For thousand of years humanity has advanced, we have become vastly richer and enjoy ever better life quality. Even major calamities like wars, epidemics and natural disasters are quickly overcome. All this is largely down to the market. A simple but effective mechanism that puts the customer first, providing the goods and services that the customer wants at the price and quality that they need. This mechanic also ensures that the most efficient possible use is made of all resources, from labour and capital through to crops in our field and minerals in the ground.
Then along came the evil of envy. Manifested with punishing the hard working, enterprising, successful people by extorting their wealth to give to the lazy, uneducated and feckless. To achieve this requires that the state takes control of most things withe the supreme arrogance that they know better than the individual. They take control of the individual’s life from cradle to grave and regulate his every action. This envy based system fails every time it is tried. It is called socialism.
Britain is a socialist country, we have a socialist government, some of the biggest sectors of our economy are run badly by the state using socialist principles, the NHS, the education system, the BBC, much of out transport system etc etc. Under Gordon Brown the state grew to be 52% of the economy. So the enterprising, wealth generating 48% was having to work to pay for the larger parasitic sector. This is why we pay such massive, outrageous taxes.
Earlier I wrote seven articles to explain some of the many evils of socialism. Here they are collated in one place:
Read the above and you will understand that the Labour party truly are the nasty party in British politics. They have done immense damage to Great Britain in countless ways by applying their evil and discredited dogma. Their fellow travelers are the trade unions, about whom I wrote this article:
What is in these articles is not an exhaustive study of the evil these people have committed, that would take several books. It is merely a quick overview. But enough to realise how morally wrong everything they do is.
The huge success of Homo Sapiens as a species derives largely from us being social animals. However any society needs rules in order to function and that implies some sort of sanction when such rules are transgressed.
Primitive societies tend to use physical punishments, beatings, removal of body parts and death. We British did this in the middle ages, many Islamic countries still do it today. As we became more civilised such barbarities became unacceptable so the only available options were to deprive people of their liberty for a period of time, or send them to Australia. This deprivation of liberty was a pragmatic response to the problem that back then there was usually nothing else they could be deprived of, this is not true today.
So lets firstly look at why we put people in prison:
Crime and punishment (retributive justice). The government exercises its power over us by creating large numbers of unnecessary rules. These rules then need to be enforced with punishment. So large numbers of people end up in prison just to prove the power that the state has over us. For instance in Britain 10% of all criminal prosecutions are for non payment of the BBC license fee. This is utterly ridiculous.
Revenge. In reality this is the main driver of incarceration in our society, just read the red top newspapers howling for vengeance when they “take offense” at some high profile criminal case.
Re-education. The idea is that people should be sent to prison to be reformed by learning new skills. The reality is that these skills are then often applied to their criminality. Meanwhile prisons are a hotbed of criminal networking and training. A neophyte criminal when jailed will quickly gain the skills and attitudes of a hardened criminal. A further problem today is that our prisons have become hotbeds of radical Islam, so a moderate Moslem will often be converted into a jihadist.
Deterrence. Well this just doesn’t work, otherwise our jails would not be so full.
Preventing recidivism. When my sister lived in Chorley the local police inspector told her that when one particular individual was out of jail the crime figures shot up. He was a prolific criminal. When he was in prison society was safe from his actions. In Britain we are quite soft on such people, in many other countries recidivism is far more strictly punished. Here 47% of adults are reconvicted within one year of release. Reoffending by all recent ex-prisoners in 2007-08 cost the economy between £9.5 and £13 billion.
Removing dangerous people from society, usually criminal psychopaths such as mass murderers and paedophiles.
All this incarceration is incredibly expensive for society. We pay for it in our taxes. There is something like 90,000 people locked up in England and Wales (this is a doubling of the number imprisoned in the mid ’90s). This costs on average about £40,000 per prisoner per year. But the cost to society is far greater because whilst these people are in prison they are no longer tax paying members of the economy.
In Britain we put a very high proportion of people in prison, far more than many other countries. Here is the incarceration rate per 100,000 of the population of a few countries:
England and Wales 148
As you can see we are doing it very wrong. Our high incarceration rate doesn’t make us more law abiding. It’s main effect is to cost the taxpayers huge amounts of money and to blight the lives of tens of thousands of people. It is an utter disgrace.
Now it is time to look at who is in prison:
Innocent people. Our freemason police have a long tradition of fitting up innocent people. High profile cases include the Guilford Four, the Birmingham Six, the Cardiff Five, the M25 three and Stefan Ivan Kiszko. Here is a list of more high profile cases. Obviously there are very many lower profile cases and very many cases that are never discovered.
Stupid people. Around a quarter of prisoners have an IQ of less than 80. Obviously the police are better at catching stupid criminals than they are clever criminals.
The mentally ill. This is what the prison reform trust says: “Many prisoners have mental health problems.72% of male and 70% of female sentenced prisoners suffer from two or more mental health disorders.20% of prisoners have four of the five major mental health disorders.10% of men and 30% of women have had a previous psychiatric admission before they come into prison.Neurotic and personality disorders are particularly prevalent - 40% of male and 63% of female sentenced prisoners have a neurotic disorder, over three times the level in the general population. 62% of male and 57% of female sentenced prisoners have a personality disorder.”
Foreigners. About 13% of the total prison population.
Ex servicemen are about 10% of the prison population.
About 30% of prisoners are from ethnic minorities. Part of this can be attributed to poor adaption to our society, especially the evils of multiculturalism and the wonders of Islam. But black men are 26 times more likely than white men to be stopped and searched by police, black and Asian defendants are more likely to go to jail than white people when convicted of similar crimes and are given longer sentences.
Drugs. Drug dealers, drug importers, drug growers, possession of drugs and crimes committed to pay for drugs. This could account for between a third and a half of the total prison population.
By now you must be realising that our prison system is a national disgrace. Here are some ways to fix it:
Treat mental health properly, as a disease. This is far cheaper and more humane than using the prison system.
Legalise all drugs. The government has no right whatsoever to tell us what we can put in our own bodies. Then treat drug abuse in the medical system, not the prison system. Taxes from drugs would go to the governments and the whole drug infrastructure would be decriminalised.
