Fun with Guns

This Labour government has much to answer for: an overzealous pursuit of Multiculturalism, dangerously lax Immigration policies, vomit-inducing political correctness. Yet, credit must be given where credit is due. Recently revealed plans to develop the Cadet structure throughout the State school system are both eminently sensible and badly needed.

Children will undertake military drills, receive weapons training and more generally gain a better understanding of the Armed Forces role in Great Britain. It is hoped that these planned measures will inculcate the values of, inter alia, discipline, self-respect, and leadership. I guess it would be disingenuous to suggest there were not a recruitment element present as well, although to be fair the proposals have emanated from the "Civil and Military Relations Committee", a Parliamentary, not MOD, phenomenon.

The recently well-documented case of the off-duty, uniformed soldiers in Peterborough being verbally abused in the town centre shows that public perception of the Armed Forces has become inextricably tied to the Government's much lamented wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is utterly wrong; as if it needs to be said, these soldiers sign up to defend their countries with their lives, not to particular wars; and anything which can be done to enlighten such malign views should be.

Furthermore, Britain's spiralling anti-social and youth crime problems need, to put it crudely, all the solutions they can get; these measures should be part of that vanguard. It is vacuous to criticize the targeting of state schools for this scheme. Like it or loathe it, the fact is that the vast majority of future criminals will originate in those same schools.

If some of these disadvantaged and vulnerable people, who might otherwise descend into a life of transgression, find in these schemes -or indeed in joining the Armed Forces- the values and dignity which lead to good citizenship and worthwhile lives, well then all sides of the political spectrum should back them with vigour, for everyone in Britain's sake.

The Climate Change Cabal

I always found the success of the banal Lord of the Rings trilogy baffling, even more so that its success was not confined to an audience of particularly stupid children. No, seemingly there are many delusional fantastists among the ranks of our otherwise apparently self-respecting adults as well. These adults -for want of a better word- often seek, however, to bring their fantasies into the realm of public policy. Is the increasingly pervasive climate-change-clamour just another of these concocted fantasies?

Certainly Lord Lawson, Margaret Thatcher's celebrated Chancellor, seems to think so. In comments in this weekend's papers, he juxtaposes the, "...colossal cost of the measures being taken to meet the EU's target(s)", with the reasonable assertion that, "...the science of what determines the earth's temperature is far from settled".

That being the case, he asks of politicians a stark presentation of the issues, in those terms, rather than being pushed onto citizens as some kind of phony moral imperative. Yet, all too often, any one questioning the validity of such is branded a heretic by the believers, showing true fantasist intolerance.

This is truly an alarming trend in British politics. Some of the issues with the most invasive societal effects are becoming too risque to be forthrightly debated: Multiculturalism, Immigration, and now Climate Change. Lord Lawson posits, in conclusion, "that in many ways the global warming ideology has filled the vacuum left by the collapse of Marxism: Green is the New Red". Reason to be worried, indeed.

Violence, Immigration and Government Incompetence: A note

A map in today's Telegraph has shown just how localized violence, specifically murder, is in London. Fully twenty-three murders have occured in Lambeth; thirteen in Newham; zero in the City. As Harriet Harman's leisurely stroll -in a stab-proof vest- around her constituency shows, areas of London are now virtually no-go areas.

It seems to be both an accepted sociological fact, and intuitively plausible, that stark socio-economic inequalties clustered together in one area almost invariably gives rise to every form of crime, from mugging to murder.

That being the case, one can see the grave consequences of this Labour governments mismanagement of Immigration policy in this country. These boroughs have amongst the highest populations of immigrants; have the most acute social housing shortages; and even before the new zeal with which immigration has been embraced, were boroughs with some of the most troubling social problems of their own.

The immigrants themselves should shoulder little of the blame. It is the incompetence and lack of foresight of this government in their failed immigration policy- or social experiment, if you like, that is the real culprit. Among the obvious practical solutions, the ability to raise this issue without being branded a fascist is now of the utmost importance.

Hookers and Hypocrisy: In defence of Max Mosley

Ever taken an illicit, opportunist glance at an old woman's breasts? Ever masturbated outside the confines of your own home? Ever given, or received in a matinee? Of course you have, you hedonists you; and it is that which is what makes the coverage of Max Mosley's -the head of the Motor-Racing's governing body (FIA)- sexploits this week in the papers all the more sickening.

Some facts for the gossip merchants among you. Mosley was caught, on tape, in a five-way spank-fest with some open-minded young floozies, nay prostitutes. He was seen to give and receive said paddle spanking, administered and taken while garbed in the questionsable sartorial mix of leather and pyjamas, which may or may not have been similar to the clothes worn by Jews in Nazi concentration camps. That Mosley's father, Oswald, was a famous fascist in Great Britain has been bandied about as conclusive evidence of this sexually transmitted fascism.

