Friday, 21 December 2007
Wednesday, 3 October 2007
Thursday, 20 September 2007
Monday, 6 August 2007
Monday, 23 July 2007
Sunday, 1 July 2007
This four year old's level of political and economic literacy is shared by millions of grown women all over Britain. That's why we've had the house-of-cards we know of as New Labour for 10 years. Obviously, being only four, she has an excuse............
Friday, 29 June 2007
This is the book that articulates all that is wrong with the dreadful Liberal experiment that is being played out in British inner cities. I found myself laughing with disbelief as "the one true way" of Polly Toynbee et al, was comprehensively demolished by a man I would not hesitate to call the "Orwell of our time". A psychiatrist and doctor, Theodore Dalrymple's experience of the British underclass leaves him exceptionally well positioned as a social commentator covering the moral decline in British cities. A thorough expose of the sheer dishonesty of the Left. Brilliant.
Thursday, 28 June 2007
Wednesday, 27 June 2007
To describe Sedgefield as a safe seat would be something of an understatement.
Monday, 18 June 2007
Thursday, 14 June 2007
Monday, 11 June 2007
Mahmod Mahmod and Ari Mahmod
Take a look at the two individuals pictured above. These people are resident in the UK because Liberals, in their seemingly infinite wisdom, reckon that mass immigration from Pakistan and Kurdistan (where these men originate from) - religiously fundamental hovels - will "culturally enrich" (to use classic Liberal phraseology) the United Kingdom.
When Mahmod Mahmod, 52, and his brother Ari Mahmod, 50, came to Britain, they didn't just bring suitcases and hope with them. They brought with them a backward and uncivilised ideology, some aspects of which England had not seen for 200 years. Whilst indigenous Britons fret over the unsavoury behaviour of some of their binge-drinking, semi-literate, welfare-dependent, urbanites, let us reflect on what is considered right in muslim society.
Mahmod Mahmod decided that his daughter Banaz Mahmod (pictured below), should not not court Rahmat Sulemani - her boyfriend - any longer. When she (an independent women by English law) defied him, Mahmod Mahmod and his brother Ari acted in accordance with the medieval diktats of the muslim faith - and killed her. Don't be fooled by the vacuous and tactical utterances of so-called "moderate" muslims. To the Pakistanis and Kurds of Britain's muslim ghettos, this young girl got what was coming to her.
Banaz Mahmod, 20, was quite legally killed, in the eyes of many Muslims.
The two men are due to be sentenced after having been found gulity today, Monday 11th June 2007. Ironically, the country that is so alien to them in its culture, also has an alien legal system. One that spares the lives of murderers.
Let it be clear; this murder is the tip of the iceberg. Muslim communities are so close-knit, that the majority of these killings are never detected. The communities are so close-knit because they were never meant to be anything else.
"Multiculturalism" - that great, naive, Liberal project, envisaged a grateful new community of ex-savages seeing the benefit of an enlightened English culture and living in peace and harmony amongst us. Of course, when it didn't happen, the Left - being constricted by their own ideological rules - couldn't possibly blame the newcomers. No, it was we - the indigenous Britons - who were to blame. Our enlightened culture became the culture that needed "correcting". "Ism" is the cure-all rejoinder for that rude stranger - the truth - when it presents itself to the Guardian reader. And this is what sickens the Toad. For when the muslim machine conducts itself as it is designed to do - and kills a twenty year old girl for an infraction of her father's house-rules, Liberals are quick to manoeuvre, for they are only too aware that the whole mess has their dabs on it.
Twice today has the Toad heard Liberals posturing over the murder, and condemning it in frigid terms - "how awful that a father could blah blah etc..." - completely race neutral, of course, because after all, they (the murderers) are just ordinary "British men". Just like newspapers paraded their "tolerance" credentials after the 7th July muslim attacks on London: "...how could ordinary British boys do such a thing?" came the dishonest bile from our conditioned press.
