voted into power, but the Conservatives will be punished when he and his fellow Marxists are gone from the scene

While May is intent on playing the blame game and putting Leaver MPs in the frame for BREXIT not going forward, it is ONLY she alone that can be or WILL ever BE held accountable for such an outcome – and it is one that will utterly destroy any semblance of a peoples’ democracy in the UK. ONLY the PM can by her own deliberate despicable actions halt BREXIT with now just 10 days to go – DOES SHE REALLY WANT THAT LEGACY?

The Government has no legal obligation to ditch ‘No Deal’ and only May can actually implement such backtracking which will smash the BREXIT the public voted for.

Therefore, the UK can and should leave the EU completely at 11.00pm  on 29 March, with a clean No Deal departure. May cannot get away with saying that such an outcome denies the will of Parliament, since that No Deal upshot was precisely what our Parliament voted for only a year ago [European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: failing obtaining an acceptable deal, no deal would result as the legal default outcome in UK and EU law].

Nevertheless, with May’s connivance last week the House of Commons voted to reject leaving the EU without a deal, but that vote is neither binding on the Government, nor has it any legal standing, and anyway should Remainer MPs [or a Remainer PM for that matter] really be allowed to overrule the democratic decision to disembark from the EU in the BIGGEST vote EVER?


[Ordinarily British people believe in our democracy, so voted for that in the Referendum and to successfully escape the EU’s controlling role and its destination of a federal Europe, which is indeed is something that doesn’t satisfy the British population but only the undemocratic elite]