England’s Police Force is being only farcically supported – who of any common sense would want to be in it NOW?

Beat copper – disappeared now!

Over a couple of years ago a post her The UK Police ‘underfunded’ and ‘under resourced’ – what the heck has happened here?” January 16, 2016 by dadman007 outlined the downward spiral the force has suffered for nearly a decade, primarily due to our government financial cutbacks under Theresa May, it has to be said?

Well, the problems have got even worse, unbelievably worse, haven’t they? Yep, so this week for example London’s Met Police [covering 32 London boroughs], the icon of the overall force perhaps, announced that the 99th murder had occurred in their city this year [and we are only just three quarters of the way through] – some thirty percent rise in murders and just part of the dreadful upsurge in violence that is devastating our societies around Britain. That is accompanied by widespread gang crime, drug abuse, and anti-social behaviour.

Now, while our forty-five police forces in England & Wales may well be at the front-end of law enforcement around the UK, they are NOT of course the sole part of the criminal justice system here, are they?

No, nevertheless, there can be no doubt that they are failing to do the job required of them for regional law enforcement [keeping the peace and enforcing the criminal law], but on the other hand, NOR is the bulk of the justice system behind them that they rely on to actually deliver justice to those who commit crimes – and that is of course the:

  • Government & Parliament [including PM, Ministry of Justice, Lord Chancellor, Prison Minister, Attorney General]
  • Law [set by parliament, EU, ECJ]
  • Courts [Judges, Magistrates, Prosecution and Defence lawyers, Crown Prosecution Service, Appeal system, sentences & fines]
  • Prisons [containment, detention, punishment and rehabilitation(!)
  • Probation service [suspended sentences, community service, electronic tags, enforcing prohibitions & curfews]

ALL that though has become a totally dysfunctional can of worms, which has left our esteemed Police up the creek without a paddle, as the saying goes. The do-gooders have succeeded in destroying any effectiveness of the justice system in this Country, so criminals (even dangerous ones) don’t get banged-up, jails have become drug palaces, mobile phone havens, and cushy places of rest & training in criminality, whence criminals outside abound and regularly get away with their vile activities [like 9 out of 10 car thieves are NOT caught amidst increasing numbers of vehicles stolen]  – not least because the hands of the Police are often tied behind their backs, eh?

Just one example is the do-gooder’s success in discouraging Police stop & search, through their argument that knifes, weapons or guns regularly weren’t found – the silly billies missed the point that it was that very deterrent that had the desired result – when the London Police cut-back on stop & search the gangs simply tooled-up and knife crime rocketed as did drug dealing, didn’t it?

On top of that, the Force has been decimated in terms of numbers, resources, budgets, and facilities, which puts the general public at increasing risk, doesn’t it? So many crimes, even IF reported [up by some 15%], they aren’t investigated by the cash-strapped Police [two thirds of them (including burglary & break-ins)?], let alone solved, nor somebody charged, or a conviction in Court achieved [zero tolerance has gone by the board these days and the criminals are having a field-day, aren’t they?].

Not only do we no longer see uniformed beat bobbies who know their communities on our streets [a third have been axed in the past 3 years], but police station closures to save running costs are endemic [over 600 shut down in the past 8 years (100 in London alone), while many others aren’t now open to the walk-in public], whereby many many towns and even some cities simply don’t have a single police station anywhere these days. Scandalous?

In the not so distant past, any reasonably large town certainly had not only a decent police station, but it contained barred cells where the scoundrels could immediately be locked-up out of harm’s way for a little while – instead of nowadays them simply being released on police bail to carry-on their criminal behaviours unchecked.

The Police [like nurses] are one of the caring professions, so the Government can walk all over them with impunity and that is exactly what has been happening when we see Police numbers at the lowest level for three decades, despite a massively higher population ([ncluding immigrants (some convicted criminals)]), rising crime and higher terrorist threat – is it any wonder that crime is rampant?

Moreover, the Police are prevented by law from striking, so basically, they have zero power to defend themselves against the Government’s crass actions, despite themselves feeling undervalued, being overworked, and consequently failing miserably, so morale is plummeting. Pay is another debilitating factor because as public sector workers their pay since 2010 was pegged for 2 years, then rose by just 1% annual rise, then this year only 2% (with half of that a ‘one-off’ bonus payment that doesn’t continue next year and is excluded from pension – in breach of the independent review award!), so all more than wiped-out by excessive inflation [the BoE have failed to keep inflation down to 2% for 6 years of the last 9 years], so in reality their pay has been cut over 8 years – fair or not, eh?

All of that naturally will cause a problem for ‘recruitment’ because even with a lower headcount some officers will retire, while others move or leave altogether. Police work is both challenging and requires taking pride in the work of law enforcement, so the Force here needs to attract the best talent from well-educated men and women [many with higher education qualifications] and from all sections of the community as well – those who have the special talents needed to serve the public, give confidence to it, and to tackle crime at all levels in what is these days a highly technological world.

Indeed the pay for new recruits is only getting worse by going backwards, as the starting salaries for police constables has fallen in real terms every year since 2009. A new PC starting out in 2009 was earning the equivalent of £27,400 in today’s prices, and that figure dropped by £3,000 by last year – is that the best way of bringing-in the top talent, do you think?


Many of our most responsible young people are keen to contribute in full to their society, so nevertheless of cuts are minded to join the Police force – there is still time for the Government to do the right thing, turn back the clock, and give Police the resources and encouragement that’s needed].

The United Kingdom takes-on the mighty annexor European Union – the BREXIT war progresses?


The start of the world war 2 in Europe was 1 September 1939

Adolf Hitler the German’s frontline Aggressor

Neville Chamberlain ‘although brave’ the British Appeaser [then declared war and led Britain for the first 8 war months]

Winston Churchill the ‘indomitable’ British victorious wartime leader [led Britain for 5 war years in Europe]

William Joyce (Lord Haw-Haw) the traitorous Irish-American, who broadcast Nazi propaganda to Britain from Germany [executed]

The start of the BREXIT war in Europe was 23 June 2016

Michel Barnier the EU’s frontline Aggressor

David Cameron the ‘cowardly’ British Appeaser [led Britain for the first 3 war weeks]

Theresa May the ‘duplicitous’ British Appeaser [has led Britain for the past 25½ war months]

Philip Hammond (the face of Remain) the ‘traitorous’ Chancellor, who broadcasts anti-BREXIT propaganda from Britain to the EU and the World

Dominic Grieve MP ex-Attorney General (Queen’s Counsel, Privy Councillor), president of the Franco-British Society, lives in France, an underhand ‘subversive’ determined to thwart the people’s vote and scupper BREXIT at any cost

D-Day for the BREXIT war in Europe could be in autumn 2018

Michel Barnier the EU’s frontline Aggressor [invigorated by 2 war years of trouncing UK negotiation]

Boris Johnson ex-London Mayor, ex-Foreign Secretary, a strong possible replacement for Remainer/Appeaser May, and an ‘unbowed’ British successful BREXIT leader [BUT could he like Churchill step-up to lead Britain to victory against the EU (in the final 6 war months?)]


[Theresa May’s hopes of remaining Prime Minister by year end  is in reality simply based on numbers, and observers don’t believe she has enough supporting MPs to get her ‘non-BREXIT’ though the House of Commons – then she will be ‘forced’ to go]


The bright future offered to the next generation – vape yourself into addiction and possible death?


If there was any doubt in your mind about our MPs at Westminster being a total waste of space and a brainless bunch, they have certainly dispelled it last week with their announcement that ‘vaping’ should become the acceptable face of smoking, and indeed funded by us taxpayers.