To listen to the wooden, constrained reporting and comment on this murder, is to realise just how frightened of moral censure our people have become. That moral censure comes from those on the hard-left who have, over many years worked themselves into government, the BBC and our institutions.
The facts are that muslims generally don't like us. They deplore our customs and ancient rights. The reason why they are here is because roads, clean water, sewerage, a national health system, reliable electricity, social security, safe food, public transport, law and order (ironically) and a free press are something which they don't have in Pakistan or other radical muslim nations. Even so, many third generation UK Pakistanis send their wages or benefits "home" to Pakistan, thus lancing the boil of the fatuous Liberal argument that Pakistanis have "financially enriched" Britain.
Wednesday, 6 June 2007
Does anyone else find Peter Tatchell a nauseating, self-serving, professional Victim? I currently don't have video hosting on this blog, but here's a link to him getting punched in Russia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fybP0uwZvEs
He gets a decent straight right to the eye and then starts a pitiful wailing; "help me, help me......someone protect me...." in a cringing, pathetic way.
Here is Tatchell’s self pitying and woeful account (from The Guardian – who else?);
"On Sunday Peter Tatchell was assaulted and then arrested at a gay-rights protest in Moscow. Here he tells Luke Harding exactly what happened............"
"I was invited to Moscow by the organisers of Gay Pride. The plan was to mark the 14th anniversary of the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Russia, and call for the right to hold a gay pride parade. (why would anyone be "proud" to have a genetic disorder?) The activists had been attacked at a similar protest last year, and they felt it was very important to have international observers to witness how the Moscow authorities treated them. Their hope was that our presence would encourage the Moscow police to be less aggressive. (methinks you overstate your own importance, Mr. Tatchell)
We arrived at the city hall at 12 o'clock on Sunday. Our intention was to hand a letter to the Moscow mayor, Yuri Luzhkov, but the police allowed gangs of neo-Nazis to infiltrate our group. They started attacking people in an absolutely shocking way. The police stood and watched while people punched me, knocked me to the ground and then kicked me. Eventually the police arrested me and let my neo-Nazi assailants walk free. I was taken into a police van with others, including the German MP Volker Beck, and the Italian MEP Marco Cappato (well, at least they were "equal opportunity" incarerators!! heh, heh..) . When we sat in the bus the police taunted us. They said: "Are you members of the sexual minority?" We said yes. They said: "We are going to have some fun with you at the police station."
I spent 45 minutes at the station trying unsuccessfully to register a complaint. When we left, (hold on, what about the "fun"?) neo-Nazis attacked us again and pelted us with eggs. A Russian orthodox priest ran across the road and attacked us too. (so, not a "neo-Nazi" on this occasion?) There were hundreds of riot police who could have easily prevented the neo-Nazis from assaulting us. I was taken in an ambulance to the Moscow eye hospital for treatment to my right eye. I took a real beating around the head and even a day later I'm pretty woozy. It's still difficult to see clearly. It was the second worst beating after the one I received at the hands of Mugabe's thugs in Brussels in 2001. This time I wasn't knocked unconscious and left in the gutter but I ended up with a much bloodier face and severe bruising and swelling on my head. (translation: "I'm no ordinary Victim, you know. Oh no, I've form I have, I'm truly virtuous in this regard...")
What this shows is the flawed and failed nature of Russia's transition to democracy. It was a shameful abdication by the Moscow police of their responsibility to uphold the law. I think the British Embassy in Moscow should write a strong letter to the Russian authorities for failing to protect a lawful protest." (what this shows, Mr Tatchell, is the fact that not the whole of the world has been politically corrected by your ghastly Liberal conditioning)
Notice how Tatchell constantly - and rather awkwardly - refers to his assailants as "neo-Nazis". It's as if he wants to force this label onto his assailants, to establish their group identity as a given, established fact. "Ordinary Muscovites" won't do at all will it, Peter? No, that wouldn't serve any purpose at all would it?