Public indignation and hypocrisy are happy bed-fellows. What possible difference can it make to any of us what Mr Mosley gets up to in private? It is not as if motor-racing's head honcho is an inherently principled vocation; it makes no claim to being some kind of role-model position. Although not a fan of London Mayoral candidate Ken Livingstone, his point on sexual peccadiloes this week, that as long as they don't involve 'children, animals, or injurious violence', well then spank with pride, so to speak.

I find it ironic that this is presented to us as a case of immmorality. Ironic insofar as what is truly immoral here has completely escaped our collective wrath. What kind of a person secretly, and complicitly videotapes a man's private sexual affairs? What kind of a journalist gleefully accepts such filthily acquired videotape? What kind of an editor (News of the World) runs such a story? What kind of a society demands this daily garbage? It is all of that which is truly revolting.

Eco-Towns: Yes and No

It would be disingenuous to suggest that the fifteen proposed new 'Eco-Towns' in Britain are, quote unquote, a bad idea. Providing they fulfill their environmental credentials, have a sensible mix between private and social housing, and are built on brownfield, as opposed to greenfield sites, then they are, broadly speaking, desirable. Yet the manner in which they have been presented is emblematic of all that is wrong not just with the Labour Party, but with politics itself.

Britain is suffering from, first and foremost, a population problem, caused primarily by people living longer and large, well-documented increases in immigration. Yet, the project is clothed in this eco-guise to cynically gloss over the failings of immigration policy in this country. Why such dishonesty? Votes.

Be that as it may, let's hope the planning of these towns is sound. With almost half of the housing to be social, there is a grave risk that we will be witnessing the erection of the slums of the future. Education, employment and policing provision must be of paramount importance: the useless paraphenalia of political correctness, less so. Insofar as many of these towns are likely to be havens for immigrants, I venture that they will be the ultimate litmus test of immigration and multiculturalism policies in this country.

Political Correctness: New Nadirs

On the practice of whistling at girls. An article written in today's Telegraph laments the demise of wolf-whistling, the favourite past-time of builders. A simple, age-old phenomenon, on seeing a woman, particularly an attractive or well-endowed one, they, well, whistle. The building firm Wimpey has recently banned its workmen from the perpetration of this heinous act, deeming it "...out of place in the 21st century". Ohters are expected to follow suit.

The article, for the record, was written by a woman, Celia Walden, who opposes this demise: "Women enjoy being wolf-whistled at...we appreciate the compliment", before adding, insightfully, that those opposed to such, "...are not Telegraph readers". (See Guardian). One of the builders involved in this vicious practice attempted to verbalize his malignant motives; "I sometimes whistle at girls who aren't even all that pretty...just because they look a bit down..."

It seems to me that this epoch will be simply, sadly labelled 'boring' . In the endless, pyrrhic drive for equality, this Labour government has engendered a stifling, victim culture. Women are well able to deal with whistles. Blacks are well-able to deal with racist jokes. Immigrants do not need to be molly-coddled. What is needed is equal opportunity, not fatuous gestures.

Housing, Council Tax and War

Having become suicide-inducingly familiar with Northamptonshire County Councils Housing Strategy Paper -Black and Ethnic Minority Accomadation- one could only, upon reading it, be utterly depressed about the governance this country is shrivelling up under. Consider the following contradictions. Quite rightly, asylum seekers coming to this country, having been approved for asylum, are eligible to apply for housing. No qualms there. But were you aware of the additional costs saddled by councils, imposed by Government edicts, following such housing?

Translations of all documentation according to the pleathora of far-flung languages of said persons. Round-the-clock translators. Hordes of state-mandarins administering all manner of muticulturalism-gone-mad hocus pocus, disguised and distorted under the synthetic Equality banner. All manner of analysis, surveys and all the other general ailments of the bureaucratic tool-kit aimed, speciously, at avoiding discrimination; the latter being particularly ironic insofar as you've literally done the opposite of discrimination in accomadating said people.

How is all this funded? Ever-increasing council-tax bills for the taxpayer (fact!). Let the following be construed as a logical, not a racist point: tax-payers are, in effect, being taxed twice. Once,to provide adequate social housing; twice, to avoid discrimination against said recipients post-housing.