The gaggle of village idiots who have come-up with their controversial plan [to an outcry from leading scientists] to back use of e-cigarettes in Britain, get them readily available on NHS prescriptions, destroy bans on use in public places [like hospitals, restaurants, buses, trains, tubes], and abandon rules for advertising control, are members of the House of Commons Science & Technology committee, chaired by one Norman Lamb [an ambitious second rate LibDem ex-Minister and solicitor by trade specialising in employment law – so knows sod-all about either science or technology, does he? Or another 8 of his committee crowd as only 2 others have science knowledge?]

[What you have to understand about the working-way of politics and politicians in the UK, rests on the premise that neither MPs nor indeed the most senior Ministers running the Country should actually be ‘knowledgeable-about’ or ‘experienced-in’ anything they are dealing with or responsible for – which probably is so that they can’t be held accountable for major things going pear-shaped (as it regularly does, eh?). They are generally smooth-talking eloquent bluffers (majority men – two thirds), sometimes with dubious or questionable motives, who can pretend to know a lot but in fact know virtually nothing except how to survive in the Westminster bubble You can’t even tar them with the brush ‘A jack-of-all-trades is a master of none’ because they don’t even meet that criteria, do they?]

This committee’s demand that current Ministers burn the existing (but insufficiently robust?) rulebook on e-cigs, comes in exactly the very same week as yet another scientific medical study identified the risk of lung disease posed by e-cigarettes [finding that the ‘heat-vaporised’, nicotine infused liquids, become much more potent cell killers than when cold, hamstring the immune system’s ability to clear the lungs or prevent harmful chemical buildups, a disablement of the body’s cleaning system that can cause chronic lung disease (Birmingham University researchers)].

Now, you don’t have to be a scientist nor a doctor to realise that the body’s lungs were never designed to breath-in noxious smoke, do you? Now, just why people choose to challenge their own body to a ‘do-or-die’ conundrum by infusing it with chemicals will confound psychiatrist forevermore, won’t it?

The problem with these misled MPs is that they are gullible and victims of the fraudulent guiles of the tobacco industry’s diversity into e-cigarettes and its take-over of that market – just like the politicians of half a century ago who believed the manipulated research [by buying up scientists on a spectacular scale] promoted by the industry that denied that their products caused cancer [As a consequence of that the tobacco barons were allowed to further purloin their fortunes for many many more decades, while in the process they were killing millions of people with their tobacco.

These MPs have once again fallen into the trap set by the tobacco giants by relying on ‘favourable’ research papers [just who do you thing might be behind them that champion e-cigarettes, eh?] while side-lining other evidence highlighting health risks. In addition to that latest report there is NY University medical school finding that e-cig vapour caused DNA damage to heart, lungs and liver; WHO have recommended that e-cigs should be banned indoors.

E-cig vapour contains a number of toxins which obviously WILL cause harm over time both to users and bystanders – not yet evident because it is so short a time in use (in UK since 2007). Chemicals used to flavour vaping liquids often contain aldehydes which irritate the lung lining.

The evidence is that e-cigarettes are NOT better for quitting smoking than other aids [WHO & USFDA], while NICE has decreed there is little evidence of effectiveness or safety as medicinal products, so the very idea by MPs that e-cigs are the best aid to STOP smoking is a conundrum, as not only are they designed to be pleasurable to smoke, are attractive (particularly to the young and impressionable), but they retain the innate comfort of childhood suckling as did cigarettes, and into the bargain they fully satisfy and carryon the existing addiction to nicotine, while still retaining the heavily promoted glamour of being a smoker. WHAT ADDICT IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD CHOISE TO STOP or even swap to go onto nicotine patches with a reducing dose, so that an expensively acquired habit can be finally abandoned, do you think?

[It’s far more likely for e-cigs to result in the smoking of cigarettes than not].

The general public have suffered the abuse in public places for countless years until 2007 of the billows of toxic smoke blown out by the tobacco afflicted, and now MPs want to return to that enjoyment destroying nuisance by subjecting us all again to the nuisance of smokers – those weak morons who historically have shown their complete distain for those around them (including children, even their own) and make us suffer the danger, the smell and the vapour cloud produced by vaping while we are eating our food in a restaurant, drinking in the pub, travelling on the train or other public transport, or even sitting at our office desk or in other workplace. WHY, WHY, WHY, SHOULD WE? Why do we all have to suffer to satisfy the craving of a bunch of bloody addicts who embarked on smoking when they knew full well that it was long-term addictive and a life changing debilitating choice? [only those over 60 years old have any slight excuse]

As the major tobacco companies of the likes of Gallaher, Reynolds American, Philip Morris International, Lorillard, Imperial Tobacco, RJ Reynolds, Japan Tobacco International, Altria, British American Tobacco, saw the market shrink in the risk-aware ‘knowledgeable world’, they focused on the “emerging markets” [the less-developed countries & Eastern Europe] to aggressively increase their sale of cancer sticks and retain their massive cash-cow income, but then for the last decade-and-a-half they have invested heavily in the non-cigarette nicotine products industry, so that they could revive their previous massive income here by continue to fleece smokers and to addict our own. and similar populations, to the highly addictive drug of nicotine which causes increased heart rate and blood pressure– so damn the health and human consequences, in their view.

[Once your body gets a taste for nicotine, it can quickly become a life-long addiction, with extremely fatal consequences. It’s even more dangerous for the young because they’re still growing and developing, so drug abuse during these years in particular can have a lasting impact].

Now, these influential MPs, for reasons that are incomprehensible to most of us, want to roll back the clock on the pretence of helping (un-saveable?) smokers, but to allow the tobacco lobby once again to takeover the lives of our citizens by keeping them addicted to smoking nicotine, this time via the vehicle of e-cigarettes, or alternatively by even using the snus product [why for god’s sake have these silly MPs recommend that it should now be legalised in the UK, despite it having been linked to oral cancer, eh?]

[Snus is a moist powder tobacco product originating from a variant of dry snuff and is placed in lower lip for extended periods before swallowing].

Oh yes, the vape industry is over the moon and are taking to the airways to say this was a ringing endorsement of vaping’s public health potential and reiterate their false claims about their products [like e-cigarettes being the ‘most effective’ tobacco harm-reduction product] and dismissing fully justified health concerns as mere ‘scare stories’ [exactly as the same tobacco industry had responded back in the first half of the last century, despite the ever increasing and mounting evidence then that cigarettes caused cancer, eh?]

The half-awake MPs also concluded that we hadn’t needed to worry at all about the dangers to the young of vaping or it acting as a gateway to smoking, but clearly, they hadn’t noticed the disturbingly catastrophic development with it having now become an out of control addictive craze of viral proportions in America where it is sweeping over their schools, and is now a significant public health concern, no less? [Tobacco use remains the leading preventable cause of death and disease in the United States].

For the use of e-cigarettes among youth has skyrocketed in the U.S. – from 2011 to 2015, a 900% increase among high school students. There is the ‘Juul’ (being highly promoted on social media so securing some 70% of the market), a highly addictive vape pen, (nicknamed the ‘iPhone of e-cigarettes’), already launched in the UK, looks like a USB drive, can be charged on a computer, and is small enough to fit in the palm of the hand – readily being surreptitiously smoked by schoolchildren despite it being illegal for the under 21’s [no icky cigarette smell, minimal vapour trail, innocent & innocuous appearance].