Let's be right about this, if Tatchell could turn the clock back and make things different so he didn't get cuffed, do you think he would? No, of course he wouldn't. Why? Because he regards the assault and his subsequent treatment by the police, to be a great asset in terms his status as a Victim. And that, my friends is all that counts in Peter’s world. The assault will be worn on his sleeve, like a Normandy veteran wears his medals on his chest. If he wasn't a homosexual, he'd be protesting about some such other terrible wrong in this awful, unfair world. He is truly a 21st century, Southern English, urban man.
Friday, 1 June 2007
Look upon the picture above, mortals!! Then throw yourselves down as unworthy insects, to have presumed to look upon the image of the late Mrs. Longden's fish and chip emporium, in the village of Upton.
Yes, the Toad has again sampled God's chosen haddock and chips and confirms that all other comestibles of this style are but a poor imitation of His choice.
Go you to this place, as ancient pilgrims to a far-away shrine. Only then, will ye be complete.
Thursday, 31 May 2007
I remember when Diana died. I was tying my shoe laces prior to going to work and flicked the TV on and switched to teletext to get the news. "Diana dies in crash etc etc". "Oh fine" I thought, "I wish she'd told us beforehand that she was going to croak" - then I could have booked a holiday. In the event I stopped at the newsagent on the way to work and cancelled The Telegraph for three weeks. As it turns out, I should have cancelled for six weeks as the newspapers were still wailing on about it even then.
Friday, 18 May 2007
Thursday, 17 May 2007
When I were a lad, I was told when leaving the Army on 1st Jan 1991, that my mobilisation would never happen, as the cold war was ending and the only reason you would ever be mobilised would be in the case of the Russians streaming over the Iron Curtain, or some such other situation which threatened Blighty herself.
How things have changed;
Reservists: The Rules On Being MobilisedMonday,
May 14, 2007
"Mobilisation is the process of calling Reservists into full-time service with the Regular Forces on military operations.....
"Mobilisation of the unwilling
When there are very short operational deadlines, the scale of operation is particularly large or there is a shortage in a so called 'pinchpoint' trade, the MOD may have to resort to mobilising personnel who are unwilling and/or whose employers do not wish to release. Such mobilisation has taken place in support of operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and the wider Gulf region, however, the Armed Forces seek to keep the numbers of such mobilisations to an absolute minimum."
"From the moment the reservist receives a Call-Out Notice, he needs to consider what actions to take to put his affairs in order before he is obliged to report for mobilisation. A reservist may need to make financial provisions for his family or ensure that regular payments, rent or mortgage for example, will continue to be made while he is away."
"The legal basis for mobilisationThe Reserve Forces Act 1996 provides the legal basis under which mobilisation can take place.Under the Act, Call-Out can be authorised:by Her Majesty making an order 'if it appears to Her that national danger is imminent or that a great emergency has arisen; or in the event of an actual or apprehended attack on the UK' (Section 52) by the Secretary of State for Defence making an order 'if it appears to him that warlike operations are in preparation or progress' (Section 54) by the Secretary of State for Defence making an order 'if it appears to him that it is necessary or desirable to use armed forces on operations outside the UK for the protection of life or property; or on operations anywhere in the world for the alleviation of distress or the preservation of life or property in time of disaster or apprehended disaster' (Section 56) High Readiness Reserves (HRR) and Sponsored Reserves (SR) mobilisation is undertaken under different sections of the Act, as is Recall which is authorised under Sect 68. *Additionally, Transitionals come under RFA 80.
"The full article here;http://www.modoracle.com/?page=http://www.modoracle.com/news/detail.h2f?id=13262&category=all&refresh=5912A8C1-8801-405B-AA69DBD7E8969F2B
Not sure if you need to log in for this url - I linked from an email circular.
Now, I may be mistaken, but it is my guess that the Reserve forces act which preceded this one is different only in regard to Section 56 - "...use armed forces on operations outside the UK for the protection....etc.."