Use fines for punishment instead of incarceration, people now have vastly more wealth and possessions than when the prison system was created. Putting people like Rolf Harris, Andy Coulson, Chris Huhne etc in prison is plain stupid, they are no danger to society. They should be hit with big fines instead, hundreds of thousands of pounds if necessary. The fine for ABH should be say £5,000, for GBH £10,000, for graffiti or vandalism £5,000 and so on. Then people pay back into society for their crimes instead of costing society in expensive prisons. Bank accounts and possessions should be seized immediately for non payment. The worst sociopathic recidivists should be reduced to penury. In Holland the 1983 Financial Penalties Act (FPA), stresses the use of fines instead of incarceration. We need the same.
Reform our police to be non racist and ban them from being freemasons.
Immediately repatriate foreign criminals. Get them out of the country and don’t let them back. Revoke awarded British citizenships in the worst cases.
Use far more and a wider range of non custodial sentences. Tagging, community service, suspended sentences etc
Reintegrate ex-servicemen into our society far more thoroughly. They have been institutionalised and need proper preparation for the real world.
Use chemical castration for sex criminals. They are often the very worst recidivists.
Restorative justice. Forcing criminals to undo the wrongs they have perpetrated.
Our immediate aim should be to halve our prison population so it doesn’t compare so badly with that of other civilised countries. Then we should strategically work to halve it again. We would have a far better society if we did this. Our target should be to better Liechtenstein.
Now here is an idea that would be an immediate fix. Allow existing prisoners to buy their way out of jail. If they pay the state say £1,000 per month of their remaining sentence. Obviously this wouldn’t apply to the worst recidivists and sociopaths. By doing this the government would get a huge lump of income and their cost of running the prison system would drop sharply. Remember that in 1939 we released all prisoners with less than three months remaining of their sentence and all Borstal boys who had already done six months.
Before we start it is important to point out that correlation does not imply causality. In Australia the annual shark bite and ice cream sales graphs follow very similar curves. Only a fool would say that they are directly related.
Also it is important to know that the freemasons are a secret organisation. We don’t know who their members are and what they do. It might just be a knitting circle for pregnant women. So this whole article is just about pure speculation.
So who is in the freemasons? Allegedly and according to rumour it contains several members of the Royal Family, most Prime Ministers, most policemen, most of MI5, many MPs, most judges, many lawyers, many newspaper owners and many senior civil servants. The organisation recruits people in positions of power. If this were all the case then freemasons would comprise a secret power structure within Britain, who could act without our knowing. These people have supposedly sworn many secret oaths to put freemasonry and brother freemasons before all else, including the law.
Why do people join? Self advancement and power are the most obvious. In some organisations there is allegedly a glass ceiling in promotion that requires freemason membership. Also there is the possibility that freemasonry takes people beyond the law. So criminals can act with impunity. London gangster Kenneth Noye was the master of a lodge and was untouchable till he killed someone in public. Other freemason gangsters were not so silly.
Freemasons also seem to have a penchant for mass murder. The following are all thought to possibly be freemasons: Harold Shipman, Thomas Hamilton (Dunblane), Anders Behring Breivik, Fred West and Peter Sutcliffe (Yorkshire Ripper).
Anders Behring Breivik
So now to the subject of the article. Here is a list of names that have been reported to be freemasons, obviously this could just be scurrilous tittle tattle: Sir Jimmy Savile, Sir Cyril Smith, Max Clifford, Rolf Harris, Paul Gadd (Gary Glitter), Stuart Hall, Owen Oyston and Alan Freeman. You might notice a bit of a trend here.
Which brings us nicely to to alleged freemason paedophilia within Westminster, both historic and current. Obviously, such is the power of freemasons, they could have suppressed the knowledge of this for all time and some would say that they nearly did. It has come to light mainly because of the online investigative news website Exaro News and because of the insistence and diligence of the MP Simon Danczuk. Our mainstream media have been reluctant at best to tell us what they must know. As things stand 141 MPs have asked for an inquiry into matters. Obviously these MPs are not freemasons!
The accusations centre around industrial scale abuse of children who were in local authority care, whose safety was the responsibility of government. The locations include: Haut de la Garenne in Jersey, Kincora boys home in Northern Ireland, Bryn Estyn in North Wales, Cambridge House in Rochdale, Elm Guest House in London and many more across Britain. In many cases there have been investigations and every single time it looks like those investigations could have been sabotaged. Who has the power to do that?
Bryn Estyn is interesting because a victim and a former policemen in this interview confirmed that it was freemasons:
Elm Guest House is interesting in that the landlady Carol Kasir drew up a list of the alleged attendees to alleged paedophile parties there, this list comprises mainly of obvious freemasons (if our suppositions about freemasonry are true). You can Google this list to see it for yourself. It is a freemason tactic to pour derision and scorn on critics, you can see them do it on social media. So it is no surprise that Kasir’s list has been the subject of such treatment.
So now for some pure speculation, why do freemasons like paedophilia, if of course they do?
Freemasonry attracts people who like power. Paedophilia is a form of power.
Paedophilia forms part of the structure of freemasonry. Maybe only in the higher degrees.
Paedophilia is a shared secret adding to all the other masonic secrets, strengthening their bond.
Paedophiles join the freemasons to get protection from the police and from the law.
The hocus pocus and charades that make up freemasonry engender an attitude that encourages paedophilia.
Now into the realm of utter pure rumour and speculation and that is the deaths surrounding this paedophilia. Carol Kasir died under extremely suspicious circumstances once she started telling the wider world about Elm Guest House. Jill Dando was believed to be investigating freemason paedophilia when she was shot. MP Geoffrey Dickens, who compiled a dossier of this abuse had his homes ransacked and his name was found on a hit man’s list. Then there are the child victims who committed suicide as a result of their mental trauma and those who just disappeared. Two (now dead) alleged freemason paedophiles supposedly killed their victims during their sex acts, either for ritual reasons or for enjoyment.
Obviously we need an investigation into all this, both the dreadful acts allegedly inflicted on children and the power of freemasonry within our society. It is self evidently very wrong that policemen are allowed to be freemasons, the conflict of interest is too great and can only damage law and justice in Britain. All public servants who are freemasons should have to state the fact on a register available freely to the public. And this includes politicians, local, national and EU.
If you want to investigate further the Google is your best friend. Searches such as “Max Clifford freemason” or “Bryn Estyn Freemason” will reveal to you vastly more than the brief synopsis here. Many (freemasons) will say that this is all conspiracy theory. But it is very funny that these conspiracy theories are often turning out to be the truth.
Once again I would like to point out that this article is all unproven supposition and may or may not have any relation to reality.
We all all immigrants, or descendants of immigrants. Britain was under ice and snow till about 10,000 years ago, so all our “native” heritage has been created since then.