Back in 1949, medical research first established the link between lung cancer to tobacco, and by 1956 that link was scientifically incontrovertible: however, the tobacco industry’s own documents have revealed the most astonishing systematic corporate deceit of all time in their fabricated denials (which have continued unabated to this very day) as determined by their lawyers and public relations outfits, that smoking was a matter of choice, was non-additive, didn’t cause cancer, the young weren’t targeted, advertising had no influence on total consumption, cigarettes were safe, no harm was caused by second-hand smoke,

The truth tells a much different story, doesn’t it? Their own documents obtained by legal action  show they understood or knew:

  • since the 1950s, the cancer-causing nature of its product
  • since the 1960s, that the crucial selling point of its product was the chemical dependence of its customers, and that the cigarette simply was a drug delivery device [So, without nicotine addiction there would be no tobacco industry]
  • that the market of young smokers (teenagers and younger children) was of central importance to the industry [so great lengths were gone to in order to influence smoking behaviour in this age group].
  • that advertising was crucial in nurturing the motivation to smoke [so its advertising set about creating or projecting the positive values erroneously associated with the product (independence, machismo, glamour, intelligence)]
  • that they needed to abandon plans to make safer cigarettes, as that this would have exposed their existing products as ‘unsafe’ [instead they deliberately promoted ‘low-tar’ cigarettes to offer false reassurance without health benefits]
  • that their freedom to smoke excuse would fail if smoking was considered to harm people by second-hand smoke, it would limit the smokers’ freedom to smoke, and would make smoking more socially unacceptable [so the industry took major steps to deny the harm caused by second-hand smoke and thwart measures to protect the public from it


How the hell have they been allowed to get away with it scot free, stay in business, and still be peddling death around the globe, do you think? Is it because money talks, influential corporate bodies are funded, lobbyists control the media, and they have politicians in their pockets, perhaps?

Well in UK we certainly have say the Institute of Economic Affairs so funded (consistently arguing against legislation on the industry), or the likes of so-called Tory grandee Kenneth Clarke, an ex-Health secretary, ex-non-executive Deputy Chair of BAT [he admitted the company they didn’t actively prevent overseas cigarette smuggling], or perhaps the sacked International Development secretary Priti Patel, an ex-lobbyist for the tobacco industry and as being an MP still defending them (old habits die hard, eh?), or nearly fifty MPs wined and dined before voting on cigarette packaging controls (fiercely fought against by the industry).

Our society no doubt can only wish NOW that smoking (and alcohol) had never been permissible or made easily available here, as it has had (and still is having) a serious debilitating impact on society. Although, great strides have been made in the UK to halt the mayhem caused by smoking, and it has to be said not without a great deal of opposition from those with a vested interest (including the government who were raking in massive tax), as well as the tobacco companies themselves using their massive war-chests of wealth, together with every trick in the book (legal or not) to thwart the legislation setting out to save the lives and futures of smokers, passive smokers, and the inducting our next generation into smoking and addiction (without doubt the industry’s aim)


[Our legislators have to stop NOW, the pandering to and indulging of the tobacco industry with its vaping offspring. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH]

DIETS: Vegetarian, Pescatarian-vegetarian, Ova-Lacto-vegetarian, Lacto-vegetarian, Ovo-vegetarian, Vegan – the World gets increasingly madder?

The US  Impossible Burger, a plant-based imitation that bleeds and sizzles when it cooks, coated in coconut oil to give a crunchy outside, and with a pinky soft middle, that includes the characteristic taste and aroma of meat.

[The term ‘vegetarian’ should not be applied to foods that are, or are made from or with the aid of, products derived from animals that have died, have been slaughtered, or animals that die as a result of being eaten. Animals means farmed, wild or domestic animals, including for example, livestock poultry, game, fish, shellfish, crustaceans, amphibians, tunicates, echinoderms, molluscs, , and insects ( Food Standard Agency)]

There can be no doubt about it, but the British public in these more affluent times, surprisingly (?) are increasingly turning towards forms of vegetarianism – whether or not this is some kind of self-punishment, self-castigation, self-flagellation, or just penitence, is anyone’s guess, eh?

One thing is sure though, which is that many advocates of the veggie diet find it turns out to be a difficult life choice for themselves, so just like an alcoholic-drinker, they both lie extensively about doing it successfully and sometimes they  ‘fall-off the wagon’ at some point and give in to temptation to eat meat, don’t they?

[One of the strangest things about vegetarianism is that so many plant products are nevertheless presented to ‘look’ like meat food and mimic the taste – why is it necessary for people to try to fool their brain into ‘thinking’ they are eating meat, do you think?].

Because of all that, it is difficult to be precise about the actual current level of vegetarianism in the UK [not least as some people in the UK misidentify themselves as vegetarians while still eating fish], but it could be as high as 10% or more of the population (say 4 million people) though it might be less than half of that. Nevertheless, a Canadian study found that the UK has the third highest rate of vegetarianism in the European Union. Apparently, there are twice as many vegetarian women as men – they beat men at everything these days.

[One survey even reports that the number of vegans in UK has skyrocketed to 3.5 million (when the diet was a niche subculture of only around half a million followers a couple of years ago) – driven by social media so more worrying  evidence of it taking over our society?].

Now, you have to just ask yourself if this metamorphism towards a vegetarian lifestyle is a good or damaging development for our society, don’t you? Will it make our race healthier or less healthy, will it turn a large section of the population into miserly-guts [a vegan diet often can be quite joyless they say?], will it alienate our much bigger sector of meat-eaters [a wedge driven by being accused of wrong-doing by those who have come to treat extreme vegetarianism as a belief equivalent to a religion?], or will it even have other damaging impacts like on the economy?

Well for a start, we in the West are eating an unprecedented amount of meat [one in five eating meat every single day] and whatever your attitude is to vegetarianism, it would be much better from a health angle if all us meat-eaters were  to cut back to what is a much more reasonable quantity, don’t you think?

[Rationing in WW2 identified EVERY adult person’s basic need per week as being Bacon & Ham 4oz (110g), plus other meat to the value of 1shilling & 2pence ((equivalent say to 2 chops) – being a meat-avoider or using just those quantities would help to solve the UK’s obesity crisis, wouldn’t it?

There are also good environmental reasons for favouring a vegan or reduced meat consumption diet just to reduce carbon footprint, rather than only curtailing car usage, as ten percent of our total greenhouse gas emissions are indeed associated with meat consumption.

What we all should understand though at the outset, is that our earliest human ancestors were meat & fish eaters who were hunting and butchering animals at least 2 million years ago, so it is no good vegetarians nowadays trying to decry the practice as inhuman, is it?

Nor can vegans criticise really the historic use of animal products by humans, because its only more modern mankind developments that allows them these days to avoid wearing or using clothes, shoes, or furnishings made from animal skins, hair, or feathers, so no fur, leather, wool, feathers or silk – just cotton (seedpot of the plant), linen (from flax plant fibres), hemp (from the Cannabis sativa plant species), or manmade fibres, eh?

That said, it has to be appreciated that increasing numbers of the population also have serious concerns about animal welfare and simply just won’t accept the ‘behind the scenes’ modern factory farming methods that the food industry has progressively introduced and used to provide cheap meat and other animal products.

Mankind’s adaption to the world, for almost the whole time of human history, was in becoming foraging ‘hunter-gatherers’, meaning that most (if not all) food was obtained by collecting wild plants and pursuing wild animals. [Hunting and gathering societies tended to be small, (fewer than fifty members) and involved the family as its primary institution, sharing food, bringing-up children and giving protection].

That has evolved more recently into agricultural societies, with its combination of horticulture together with improving pastures for the care, tending and use of animals such as cattle, camels, goats, yaks, llamas, reindeers, horses, and sheep – so for its meat, modern society relies mainly on domesticated species.

However, many people these days are enjoying a flexitarian diet, a part-vegetarian diet and one that is plant-based but with the occasional inclusion of meat. That certainly carries a lot of appeal to the bulk of the British consumers, doesn’t it? Yep, so nowadays nearly a third of us will identify themselves as ‘meat reducers’ and that certainly is a good thing that we ALL should be set on?.


[However, Vegans seem to be on a mission to coerce the rest of society to “go vegan” (so no cheese either,  NOR pets – the children will be mortified ) and adopt their eating preferences, and that is a BIG mistake as attraction is a more powerful force than promotion, isn’t it?]