Obviously by this point the argument's potency will have been lost amidst most of your Guardian, pro-nothing, anti-everything (Racism, Obesity, C02, Red Meat, Bull-Fighting, Fox-Hunting, Foie-Gras, Conservative Party, Wealth, Religion, The Daily Telegraph, Children Playing in the Playground, George W. Bush, Free Trade, Responsibility, Strong Policing, A Good clip round the ear for errant childern, etc) red-mist. This has absolutely nothing to do with racism, with prejudice or whatever. It is a simple economic point: this instance of multi-culturalism, specifically the manner in which it is funded, is unfair to the taxpayer.

Let as many truly economically-beneficient immigrants come to this country as are in the queue. Take in all those suffering cruelly under despotic regimes, as should be done in compliance with statutory Human Rights Laws. But let us be cautious otherwise; and if Labour refuses to stop funding Multiculturalism by taxation, let's go to war- metaphorically, of course- sure you're probably against that too, on principle of course.

Form is Temporary; Class is Permanent

Bertie Ahern's -the current Irish Taoiseach (Prime Minister)- enforced resignation over financial irregularities has precipitated the inevitable pontificating of the armchair-experts. Barstool Fintan O'Toole, a well-known, left-wing Irish journalist, a perpetual pessismist, has weighed in with his worthy views, labelling Mr Ahern "...a great illusionist", saying he had given a "...masterclass in shamelessness" in his dealings with the various tribunals investigating his alleged misdeeds.

Does a banker tell a baker how to make bread? It is all too easy for those who have never deigned to put their money where their words are to lecture leaders on how to lead, to judge outside their journalistic jursidiction. We should all be thankful men and women of Mr Ahern's calibre exist at all, people with shoulders broad enough to lead, taking constant, ill-informed barbs from journalistic-'Tooles in their stride.

Saints are in short supply. It looks likely that Mr Ahern may indeed have been complicit in some kind of financial irregualrity, and let me be clear that this is not to be excused; it is entirely inconsistent with the principles of democracy, granted. But, this kind of vainglorious retreat to the moral-highground is too galling for my ears; the follies of human-nature are present everywhere, in every office and in all of us. Tony Blair yesterday described Mr Ahern as "...a great Taoiseach, a leader for whom I had the greatest respect, admiration and friendship". Not being in office any longer, he did not have to be that assertive; he was because Mr Ahern, his reputation and his legacy, deserved it.

The miracles of the Irish economy in the last decade were not solely or even primarily down to Mr Ahern; neither was the historic peace secured in Northern Ireland. However, intimate observers of both are sincere when they say he played a vital role in both, and let no cynical hacks tell you otherwise. Let's let leaders lead.

This Odious Age

Two articles today, one in the Guardian, the other in the Telegraph, speak volumes of the questionable Great Britain of 2008.

One cannot expect a grain of objective coverage of Conservative Boris Johnson's campaign from the Guardian, granted. But will it ever rise above it's sly, smug cynicism? Mr Johnson, with David Cameron alongside, were speaking in Edmonton, North London, the scene of four recent gang-related murders, on the pressing need to combat such reprehensible violence. But what do the Guardian do? They focus almost entirely on Messrs Johnson and Cameron's membership of the infamous Bullingdon club while studying at Oxford, and equate this with gang membership. The equation of murder and banter I find both an utter disgrace, and utterly unsurprising from the odious Guardian.

In other news, a Muslim Hairdresser is filing for £34,000 to compensate for "...lost earnings and injured feelings". Her complaint will be heard in front of one our many state-resources-parasitic employment tribunals, a Labour government phenomenon. Why? She sees no reason -in a hairdressers!- to show off her locks, demanding to wear the veil. This is quite aside from the fact that she has been previously, "...rejected by about 20 other salons"! What gives the state the right to even dream of telling a hairdresser how to run their business? Why will this case even be heard, wasting valuable resources which could be spent on combatting racism proper? Surely the owner wants her hairdressers to show off their hair, then that is her prerogative, and anyhow, is it not quite a reasonable request?! Pass the sick-bag. Oh, and elect a Conservative government next time to avoid such farcical times.

Immigration Impasse

One wonders how this Labour Government will respond to today's report on the economic effects of immigration. Or, indeed, the lack of such effects. Having contributed- on a per capita basis- trivial, non-existent gains in terms of GDP (pence!), some reflection on this damaging policy must now take place. This reflection, in the face of the ever loosening bonds of social cohesion (see- for instance- the property market that cannot cope with this influx of immigrants) is urgent.

Urgent to everyone except Labour, that is. The great chimera of our times- diversity- will be wheeled out again, and anyone still up for the fight will be branded a racist. What loathsome times we live in under this Labour government: free speech, but...

I say this: there are other priorities besides blindly pursued economic growth.