The biggest immigration impact was the Romans who ran us for 400 years and brought very many people here from all over their empire. This was the most significant cultural impact in British history. Then in 1066 very large numbers of Normans came here and were given the whole country and everything in it. The pre-existing population became serfs, little more than slaves. The Normans brought their culture and language and imposed it on us, in a diluted form.
In more recent times we saw big immigration from Huguenots in the late 1600s, in the mid 1800s the potato famines brought huge numbers of Irish here, then because of Nazi oppression lots of Jews and Poles arrived before WW2.
These are just a few of the mass influxes that Britain has experienced over the centuries. They have made Great Britain, our culture, our language, our national identity. We are a nation of immigrants. Dig back in anyone’s family history and there will be immigrants.
So why the current ferment over the issue of immigration? Partly this is due the the sheer number of people who have arrived, due to government policy and the ease of modern travel. Partly down to sensationalising by the newspapers aimed at less educated people and by unprincipled opportunist politicians, such as UKIP. Partly down to government policy that has not sought to integrate new arrivals. Partly down to our excessively generous system of benefits and social care. And partly due to the very nature of some groups of immigrants who seek to impose their way of life on us.
So lets look at who most of these immigrants are (with huge and inevitable generalisations):
Black Afro Caribbeans. Although small numbers had lived here since the days of the slave trade there was a deliberate government policy to bring very large numbers here to meet perceived labour shortages. It will be no surprise that this was done by a Labour government and the MV Empire Windrush, the first ship, arrived here in 1948. These immigrants are very Anglicised, coming from our former colonies, they speak English, are Church of England and play cricket. They have integrated well into British society with very high levels of inter-marriage and they have made great contributions to British life. We are very happy to have them here. The main problems are cultural, such as drug usage, gangsterism and paternal irresponsibility.
Indian Hindus and Sikhs. Once again very Anglicised. But not Church of England, not with English as their first language and not very good at inter-marrying with British natives. A big influx came with the Ugandan Asians expelled by Idi Amin in 1972. They then acted as a bridgehead for very many friends and family to come here. These tend to be well educated people who are businessmen. They are proud to be British and they want their children to be doctors and lawyers. They do not try and impose their values on us. They have contributed enormously to British life.
EU citizens. The principles of the EU are the free movement of goods, capital and labour. Anyone who understands even basic economics will understand the immense benefits of this to everyone. The people who come here have a vast common European culture but usually don’t have English as their first language, though they work very hard at this and usually quickly become fluent. They come here to work and to build a life. They are well educated and Britain wins enormously by not having to pay for that education. They fit in well, are happy to inter marry and mostly try to become British, unless they don’t intend to stay here long.
Moslems. These have arrived in immense numbers under the policies of the Blair and Brown governments. They tend to be poorly educated and come from places like Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, North Africa and the Middle East. They mostly do not speak English. They mostly don’t want to integrate, but want to lead their primitive lifestyles here, but financed by the British benefits system. More than this they want to impose their lifestyle and values on the rest of us (Islamism). They don’t want to become British. So we have 170,000 girls who have suffered from female genital mutilation (FGM), we have forced marriage as the norm, we have widespread election rigging, we have honour crimes, we have suppression of women by burqa and hijab, we have sex grooming gangs and we have bombs in London. They tend not to integrate and so form ghettoes in places like Tower Hamlets, Newham, Blackburn, Bradford, Luton, Redbridge and Slough. They have quickly risen to 5% of the population and, with very high birthrates and continued immigration, will soon reach 10%, then more. Most of our one million illegal immigrants are Moslem, so don’t show in these percentages.
The next question is why do we need these immigrants?
To supply labour in industrial concentration of skills. The City of London is the world’s financial centre, it attracts the best and brightest from all over the world to work in it. We are very lucky to have them. Leamington Spa has the biggest concentration of video game companies in the world, over 50 of them in a town population of 50,000. This attracts game developers from all over the world.
To address skills shortages. For instance Jaguar Land Rover in the British Midlands is expanding very rapidly, as are its many suppliers. In many skills they have run out of people to employ so have no option but to recruit from abroad.
Demographics. Britain has a disproportionately ageing population as a result of the post war baby boom. These people need to be looked after as they get older, taxes need to be paid to finance their pensions. And replacements need to be found to do their jobs when they retire.
Multiculturalism, a society “at ease with the rich tapestry of human life and the desire amongst people to express their own identity in the manner they see fit” is a ridiculous and unattainable socialist ideal. Its implementation costs an immense fortune and the end result is ghettoes. What we really need is integration.
Political correctness. Another socialist idea. This means that if we discuss immigration we are racist. It means that all institutions and services have to practice positive discrimination. That we have to supply translators for every language under the sun and countless other such wastes of money.
Social cohesion. Often it is not the change but the rate of change. So a town or a city district becomes no longer British. It becomes uncomfortable for a native Britain to live there. All sense of community is fragmented.
European disparities. When a new country joins the EU we have the option of transition agreements which restrict the flow of labour. The UK had these in place for Bulgaria and Romania, but not for Poland. People in poor countries are incentivised to move to rich countries. But this effect is temporary as the once poor country catches up, as we have seen in Spain, Poland etc. Another example of an EU disparity is the French socialists punitively taxing the rich, so many have moved here.
Nasty, opportunist politicians who prey on people’s fears. UKIP implied that 29 million Romanians and Bulgarians would be coming to Britain. A huge lie that was believed by the hard of thinking. Such politicians are utterly despicable. They use exactly the same tactics of blame that have been used against immigrant minorities throughout history, often with tragic results. Anyone who votes for them should be ashamed.
Islam. This is not a religion, it is a way of life. And it is a way of life that is utterly incompatible with the liberal British way of life. So British Moslems need to adapt and make compromises in order to live here. Most of them do to a lesser or greater extent. But we need to massively increase the rate and the level of integration. Forced marriage has now been made illegal, this must be enforced, as must FGM law. Religion must be totally banned from all schools. There is no place whatsoever for Sharia law. Women covering their face in public must be made illegal, as it is in France. Muslims must not be allowed to get away with behaviour that other Brits aren’t allowed.