Vegetarian: someone who abstains from the consumption of meat, and may also include abstention from by-products of animal slaughter

Pescatarian-vegetarian: someone whose diet includes fish or other seafood, but not the flesh of other animals.

Ova-Lacto-vegetarian: consumes some animal products, such as eggs and dairy, but does not eat fish or other seafood

Lacto-vegetarian: has a vegetables diet but includes as well dairy products such as milk, cheese, yogurt, butter, ghee, cream, and kefir, but excludes eggs

Ovo-vegetarian: a vegetarian who eats of eggs but not dairy products

Vegan: abstains from the use of animal products, particularly in the diet, and rejects the commodity status of animals

Arsène Wenger HAD to ‘GO’ to save Arsenal (2017-18) – Arsène Wenger HAS to ‘COME BACK’ to save Arsenal (2018-19)?


Last season 2017-18, a large disgustingly vocal anti-Arsène Wenger destructive gang finally got their wish and had their manager of 22 years given the push, didn’t they? He was driven out by ‘so called’ Arsenal supporters who achieved it by abusive chanting from the stands and holding-up their anti-Wenger banners which undermined and completely demoralised their team on the field ?

Yep, they had decided some seasons previous that the sole reason that Arsenal hadn’t won the Premier League since 2004 was because Frenchman Wenger wouldn’t buy decent players (too tight) AND he wasn’t up to the job anymore. [Note that Wenger paid a Club record fee in signing Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang from Borussia Dortmund for £55million last January].

The very fact that London’s Arsenal football Club owed its substantial success, awesome achievements and high standing in the football world, as well as its financial stability [in spite of building the massive 60thousand capacity new Emirates stadium and moving out of iconic Highbury], to that very man, counted for nothing, did it?

Oh yes, the Arsenal, the ‘supposed’ failures, still finished in 6th place [above the likes of Burnley, Everton and Leicester] to qualify for Europe AGAIN [the Europa League group stage again this season], and indeed last season winning 8 games to reached the semi-final of that Europa cup competition, and they played in the final of the EFL cup here, to boot?

Well, well, well, the bully boys of the terraces, have now got their brand-new manager in place, Spaniard Unai Emery (reportedly the ‘safe’ choice), who has had the full summer to work with his squad [which he claims is complete], so basically the title is in the bag, as one would say, isn’t it?

Oh dear, well not quite it would seem, as Arsenal [position 17] have lost both of their matches so far this season (with dire performances) and consequently are languishing at the very BOTTOM of the Premiership on zero points, with the likes of Fulham, West Ham and Huddersfield.

So, Emery’s new-dawn squad overhaul doesn’t seem to had had much of a ‘beneficial’ impact so far, does it? While he has ditched a shed load of players [half a dozen, including 20 year old English striker Stephy Mavididi (who has represented England at U17, U18, U19 and U20 level], the five or so fresh new faces through the door, to the utter surprise of the professional pundits, seem to be of only average talent – hardly the positive way to build-up an all-conquering Arsenal team, similar to that which took their last Premiership title by storm under Wenger back in 2004 (without losing a single match), eh?

New manager Emery has named five Arsenal players he has appointed as captains for this season (with Laurent Koscielny as his main one) – that’s decisive management for you, isn’t it?

The BIG-MONEY transfers-in, sought-after by the over-ambitious anti-Wenger crowd, don’t seem to have materialised yet, do they? No, they saw Lucas Torreira [midfielder at 26.5m], free signing Stephan Lichtsteiner [right back], Sokratis Papastathopoulos [centre back at £17.7m], Bernd Leno [goalkeeper (not first-choice for Germany) at £19.2m] and Mattéo Guendouzi [19-year-old French midfielder at £7m] – that’s hardly being competitive in the current football marketplace, is it?

[Despite already having spent obscene amounts of money on players and the summer transfer window closing three weeks earlier than normal, the big boys dipped-in once more – like Chelsea £71m [Kepa Arrizabalaga], or Liverpool £67m [Alisson] and £48m [Naby Keita] and £39m [Fabinho], or Manchester City £60m [Riyad], or Manchester United £47m [Fred] and £19m [Diogo Dalot]

Of course, things should get better for Arsenal with improved results against mid-table teams, and we could expect that to happen as early as this coming weekend when they play at home and face fellow strugglers West Ham [position 19].

The 5 following-on opportunities to gain some points, are games against Cardiff [position 16 (away)], Newcastle [position 12, (away)], Everton [position 6 (home)], Watford [position 3 (home), Fulham [position 18 (away)], of which of course Cardiff and Fulham should be the easiest – but who knows, eh?


[The ‘Wenger Out’ brigade weren’t very careful of what they wished for, so perhaps replacement Emery will be similarly targeted if Arsenal finish the season with no honours and lower than 6th in the Premiership (as is likely?), don’t you think?]


The Government’s use of CPI and RPI measures of inflation – employing the art of the conman?

When the Bank of England raised Bank Rate earlier this month, that was decided upon using the figure for inflation of 2.5% (the government’s inflation target, with primary aim of price stability, is actually 2%). Those numbers are based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) – the other most used measure of inflation over the past 50 years is the Retail Price Index (RPI).

Over some 30 years now the RPI has been consistently higher than CPI, sometimes significantly so [by 1.8% in 2011 and 1.4% last year] and this July it was 0.7% higher.

Now, you might well wonder why the difference is important or why it should concern you personally? The answer rests with the very fact that OUR Government in an inflation trick, cynically switches between the two, to benefit itself, exactly like a common conman might do to trick the public and persuade us to believe they are honest traders, WHEN THEY ARE CERTAINLY NOT – the Government fiddle us consumers constantly and short-change us to the tune of many billions of pounds a year, don’t they?

You see what our devious Government does, is to selectively use the LOWER rate (CPI) when paying OUT money and the HIGHER rate (RPI) when pulling IN money, eh?

Now, the CPI was brought-in 15 years ago to replace RPI as the UK’s inflation measure [you guessed it, by a bloody EU directive in support of their euro (which we’re not in), no less?].

The Government seized their opportunity 7 years ago to stuff the pensioners by switching to CPI so that the State Pension would go up at a reduced rate in all future years. At the same time, they did that also to benefit increases, tax credits, changes to tax thresholds, and public sector ‘final salary schemes [including those such as in the NHS and for teachers] – saving the Treasury over a quarter-of-a-million BILLION pounds over the following decade – at the expense of us the general public, who have been cruelly cheated by it, haven’t they?

On the other hand, the the RPI is a measure that affects the real day-to-day, and longer term, out of pocket expenses of millions of British people [because RPI INCLUDES the costs of housing (mortgage interest costs, rents, and council tax for example) while CPI most certainly does not – just WHO doesn’t need to have or live in a home, you might ask?].

[While house price rises are growing at the lowest annual rate for 5 years, nevertheless at 4% in England, they well STILL outstrip both CPI and RPI measures – that in conjunction with increases in Bank Rate, means that mortgage payments become much more onerous, and rents escalate for ordinary people, but the Government’s use of CPI to measure inflation ignores all of that, doesn’t it?]

Oh yes, the Government uses that ‘higher’ RPI index to maximise the interest rates it claws-in from student loans repayment, and also to annually bump-up rail fares [so the regulated ticket prices will go-up by 3.2% instead of the official inflation rate of just 2.5% – the greatest jump in 5 years (to line the pockets of the franchise holders and that is in spite of chaos, train delays, and their dreadful performance in providing a service in accordance with the timetables), while equally making travelers even poorer as wage increases won’t match the increases] – is that right or fair in anybody’s eyes, do you think?

The tax rates on cars and on deemed ‘sin’ goods are increased in line with RPI, including ‘indirect taxes’ such as road tax, alcohol, tobacco duty, air passenger duty, and fuel duty.