Excerpt from a UK Employment Law website;
"The Reserve Force Act 1966 updates the law regarding call up of reservists generally and in the light of the end of the cold war in particular. It includes a new power of call-out for non-fighting purposes such as peacekeeping and humanitarian and disaster relief operations...."
Just why would a government feel they had to take the extreme measure of calling a reservist up - soft conscription, if you will - for "peacekeeping and humanitarian and disaster relief operations"??
The act was brought into being by the Tories as the date betrays, in 1996. Why did they think it necessary to amend this crucial legislation, with its severe shift in emphasis?
Thursday, 3 May 2007
Polling is expected to be low in all but the Sleaford Castle Ward, where the solitary, dismal Labour candidate will ensure voters will turn out to kick him. The Toad knows three people who are not voting simply because there is no Labour candidate to vote against.
What dreadful dross Labour are. The only people who vote for them are the hopelessly naive and the selfish Client Voters who rely on Labour to keep them in other people's money.
Monday, 30 April 2007
An interesting article from Britain's The First Post;
Tazivei, a tough-looking 30 year-old, works at the S&M brickworks outside Harare, and he's just been paid. He should be a happy man, but he's not. He's covered in bites from lice, his hands and feet are corrugated with painful cracks, he works in filthy conditions and his pay is miserably low. Tazivei works for the Chinese.
The Chinese are Mugabe's new friends. China is currently the world's biggest investor in Zimbabwe, and Chinese-owned businessmen flourish here (the southern part of Harare has become known as China City). One of them is Mr Meng, who owns S&M.
Tazivei stuffs his pay in his pocket, and gestures around the brickworks. "Look at it. There are no toilets here. That's why it stinks. We have to go where we can. So most of us have got dysentery. The government knows, but it doesn't care."
He peels off his shirt to show me his back. It is pockmarked with bites. Lice and flies thrive here. He shows me scars, too. "We are given no protective clothes, no overalls or gloves or safety shoes."
Mr Meng isn't totally blind to his workers' needs. Occasionally he distributes Chinese-made plastic shoes, known here derisively as 'Zhing Zhongs'. They fall apart in a week.
Tazivei is a union member, but his senior regional officer, Alex Masarakufa, is helpless to change things. "Nothing much we can do," he told me. He means that Mr Meng and his countrymen are untouchable.
Zimbabwe's dependence on China is breathtaking. More than 35 different Chinese companies now operate in the country, and Chinese investment stands at US$600m. In return the Chinese are awarded mining concessions and acres of rich tobacco-growing land, much of which was grabbed from the white farmers for redistribution to black people.
Under one recent deal, China is to give Zimbabwe a US$58m finance facility, to purchase farming equipment, implements and tools. In return, Zimbabwe must send 110,000 tonnes of tobacco to China over two years. It'll be tough going for us. The Chinese strike a hard bargain.
Poor countries, and we're talking Africa here, are screwed, and have been for years, by their own, black, rulers. The overseas assets of the past and present ruling elite of Africa come to 141% of that continent's national debt. Political Correctness and Western Liberals have kept that particular elephant-in-the-room quiet for a long time.
China are muscling in on Africa in a big way. They won't directly or legally rule the Africans like we did, but the Africans will certainly know who's boss - they'll know who has the greenbacks. And they already know what the Chinese think of them - and that is; "you are subhuman".
Our (Britain's) rule, although morally wrong, on balance benefited Africans hugely. But then their rulers-in-waiting could see a better time ahead for the tiny minority that were........the rulers-in-waiting. And so it came to pass and the lives and welfare of the now rulers, did indeed increase greatly. But, as we all know, their charges' lot didn't fare so well. The rulers will also benefit greatly when China comes to town. But for the ordinary African, things are about to get a whole lot worse. And there are no sympathisers back in China to lobby for Africa's Joe Ordinary.