Benefits and NHS tourism. People come from all over the world for free hospital treatment here, they can take on the identity of a friend or relative who lives here then present at A&E, or they can just throw themselves at the system and claim poverty. Either way this has become a big proportion of what we are paying the NHS to do. Likewise our over generous and ridiculous benefits system. If over a million natives choose it as a lifestyle choice it is hardly surprising that foreigners come here to also use it. Both these forms of tourism can be reduced very easily and eradicated with some effort. It just takes political will. The current government has already made some progress. It has to be said , though, that the vast majority of EU migrants come here to work. Only a very small percentage are feckless.
So, as you can see immigration defines Britishness, it enriches our society and nation in countless ways. Sometime it brings problems, but these are not insurmountable. If we make it so that people can only come here to work then the natural market of supply and demand will control numbers to be exactly what the nation needs. Immigration is also a two way street, very large numbers of Brits have chosen to live in countries all over the world. So it would be hypocritical to act against immigration without bringing all these people back.
ISIS have recently attracted attention by invading Iraq. The Western media and many online commentators have been describing them as al Qaeda, or as Syrian opposition fighters. They are neither of these things. So what are they?
Firstly to understand where we are we have to look how we got here, which means going back a long way. Islam was invented by Muhammad, who died in the year 632. As with Christianity he stole much from Judaism, around this he concocted rules for a whole way of life suited to desert nomads. His successor leaders were called Caliphs and their territory a Caliphate till this title was taken over by the Ottoman sultans in about 1453 as part of their success in conquering most Muslim lands.
Long before this, about the years 670 to 680 Islam split into two, most accepted the legitimacy of the three Caliphs prior to Ali, and are called Sunnis. A smaller number believed that only Ali and some of his descendants could be Caliphs, these are the Shia. These two factions have been fighting at every opportunity ever since, it was largely the Ottoman empire which put a lid on this for a few hundred years. Each faction regards the other as apostate and therefore worse than a Christian or a Jew. The Ottomans didn’t trust Shias so tended to choose Sunnis to administer their territories. It is the factional disputes that make democracy almost impossible in Muslim countries, a fairly nasty strong man is needed to bang heads together.
80 to 90% of Muslims are Sunni. So to make life easier it is best to look at who some of the Shias are:
Bahrain, a largely Shia country with a small ruling elite who are Sunni. Hence the problems.
Iran, a huge concentration of Shia.
Iraq, about 80% Shia, but tradition of the Ottoman’s favouring of Sunni administrators continued up to Saddam Hussein. It only gained Shia leadership in the elections after Blair and Bush’s war.
Syria, the reverse of Bahrain, this is a largely Sunni country run by an Alawite (an offshoot of Shia) ruling elite.
Next in the jigsaw we have to look at the The Sykes-Picot Agreement which divided up the Ottoman empire, when it collapsed at the end of WW1, by drawing lines on a map to create countries, each of which came under the control of a colonial power. Iraq was created (roughly) of three Ottoman administrative districts, Vilayet of Mosul in the north, where there was a large Kurdish population, Vilayet of Baghdad in the middle, which is where the Sunni population lived and Vilayet of Basra in the south which is concentrated Shia. After GW2 is would have been sensible to divide the country back up. On the ground the Kurds in the north were able to establish semi-autonomy.
So now we have some historical context lets look at more recent events. On September 11th 2001 the largely Saudi, Sunni terrorist group called al-Qaeda attacked the USA using hijacked aircraft as suicide weapons. In response GW Bush declared a “war” on terrorism and the axis of evil, which included Iran and Iraq. This was utterly unbelievable as both these countries had done a lot to suppress al-Qaeda. Bush and Blair went after the wrong people when they invaded Iraq. They also destabilised the whole region which led to civil wars in many countries and the events we see today with ISIS.
There is a branch of Sunni called Salafism (all religions are subject to infinite schism) who believe that the only true Islam is an exact and literal enforcement of everything that Muhammad said. They want everyone on planet earth to be compelled to return to the Dark Ages. They are much, much stricter than the Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia that we think of as strict. Mostly they are peaceful, but some believe in direct action.
ISIS/ISIL, Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, Islamic State in Iraq and Syria or Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham, is a Salafist organisation which wants to re-create the Caliphate. They were founded and grew out of GW2 and were eventually put down by the Americans and the Shia government of Iraq. They then moved to Syria, where the chaos of the ongoing civil war gave them a home.
The strong Alwaite rulers of Syria have a ruthless history of suppressing discontent, however the “Arab Spring” that evolved from events in Iraq led to many local uprisings of the Sunni majority. These local militias are often known under the collective banner of Free Syrian Army, but being mainly local militias they are and were reluctant to conduct a broader war, so they received little support from outside. Eventually a fairly fundamentalist Sunni opposition group formed who did take on Assad more, called al Nusra. They received quite a lot of help from Sunni Arab nations.
Into this mix just over a year ago came ISIS, their current leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has a PhD, three previous leaders were killed in their struggle. Initially they recruited a lot of battle hardened fighters from North Africa and Westerners, including about 500 British men. Their aim is to gain territory for the Caliphate, so they fight EVERYONE else. They have received huge amounts of money from Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait who see them as conducting a proxy war against the hated Shia. With this money they can pay their fighters which led many from the FSA and al Nusra to defected to them. In all their conquered territory they apply incredible strict Sharia law, banning cigarettes and alcohol, keeping women indoors, banning music. And they apply this law with maximum brutality, removing limbs and heads for minor transgressions. Captured enemies have their heads hacked off with kitchen knives, or if there isn’t time they are just shot.
ISIS has received quite a lot of help from Assad in Syria, firstly because they attack all his opposition, secondly to polarised the West’s choice into either Assad or ISIS. When the West threatened to act against Assad and then did nothing it gave ISIS an immense boost, many in the moderate opposition realised that theirs was a lost cause, so they either gave up or joined ISIS. ISIS has never received any help of any kind from the West. They are seen as the problem, not the solution.
ISIS has invaded Iraq to gain territory for their Caliphate. They want to take the historic Vilayet of Baghdad back. In doing so they have captured huge amounts of munitions and money and their ranks have been swelled by Iraqi Sunnis. ISIS is now, effectively, a country that straddles the Sykes-Picot nations of Syria and Iraq. Their territorial aims encompass Jordan, Israel, Lebanon and Turkey.
So who is going to stop ISIS?
Iraq. Mostly the Iraqi soldiers so far have run or surrendered only to be shot. The Shia militias have been invited to join the war which will make things worse with their inevitable sectarian atrocities. Further south the population is just about 100% Shia so ISIS can only get so far.