As you would expect, commercial outfits, having been shown the con-trick by the Government, and knowing that it is legit as it is employed by the authorities, have simply followed suit, and they have also developed a habit of choosing the inflation measures that best suit their self-interests, haven’t they? Yep, so again it is us ordinary people that will be losing out.

When employers are negotiating wage increases they use the lower CPI rate to justify lower pay rises, but when firms are putting-up the cost of their products, they rely on the higher RPI to justify higher price hikes. They are as well, following the Government’s lead when it comes to company private pensions and replace RPI wit CPI when determining pension payments, so that retired employees get less income and the company saves a bundle – telecoms giant BT’s plan to do so, has though been squashed by the courts earlier this year (their claim that RPI has “become inappropriate” was thrown out – despite the BoE Governor Mark Carney also peddling that myth).

However, the Government are now colluding with business and will try to bring-in legislation to allow employers or trustees to impose changes in inflation measurement from RPI to CPI – SHAME ON THEM ALL, eh?.


[While the ‘Consumer Price Index’ (as a geometric mean) is statistically more elegant than the ‘Retail Price Index’ (as an arithmetic mean), its exclusion of housing costs makes it ‘blatantly’ UNFAIR to consumers]

Not just James Bond 007 British Secret Service agent has ‘Licence to Kill’ – is it now NHS hospital Doctors?

images (2)

Many of the British population don’t know it, haven’t experience it, but probably suspect it, but doctors (like the rest of us) make mistakes, but whereby the dire consequences of theirs, are that people die or their lives are destroyed, and the futures of their mothers, fathers, and relatives are forever blighted’

And so it happened some seven years ago in a hospital in Leicester, although it could just have easily have happened in your own local hospital.

A young boy of six died of sepsis when he should have been saved. The young lad died because he was let-down by the medical profession when undergoing treatment that should have been relatively straightforward.

The consequences of this tragedy, have been devastating all round, but not least for the mother trying to cope forever with the loss of her son. The other person whose life inevitably has been traumatised is the female doctor who has been held primarily responsible for the catalogue of errors that resulted in this boy’s tragic death.

Now, despite the fact that the media describe this doctor as a ‘junior’ doctor, you have to known that ALL doctors are so described, whatever their experience, until they are at the very top – CONSULTANTS. This particular doctor was in fact at an uppermost experienced Specialist Registrar level paediatrician, so perhaps well on the way herself of reaching that Consultant grade – so no real excuse for screwing up badly (but apparently, she DID).

To some extend the detailed circumstance are irrelevant here, because suffice to say that the doctor involved [together with the attendant nurse] was subsequently found guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence in a fully informed Court of Law – four years after the tragedy (a massive delay?). She was given a 2-year suspended jail sentence, and was suspended from the medical register for a year in June last year.

[The prema facie evidence would seem to indicate to us laymen that the doctor involved was out of her depth on that particular shift and so perhaps should not have been put into a role that she wasn’t competent for at that particular time?]

However, the GMC successfully appealed that suspension in the High Court [who concluded that despite the mitigation of others’ multiple failings, the doctor’s own failures weren’t simply honest errors, but were truly exceptional bad – so this was no ordinary case, was it?], as that outcome being not sufficient to protect the public, so it wasn’t until last January that she was actually “struck-off” – that is being removed from the GMC medical register [meaning that she could no longer practice medicine in the UK].

Well, that harsher outcome caused an angry backlash and outrage (both in hospitals and on social media) from the confines of doctors’ wider community, who despite not being fully informed of the detailed facts [that is not party to the inquest nor the 4-week trial] nevertheless declared the struck-off doctor as “innocent, and raised money for an application to the Court of Appeal. Yesterday its three judges overturned the verdict of the lower court and reinstated the suspension in place of the struck-off one.

Now this is a very disturbing turn of events, as it would seem that it flies in the face of a criminal court’s decision with a conviction of manslaughter, and it fatally undermines the verdict of the jury by implying that this was an unsafe verdict – but without going through the due process of law, to do so? If nothing else that is disrespectful to our British justice system and the people it sets out to protect, isn’t it?

Surely, it cannot be logical for a doctor to be found culpability and guilty of gross negligence manslaughter and simultaneously to be deemed as a doctor to be medically NOT GUILTY of gross negligence and incompetence, which are prime reasons for being struck-off, can it?

Now, let’s be clear about something, can we? While doctors certainly deal with life, conversely, they also deal with death, don’t they? Yes, and it is a truism that every hospital doctor will make costly mistakes, mostly of omission it should be said, and some will regrettably lead to deaths. Indeed, those young, bright-eyed, eager, dedicated, intended doctors are warned early-on at Medical School that each and every one of them will kill someone probably in their first few years as a practicing doctor – it goes with the territory and it is something they have to live with as they go on to save or perform miracles for others.

If being honest, every experience hospital doctor individually will admit to having made multiple clinical errors, some so serious that the patient dies, and that is precisely why they have reacted so strongly about a fellow doctor being convicted of manslaughter and struck-off, isn’t it?” [why the latter is seen as a greater imposition than a prison sentence is anyone guess?]

Yep, as everyone in hospitals works in the same low-resource, high-pressured environment, they all fear being in that same boat because they believe that any doctor might make similar mistakes and be charged with manslaughter (although that is in fact few and far between) – so consequently they as a profession have ‘closed ranks’ simply to protect themselves in an act of self-interest.

Whether or not that was justified, or even if it was against normal justice to have a convicted doctor returned to the register, is another matter. And whether or not that will result in a loss in public confidence in the medical profession is a moot point, isn’t it? There is already a depressing, unsustainable, situation where compensation for clinical errors are costing the NHS in excess of £1billion annually, with obstetrics & gynecology heading the cost table for clinical negligence, followed by surgery, medicine, and A&E [driven onwards and upwards by lawyers pushing no-win, no-fee deals which nets them very large fees for success].

However, there is a wider debate to be had, and that is whether or not the criminal courts are the best answer in dealing with those medical professionals who make an entirely avoidable error [possibly with catastrophic consequences] but as honest mistakes, particularly as it is a vocation that requires doctors and nurses to operate their skills on the cusp of life and death, and when misfortune combined with the lack of a safety net and when an inadequate hospital system letdowns regularly fails them.

The GMC performs the role of regulator in protecting the public [in conjunction with the independent Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) which adjudicates on complaints made against doctors] by considering whether a doctor is fit and safe to practice in the UK, while the criminal Courts system bestows justice, with due punishment for deliberate wrongdoing – are doctors really in the class of criminals, do you think?

There is a groundswell of opinion that honest failures by doctors should not be responded to primarily by blame and retribution but by learning and by a drive to reduce risks for future patients. Is there really a need to find fault to the extent of it being necessary to sacrifice the career of an otherwise competent and useful doctor who presents no danger to the public, simply in order to satisfy a demand for blame and punishment, do you think?

Is it time then to withdraw from the courts the task of putting doctors on trial and give that responsibility directly to the MPTS with the additional power to refer cases to the courts if they suspect criminality is involved?


[Perhaps the new Health secretary ‘Matt Hancock’ will pick-up the challenge and sort out how to deal with the issue of doctors’ mistakes – certainly his predecessor ‘Jeremy Hunt’ wouldn’t – concentrating on his OWN career, eh?]


You may WELL have voted for BREXIT [et vous ne regrette rien], but your vote will count for NOTHING – no ‘PEOPLE’S democracy here in Britain nowadays?


The powers that be and the Establishment in the UK were flummoxed when the people voted in June 2016 to openly defied them in favour of BREXIT.

However, when they had overcome their bewilderment, they simply concluded that with time, because they knew best [mainly for themselves, their class, and their commercial interests), that they would simply overturn that ‘silly & ill-informed’ decision by morons, when sufficient water had flowed under the bridge (just as many of us predicted at the time) – so after 2 years that point has been well and truly reached now, hasn’t it?