Sunday, 29 April 2007
Labour - rotten to the core.
"In the car park the students were told to trawl the surrounding streets collecting postal ballot forms from voters and, if necessary, to help residents to complete their ballots. Hyde warned: “Put the postal vote form out of sight...Don’t get caught with any on you. We are not supposed to collect them.”
He appeared well aware of the ramifications of what he was suggesting. One of the students conspiratorially told the group he believed that what they were doing was “illegal”. Hyde responded: “Yes it is. But we’ve done 25% already, so...” "
I think that there is a deeper psychology behind Labour corruption. Britons, as an envious people and with a generally Left-leaning media, perceive the Tories as "them", the "Toffs" - and are apt to squeal loudly when the likes of Archer lies for personal gain. However, although Labour's squalid record in office has eclipsed any Tory wrong-doing many, many times over, there is that almost unconscious perception that Labour doesn't have any pretensions or obligation to honesty anyway - after all they're proles-in-power aren't they? - that's how they're supposed to act. There's no overt contradiction.
Saturday, 28 April 2007
I'd really like to interview this guy.......
This is an "interview" between Peter Tatchell and Matthew Collins, ex-BNP activist and Director of Searchlight's "Operation Wedge". The question that begs to be asked, in response to his allegation that the BNP would make life a living hell for ethnics is "which BNP policies would you identify, that support this claim". He further claims that the BNP would "seperate people on the grounds of their sexuality, race, etc..." He knows he can make this claim in the knowledge that he won't be asked to explain himself.
I heard that Tatchell and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown were given jobs on 18 Doughty Street and I thought it was a wind-up. I am incredulous that this new media (a promising and refreshing alternative to the Leftist-soaked "traditional" TV media) should recruit these dinosaur Liberals. What a negative and retrograde step. Shame.
These are the very same people, along with the BBC and the Guardian, who are desperate to regulate the blogosphere. Without the leg-up of State funding and state regulation, the Left wing blogosphere has assumed its rightful position: a scarcely-visited irrelevance. Meanwhile right-wing blogs, unfettered by thought policing and political correctness are attracting huge visitor numbers.
Tuesday, 24 April 2007
Luminary figures from around the world are paying their respects to Boris Yeltsin. President Bush said he "helped to lay the foundations of freedom in Russia". Lady T remarked: "He deserves to be honoured as a patriot and liberator."
The Toad is not in the slightest bit complimentary about the late Mr. Yeltsin. He was a cowardly egotist. Mikhail Gorbachev was the man who risked all to make democracy posssible, but understood - unlike Yeltsin - that The American Dream could not be realised overnight. Yeltsin's mantra - "we want it all, we want it now" - is to blame for much of Russia's present troubles.
Blair also said something on the matter, but as his utterances have now become so meaningless and devoid of currency, there's no point in repeating them here.
Wednesday, 18 April 2007
Monday, 16 April 2007
I wish Jennifer Southall all the best. It gives one a good feeling to see someone who has struggled, finally throw off the shackles of worry and grind. Eight million pounds can improve your life. Or not.
From the article linked above;
"After ten years working as a £5.85-an-hour cinema supervisor, the 43-year-old, who had never before tasted champagne or been on an aeroplane, has just one ambition - to spend, spend, spend.
Refreshingly, the divorced mother-of-three has already made plans that will make a big hole in her £8,372,751 fortune as she aims to fulfil her dream of a lifestyle to match those of the Hollywood superstars she has spent the last decade watching on-screen."
The article goes on;
"Among the sums either spent or already earmarked are:
Big house with swimming pool in Newport area - five bedroom property with 40ft covered swimming pool on market in nearby Caerleon - £675,000.
Spanish villa - four-bed property on Costa Blanca with private garden and pool - £300,000.
Holiday in Egypt - two weeks at a four-star resort in Sharm El Sheikh by the Red Sea for the whole family - £3,000 (and passports at £243).