Iran. Iraq and Syria have been battlegrounds for a proxy war between Shia and Sunni. Now the gloves are off and Iran cannot let ISIS succeed. Expect them to suddenly become everyone’s best friend.
Kurds. These people have a huge historic grudge and want their state back. They already have north Syria and some of north Iraq. But they also want a chunk of Turkey, which doesn’t please the Turks. They have fought ISIS in Syria and won.
USA. America has plenty of bases in the region and almost certainly has intelligence gathering drones following events. They missed a huge opportunity last Thursday to carpet bomb the ISIS columns. Obama is an incredibly weak president but surely even he must do something.
Israel. The Israelis haven’t overtly started smiting ISIS yet. But unless someone else does they will eventually have no option. Their problem is that ISIS is growing exponentially so the longer they leave it the greater the threat.
Turkey. The regional superpower. In much the same position as Israel.
Jordan. They must be wondering when it is going to be their turn and who will help them. It really does look like they are next.
Syria. Assad is laughing his head off. Soon the West will be his allies in the war against ISIS.
As you can see we are headed for interesting times, this cannot end well. Large numbers of young men are being radicalised into extremist violent Salafism and are being taught how to fight with extreme brutality. Quite a lot of these are Westerners who will eventually bring this baggage home with them. Whole swathes of the Middle East will become battle grounds and very many innocent people will die. Also the long enmity between Shia and Sunni will be inflamed which will lead to further ongoing conflicts.
The catalyst for all that has gone wrong are Bush and Blair and the utter stupidity of GW2. Whatever their aims were they obviously never thought through the potential downsides. They will go down in history with utter ignominy.
Firstly the executive summary: Trade unions have destroyed jobs, companies, whole industries. Their economic effect on Britain has been profound and disastrous. We are all far worse off because 0f them.
Now let’s look at the two ways of organising our economy.
Capitalism. Under this system an organisation can only survive in the market by looking after the customer. By delivering goods or services of the right quality at the right time at the right price. Otherwise they go bust.
Socialism. Under this system the state directs what goods and services will be delivered, what their quality will be and also the price. This cannot possibly exist in a market because competition would kill it, so monopolies are essential for it to function. Such organisations exist for the benefit of the state, not the customers. They cannot go bust because they can fix prices and rely on the state for subsidies of taxpayers money.
Trade unions really came to power during the disastrous Attlee government post WW2. They formed a part of what was called the Post War Consensus which imprinted socialism throughout all of Britain’s institutions. Despite Margaret Thatcher’s best efforts much of this is still in place today.
The function of unions was supposed to be looking after workers’ interests. To protect them from evil bosses. The reality was that unions used their power for political purposes. Many activists were blatant Marxists and communists. They wanted even more socialism and they used their members as pawns in their efforts to achieve this.
The Conservative governments of Churchill, Eden, Macmillan and Douglas Home were fairly socialist. They maintained the Post War Consensus and the damaging trade union power. Then came Labour and Harold Wilson and things became a lot worse. Ted Heath tried to fix things in one go with his Industrial Relations Act but this led to the three day week and the country wouldn’t back him, this brought back Wilson, then Callaghan and the Winter of Discontent, when the unions tried to bring down a democratically elected Labour government. Then, of course, Margaret Thatcher came to power and rescued Great Britain from most trade union evil.
The Winter of Discontent was at a time when governments tried to dictate what people were paid, the prices of goods in the shops, currency exchange rates and much more. The union leaders of the big nationalised industries (and some private industries) fought against this (even though it was pure socialism) in an effort to bring about their Communist utopia. Just about every public service went on strike, dead bodies were not buried, hospitals were closed to patients, mountains of garbage piled up in the streets, 29,474,000 working days were lost directly and many more indirectly. Something had to be done.
So let’s look at how unions exert their power:
Withdrawing labour, striking. On a production line with thousands of people it only takes a handful to walk out and the whole line stops. In 1978 and 1979 Derek Robinson, a trade union activist at British Leyland, organised 523 walk-outs at Longbridge, costing about £200m in lost production. Hardly surprisingly the factory is no longer there and many thousands lost their jobs. The same applied throughout the car industry, it was destroyed. Only to be reborn when Margaret Thatcher brought Honda, Nissan and Toyota here in brand new factories with brand new workforces and minimum trade union power. Now our car industry is stronger than ever thanks to Margaret Thatcher and despite the historic trade unions malevolence.
Picketing. Now largely illegal. This involved gangs of union thugs closing down a business by stopping goods and people getting in and out of the premises. Often the thugs didn’t even work for that business. During the Grunwick dispute 550 pickets were arrested as they used violence to try and close a film processing lab. At the Wapping print works 400+ police officers and members of the public were injured by violent union thugs, 1,000+ of whom were arrested.
Demarcation. This meant that each employee was only allowed to do certain tasks. If they tried to do anything else there would quickly be industrial action. When my brother did his electrician’s apprenticeship one of his colleagues had worked at Cammell Laird shipyards before WW2. He said that pre war if he wanted to take a cable through a bulkhead he just did it in a few minutes. Post WW2 the trade unions said that he couldn’t do this, that several trades had to be involved to maintain demarcation. What took minutes now took half a day, something that wasn’t happening in Japan and Korea. Our ship building industry was trashed and hundreds of thousand of men lost their jobs.
Manning levels. The unions said that it took so many people to do something and that no improvement in productivity was allowed. We had a coal industry that was largely digging coal at a cost that was much greater than world prices. Management bought the latest machinery to fix this and then the unions took industrial action till manning levels were maintained despite the new machinery, negating any productivity benefit. Eventually the governments (mainly Labour) could not sustain the losses and pits were closed. Whole communities were destroyed by the trade unions. The steel industry was forced to buy this expensive coal but had a manning problem of its own with three or more people employed for each real job. So the steel they sold to the car industry was either incredibly expensive or subsidised by the taxpayer. The steel industry was eventually rescued by privatisation, but by then it was so incredibly inefficient and uncompetitive that great swathes of it had to be closed. Once again huge numbers of jobs were destroyed by the unions.
Working to rule and go slows. The unions had a book of rules that governed how fast (in other words very slow) each task could be done. They could thus force their will on the management by applying this and bringing production to a crawl. As with all these union actions this was paid for either by the taxpayer or the customer. In other words us.
It is easy now to see how socialism and the trade unions took the Great out of Britain and trashed the economy costing millions of jobs to satisfy their idiotic dogma. Other countries who started in a far worse condition, such as Japan and Germany, were easily able to overtake us with their economies built on capitalism, competition and markets.