Yep, the vision has been abandoned, the UK’s negotiating position undermined, returning control of our laws in any real sense certainly not enacted, and a mockery made of politicians’ BREXIT promises to deliver on the mandate of the referendum result, as well as reneging on the Tory manifesto commitment to leave the EU customs and single markets. We will forever now be rule-takers, accepters without any say of the EU’s rulebooks, and with disputes ultimately adjudicated by the ECJ (European court of justice.) – DOES THAT SOUND LIKE ‘BREXIT’ TO ANYONE, eh?

Oh yes, because of these current unwarranted events, 2 senior Ministers, who indeed were most behind the population’s BREXIT Referendum vote, have duly resigned (Boris Johnson Foreign Secretary, & David Davis BREXIT Secretary), but hardly with much honour as they have singularly failed to halt Remainer PM Theresa May in her tracks, haven’t they? But then there are other major Leave players who with unprecedented astounding dishonour, have chained themselves to their Cabinets desks (Michael Gove Environment Secretary & Andrea Leadsom Leader of the House, just to mention two).

Most people will know that the EU [well Germany and France anyway] are also desperate to avoid a NO-DEAL scenario [though not as desperate as the UK’s traitorous betrayal Remainers, eh?], so they are likely to offer a late ‘fudge-style’ Deal that would allow PM Theresa May to save face on her (abandoned) red lines – it would mean postponing key decisions, and with the UK still legally leaving the EU on schedule, whilst deferring many of the major issues for further negotiation during the 21-month so-called ‘transition period’ [even prominent Remainers are aghast at that prospect].

That will be justified on the basis that there is now insufficient time available to negotiate all details of the UK’s future relationship with the EU [and Michel Barnier WILL blame solely the UK for that and not Brussels bureaucrats’ intransigence, won’t he?].

Oh yes, that would indeed be a blind BREXIT and you can bet your bottom dollar that the EU would simply return to their ‘non-negotiable’ bullying agenda [aided and abetted of course by the UK’s ‘unmoveable’ pro-EU camp], so to all intents and purposes Britain would STILL be in the EU (just not-represented and without a vote or membership privileges, and be excluded from current third-country deals, eh?). Moreover, while a declaration on a trade and relationship would remain ‘non-treaty’, so suitably vague, you can be sure that details of future UK payments into the EU, together with the Irish border arrangements, and citizens’ rights will be firmly and legally fully nailed down, can’t you? [How can Britain take part in a meaningful negotiation having already left the room, eh?]

The other side of the coin comes with a report from a former Harvard economist and entrepreneur, that countries which do NOT have a trade deal with the EU and rely on WTO rules, strongly outperform their rivals – the implication being that a true BREXIT would turn Britain into an economic powerhouse, no less? Exports by the UK to 111 countries outside the EU under WTO rules grew by 2.9% in the 22 years prior to 2016 – more than 3-times greater than the 0.9 percent growth in exports to EU countries and 1% higher than trade with the 62 countries which have trade agreements with the EU, which demonstrates just that, doesn’t it? [Assessments made by the Treasury on a so called NO DEAL, suggesting it was the worst option, have been branded as “dishonest, incompetent and shamelessly partisan”].

Now, that is why many of us have said from the outset, that Britain will thrive long-term [that is something the EU bureaucrats are horrified by), so NO-DEAL is by far the BEST and ONLY outcome we should be seeking in Brussels. Not only would the UK not be bound by EU rules nor committed to agree to its red tape and regulations, but we would be able to strike other lucrative free trade deals around the world, as well as the UK Treasury collecting £80 billion a year in extra revenue, and that in addition to saving £40 billion in ongoing EU fees – all that’s not chicken-feed, is it?

The Chequers deal proposed by spineless leader May (she has folded on every issue of substance) and her government, makes a mockery of the Referendum population’s demands to properly leave the EU, and instead is proposing a BREXIT in name only. Moreover, her officials (no doubt with the ‘real’ BREXIT secretary civil servant Olly Robbins in charge) are diligently working on even further plans to stretch the transition period, keeping the UK under EU rules, maintain single market regulations and tariffs until the end of 2021

Any BREXIT deal will face a parliament in which the majority were Remainers, so might still have had hopes either for the softest BREXIT possible or no BREXIT at all, but many are increasingly scared now of voter retribution if that indeed results – so what happens if the Conservative plan collapses, the Government is unable to get through the House of Commons whatever deal it might negotiate with the EU (if it actually manages to negotiate one at all)? NOBODY KNOWS, do they?

Meanwhile, Project Fear has returned and is again running at full-tilt, with predictions that includes dire consequences, a national crisis, chaos on all fronts, an economic shock of seismic proportions, capital fleeing the City, a run on the pound, ports & airports gridlocked, shortfall of critical medicines and the need to stockpile medicines, a food supply crisis akin to WW2, together with major health risks in the offing (including STDs like super gonorrhoea superbug spreading), a shortage of EU skilled workers, – what a load of garbage, eh?


[‘Theresa May’ is peddling the type of garbage we saw from her predecessor ‘David Cameron’, by expecting the British people to swallow lying assertions that EU negotiations have succeeded. Apparently, she is publishing an election style flyer saying just that, to be delivered to households by Conservative associations – is she planning yet another election, another referendum, or what?]



Muslims have been welcomed into our British society but we don’t want to see the ‘burka’ or ‘niqab’ here thanks – BAN THOSE NOW?



They say that ex-Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has stirred-up a hornet’s nest by ridiculing the wearing of the ‘full face veil’ burka – what a load of tosh, eh?

The anti-Boris crowd, egging-on elements of the sensational press, are making a mockery of what was a sensible and balanced article that Johnson wrote [about Denmark in fact] in his Daily Telegraph newspaper column, by selecting just a few sentences he wrote, when in expressing his surprise and disagreement that the Danes had banned the burka, he added though the burka was both oppressive and ridiculous, and he then backed that up by saying it was absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes, and that if a constituent came to his MP’s surgery with her face obscured, he would feel fully entitled to ask her to remove it so that he could talk to her properly, or if a female student turned up at school or at a university lecture looking like a bank robber then ditto.

What in heaven’s name is wrong in that opinion and fair comment? NOTHING at all, yet those gunning for Johnson are labelling him the pariah, as Islamophobic, as a racist, as making demeaning and derogatory comments, being offensive to Muslim women, and god knows what else, eh? They are making mischief by misrepresentation, when he was engaging in a legitimate debate, wasn’t he?

Once again, the Tory government are taking the public for fools, for we aren’t hoodwinked at all and easily recognise that this is totally politically motivated and a cynical attempt to sideline him.

Well, ‘non-entity’ Party chairman Brandon Lewis, was quick out of the traps in ordering (without authority) the former foreign secretary to apologise, but only to be rebuffed naturally. [One would have thought that Lewis himself would have been well advised to keep his own head down following his shameful cheating in the Commons before the recess last month, when he voted although ‘pared’, on two critical knife-edge amendment votes, although he clearly knew well that he wasn’t allowed to be involved (a dreadful breach of trust for which he has failed to provide any credible explanation)]. If May has any commonsense left, Lewis should be out of his Government job before the party conference in Birmingham in some seven weeks time, eh?

Then we see Scot Ruth Davidson (MSP), a mere medium size fish in a small pond (supposedly a potential rival to Johnson for the UK Tory leadership – oh yea?) idiotically suggesting the whole body covering burka was the equivalent to Christians wearing  a small crucifix around their neck  – what planet is she on, eh?

It all smacks of intolerance and censorship and reflects resurgent forces in modern society for oppression and control of the masses.

Now, there are three tribes of anti-Boris fighters on the loose, all of who have been stoking the media fire to ramp-up opposition to him, and not one of them will likely have read his actual article, which essentially was making a ‘liberal’ case against imposing a burka ban.