Trip to New York - three nights at the stylish Bentley Hotel plus spending money for everybody - £6,000."
And it transpires that Jennifer has already been shopping: "I spent about £1,500 on clothes, phones, a new handbag and a posh pair of trainers....."
For Jennifer, one of the first inklings that money is not the only difference between those who have it and those that don't, will be when she notices that her fellow travellers in business class and her Costa Blanca and uptown-Newport neighbours, look upon her "posh" new trainers with something less than admiration.
I hope she realises that the money has already bought her a huge benefit: the cessation of worry. I also hope that she doesn't perpetually search for a Valhalla, to be found by spending - it ain't there.
Toad's brother and four of his mates shared a £1.25M win ten years ago. The ensuing anthropological study was salutary. The winner who went nuts spending on just about everything he thought he needed to make life great, was quickly disabused about the life-
enhancing powers of material goods. On the other hand, another of the winners bought his house outright (£50k in those days) and bought a modest car for £10k. The rest was invested and his boss agreed that he could work four days a week - every weekend a bank holiday. Karma.
Friday, 13 April 2007
The most high-profile target of negative consumer pressure in Britain are the murdering paedophiles we have come to know as MacDonalds. At least that's what you'd think they were, if some people were to be believed. Their food may taste bland, but I used to love their coffee on the way to work. MacDonalds coffee with brown sugar and cream to start the day off. Not anymore though, because thanks to the Victims who hate MacDonalds for being the successful enterprise that they are, they no longer provide the cream that made the coffee "just so".
Thursday, 12 April 2007
Wednesday, 11 April 2007
In reaction to RIBA's member's policy of ignoring public - and therefore "ignorant" - views on their creations, there will be no Right of Reply to the Bad Architecture series, meaning that comments may be struck out even for just providing a counterpoint. It's unfair and it's meant to be.
We kick off the architecture series with Lincoln's favourite eyesore - The Lincoln School of Architecture (ironically).
Tuesday, 10 April 2007
Monday, 9 April 2007
This map is the political make up of the United Kingdom as of election night, 2005. As we can see, the area to the North of the Scots/English border is largely various shades of red and the area to the South is mostly blue. The North East of England is red, as is Merseyside. What all these areas have in common, is that they are peopled by the welfare-dependent. Since 1997, Labour have increased the public sector by some 800,000. Scotland has the highest proportion of it's workforce employed by government in the Western world*. At 23.5% that's even more than the notoriously socialised Denmark. The country with the strongest ratio is, predictably, the USA, with 14%. England comes in at a blubberly 20%. But you can bet that "England" in this instance actually means "England & Wales". Wales (another traditionally red area) would undoubtedly top the league if assessed as an independent nation.**
Should Scotland aquire independence, and I'm writing this from the perspective of someone who wishes them to have it, we will be in for interesting times ahead. I would not want to be self-employed or a money generator in the New Scotland. The SNP and Old Labour rule the roost North of the border - think Harold Wilson with a kilt.
Mr Salmon is also very keen to embrace the "European Ideal". Indeed, he envisages keeping Sterling for a couple of years and then embracing the Euro! In terms of national independence, it would appear Mr Salmon prefers the fire to the frying pan.
Talking of the EU, a newly independent Scotland will have to be very robust with Brussels. Lord knows, Westminster have rolled over and given in to the EU on occasions too numerous to mention. But a member state with a population of only five million and lots of black gold will appear much easier to intimidate and coerce than a net importer with a 52 million population. Germany has a mindset against nuclear power and the rest of Western Europe will increasingly be under pressure to pay the Russian Danegeld in the future years. How nice it would be if wee Scotland were to be "good Europeans". That invidious phrase "common resource" springs to mind........
As everyone's standard of living increases with the relentless march of technology, socialists need bad news to keep their client voters unhappy. Enter "relative poverty" - as opposed to absolute poverty (ie real poverty). The way this term (and its subordinate term; “wealth gap”) has been sneaked in to everyday usage, it will soon be the orthodoxy in regard to assessing poverty. The beauty of this - for socialists at least - is that there will always be poverty.