So where are we today? Margaret Thatcher destroyed trade union power gradually, not in one go. It took eight pieces of legislation to get things under control. As this happened Great Britain blossomed, at long last our economy could start to recover from over thirty years of trade union destruction.
In private enterprise, capitalist companies there is no room for old style trade unions. Companies must be competitive to survive in the market by looking after the customer. Labour and capital must be used in the most effective manner possible. We all win with far better goods and services at far lower prices.
In our public monopolies we still have a disaster with workers being grossly overpaid and excessive manning levels being the norm. Residents of London know that regular Underground strikes are usual as the unions seek to stop managers from managing. And rail commuters know that season tickets are ridiculously expensive to pay for the incredible inefficiencies of a still largely nationalised train service.
It is a well proven fact that everything that government does it does badly, so the less government the better. There are still huge swathes of the economy (just under half) that are public sector and therefore fairly useless, often largely because 0f trade unions. The answer is for government to do as little as possible and for the market and capitalism to supply all our goods and services.
The transition from public to private ownership is painful as all the excessive workers need to be shaken out, in order that the business can be competitive and look after its customers properly. Margaret Thatcher’s privatisations led to a spike in unemployment, but this was a good thing as Great Britain started to become competitive again.
So what about protecting workers from evil bosses? Firstly this has been achieved largely by Conservative governments. From Robert Peel’s Factory Act of 1844 to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act of 2013. It is in the best interests of everyone that a worker has fair and equitable terms and conditions.
The second measure is to remove employment protection, so bosses can get rid of any worker any time they want. This benefits everyone as it creates a true market in labour so people end up doing the job they are best suited to. Employers become far more willing to employ people in the first place who they will then not be stuck with. Employers have to give the remuneration and working conditions that the market dictates, competing for workers. The individual worker is empowered. And it works, many countries have this, including socialist ones like Denmark. It also makes trade unions largely irrelevant.
Just recently the BBC have been giving UKIP massive coverage, you would think that it is the second coming. Nigel Farage seems to be on every programme possible and recent fairly average election results were described repeatedly as an “earthquake” by the BBCs multitudinous news and current affairs pundits. One can only assume that the BBC see UKIP as a tool to split the Conservative vote and consequently get Ed Miliband in p0wer in the next General Election.
There have been many political parties that have burst onto the scene since the war, only to fade away, sometimes completely. The Social Democratic Party, the Greens, the Referendum Party and many more. Ultimately they all fail, partly because of first past the post voting (FPTP), partly because the voters are very happy with the existing parties and partly because of the huge difficulties in putting a national political organisation together.
UKIP are effectively a single issue party. They want to pull us out of the EU with no referendum. From all the fuss you would think that this was a popular issue, but it isn’t, all the polls show that the majority of British voters want to stay in the EU. UKIP founder, Alan Sked, says the party is: “anti-immigrant, anti-intellectual and racist”.
Now to the local council elections of 2014. The BBC’s “earthquake”. UKIP won 17% of the vote, which is a 5% DOWNWARDS swing. They ended up controlling zero councils. The Conservatives had a 4% UPWARDS swing, utterly amazing in mid term. Yet the BBC were reporting the opposite.
One big problem for UKIP is that their councillors are undisciplined, so very often get kicked out of the party. Or they see the light and leave UKIP. From their councillors who won seats in 2013 they have already lost around 10%. The mainstream media seem loath to report this.
Next we come to the 2014 EU elections. These were huge for UKIP because they are not FPTP and because it represents their single issue, their reason for existing. So you would expect 100% of UKIP voters to turn out. Whilst the other parties won’t bother because the EU parliament is a powerless waste of time and money. So, hardly surprisingly, UKIP got 27.5% of the vote. But the turnout was just 34%. So UKIP got 9% of the available vote. Not very good. This gives them 24 European Parliament seats out of well over 700. So it gives them no effective power base.
But once again they have a huge problem. Their MEP intake of 2009 was a disaster area. UKIP managed to “lose” 6 out of the 13 who were elected, say 40%. Godfrey Bloom and Nikki Sinclaire being perhaps the most notorious. This makes them hardly credible as a political party.
So let’s look at who is voting for this shambles:
Grumpy old white men and sometimes their wives. These are mostly ex Conservatives, they tend to be bigoted and want to turn the clock back to 1950. These are the traditional core UKIP vote so policies were geared towards them. Right wing and bigoted. Unfortunately there are a couple of problems with this voting demographic, firstly it isn’t big enough to break through and secondly they are dying out. So UKIP need to select a new target audience.
“Working class” socialists. These people have been disenfranchised by Labour’s current leadership. The Labour front bench are mostly rich, educated people who have never had a proper job and who lead upper middle class lifestyles. The working class voters tend to be poorly educated so they cannot see through the UKIP lies such as the 26 million Romanians and Bulgarians coming here, taking all our jobs and many other ridiculous scare stories. In the recent local elections it was working class constituencies that had the biggest swing to UKIP. The best educated constituencies rejected UKIP. So UKIP see their main chance of success to go after the working class. The swing seats they are targeting next year are all Labour. Listen to UKIP with your brain engaged and you hear a socialist party.
Outright racists and bigots. BNP got 943,000 votes for EU in 2009, in 2015 they got 179,000. So they have lost hundreds of thousand of voters, and lets face it the main party these will be attracted to is UKIP. Likewise for many ex National Front supporters.
Libdems. These guys have always been the outsiders, the party of protest. Principled people away from the mainstream. But now their leaders have sold out and become mainstream, ditching their policies, promises and principles on the way. Seduced by a whiff of power. And this is not what their voters wanted, so the party has haemorrhaged support on an epic scale and are in real danger of imploding. Meanwhile their voters have a new protest party in UKIP.
General malcontents, protesters, activists and young people looking for a cause. There are quite a lot of these and they spout UKIP dogma and lies on the social media as if it is the holy grail. They engage no critical faculties and mostly seem incapable of doing so. UKIP is like a religion to them and the UKIP youth has grown very rapidly on their fanaticism.
Most people reading this will see the huge flaw in this voter base. Keeping them all happy. Farage has a number of tactics for this:
Don’t have policies. Farage has already disowned the UKIP’s 2010 manifesto in an attempt to distance himself from policies that may offend potential groups of voters, even though he signed it. This is cynical politics at its worst. The UKIP EU 2015 manifesto contained nothing. Surely nobody could have voted UKIP on the basis of it.