First of course, there is the Labour Opposition who will jump on any passing bandwagon to denigrate the Tories, and especially so if it diverts public and media attention from their own major problems of antisemitism allegations, that just won’t go away? However, they are so lost in the hard-left wilderness that they couldn’t win a political battle if ALL their opponents surrendered, eh?

Second, there is the extra large war party of Remainers, from all camps, who at the pre-battle before the skirmish at Chequers, had captured and enslaved PM Theresa May, so are on the verge, they think, of achievement of their endgame of staying within the confines of their beloved EU. However, head of the BREXIT cohort, Johnson is now on the loose, having escaped the constraining shackles of Cabinet collective responsibility, and he has the ability to rain on their betrayal parade any time he chooses, doesn’t he? Yep, so they see this as a god-sent opportunity to undermine his authority, demean him in the eyes of his troops, and banish him from future hostilities – they can dream-on, can’t they?

Thirdly, there are the Party leadership plotters who have seen Johnson suddenly leapfrog over all others, to be ‘once again’ the favoured candidate for the job when/if it becomes available – and that might well be the case ‘very soon’ for Mrs May as many in the grass roots have reached the conclusion that enough is enough, haven’t they?

So we get the likes of former Tory joint-chair Sayeeda Warsi, the first Muslim woman to serve in the Cabinet, accusing Boris of Islamophobia, of potentially inciting hate crime, and of blatantly making yet another leadership bid – now this is the very person who over a decade ago was denounce as being herself homophobic [then again of course ISLAM has form when it comes to that, doesn’t it? Extreme prejudice still persists, both socially and legally in much of the Islamic world against those engaging in homosexual acts – most Muslim-majority countries have opposed moves to advance LGBT rights at the United Nations, and a few years ago, 51 Muslim states even blocked gay and transgender organizations from attending a high level AIDS prevention meeting].

Of course, IF Warsi had been a Christian, she would have known the Bible teaching Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye Mathew 7:5

Even Theresa May herself, being tactically stupidly, joined in the ‘screw-Boris’ bout of frenzy and hysteria [‘supposedly’ about him insulting Muslims?) and she publicly demanded he apologised (for speaking his mind – god forbid, eh?). She knows full well that it is not the role of a PM to tell backbenchers where to get off – though she doesn’t even seem capable of doing that within her own Cabinet, does she?

She has stupidly trashed the Conservative party – and it won’t forgive her.

Oh yes, she has an axe to grind because she is well aware that she is on thin ice at home with her proposed ‘non-BREXIT’ proposal (the Country wants out and properly OUT), and if the EU Commission rejects her last gasp Chequers plan (as Michel Barnier will insist), her days in Number10 look finished anyway (however much of a survivor she thinks she is).

Although someone else will probably wield the knife (Jacob Rees-Mogg?), it is Boris Johnson who is poised and ready, to Churchillian like save the day for the British people, so her meaningless attack on him will backfire and simply propel him faster into post as Prime Minister – this has shown-up her abysmally poor judgement, her inability to deal with confrontations, and her lack of essential leadership qualities, don’t you think?

[One bit of good news though, is that as a result of Johnson’s burka comments, pain-in-the- arse ‘BREXIT saboteur’ and pseudo-Frenchie Dominic Grieve says he would leave the Conservative Party if the former foreign secretary ever becomes leader – BRING IT ON we say, eh?]

There is a fundamental problem that we are facing in Britain and it is that there are destructive elements in our society which are constantly trying to undermine and terminate our basic right to “free speech”(of which ridicule and insult are historically long-standing bed-fellows), and when amongst other things, in particular there must be no criticism whatsoever voiced of ISLAM, nor Muslins themselves

That applies, however extreme its teaching becomes, nor how despicable and scandalous the behaviour of individuals [which has included gangs and rings of predominately Pakistani origin, involved in the grooming and child sexual exploitation of thousands upon thousands of vulnerable young white girls (Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Burnley, Dewsbury, Halifax, High Wycombe, Leeds, Leicester, Middlesbrough, Newcastle, Norwich, Oxford, Peterborough, Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford) – while the police turn a blind eye, frightened of being accused of racism, and the Government through political correctness are playing it down and are in denial of it being a major issue] – to say nothing about the ongoing threat to our society from the hundreds of Muslim extremists in our midst intent on destruction of our way of life.

Stepping out of line, speaking-out, and saying that something HAS TO BE DONE, or that the Muslim community THEMSELVES must step-up to the mark and be counted, would these days certainly get one labelled by the liberal brigade and human-rights nutters, as racist and Islamophobic wouldn’t it? Yep, and that will apply to even those of us who are supportive of Muslims, have made friends in their community, and seek for them to have safe haven here in the UK, doesn’t it?

There are already major tensions being created within our communities, and that inevitably will lead to an unprecedented degree of hatred unless resolved, won’t it?

First, let’s be straight about one point, shall we? The burka and the niqab, full-face veils style Islamic dress, have no place whatsoever in British society and they should be totally or partially banned forthwith (a partial ban is supported by 80% of the population). It is a form of dress that is ‘deliberately’ provocative to our society, it is ‘anti-social’, and is insultingly offensive to our British values.

Other countries have taken already action to protect their own cultures and societies from destructive ISLAM provocation. The burka and niqab are:

  • fully banned: in France (2004); Belgium (2011); Chad (2015); Cameroon in five provinces (2015); Diffa, Niger (2015); Brazzaville, Congo, (2015); Tessin, Switzerland (2016); Denmark (2018)
  • partially banned in the Netherlands (women cannot have their faces covered in schools, hospital and on public transport); the Italian town of Novara (2010 women had to stop wearing a full veil); parts of Catalonia, Spain (the country’s Supreme Court ruled against a ban in some areas in 2013, but a year later the ECHR ruled that the ban should be continued; Turkey (a full ban was abandoned in 2013, but now it is still barred for workers in the judiciary, military and police)]

Not only does the-burka serve as a barrier between women and society which prevents them from playing a full part in it, but it alienates other men, women and children, who are either extremely uncomfortable with it, or understandably even scared, because of the vile actions of Islamic terrorists.

To successfully interact with each other, human beings must be able to see each other’s faces and read their expressions, because that’s how our Western society works, isn’t it?

The Muslim veil is the symbol of segregation, oppression, and of a social system in which males hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, work, moral authority, social privilege and control of property, while women are kept down and subservient. Just wearing it implies that females (even as children) must be fully covered-up to protect the community from their womanly wiles – you see, even showing their faces represent a grave danger to men and society, eh? Surely, that is something that we cannot accept in any British community, is it?

No, and the majority of the population (60%?) are increasingly in favour of a total ban of wearing that kind of garb in a public place, aren’t they? Yep, but democracy in the UK doesn’t work and the will of the people doesn’t count one iota, does it? NO, and the libtards useful idiots  insist we are all reactionaries and extremists, that a ban would be Islamophobic, it would cause violence, it would be un-British. Well, WHAT IS ‘UNBRITISH’ is actually sticking two fingers up to our society and values by wearing the burka in the first place, isn’t it? Furthermore, the risk of violence on our streets would ONLY result from ill-informed Muslim women cocking a snoot at British law and deciding they are above it, wouldn’t it?.

The problem arises only because of the retrogressive, religious, extremism of militant Islamic clergy, who have brainwashed ill-informed Muslims, saying that the ISLAM religion requires women to cover their faces, when in reality there is nothing of the kind, no Koranic legitimacy for the burka at all,  but instead it is just a toxic tyrannical subterfuge for the controlling of women.

While the majority of Muslims here are model citizens, the root root of the problem is that too many Muslims have come to our Country [of the 3million living in Britain (mostly in England) over half of them weren’t born here], but they won’t integrate nor accept that they have to adapt to our culture, and instead they demand that we the indigenous population conform to theirs, and they want to impose their country of origin’s religious  ethos on our Christian and enlightened one, and that includes promoting alien and unacceptable attitudes towards women and moreover aggressive discrimination against other faiths, and not least creating a closed environment whereby hundreds of young men and women are being radicalised right here on British soil.