There are people in genuine hardship, of course. Some people are mentally incapable of looking after themselves or disabled through no fault of their own and must be cared for - it is right, we are a caring society, after all. But I don't think that they are numerically sufficient for the poverty campaigners - there must be more. In 20 years time, even if the least wealthy of British people have the disposable income and quality of life currently being enjoyed by today's middle classes, you can be sure that they will still be in "poverty", for those on the Left who exploit them require that it is so.
I speak of those who over the years have traditionally exploited the worse-off in our society. They are the likes of the Labour Party of Great Britain and The Daily Mirror. These people see the exponential rise in everyone's living standards as a threat to their very existence. They feed the worse-off with disaffection in order to harvest the resulting envy and it's crop of votes and print sales. For these exploitative forces there must be poverty, even if there's no poverty.
On 27th Sept 2005, the Guardian's Micheal White, reporting on the Chancellor's Brighton speech, propagated a Gordon Brown lie: "Mr Brown focused his concern chiefly on children and blamed the Conservative legacy for Labour's grim inheritance of one in three children born into poverty". Under no stretch of the imagination could anyone believe that one third of children were born into poverty in 1997. Only that statistical conjurer's trick - relative poverty - could embolden a politician to make such a ludicrous claim.
But back to the present day and things aren't looking too good for our confident class warrior in number 11, as his liberal friends at the Guardian report: "....the government published the latest figures on poverty and inequality.
The statistics were bad news for Labour. In case you missed them, these were the headlines: child poverty was up by 100,000; absolute poverty was up; there was a widening gap between rich and poor."
Absolute poverty up, eh? Now that takes some doing.
Sunday, 8 April 2007
Saturday, 7 April 2007
Every tribe since Adam has had an honours system. A member of the tribe performs good works, or acts valiantly and the tribe rewards that person with a medal or robe or stick or whatever. The value in that reward is that it is a symbol that is rare, respected by others and encourages some of the others to perform to their best so that they, in time, may also bear the reward. That is the logic behind the honours system in its purest form.
Of course, the British honours system has been subject to abuse for many years. But isn’t it a feature of this government that they have capitalised on the self-neutering of HM opposition (by way of their own example, when in power) to "go nuts" in terms of excess corruption? At the present rate, all the far-left activists of the 1970’s campuses who are now in power, will achieve their teenage ambitions to do away with the aristocracy-smelling honours system, by way of making the currency so weak that it effectively dissolves. But the real cynicism lies in the way they are benefiting from the sell-out at the same time. Cash for peerages is just the more blatant example.
The world of sport and celebrity are other examples of the exploitation of the honours system. Celebs are perhaps the most undeserving recipients of honours. People who preach about poverty and at the same time are wealthy icons of the drug scene which enslaves thousands of South Americans, don’t rank highly for my respect. Labour’s sickening cosying-up with the airheads at number 10 and 11 is well documented. What price Sir Mick Hucknall if Brown the Clown becomes PM?
Sport has its own honours system and it’s very efficient. When you win the race, you wait 30 minutes and then receive your honour. Simple. Imagine being told "you won the race and we’re going to give you the silver and bronze as well - next week". And so it was, that the victorious England rugby team, trooped in to see Betty, replete with grey suits and brown shoes and were duly given their MBEs. If they were given the choice, how many of them would choose to keep the MBE in preference to their World Champions’ gold medal? Situations like these are an open goal to corrupt politicians like New Labour. They cannot lose. In the hysterical aftermath of the win, Labour awarded the team their medals and shared in the reflected glow of success. Anyone who dared to draw attention to the pointlessness and cynicism of this exercise would have been immediately vilified by the red tops as unpatriotic or worse. But the most exploited people of all were the players themselves. It would have been impossible to decline the medal in the circumstances. To do so, would have put an incredible downer on any refusnik and he wouldn’t have been seen as snubbing Labour, but his team mates and good ol' Queeny.