Only announce broad populist policies. So far (since Farage ditched all their existing policies) this means exiting EU with no referendum, tax cuts for the poor, tax cuts for the rich and no HS2.
Have different policies for different constituencies. Even if they are completely opposite. So recently UKIP was strongly supporting the benefits system in a working class constituency. In Newark the Conservative candidate is a lot more successful than the UKIP candidate so UKIP have gone for class warfare and the politics of envy. Old school hard left Labour tactics.
Just attack the other parties. Farage does a huge amount of this calling them Westminster establishment, amongst other things. Firstly Westminster is exactly what he is trying to be and secondly he is establishment through and through.
So now lets look at why UKIP are in big trouble:
They occupy the moral low ground. Their councillors, MEPs and candidates have made very many racist, homophobic, sexist and bigoted statements. This is the heart of the party and decent people will not vote for it, no matter how much Farage tries to hide the reality.
UKIP contain many natural enemies who really dislike each other. This will cause massive dissatisfaction and desertion.
The policy con trick cannot last. Eventually even MSM journalists must eventually realise what is going on.
General elections are about voting for a leader and for economic management. Cameron is a brilliant leader and is incredibly popular, even amongst Labour voters. Osborne is an economic genius who has dragged Great Britain out of the huge hole dug by Gordon Brown. It would be very foolish indeed not to vote for them.
Most British people are pro EU. It is not the main issue in British politics. There are far more important things on people’s minds.
The best possible EU policy for Britain is to renegotiate to make it less powerful and more of a free trade area, then to have a referendum on this. Exactly what only Cameron can and will do.
Lack of a power base. UKIP MEPs are on a gravy train but have no power. UKIP have zero MPs and control zero councils. Even the Greens have far more real power.
For EU sceptics the realisation that the most powerful political force on their side is the 100+ EU sceptic Conservative MPs. Formidable compared to UKIPs zero MPs.
So you can see that UKIP is a very fragile house of cards based on lies, opportunism, deceit, bluster, bigotry, racism and cynicism. It is deeply un British and most people who have voted for it will end up being ashamed of themselves.
Margaret Thatcher was immensely popular, winning three consecutive General Elections with substantial majorities, despite making lots of hard decisions which upset entrenched vested interests. She made Britain a better place for everyone. A country we could all be proud of.
These days she sometimes does not get the acclaim that she richly deserves. This is because the left are poor losers so the largely socialist school teachers and the leftie BBC have been running a propaganda war against her. Shame on them.
Let us look at just three of her achievements:
Margaret Thatcher saved Great Britain
When she came to power in 1979 our country was in very dire straits. The so called “Post War Consensus” had made Britain into a socialist state with a huge public sector and many highly inefficient nationalised industries. This alone dragged the country down, we had only a small private sector to generate the wealth to pay for everything. But things were made worse by over powerful trade unions whose leaders were not really interested in their members, they were too busy trying to create a communist command economy, with them in charge. So they cause the maximum possible economic disruption. This cost millions of jobs, broke thousands of companies and destroyed entire industries. No government had been able to stand up to them.
Margaret Thatcher came to power immediately after the winter of discontent, an incredible 29,474,000 working days were lost in 1979. Hospitals were picketed to prevent patients getting in, dead bodies were unburied. The economy was trashed. Britain was in a downwards spiral to oblivion.
Margaret Thatcher and her ministers had the intellectual ideas and the strength of purpose to fix this. It took a long time and many battles. The work still isn’t finished. But Britain was transformed into a successful nation again.
Margaret Thatcher improved the lives of billions of people
Margaret Thatcher liked ideas and her initial source for many was Sir Keith Joseph, a powerful intellectual. In addition she studied the Chicago School of economics, especially Milton Friedman and also the Austrian School, especially Friedrich Hayek. From these and other influences she distilled her own economic and political theory which we call Thatcherism and which is how most of the world works today. Billions of people are benefiting hugely. It is only really North Korea and Cuba which are not Thatcherite with Venezuela straying a lot from the true path. Just look how badly these three countries are doing without her guidance.
Wealth is generated by capitalism in markets, this is what pays for everything, including all the other -isms. Thatcher sought to maximise this wealth creation by setting business free. Less state, less tax, fewer barriers to trade, removal of vested interests and cronyism, availability of capital, efficient markets, competition and access to customers.
When Brown and Blair came to power they forgot all this and stagnated the country for 13 years, increasing the state to 52% of GDP, increasing taxation and putting up many barriers to enterprise, ending with an immense recession. The Conservatives are starting to fix Britain again, it is an immense job. And they are doing it by bringing back what are now the well proven tenets of Thatcherism.
Margaret Thatcher ended the Cold War
People today forget what it was like, knowing that thermonuclear warheads could rain down on us at any minute. And for all the hundreds of millions of people in the huge Soviet empire there was a quality of life that was only a little above subsistence, except for the chosen few. Thatcher determined to bring this to an end. Her weapons were propagating knowledge whilst exerting huge economic and military pressure. She knew that we could not do this alone so she roped in the USA, and most notably Ronald Regan. Together they applied so much pressure that cracks appeared in the edifice. They kept the pressure on and soon the whole façade came tumbling down. More than a score of countries were liberated. The world became a far better place. And we could sleep in our beds at night.
If Margaret Thatcher were running things today she would have no trouble in dealing with the gangster Putin. He would not have the mental strength to stand up to her.
Time after time Nigel Farage is saying that David Cameron reneged on his promise to have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. UKIP even made the above video. This is a complete, utter and total lie.
So firstly why is Farage basing so much of his electioneering on repeating this blatant lie? The simple fact is that UKIP is a single issue party, it is in their name. They want to take Great Britain out of the EU. But the political reality is that anyone who wants this would be far better off voting Conservative, because David Cameron has promised an EU in/out referendum after the 2015 General Election. This makes UKIP desperate because they are now irrelevant. Hence the lies. Farage wants to cast doubt on David Cameron’s integrity. But in doing so Farage proves to the world that it is he who lacks integrity.
What many people seem to forget is that by far the most powerful anti EU force in British politics is the Conservative party. There are about 100 Conservative MPs who are EU sceptic (remember UKIP has zero MPs). These EU sceptic MPs vary in their views, but they make a formidable force and have caused problems for Conservative leaders for decades. So David Cameron, to keep these MPs supporting him, has promised to renegotiate our EU membership and then to have an in/out referendum. We know that we can believe this because if Cameron doesn’t deliver this he will be toast. His own MPs would destroy him.