Well there is a short answer to that one – if you don’t like it here don’t emigrate here, and don’t dare try to change things or us – instead if you have come here uninformed, why don’t you just return to an environment that makes you happier?

This situation with a substantial and growing population of Muslims has further compounded the problem we are facing in the UK in that, to all intents and purposes, intended ‘multiculturalism’ has failed miserably, because all the different communities persist on living their separate lives in segregation, and that is causing rapid deterioration in relationships between them.

There are absolutely NO estimates on how many Muslim women in the UK actually wear the Burka or niqab, but is likely to be low as it is fairly uncommon.

[Modest Muslim women have other ‘acceptable in British society’, forms of Islamic hijab ‘covering up dress’, that leaves the face free (al-amira, shayla, khimar, chador), so there is no need for them to force a conflict within our society]




Imprisonment without trial – the UK’s mortgage “affordability” scandal?



There is a tribe of some 150thousand home owners who are held as ‘mortgage prisoners’ by their lenders’ eye-wateringly high interest rates – locked-into standard variable rate (SVR) of around 5% from a time when Bank Rate even went as low as 0.25%. [and with standard mortgage rates soaring way above the UK base rates it represents a a mortgage ticking time bomb in the UK – with huge risk of arrears and repossessions].

A 100thousand of the this tribe are victims, through no fault of their own, but because their mortgage was sold-on to an organisation which isn’t at all authorised to offer new mortgage deals [a private equity or investment company (the likes of who snapped-up failure Northern Rock’s mortgages). Then there are an estimated 30,000 long-standing mortgage customers, who mostly took out their deal before the 2008 financial crisis, but who now are entirely unable to switch to a cheaper mortgage – despite being up to date with payments

That CAN’T be right, can it? That CAN’T be fair, can it? That CAN’T be justified, can it? NO, NO, and NO, but nevertheless it happened and STILL is happening today, isn’t it?

You see, it is all down to tough new mortgage rules primarily introduced 4 years ago by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), a regulator organisation intended to maintain the integrity of the financial markets in the UK.

[Although nominally independent, the FCA is in fact ‘accountable’ to the Treasury (i.e. Chancellor), which itself is ultimately responsible for the UK’s financial system and to Parliament].

Under scissorhands Chancellor George Osborne’s tenure, major changes to the mortgage market followed the City regulator’s mortgage market review (MMR) and were introduced to stop irresponsible lending, to focus-in on ‘affordability’, and so avoid the grave mistakes of the past. That move in the making of mortgage prisoners was further compounded by the blooming oppressive EU’s Mortgage Credit Directive (MCD) regulation of 2016 that set the UK minimum regulatory requirements of consistency in mortgages for residential property.

The term “shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted” comes to mind though, doesn’t it?

[The US subprime ‘mortgage crisis’ (involving lending to those with impaired credit records) was ‘caused’ by hedge funds and banks creating ‘mortgage’-backed securities, whence the insurance companies covered them with credit default swaps. Demand for mortgages led to an asset bubble in housing, and when interest rates went UP, adjustable mortgage rates skyrocketed, which sent home prices plummeting, and borrowers defaulting – thence followed the 2007 banking crisis, the 2008 financial crisis, and then the great Recession (the worse since the Great Depression of 1929)]

Plus perhaps, the other edict “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” is also applicable in this situation, because not only has the MMR quite rightly halted in their tracts the lenders of astounding stupidity, regarding their loan over-indulgence to first-time buyers or upsizing mortgagees, but it was, and is, a blunt tool that disenfranchises existing mortgage borrowers who are staying-put, by absurdly preventing them from being granted a much cheaper mortgage than they are actually paying already – how can that count as being “unaffordable”, in anyone’s imagination?


Well, it makes perfect sense for the greedy banks and lenders of course who are raking it in at the expense of the most vulnerable home owners, aren’t they?

You see the way that mortgage lending is currently structured here, differs greatly from the past, because nowadays people no longer take out a mortgage intending it for the full repayment term, but take out a mortgage on a short-term introductory deal, say for 2 years, at a ‘fixed’ interest rate [or a BR tracker rate], and at the end of that period, they are automatically shunted-onto the lender’s very expensive SVR interest rate – at that point of course they would simply look for another ongoing deal with their existing lender or even a different one.

However, the new rules will now scupper them from getting another mortgage deal at all, if they fail to meet the FCA’s & EU’s new rules, so they are trapped into paying an excessive monthly amount for the rest of their term – driving them into poverty on the pretence that a cheaper mortgage would NOT be affordable – even Alice in Wonderland’s Mad Hatter couldn’t have dreamed that one up could he, eh?

[THE CURRENT TOUGHER MORTGAGE RULES: lenders have to check how much borrowers earn (that alone can scupper those with their own business if earnings are not considered reliable enough on paper), and check every detail of their finances and spending to establish how much they have left after regular expenditure (backed-up with evidence); ‘interest-only’ mortgages have to be covered by a “credible” capital repayment vehicle (other than the sale of the house); lenders must stress-test ‘affordability’ – like by testing ability to pay if interest rates go up during first five years of the deal; lenders’ staff have to be qualified and able to assess customers]

This blind idiotic application of the rules is driving affected borrowers into the ground by preventing them from paying the ‘going rate’ – they can end up paying at least double what they should – as much as say £1,000 EXTRA per MONTH. That is a scandal of epidemic proportions, surely?

For example, you can have somebody on an interest only mortgage 2 year deal [perhaps because of a relationship breakdown], but when that ends they are denied a cheaper new deal as ‘unaffordable’, so is forever imprisoned on a high variable rate, and if their circumstances normalise, they are even totally prevented from returning to a ‘repayment mortgage’ although it is actually less costly each month than their current interest-only payment – so not a penny is paid-off the capital sum either.

People are incredulous to find that, despite having an exemplary repayment history (never missed a payment) they are denied a remortgage as the lender claims “it can’t be afforded”, when it is actually 20% less than they HAVE been paying for donkey’s years, eh?

This whole situation whereby people have been shoved unceremonially onto their lender’s highest rates is compounded by the current rise (August) in Bank Rate which means lenders have immediately bumped-up their SVR’s to match it, rather than absorbing it as they should have in light of their already making a killing, eh?

However, you may have heard that a consortium of the major lenders [UK Finance, the Building Societies Association (BSA) and the Intermediary Mortgage Lenders Association (IMLA)], are embarking on a charm offensive [in response to an FCA’s challenge] and are making a voluntary commitment to help these longstanding borrowers, by offering them the ability to switch to an alternative product with better interest rate, and so they say address the problem of attempted remortgagors being locked-into SVR – indeed they expect to deliver it by this December, no less?

Well, if you really think that the wicked witch has metamorphosed into the fairy godmother, dream-on everybody? The scheme is so restrictive with its multiple exclusions that it will only apply to little more than say 7% of those afflicted, and certainly it won’t help those who are in great financial pain and are struggling the most under the unfair yoke of enforced SVT, will it?

[Borrowers are only eligible for the new scheme with such product as being offered by their ‘existing’ lender (a massive market restriction), and only if there is at least £10,000 of outstanding mortgage, and at least 2 years left on the loan, and if they not in arrears, and additionally they not allowed any change of term, nor adding or removal of a party to the mortgage, nor allowed additional borrowing – all common options that might be sought on remortgaging, eh?


[There is NO solution currently on the table to the UK’s ‘mortgage prisoners’ problem, although the lenders consortium initiative is indeed a welcome START, but there is an uncharted and uncertain path ahead for those other many thousands of home owners involved]