This short term and cynical political gain sets long term precedents though doesn’t it?. When the England cricket team win the Ashes, how can they be refused their gongs? So, off they go for a photo with Betty and Labour are seen to be doing the right, patriotic thing. But when you play false, matters are likely to return to bite you. The Australian cricketers are all members of the Commonwealth and are therefore eligible to receive MBEs too. No prizes for guessing why are they not being honoured after they whitewashed England earlier this year. There's no reflected glory for Blair.
The honours system, a potentially good thing - wrecked by corrupt and unprincipled politicians.
A quarter of a century ago, when someone went to university in Britain, you stopped and shook their hand - well done - it was something of an achievement. Now do you feel the same way when someone tells you their son or daughter is going to university? They might as well tell you "my son's going to the shops this afternoon" for all the impression it makes.
Our universities, especially the new ones, are full of kids who wouldn't have made the grade 25 years ago. In pursuit of Blair's goal of 50% of all school leavers going through a university education, 'A' level standards have been dramatically lowered and the academic standards of the new universities are well below that of Oxbridge, Imperial or Bath. And they need to be. Without these establishments who will "take anyone", we could never meet Mr. Blair's goals. But it also means that Mr. Blair's goals become meaningless if a student misses out on three years of work in the real world only to obtain a degree in sociology (which is nigh on impossibleto fail) and face the world of work with his/her head full of crap and a life-outlook strongly influenced by Marxist professors. I can't imagine a worse start in life in a first world country. Just take a look at the amount of soft degrees in sociology, humanities, arts, media and other liberal topics that our kids are taking:http://www.ucas.ac.uk/figures/ads.html#subject .
Does Britain need thousands of graduates fit only for non-jobs in the public sector or MacDonalds? A further development that has been brought about by this grand project has been the introduction of tuition fees. The ballooning of the university sector has been accompanied by a corresponding inflation in costs (of course). Once, in this country, you went to university free of charge if you met the strict academic requirement. It was seen as an investment in the State by the State. Now some kids who are bright enough to go to a good university and complete a physics degree are opting not to as they are daunted by the prospect of their debt. And to top that, some New Labour genius recently proposed that those who the State knows have possession of a degree should not be allowed to draw a pension until the age of 70, to take into account that they are likely to have earned more money for less physical work in their lives. If you're not from these shores and find that last point a little hard to believe, go here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4570151.stm
I can't think of a more glaring example of the law of opposite effect than Mr. Blair's university project. My solution would be the wholesale closure of half of Britain's universities (including Lincoln, in 114th place from 122 in the Guardian's league table) In the remaining universities there would be as many places as there is demand for degrees in the sciences, medicine, engineering and other productive areas. University places for subjects in the arts and social sciences and all other soft degrees would be tightly capped at around one tenth of current figures. All these would be free. Only those studying law would pay for their degrees. All applicants would have to pass muster at an 'A' level standard which has reverted to 1970's Cambridge syllabus standard. We would adopt the American system of making school children re-take grades (or years) if they fail to come up to scratch and haven't put the effort in - there's nothing like the prospect of stigma to concentrate the mind.Not only would we have a better, more respected university system, we would also wipe out - at a stroke - many of the breeding grounds for liberal sentiment and ideals which have created amongst other disasters, "multiculturalism", the dependency culture and perhaps, in future, the abolition of the existence of failure (in favour of "deferred success"). In short, let's attack the Berkeley disease with the same vigour with which we attacked smallpox.
Everyone else - greetings!! Comment moderation is off, so I guess I'll leave it that way, until things start getting crazy.
I am a right-of-centre, self employed, anarcho-capitalist who likes red wine perhaps a bit too much. Oh yes, I'm English and proud of what that used to mean.