Now lets look at the truth about David Cameron’s promise over the Lisbon treaty. Here is the timeline.
Lisbon treaty signed 13 December 2007. Gordon Brown promised British voters a referendum on this, but reneged on his promise.
June 2009, David Cameron promises a referendum if the Conservatives form a government at the next election, but only if the treaty has not been ratified. Because once the treaty was ratified there would be no point in having a referendum. Here is the BBC story that proves this.
December 2009 Lisbon ratified. Any referendum now utterly irrelevant. This happened far faster than expected. There were 27 EU countries then and because the treaty was constitutional it was thought that many would have time consuming referendums. In the end only Ireland did. All the other countries just rubber stamped it in their parliaments.
May 2010 Cameron wins General Election. Far too late to have a referendum.
So now you can see that Farage is a complete despicable liar. That Cameron is to be trusted and that the Conservatives are the only political party who trust you, the voter, when it comes to the EU. It is an absolute fact that the only route to an EU in/out referendum is to vote Conservative.
Meanwhile we now know that Farage is a bare faced liar and cannot be trusted. If he lies repeatedly about this how much more is he lying about? Remember when he told us that millions of Romanians and Bulgarians would come here? Where are they? The number actually went down!
Remove 8 zeros from the US national figures and show it as a household budget.
• Annual family income: $21,700
• Money the family spent: $38,200
• New debt on the credit card: $16,500
• Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
• Total budget cuts: $385
Here is the UK equivalent for 2011 (taking off 7 zeros)
Family income: £54,800 (including £25,300 of income tax and NI)
Family spending: £64,800
Credit card balance at start of year: £90,900
Interest on the balance: £4,300
Total amount added to the credit card: £14,300
Total planned budget cuts: £5,000
It all started on September 11 2001 when in audacious simultaneous raids the al Qaeda fundamentalist Islamic terrorist group killed nearly three thousand innocent people. Against this you would not think that there could be a disproportionate response, but Bush and Blair managed it with the invasion and occupation of two countries with the loss of over half a million innocent lives there. But the attitude of the Western media and politicians seems to be that the life of a farmer in Afghanistan is somehow less valuable than the life of a financial sector worker in New York. So the 200 to 1 innocent death ratio doesn’t get reported.
We are supposed, as part of our national mantra, to support our armed forces no matter what they do. They lay down their lives to serve us. This jingoism is conveniently used to hide the reality of our involvement in these two countries. All the rhetoric is about our brave boys and so any questioning of the politics is seen as being treasonable. Which is a pity in a democracy where politicians and their decisions should be held up to scrutiny. Every Prime Minister’s Question Time the various political leaders pay their respects to the latest of our brave military to give their lives in the service of the Queen. When what they should be doing is bringing them home so they don’t get killed.
So why are we in Afghanistan? The government we helped to remove, the Taliban, were in power as a direct result of the actions of our friends, the Americans, meddling in Afghani affairs, because it had a Soviet sponsored government. The Americans (and Saudis) spent $40 billion training and arming the Islamic groups there. So today we are reaping what we have sown. Americans (and Brits) are being killed by people we have armed and trained. Do taxpayers realise that our hard earned money is spent like this?
We are in Afghanistan, ostensibly, to get rid of al Qaeda. There are two problems to this supposition. Firstly why invade and occupy a whole country to get to a few hundred people? Surely there had to be a cheaper and better way? And secondly the al Qaeda just hopped over the border to Pakistan, where they were welcomed. The fact is that India and Pakistan both see Afghanistan as a convenient battleground for a proxy war between these two regional nuclear super powers. And al Qaeda are on the Pakistani side. So, once again, why are we in Afghanistan?
So, just as in Iraq, we are told that the Taliban were a nasty regime who treated their women as chattel and didn’t allow Western culture like Coca Cola and Lady Gaga. But since their downfall things have become a whole lot nastier. The opium industry has flourished, corruption is massive beyond belief and huge numbers of innocent people are meeting violent deaths. This is a country where being a policeman means setting up a road block to extort money to buy drugs with and where many associated with the ruling elite live in new palaces paid for by Western taxpayers. So what are we achieving in Afghanistan?
Which brings us to the Taliban as freedom fighters. They are trying to rid their country of the infidel crusader invaders and the immensely corrupt regime in Kabul. And the fact is that many of us put in exactly the same position would do exactly the same thing. What if London and New York had been taken over by Afghani Mujahideen who tried to impose their world view on us?
The BBC is what is known as a public service broadcaster and it is paid for by a hypothecated tax, the license fee. The principle behind this were laid down by Lord Reith and they became the BBC charter. Two principle aims of which are sustaining citizenship and civil society and promoting education and learning.
But the reality is that the BBC tries to compete against commercial television for viewing figures and in doing so it puts out pure populist rubbish like the soap opera East Enders, which was designed to compete against Coronation street. This soap opera contains very high levels of immorality and lawlessness and in doing so serve as a role model for the rest of society, the exact opposite of what the BBC should be doing as a public service broadcaster.
In addition the BBC has employed foul mouthed presenters like Jonathan Ross who think that it is OK swear on air and the BBC seem to have almost encouraged this culture of profanity, despite the fact that profanity is inversely proportional to education. So once again they are letting us down as a public service broadcaster. Lord Reith must be spinning in his grave.
And the BBC have almost unbelievable power, more than the state broadcasters in many dictatorships. The BBC have several television channels BBC 1 to 4, BBC News, BBC Parliament, BBC World News and two children’s TV channels (that is 9 channels). They have national radio channels, BBC Radios 1 to 7 and lots of local radio stations. Then there is BBC online, Europe’s most popular content-based web site. In fact the BBC is the largest broadcast news gathering operation in the world.
An additional BBC problem is that all the power resides with a left wing, liberal, university educated metropolitan elite who are totally unrepresentative of the broader population of the country.
So when we have a major breakdown in public morality, such as happened in the riots it is impossible for the BBC to not take some of the blame. Their power on public conciousness and morality is so great. If the BBC promoted the virtues of moral behaviour, nuclear families, abiding by the law, self improvement and hard work as they should then we would have a far better country. We live in a country where most people don’t even know the basics of nutrition and a healthy lifestyle, which the BBC do little about. My GigaLiving book will help correct this if people read it.
There are many problems with the BBC, it is broken and it needs fixing. It sits at the centre of national life yet it propagates views and lifestyles that are not in the best interests of society.